Abstract
This study presents an analysis of Member States’ use of entry bans and readmission agreements with a specific focus on their practical application and effectiveness, whilst also identifying good practices in their use, including possible synergies, in the implementation of return and reintegration measures.
The majority of Member States automatically impose entry bans, in line with Art. 11 (1) Return Directive, in cases of forced return, whilst entry bans are reviewed on a case-by-case basis in situations of voluntary return, or are not imposed at all. Other (Member) States apply different practices than stipulated in the Return Directive insofar as that they do not make a distinction between forced/voluntary return when deciding on the imposition of an entry ban.
In terms of trends, the number of entry bans imposed shows an increasing trend in Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, and a decreasing trend in France, Greece, Germany, Poland, Croatia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Slovak Republic. In Cyprus and Ireland the number of entry bans has remained relatively stable over the five year period. In Sweden it is reported that the implementation of the Return Directive has significantly influenced the number of entry bans imposed, which has increased significantly since 2012.
EU Readmission Agreements (EURAs) are considered by Member States as useful instruments in supporting return policies, and the majority report that EURAs are applied without major difficulties. The main benefits highlighted included better cooperation with the third country; better predictability and uniformity; the improved timeliness of responses and increased rates of successful readmissions.
Next to EURAs, the majority of (Member) States have also signed national bilateral readmission agreements as well as certain non-standard agreements. The latter allow for flexibility and operability, capable of adapting to the specificities of each case.
This Synthesis Report was prepared on the basis of National Contributions from 24 EMN NCPs (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom) and Norway according to a Common Template developed by the EMN and completed by EMN NCPs to ensure, to the extent possible, comparability.
