This European Migration Network (EMN) study on unaccompanied minors describes, as comprehensively as possible, the situation in the 22 participating Member States, principally up to mid-2009. In this way, it has also provided the possibility to present in one report, an overview of the available, but distributed, information in the Member States, to give at least an initial, general understanding of the situation in the EU.
The situation of unaccompanied minors has increasingly gained more and more importance, both on the political agenda and with the wider public across the EU, albeit less so in those Member States with low numbers of unaccompanied minors. Consequently, many Member States have undertaken a number of initiatives, including financial, like, for example, the development of a National Action Plan, to address and further improve the situation with regard to the treatment unaccompanied minors.
In keeping with the EMN's objectives, the information provided by this study, in both the National Reports and this Synthesis Report, may serve as a reference for policymakers when determining whether to create or strengthen new initiatives for unaccompanied minors. In particular, the expectation is that any such initiatives would be in the context of the Action Plan, as foreseen in the Stockholm Programme, proposed by the Commission (COM(2010) 213) in May 2010 and complemented by this EMN study. In the remainder of these concluding remarks, aspects identified by the study, which may serve to indicate to policymakers and other relevant stakeholders where further developments might be advantageous, are highlighted.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the principle of the "best interest of the child" inter alia lie at the basis of both national and indeed EU acquis in regard to the
131 January 2008, available from
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/consultations/uasc/betteroutcomes.pdf?vie w=Binary.
treatment of unaccompanied minors. The consequent extensive safeguards, both in the relevant EU acquis, as well as the adoption of other legislative measures in the Member States, can be argued as providing, on the whole, appropriate measures. However, there might be certain elements which are not considered as being effectively covered or could be further improved like, for example, the development of common standards across the EU in regard to reception and the provision of assistance to unaccompanied minors from entry onwards.
The manifold, but interrelated, motivations and circumstances identified in this study for an unaccompanied minor to seek to enter the EU demonstrate the complexity of the phenomenon. However, there would seem to be scope for a more comprehensive overview of these motivations and circumstances, particularly from the perspective of the countries of origin, as well as between those Member States who are primarily targeted countries of destination and those who primarily experience the transit of unaccompanied minors.
Whilst an unaccompanied minor who applies for asylum upon arrival at an external border of the EU is then subject to established procedure, which is more-or-less consistent across all Member States, if no application for asylum is made, and noting that an unaccompanied minor might not have the awareness to do this immediately upon arrival, then there are varying practices. For example, refusal of entry can most commonly occur if an unaccompanied minor does not apply for asylum, but this is not a universal practice for all Member States.
As a consequence of the growing numbers of unaccompanied minors in many Member States, new challenges have emerged, for example with regard to the capacities of care and reception facilities for the successful reception and integration of unaccompanied minors. The role of and care provided by a guardian, or similar representative, from the initial stages of entry of an unaccompanied minor appears to be crucial in determining the most appropriate course of action to taken, again based on the principle of the best interests of the child. As part of the reception and care process, all Member States provide accommodation and a number of best practices have been highlighted. Of particular concern to many Member States were disappearances from accommodation facilities. Elsewhere, and in the context of integration measures, one of the issues identified was in respect to the provision of education, namely the lack of sufficient knowledge of the Member State language making it difficult for an
unaccompanied minor to participate in a class with their peers. In this particular instance, Member States address this circumstance through the provision of additional language tuition.
Other challenges identified were in regard to developing an accurate assessment of the age of an unaccompanied minor, in cases where there was a doubt, and with regard to what happens when an unaccompanied minor turns 18 years of age. With regard to age determination, whilst the general approach of all Member States is to give the "benefit of the doubt," the importance of establishing an approach which gives more confidence in age determination was identified. In a similar vein, further consideration of the practices in respect to an unaccompanied minor turning 18 years of age in order to address the ambiguity of status that sometimes occurs might be advantageous.
In spite of the efforts undertaken by the Member States, successful family tracing seems to occur in only few cases. Bearing in mind that the best interests of the child might not be to reunite them with their family, still there might be some scope for further assessing how this process might be better facilitated. With regard to family reunification of an unaccompanied minor's family in the EU, and referring also to comments below with regard to the limited availability of data, again a more extensive assessment across all Member States may be useful in order to obtain a more representative overview.
Likewise, the indication is that detention and (assisted) return occur rarely rather than routinely. Certainly the policy of most Member States with regard to detention is that this occurs only as a "last resort." For the process of return and reintegration, and given the interconnection with family tracing, there might also be scope for further assessing how this process might be better facilitated. For example, some, albeit limited, information on the motivations of an unaccompanied minor wishing to return is available. Conversely, it is also reported that unaccompanied minors have no interest in returning to their country of origin and there have also been difficulties in co-operating with the authorities in the potential country of return. Another aspect is the situation of unaccompanied minors whose asylum applications have been refused, but whose return to their country of origin is not enforced due to their age and/or uncertain family set-up. These minors can find themselves in a legal limbo or with weak residence status, circumstances that can impact negatively on their personal and educational development.
A recurring difficulty in all Member States is the availability of comprehensive data both at national level and also comparative data at EU level. Whilst there have been improvements in the availability of data, it can be argued that the range, availability and comparability could be further improved in order to provide policymakers with a more comprehensive overview of the scope of the challenges presented by unaccompanied minors. Examples of where there could be improvements in complementary and standardised statistics are with regard to unaccompanied minors who have not applied for asylum, as well as on the accommodation, care, education and disappearances of unaccompanied minors.
Whilst best practice in addressing some of the issues identified by this study have been given, there are a number of other aspects identified, like, for example, actions for those unaccompanied minors who do not apply for asylum or for those unaccompanied minors who turn 18 years old, that may warrant further investigation to establish whether best practices in these instances also exist.
**************