Menu
Search
EMN Study: Detention and alternatives to detention in international protection and return procedures , , EU-wide comparative report of the European Migration Network on 25 European countries
What are the procedures established by Member States to place a person in detention or providing an alternative to detention? The latest study from the European Migration Network (EMN) provides a comparative overview of the similarities, differences, challenges, and best practices in the use of detention and alternatives to detention, in the framework of both international protection and return procedures. It follows the 2014 publication "The use of detention and alternatives to detention in the context of immigration policies" and aims to provide a comparative overview of detention procedures and available alternatives to detention in 25 Member States.
Legal basis in the EU Member States
The study outlines new developments between 2015 and 2020 in the context of international protection and return procedures. It highlights the introduction of legislative changes in the majority of Member States, primarily related to the need to implement EU legislation (especially Directive 2013/32/EU, 2013/33/EU, 2008/115/EC and Regulation (EU) 604/2013/EU), and to further define the scope, content and criteria for the application of detention. Member States have introduced and have prioritised or intend to prioritise alternatives to detention as part of their national laws on immigration and/or asylum, for instance the obligation to report to the police or immigration authorities at regular intervals, and the requirement reside at a designated place.
When deciding whether to apply detention or an alternative to detention, several criteria are being considered, such as the level of risk of absconding, vulnerability, and the suitability of available alternatives. In all Member States it is possible to detain or impose alternatives to detention on vulnerable groups. Some Member States introduced legislative changes to lower the minimum age for the application to alternatives to detention, whereas other Member States introduced new rules to prevent minors and families with minors from being detained in detention centres.
Challenges
The study outlines common challenges faced by Member States with regards to the implementation and use of alternatives to detention. Examples include high administrative burden on staff and limited financial means of the third-country nationals concerned.
Effectiveness
With regards to the impact of detention or alternatives to detention on the effectiveness of Member States' return policies and international protection procedures, the data collected suggest that detention has a bigger impact on reducing absconding rates and implementing forced return.
The EMN Study can be found as a PDF under "downloads". Please click on "further information" to find a summary of the study results (EMN Inform and EMN Flash), the previous study of 2014 and the German study on the topic.