Protection of Unaccompanied and Separated Children in Europe by Annabelle Wilmott

Page ! 1 of ! 52

This report was commissioned by the International Rescue Committee (IRC), which responds to the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s worst humanitarian crises and helps people whose lives and livelihoods are shattered by conflict and disaster to survive, recover and gain control of their future. The report was written by a consultancy team from the London School of Economics and Political Science. The authors are Gulzina Karimova, Agnieszka Maciejewska, Annabelle Wilmott and Leena Zahra.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research team would like to thank Dr. Rachel Ibreck, Dr. Stuart Gordon and Regina EnjutoMartinez for their guidance and support. We are also sincerely grateful to Annalisa Brusati for her direction throughout the process.

COVER PHOTO: Teofilovsk, PBS, 2015

Disclaimer ÂŠ 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without full attribution. The opinions and recommendations in this report are those of the authors; they do not reflect the position or opinions of the IRC and do not constitute any commitment from the IRC. The research was conducted before the EU-Turkey Summit on the 7th of March 2016. Scope for further research therefore exists with reference to how new political developments will affect the protection of unaccompanied and separated children.

Page ! 2 of ! 52

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

RIGHTS OF CHILDREN IN INTERNATIONAL AND EU LAW

THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (UNCRC)

EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK

UNACCOMPANIED CHILD MIGRATION IN EUROPE

WHY DO CHILDREN MIGRATE ALONE?

CHALLENGES OF ACCESSING RIGHTS AND PROTECTION

UNCRC AND IMPORTANCE OF CHILD PARTICIPATION

APPROACH AND CHOICE OF COUNTRIES

MAIN FINDINGS

PROTECTION AND SAFETY

INITIAL RECEPTION

RECEPTION ARRANGEMENTS

ASYLUM PROCEDURE

INTEGRATION MEASURES

RETURN PRACTICES

CONCLUSION

RECOMMENDATIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)

APPENDIX 2: KEY INFORMANTS

APPENDIX 3: COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM

Page ! 3 of ! 52

ACRONYMS AIDA: Asylum Information Database AREU: Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit BAMF: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees) BBIC: Barns behov I centrum (Children’s needs in focus) BCHR: Belgrade Centre for Human Rights B-UMF: Bundesfachverband Unbegleitete Minderjährige Flüchtlinge e.V. (Federal Association for Unaccompanied Minor Refugees) CEAS: Common European Asylum System EASO: European Asylum Support Office ECRE: European Council on Refugees and Exiles EMN: European Migration Network ENOC: European Network of Ombudspersons for Children EU: European Union FRS: First Reception Service IRC: International Rescue Committee IOM: International Organisation for Migration MSF: Médecins Sans Frontières NGO: Non-governmental organisation SCEP: Separated children in Europe’s programme SMA: Swedish Migration Agency UASC: Unaccompanied and separated child(ren) UN: United Nations UNCRC: United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund WHO: World Health Organisation

Page ! 4 of ! 52

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROBLEM

The conflict in Syria is considered the largest protection and humanitarian crisis in the world since World War II, having displaced over 4.6 million people across its neighbouring countries and Europe (OCHA, 2015). Although the overwhelming majority of Syrian refugees are hosted in neighbouring countries, the number of those fleeing to Europe has sharply increased in 2015 along with the number of refugees from other war-torn countries. Nationals of poverty-stricken countries have also joined the flow in search for a better life making the movement highly mixed and diverse. In 2015 alone, more than one million refugees and migrants have reached the borders of Europe taking the perilous journey across the Mediterranean, one-third being children (UNHCR, 2016). Unaccompanied and separated children (UASC) represent a significant share of this migratory flow. Having been separated from their parents or caregivers, UASC constitute one of the most vulnerable groups of refugees and migrants who require special care, treatment and measures of protection. UASC have found themselves under an increased risk of vulnerability due to the nature of the ongoing crisis and the consequences of response measures taken towards the crisis by EU and individual European states. Lack of leadership at the EU level and lack of solidarity among countries have led to a situation in which the burden of the crisis is not shared evenly across the continent and selected countries continue to be affected more severely than others. As a result, the capacities of states are strained making them unable to cope with the continuous flow of arrivals. This affects the prospects of UASC receiving appropriate protection in a dignified, timely and sustainable manner.

PURPOSE

The report examines the national frameworks for safeguarding the rights and well-being of UASC in four countries: Greece, Serbia, Germany and Sweden. The report aims to provide an understanding, in a comparative perspective, of the existing protection framework in these countries and to identify the most significant gaps in policy and practice. It also seeks to look at the EU framework for protection of UASC and how the ongoing crisis has affected the countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; compliance with the minimum standards embedded in the EU and international law. By focusing both on transit and destination countries, the report is able to capture a wide range of issues and challenges that different countries of Europe are facing as a result of the crisis.

