Background:

Spain is seeing an increasing number of individuals remaining in reception facilities after losing the right to occupy (irregular occupancy). In the Spanish social protection system, it is established that the public administration must avoid leaving certain individuals considered vulnerable, such as beneficiaries of international protection, in destitution, which requires allowing their temporary stay until an appropriate alternative is secured. Spain is launching this query to explore whether irregular occupancy also occurs in other countries and the possible exit alternatives offered by these countries.   

Respondents:

26 EMN Member and Observer Countries (including BE)  provided a public answer to this ad hoc query.

Findings:

A preliminary analysis of the results of the ad hoc query shows that:

• Half of the respondent countries (BE, HR, FR, DE, GR, IE, IT, LV, LU, PL, SI, ES, SE) report situations of irregular occupancy within their reception systems. One of the main barriers identified by these countries is the difficulty in accessing social housing or the private housing market after receiving a positive decision, as noted by BE, for instance.
   
• Most countries do not have specific mechanisms in place that allow individuals residing in the reception system to save part of their income to facilitate access to independent housing. However, several countries mention access to work and professional remuneration, as well as the possibility for individuals to manage their own finances, while contributing a certain amount toward accommodation costs (e.g., LU).
   
• Few countries provide specific support for the transition to independent housing for beneficiaries of international protection (BIP), for instance, one-off costs connected to financial assistance for transitioning to independent housing (eg, EE), followed by integration allowances (eg, SK) or integration programmes (eg, PL, GR). Countries also mention access to public social security services or housing assistance, which are available to BIPs, as well as transition or tolerance periods in reception centres after a positive decision, ranging from one month to one year.
   
• Regarding procedures to address cases where individuals unjustifiably refuse to leave the reception system while in irregular occupancy, some countries mention direct collaboration with the police or forced enforcement (eg, SE). In others (eg. NL), administrative eviction procedures are in place, requiring judicial intervention. IE and ES mention that they have a policy of not forcibly removing individuals from reception centres, so this target group continues to be accommodated within the reception system.
   
• The majority of countries do not have mechanisms for financial reimbursement during irregular occupancy. Exceptions include FR, which increases financial contributions in such cases, LU, which may initiate debt collection for unpaid contributions, and SK, where individuals pay a daily fee during the transition period.
   
• Finally, most countries mention support and accompaniment systems to facilitate departure from the reception system, as well as various programs to assist with this transition and integration.

For further details, please read the compilation of answers attached above.