Background information

This EMN Inform summarises the main findings of the EMN Focused Study on “The Use of Detention and Alternatives to Detention on the Context of Immigration Policies” with the aim to :

• Provide information on the scale of detention and alternatives to detention in each Member State
• Identify the categories of third-country nationals that can be subject to detention and/or provided an alternative to detention;
• Compare and contrast the grounds for placing third-country nationals in detention and/or providing alternatives to detention outlined in national legal frameworks;
• Identify and describe the different types of detention facilities and alternatives to detention available and used in (Member) States;
• Collect any evidence of the way detention and alternatives to detention contribute to the effectiveness of return policies and international protection procedures.

Inform: some findings

ON SCALE OF IMMIGRATION DETENTION AND ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

• For the period 2009-2013, on average, the total number of third-country nationals in detention has decreased by some 5% per annum – from 116,401 in 2009 to 92,575 in 2013
• In 2013, the largest number of third-country nationals provided with an alternative to detention was in France (1,258), followed by Austria (771), Belgium (590) and Sweden (405)
• The average length of detention for 2013 across these (Member) States was around 40 days

ON LEGAL GROUNDS

• The most common ground for detention, in force in 25 (Member) States, is “risk of absconding” which is applied mainly in the context of return
• Other grounds for detention are “establishing identity”, “threat to national security and public order”; “non-compliance with the alternatives to detention”; “presenting destroyed or forged documents” and “reasonable grounds to believe that the person will commit an offence”

ON ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

• Some form of assessment to determine the appropriateness of detention exists in all (Member) States
• The use of immigration detention facilities is a consolidated practice across all (Member) States.  In total 128 detention facilities exist across the participating 26 (Member) States

ON EFFICIENCY OF DETENTION VERSUS ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

• The impact of detention and alternatives to detention on the ability of (Member) States to reach and execute prompt and fair return decisions may be rather insignificant
• Placing persons in an alternative to detention is less costly than placing them in a detention center and it is more likely that fundamental rights of persons in an alternative to detention will be respected

This EMN Inform provides more information on similarities, differences and best practices with regard to the use of detention and alternatives to detention in the context of (Member) States’ immigration policies.