FINDINGS

The findings of the report suggest that UASC are at an increasing risk of exploitation, abduction and human trafficking both along the route and in final destinations. Addressing this risk largely requires transnational efforts but there is no EU-wide standardised system of data collection and monitoring which could help to address and manage the problem. There are serious challenges with identification and registration of UASC both en route and in destination countries which make it difficult for relevant government and non-government actors to provide children with necessary protection and support.

Page ! 5 of ! 52

Reception arrangements and social services are under growing pressure both in transit and destination countries. Effects of the crisis are outpacing capacities available on the ground. The situation is critical especially in transit countries where reception conditions and procedures are inadequate to effectively respond to specific needs of UASC arriving in large numbers. Local municipalities in destination countries do not have equal capacity which affects the quality of protection and support rendered to UASC. The Dublin Procedure is slow and inefficient discouraging UASC from staying in the country concerned. The asylum procedure has been under pressure due to sharp increases in the numbers of arrivals. Destination countries have appropriate mechanisms of protection which allow special provisions for children; however, this is not the case in transit countries (e.g. Serbia). Countries face challenges with timely appointment of qualified and competent guardians and the issue has exacerbated in the context of the ongoing crisis. Family reunification procedures are becoming more restrictive. Integration measures are non-existent in transit countries whereas in destination countries their availability and quality vary across municipalities. Appropriate mechanisms are in place in destination countries with respect to ensuring lawful and appropriate return of UASC to countries of origin. Return practices have rarely been applied in both transit and destination countries, although some countries are planning to resort to return practices more vigorously as a measure to cope with the crisis.

SOLUTION

The EU continues to lack a common and sustainable solution to the ongoing crisis which has paved the way for proliferation of fragmented and unpredictable national responses across Europe. There is an urgent need to introduce safe legal ways for children to join their relatives already in the EU as well as expedite the process of family reunification for UASC under Dublin III Regulation. This is a crucial measure of protection that can address cases of children taking unnecessary risk of dangerous journey in search of safety. EU institutions, national governments and civil society organisations should strive to facilitate better coordination and collaboration to enhance protection of children in Europe. There is a need for improved data sharing as well as development of a joint protection system, which would allow agencies in different countries to build on previous work and follow up on individual cases in order to ensure the continuous protection of children at all stages of their journey. National governments should strengthen their reception capacities and services and properly implement the safeguards present in EU asylum law. Civil society organisations are essential in supporting them in this effort. Children must be treated as children first and foremost and considerations of their immigration status should always remain secondary to their interests as children. Furthermore, voices of children should be listened to during the conduct of best interest assessment. There is a need for continuing advocacy efforts in order to ensure that childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rights are properly safeguarded in national asylum and immigration policies.

Page ! 6 of ! 52

INTRODUCTION The influx of refugees and migrants into Europe in 2015 represents the largest movement of displaced people since World War II. Although the current refugee and migrant situation confronting Europe stems primarily from war-affected countries, the nature of the movement has become increasingly diverse. In 2015 alone, one million refugees and migrants have taken the perilous journey across the Mediterranean to Europe, around 30 percent being children (UNHCR, 2016). While the majority of the people arriving are from Syria and other war-torn countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, nationals of other countries from South West Asia, North and West Africa have also joined the flow with a hope to reach Europe. Children represent an important component of the recent migration flow to Europe. In 2015, 69,020 unaccompanied children applied for asylum in the 28 EU member states (Eurostat, 2016).1 Not all the children apply for asylum, making it difficult to identify the true scale of the problem (Social Platform, 2015). Unaccompanied and separated children (UASC) are one of the most vulnerable groups of refugees and migrants. They are in need of specialised protection and assistance as they are at high risk of abuse, exploitation, violence and trafficking (Save the Children, 2015). In light of the growing phenomena and the rising challenges to the protection of UASC in Europe, the International Rescue Committee UK has commissioned this report in order to better understand the national frameworks that govern protection of migrant and asylumseeking children in four selected countries: Greece, Serbia, Germany and Sweden. The report aims to look, in a comparative perspective, at the existing protection frameworks in these countries and to identify the most significant gaps in law, policy and practice. Based on the findings, a number of recommendations are proposed for the EU, national governments as well as civil society, NGOs and the UN Agencies. The findings of this research indicate that there is no comprehensive, coherent and structured approach protecting UASC across the researched countries, and protection available varies not only between but also within countries. Asylum systems in individual countries are under growing pressure, and the capacities of states to provide adequate reception and protection assistance to UASC are strained. There is a vital need for cooperation between states and better implementation of international and EU law.

Afghanistan: 35,820; Syria: 10,670; Eritrea: 4,025; Iraq: 3,110; Others: 15,395

Page ! 7 of ! 52

RIGHTS OF CHILDREN IN INTERNATIONAL AND EU LAW

" The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Under international law, all children are entitled to the same level of care and protection. Specifically, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989) provides all children, irrespective of their immigration status, with rights such as the right to life, survival and development (Art. 6) as well as the right to participate (Art.12). Its fundamental principle requires that “in all action concerning children and young people, (…) the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration” (Art. 3). Moreover, the principle of non-discrimination (Art. 2) obliges states to treat all children “as children first and foremost.” The Convention also outlines a number of fundamental rights, including protection from abuse, exploitation and neglect, the importance of the physical and intellectual development of the child (which includes having access to education and healthcare) and pays a particular attention to the role of the family in providing care to the child. The UNCRC remains the key protection instrument and sets a clear benchmark by which national provisions for the promotion and protection of children’s rights can be amended and monitored. The Convention obliges states to ensure that,

Page ! 8 of ! 52

“all considerations of one’s immigration status must be secondary to their interests as children” (Crawley, 2012, p. 30), and the child’s welfare and special protection needs must prevail over the narrow concerns of refugee status (Macdonald, 2008). However, in practice, in many countries, immigration control often trumps children's rights considerations (Diop, 2009).

EU Legal Framework Art. 24 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union stipulates that all children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. Moreover, in all actions related to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, “the child’s best interest must be a primary consideration.” EU institutions and national authorities are legally bound by the Charter. The protection accorded specifically to UASC on the EU level can be best described as scattered. The most comprehensive provisions exist in the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which guides national legislations in relation to UASC (EMN, 2015). The Directives on Qualification, Procedure and Reception conditions provide specific guarantees and protections to UASC in the asylum procedure, such as the obligation of Member States to provide a child with legal representation or appropriate accommodation and education (for details see Appendix 3). Moreover, the Dublin III Regulation, which determines the Member State responsible for assessing an asylum application, obliges Member States to take the “best interest of the child” as a primary consideration throughout the process (Art. 6(1)). The broader body of EU immigration law contains guarantees for UASC: the Family Reunification Directive contains special provisions for reunification of a child granted refugee status with his or her “first-degree relatives in the ascending line” (Art. 10 (3)(a)) and the Return Directive requires Member States to ensure, before order of removal is issued, that best interest is observed and that the child “will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facility in the State of return” (Art. 10(2)). A number of protections and rights accorded specifically to UASC exist in the Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. It contains detailed rules of support, protection and assistance to UASC who are victims of trafficking. The Directive on the issuance of resident permits to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking obliges Member States to ensure legal representation of UASC (Art. 10 (c)). Lastly, the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and exploitation obliges states to appoint a legal representative for unaccompanied child victims in criminal investigations and proceedings (Art. 20).

Page ! 9 of ! 52

Page ! 10 of ! 52

UNACCOMPANIED CHILD MIGRATION IN EUROPE Why Do Children Migrate Alone? A l t h o u g h t h e p h e n o m e n o n i s n o t n e w, unaccompanied child migration has been on the rise in the context of Europe in the past decade (EMN, 2015). The main factor contributing to the increase is the continuation of armed conflicts, human rights violations, generalised violence, political instability and security concerns in the countries of origin. However, children migrate alone for a variety of reasons and every discussion of the issue has to start with an appreciation of the heterogeneity of their motives. A study conducted by AREU and UNHCR (Echavez, Bagaporo, Pilongo, & Azadmanesh, 2014) on unaccompanied child migration from Afghanistan to Europe found that childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s motivations are often multi-layered and overlapping. In the interviews, children highlighted poverty, insecurity, lack of educational and working opportunities, as well as family and peer expectations as the main reasons for engaging in unaccompanied travel. Children and their families are often aware of the risks associated with the journey. Nevertheless, they still decide to go, or their families decide to send them because they believe that the potential benefits outweigh the risks or because they feel that they have no other choice. Often, specific motives are not revealed by children to the authorities or agencies concerned with their protection, due to trauma or the fear of consequences. Children also have varied motives for choosing a specific destination country, often depending on their desires to reunite with their relatives, join existing diaspora groups or to go to the country which, in their eyes, provides the best opportunities for education and employment (EMN, 2015).

Challenges of Accessing Rights and Protection There is still a lack of comprehensive data and statistics on UASC, as there are inconsistencies between countries with regard to what data is being collected. The problem has been growing in severity during the current crisis, as proper registration of UASC has been difficult, especially in transit countries. Many NGOs have highlighted the increasing concern about the â&#x20AC;&#x153;missing children.â&#x20AC;? Underreporting and incoherent data management prohibits the accurate assessment of the scale of the problem; nevertheless, concern remains over what happens with children who disappear along the migration route or from reception centres (Missing Children Europe, 2015). Some of those children disappear because they want to be reunited with their family

Page ! 11 of ! 52

members in another Member State and some of them do not apply for international protection at all, due to the fear of being sent back to their country of origin. The lack of protection makes them particularly vulnerable and prone to exploitation at the hands of criminal networks: it has recently been reported that a big crossover exists between refugee smuggling networks and gangs involved in sex trade and forced labour exploitation. Challenges to accessing protection often start at the process of identification. Most of the UASC migrating to Europe are in their late teens and often arrive without proper identity documents. Authorities at times dispute their age and an age assessment procedure has to be conducted. The procedure is of crucial importance as it is the age of a child that is the sole guarantee of special rights and protection being granted to them (EASO, 2013). Age determination is extremely difficult to do with certainty, and real risks exist that individuals may be denied protection because of an inaccurate procedure. Especially controversial is the use of medical examinations. These are often described as inaccurate and can at times be considered an intrusion upon the physical integrity of the child (EMN, 2010). Bhabha (2009) observes how age disputes have become one of the instruments used by immigration officers to deny applicants additional child protections. For Drywood (2010), the restrictive application of age assessment represents a tendency within asylum and immigration policies to limit the rights and entitlements of older children and reflects the prioritisation of desire to combat false claims over the rights and well-being of children. The reality of many UASC, in transit and in the destination countries, is one of constant uncertainty and fear (Save the Children, 2012). Because of the uncertainty of their status, children often fear that coming in contact with the authorities will put them at risk of detention or deportation to their country of origin. Many children, therefore, decide to stay outside the formal asylum procedures and their “invisibility” renders them at risk of exploitation (Bhabha, 2009). Tension exists here between the availability of rights granted to them by the nature of being children and the fear of being subject to immigration control. Those children who decide to enter formal procedures and are granted some form of residence permit often face continuous uncertainty about what will happen to them once they reach the age of adulthood (Matthews, 2014), when they will no longer be able to benefit from their rights as children. In many European countries, UASC are granted temporary residence permits even if they are not eligible for international protection (EMN, 2015). This allows them to stay in the country and begin to normalise their lives. The permits, often given on humanitarian grounds, expire when children reach the age of 18, which puts them at risk of being returned to their country of origin (Gladwell, 2013). The rapid transition from “children to be looked after” to “migrants” the moment they turn 18 remains an important challenge for protection and well-

Page ! 12 of ! 52

being of young people, as the focus on age ignores their broader experiences and potential protection needs (Drywood, 2010).

UNCRC and Importance of Child Participation The academic debate concerned with children and migration to a large extent revolves around the consideration of children’s agency (Huijsmans, 2011). There is an agreement among academics and civil society organisations that in order to ensure that children’s best interests are met, their views should be considered in decisions that affect them. The UNCRC states that children have a right to express their views and have them taken seriously in accordance with their age and maturity (Art. 12). Research also shows that children’s participation promotes their well-being (Ottosson & Lundberg, 2013). Furthermore, children greatly value being acknowledged as social actors (Fitzgerald, 2009) and feel that having a voice allows them to create their own solutions to daily challenges (NSW Children’s Commission, 2006). “They should listen” was one of the most common policy recommendations given by young people to Save the Children interviewers (Save the Children, 2012). However, there are various issues in ensuring their participation. Article 12 of the UNCRC has proved one of the most challenging articles to implement (Save the Children, 2011). It has been shown that asylum-seeking children’s experiences are, at times, invisible to decision makers (The Children’s Society, 2010). Furthermore, often children’s accounts are not considered to be reliable for legal purposes since they are believed to make up stories (Ottosson & Lundberg, 2013). This “culture of disbelief” affects other parts of the asylum procedure, e.g., immigration officers may believe that children are only pretending to be children in order to gain special protection. As a result, children become at risk of being treated as adults, and not receiving the protection to which they are entitled (Connolly, 2015).

Page ! 13 of ! 52

APPROACH AND CHOICE OF COUNTRIES The report aims to address the following questions: • What is the legal framework – laws, policies and procedures – concerning the protection of UASC in Greece, Serbia, Germany and Sweden? • What are the policy gaps in compliance of the national legal frameworks with European minimum standards of reception of UASC? • Based on the above questions and the research findings, what are the recommendations for the EU, national governments as well as civil society, NGOs and the UN Agencies? The desk-based research drew on a range of government publications, laws and decrees, UN and NGO reports and academic literature. To provide the research team with a greater understanding of the issues on the ground, semi-structured interviews were conducted with practitioners from UN Agencies and NGOs based in Greece, Serbia, Germany and Sweden, as well as EU experts who provided perspective on the EU legal framework. A total of 23 interviews were conducted for the study. Most were conducted over Skype call, but interviews were also conducted through emails due to availability constraints (for the list of key informants see Appendix 2). The report examines issues related to protection and safety of UASC en route and in destination countries and how well the principle of best interest is applied in practice. This is followed by consideration of the asylum process and procedure in each country by looking at specific stages of the process. The report discusses country practices and challenges in providing reception and social services as well as ensuring children’s rights to integration and return. By focusing both on transit and destination countries, the report aims to examine a wide scope of issues and challenges that European countries face in providing appropriate care for UASC. It hopes to create a better understanding of the asylum policy in

Page ! 14 of ! 52

each country and its application vis-Ă -vis international and EU legal frameworks. It also shows similarities as well as highlights different approaches taken by the countries with regard to the provision of protection of UASC. In addition, this structure allows best practices as well as specific gaps in national protection systems of UASC to become visible. GREECE Greece has become the main gateway to Europe representing the first point of entry along the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Balkans route. In 2015, 851,319 persons arrived on its territory by sea, 28% of them being children (MSF, 2015). The situation in Greece is unique because of the highly transitory nature of the flow. Very few people are interested in applying for asylum in Greece and the greatest share of new arrivals seek to reach Northern Europe. Due to the long-lasting economic crisis and lack of resources, Greece is not in a position to offer adequate reception conditions or future opportunities to refugees. The unprecedented influx of new arrivals in Greece has exceeded the capacity of the Government. Although the country has been trying to manage the situation with the support of international humanitarian actors, serious challenges still remain in relation to ensuring an adequate level of care and protection. Greece, in collaboration with EU agencies, is currently implementing the Hotspot approach designed to speed up registration and facilitate the EU relocation scheme. To date, no special procedures for transfer of UASC have been confirmed by the Greek government. SERBIA The number of people wishing to seek asylum in Serbia has grown significantly over the last three years (Commissariat for Refugees, 2014; ECRE, 2015). In 2015, in August alone, Serbia received 37,195 asylum registrations, compared to 1,547 in August 2014 (ECRE, 2015). Even more important is the fact that Serbia has become one of the major transit countries along the Balkan route for those wishing to seek asylum in other countries of Europe. Additionally, with an increase in the numbers of asylum-seekers within its own territory, Serbia has been challenged to implement a coordinated response to address the protection needs of these people in line with its international and national obligations. Serbia is not a member of the EU; however, as the country is in the process of accession, its national legal framework closely resembles the laws of the other EU Member States. Furthermore, Serbia has been able to introduce significant improvements to its asylum system and policies in a relatively short period of time. At the same time, a number of gaps remain which pose challenges to ensure effective protection of refugees, including UASC. Serbia has a unique opportunity to address these challenges and to ensure better protection provisions for UASC as the government is currently reforming the Law on Asylum.

Page ! 15 of ! 52

GERMANY Germany represents a case of interest due to its position as the main destination country for asylum-seekers in Europe. In 2015, 1,091,894 people were registered in Germany with the intention to apply for asylum (IOM, 2016). Although traditionally operating one of the most developed and efficient asylum systems in Europe, Germanyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reception system as foreseen by law has in large part collapsed as the country has struggled to keep up with the new people arriving. With the aim of improving its response to the influx, Germany has introduced changes to its laws by trying to create a more equitable system of distribution of UASC between its Federal States who play an essential role in implementing the national asylum policy and providing reception facilities. This, however, has proved challenging, as many municipalities are not adequately prepared for the completely new task of receiving and assisting large numbers of children. As a result, there are wide differences in availability of protection and provision of

Page ! 16 of ! 52

services. Nevertheless, Germany presents a valuable case study of a system which, amidst the current crisis, has been struggling to develop a response which tries to balance rights and protection considerations with the growing strain on resources and social services. Although not without flaws, the German system of reception of UASC, including its focus on individualised care arrangements for children, represents an example of best practice which could be used as a model in other EU countries. SWEDEN Sweden remains one of the main destination countries in the EU for UASC. For the last several years, Sweden has been the top EU country receiving the greatest number of UASC applications (UNHCR, 2014a). In 2015, Sweden received a record number of asylum-seekers: 163,000, including 35,369 UASC (SMA, 2016). Sweden, similarly to Germany, continues to be disproportionately affected by the crisis. The case of Sweden is important for consideration not only because of the numbers but also because of its progressive asylum system and policies. However, in the context of the current crisis, Swedish public authorities and municipalities find it difficult to manage the growing pressure as they are no longer able to offer reception in a sustainable and secure manner. As a result, under the growing political and social pressures surrounding the current crisis, Sweden, which has generally been regarded as one of the best practice countries in the world in terms of asylum policies, has announced respite for its refugee reception. The Government is introducing temporary changes to the legislation along with a number of restrictive measures that lower the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s asylum regulations to minimum requirements of international and European law.

Page ! 17 of ! 52

A child eats at a temporary shelter in a sports hall in Hanau, Germany. Credit: Pfaffenbach, PBS, 2015

Page ! 18 of ! 52

MAIN FINDINGS Protection and Safety Finding: UASC are not adequately protected from the risks of abuse, exploitation and traﬃcking both in transit and in destination countries.

UASC represent one of the most vulnerable groups of refugees and migrants: they are at high risk of violence, abuse, exploitation and trafficking (Save the Children, 2015). According to recent Europol data, at least 10,000 children had gone missing after they reached Europe and many of them are at risk of criminal exploitation, sexual abuse and slavery. There were suspicions that they could have been targeted by a ‘criminal infrastructure’ of smugglers and human traffickers that have developed over the past 18 months surrounding the migrant crisis (Townsend, 2016). Carrying out proper trafficking assessments and response measures in the context of the current crisis is a major challenge both in transit and destination countries. In Greece, inappropriate reception and accommodation facilities coupled with a lack of knowledge of reliable and alternative routes make vulnerable groups, including UASC, more susceptible to trafficking, exploitation and abduction. People usually move through Greece and Serbia in a matter of hours and with limited privacy, making it difficult to build trust and encourage potential victims to speak. Providing sufficient information, as well as building a relationship, remains a challenge due to the stretched capacity of social services and NGOs, the narrow time frame and a shortage of translators. Even when victims are identified, there is limited ability to provide support services in the context of transitory flow (UN Women, 2016). In Germany and Sweden, there is a referral mechanism if a child is identified or presumed to be a victim of trafficking; however, in both countries identification has been a major challenge. Unidentified victims, having no legal status, are prone to further exploitation and marginalisation (ECPAT Germany e.V., 2013) In addition, issues of operational nature have been reported in Germany related to implementation of some of the provisions, in particular concerning the level of training and competence of legal guardians appointed to identified victims (Lauth, 2008; ECPAT Germany e.V., 2013). There are cases when UASC go missing voluntarily either because of fear, suspicion or the fact that they do not want to admit to being a child. In transit countries, they prefer to “disappear” in order to travel further through Europe (ENOC, 2016). In destination countries, because of the uncertainty of their status, children often fear that coming in contact with the authorities will put

Page ! 19 of ! 52

them at risk of detention or deportation to their country of origin. With the introduction of new restrictions to the national asylum regimes (e.g. Sweden), the risks of children absconding, going missing and falling into the hands of criminal networks appear to be higher now than ever before. In particular, those who end up in legal limbo and whose asylum claims are rejected choose to abscond due to the fear of deportation (Al Jazeera, 2016).

Initial Reception Identification and Registration Finding: Identification and registration remain a major challenge, especially in transit countries.

Identification of UASC usually happens at the point of registration, either at the border or in initial reception centres, and is primarily done based on an assessment of documents and initial interviews. In all countries, in principle, once a child is registered, he/she becomes the responsibility of local social services and should be placed in an adequate reception facility. Major challenges remain in countries of transit. In Greece, children often claim to be over 18, as they fear that otherwise they will be forced to stay in the country and prohibited from moving forward. This entails difficulty for the FRS to provide adequate and appropriate help. Similarly, in Serbia, children typically do not stay in the country but continue their journey into the EU, making identification difficult. In destination countries, special reception arrangements are put in place by the social services once children are recognised as unaccompanied.

Age Assessment Finding: Age assessment remains a highly controversial issue in all of the countries and risks of depriving UASC of appropriate protection are persistent in this regard.

In Greece, when there is justified doubt as to the age of an individual, and the person may be underage, he/she will be referred to the medical control and psychosocial support team for age assessment (Anastasiou, 2015). In Serbia, formal age assessment procedures are non-existent for unaccompanied migrant children, placing them at risk of being treated as adults and not being granted special protection. Often, it is only during the first interview with a free legal adviser and with the presence of interpreters that the applicant has the opportunity to assert that he/she is a child (UNHCR, 2012). In Germany, age assessment is done primarily on the basis of identification documents and if these are not available, on the basis of â&#x20AC;&#x153;qualified inspection.â&#x20AC;? During the procedure, officers may consult or gather evidence from experts and witnesses (AIDA, 2015b). A medical examination is considered a last resort, and is to be done only when remaining doubt concerning age cannot be dispelled by other means. In Sweden, the procedure is similar to the one in Germany. However, the government plans to introduce Page ! 20 of ! 52

temporary changes to the legislation to make the medical age determination for asylumseekers mandatory when there is a lack of reliable documents or when doubts remain concerning the stated age.

Best Interest Assessment Finding: Best interest assessment is enshrined in laws and policies but its operationalisation is nearly non-existent in transit countries, whereas destination countries lack a unified approach to its implementation.

All countries discussed in the report are signatories of the UNCRC, which requires states to observe the principle of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;best interest of the childâ&#x20AC;? in all matters related to children. The implementation of the principle, however, poses a major challenge, since there is no global definition of its precise meaning (Malmsten, 2014). The proper conduct of the best interest assessment has proven to be extremely difficult in the context of the current crisis, especially in transit countries. Although in both Greece and Serbia the principle is mentioned in legal documents, it is hardly operationalised in practice. Best interest assessment is the responsibility of social services. In transit countries, NGOs have also been closely involved in this process. Best interest assessment is a lengthy process, making its proper conduct difficult in transit countries as the time for contact with children is extremely limited. Moreover, many children do not seek assistance as they fear that doing so may prevent them from moving forward to their final destination. The nature of transit migration has led to a discussion on the meaning of best interest and on how the assessment can be applied to the context of the current situation. Under the UNCRC, children have the right to make decisions for themselves corresponding to their age and maturity. One of the issues is whether it is in the best interest of older children to be included in the institutional setup of Greece or Serbia, from which they will most likely abscond, or whether they should be allowed to continue to their final destination, thereby making themselves vulnerable to the dangers of abuse and exploitation en route. There is a need for the procedure of best interest assessment to be adapted to the current context in order to ensure that children can benefit from it. In destination countries, the best interest assessment is conducted in a much more formalised manner. In some parts of Germany, it is done during the provisional care period, in the framework of the clearing procedure. The main purpose of it is to get to the bottom of the childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s situation and establish whether family reunification or return to parental authority is possible and desirable. If this is not the case, an assistance plan is drawn up. The process,

Page ! 21 of ! 52

involving the child’s participation, is designed to determine the specific needs for assistance. It is also determined whether an application for asylum should be filed, or whether an alternative approach might offer better prospects of children being granted a residence permit (Müller, 2014). The clearing procedure represents an example of best practice, however, it is not mandatory in all Federal States and there are no unified guidelines for its conduct (AIDA, 2015b). This potentially limits the availability of protection for UASC in some parts of Germany. In Sweden, the principle of best interest is enshrined in a number of legal instruments concerning asylum procedure and provision of social services. The emphasis is put on child’s participation and the importance of listening to children’s voices. Practical challenges, however, remain, in part due to the fact that each local government on a municipal level develops its own policies in line with the UNCRC, which has a potential of resulting in different interpretations and implementation of the principle of best interest (Malmsten, 2014).

Reception Arrangements Accommodation Finding: Protection of UASC is undermined by inadequate reception and accommodation facilities across countries and insuﬃcient capacity of governments to cope with the growing number of new arrivals.

Accommodation arrangements designed for children are available in all countries. However, they vary considerably in size and quality. In transit countries, after initial identification, children are referred to special reception accommodations in which they can stay, should they express the will to apply for asylum. Typically, however, children either do not go there at all or abscond after registration in the accommodation, as they do not wish to stay in Greece or Serbia. In Greece, thousands of arrivals have been forced to stay in overcrowded and inadequate reception facilities which are not tailored to specific needs of UASC, increasing their vulnerability to abuse and violence (UNHCR, 2015). At the initial reception phase, children are placed in de facto detention until the public prosecutor is established as a guardian. The typical follow-up accommodation is open structured and many children abscond from it. The two-tier EU registration system where Syrians are given priority over nationals of other countries has further exacerbated the problems, and many non-Syrians have to sleep outside in the cold next to registration centres with almost no assistance whatsoever (Domokos & Kingsley, 2015). Serbia has faced major issues with accommodation facilities as well. There are only two shelters which can accommodate up to 22 children, one of which also serves the function of accommodating juvenile delinquents, putting UASC at risk. With the onset of winter, the Page ! 22 of ! 52

situation has even worsened. By mid-December 2015, only 45% of available accommodation in Serbia had been winterised (ENOC, 2016). In Germany and Sweden, after identification and registration, children are generally placed in appropriate temporary accommodation. After children apply for asylum, they are typically moved to different accommodation based on the availability of places in different municipalities as well as on the education and care assistance deemed necessary. They are either placed with a foster family, in a residential home or in a facility providing individual socio-educational care (Müller, 2014). There is an obligation to find appropriate accommodation according to individual needs of the child. After their status is regularised, children can typically stay with foster families or in care homes made available by the social services (France Terre d’Asile, 2012). However, in the context of current crisis, the scheme in destination countries has found itself under enormous strain. With the unprecedented number of new arrivals, Sweden’s situation is now described as one of “reception crisis.” Many UASC are placed in emergency shelters, which are meant for a maximum duration of 48 hours, and end up staying there for weeks and even months (ENOC, 2016). The country has faced huge housing shortages and logistical challenges, and in some instances, people had to sleep outdoors. The Government has declared that it “can no longer guarantee a roof over the head” of those arriving (Government Offices of Sweden, 2015).

Page ! 23 of ! 52

A youth home in Passau, Germany. Credit: Lima, The New York Times, 2015

Page ! 24 of ! 52

Education Finding: Children do not enjoy their right to free education in transit countries. In destination countries, access to the right varies and it is heavily dependent on municipalities.

In all of the four countries, asylum-seeking children have the right to access free primary and secondary education. However, there are problems when it comes to implementation of the law in practice. In Greece, there is a lack of preparatory courses for asylum-seekers. In addition, there is a reluctance by educational institutions to implement legal provisions in practice. A number of NGOs and volunteers are currently offering educational and recreational activities for asylum-seeking children, including language classes; however, they are not sustainable since the ability to provide services might vary on a day-by-day basis. In Serbia, for the most part, neither accompanied or unaccompanied children attend school during the asylum process. At the asylum centres, there are no appropriate courses or programmes for school-age children (UNHCR, 2012). A number of international organisations have been working to provide educational activities for children on the move, including child-friendly spaces in three transit cities across Serbia. In Germany, the major challenge stems from the fact that the education system falls within the responsibility of the Federal States. As a result, availability and provision of assistance and protection become heavily dependent on the municipality a child is relocated to (B-UMF, 2015). In Sweden, there is a good level of satisfaction among asylum-seeking children going to school (Lundberg & Dahlquist, 2012; Malmsten, 2014). Yet, the unprecedented influx of UASC poses a challenge for both Sweden and Germany in terms of ensuring access to education for every child in a sustainable and timely manner.

Health Services and Psychological Support Finding: Access to free health care is problematic due to a lack of resources, unsustainable manner of provision of services and varying quality of assistance provided across municipalities.

In all countries, an unaccompanied child receives, at least, basic medical care, according to his or her needs. Both in Greece and Serbia, all those in transit and seeking asylum should have access to free health care. However, there have been implementation gaps. Access to the Greek health sector has been very problematic for asylum-seekers, with reported delays in the provision of treatment and assessment of vulnerable cases (AIDA, 2015c). According to UNHCR (2014b), an individualised assessment of specific needs by counselling of medical, psychosocial or information groups is only offered to a limited number of third country nationals.

Page ! 25 of ! 52

NGOs have been conducting medical exams with vulnerable groups placed in appropriate accommodations, albeit on a limited scale. Furthermore, a lack of psycho-social support has been reported. In Serbia, although the government should cover the expenses related to medicines, medical examinations and treatments for asylum-seekers, the Ministry of Health does not allocate resources for these services. As a result, UNHCR, either directly or through its NGO partner organisations, provides health services to asylum-seekers who are accommodated in Asylum Centres. Furthermore, many costs fall to the primary care and hospital facilities (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2015). Although legal provisions include psychological and psychiatric assistance, it is most often provided by NGOs. One major issue both in Greece and in Serbia is the lack of interpreters for communicating with health personnel (EMN, 2010; Group 484, 2014). In Sweden, UASC have the same right to health and dental care as other children living in Sweden. Children can also access psychological support, when necessary (SMA, 2016). In Germany, the need for special health provisions and assistance is generally determined during the clearing procedure. UASC whose deportation has been suspended or who have been granted permission to stay for the duration of the asylum procedure and who were not granted any assistance by the Youth Welfare Office are entitled to only the most basic health care provisions (M端ller, 2014). If a child has been granted international protection, he/she is entitled to all health benefits. Although children are entitled to counseling and psychological support, the current arrangements have been criticised. Not enough time and consideration has been given to children by service providers, and availability of assistance varies depending on the municipality the child is placed in.

Availability of Translation Services Finding: Appropriate protection of UASC is undermined due to a lack of interpreters, especially in transit countries.

Availability of good quality translation services is of crucial importance for children in need of protection. In all countries, children should, in principle, be provided with an interpreter once they express an intention to seek asylum. However, especially in transit countries, interpretation services are often unavailable throughout the process due to a shortage of interpreters in the relevant languages required. As a result, it is difficult for the frontline workers and appointed guardians to communicate with children effectively. In Serbia, this is perceived to be one of the reasons why guardians visit UASC so infrequently (BCHR, 2013), and can be detrimental to attempts to provide appropriate care.

Page ! 26 of ! 52

In destination countries, children are usually provided with interpreters, although at times there is a shortage of translators in particular languages. Another problem is the quality of the translation, which may eventually affect the asylum process when childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s statements are not translated in a correct and accurate manner (Malmsten, 2014).

Asylum Procedure Procedure Finding: The large numbers of new arrivals pose constraints on the capacity of governments to consider asylum claims in a timely manner.

The asylum procedure starts when an asylum application is filed. Countries are required by law to appoint a legal guardian, and asylum claims have to be filed by the legal representative. The guardian is responsible for all legal matters related to UASC. The children are issued a residence permit for the duration of the asylum procedure. In Germany, children who apply for asylum are redistributed between different Federal States on a quota basis (AIDA, 2015b). The responsible authorities first establish the responsibility for the case under the Dublin Regulation and examine whether family reunification is possible in another Member State. If this is not the case, authorities decide based on the interview and available documentation. The interviews should, in principle, be conducted in a less formal manner and the decision should be reached as quickly as possible. In all countries, guardians are required to be present during the interviews, and final decisions on the case are also delivered to them. Legal assistance is available through various NGOs in all of the countries, albeit in practice this is limited due to the lack of capacity. In transit countries, children who decide to apply for asylum often leave before their case is decided, in part due to the slow procedure and inefficiencies of the system (Amnesty International, 2015). In Serbia, children typically express intention of applying for asylum, which gives them legal residence in Serbia for 72 hours, during which time they are required to report to an asylum centre. After that time, they usually move forward, not submitting the formal asylum claim. In Greece, which is now observed under the Hotspot procedure, UASC may be eligible for relocation to the other Member States. However, the program so far has been very limited in practice. The current crisis is putting additional strain on the capacity of destination countries to timely process asylum claims. In Sweden, since 2013, the average waiting period for a first instance decision has increased from 3.5 months to 7 months, and the Government has since been focusing on reducing the waiting period for asylum decisions (Caritas Sweden, 2015). However,

Page ! 27 of ! 52

the waiting period continued to further increase throughout 2015. In 2016, the Agency will have to put extra efforts in reducing them (SMA, 2016).

Dublin Regulation Finding: The Dublin Regulation has been dysfunctional.

Consideration of the Dublin III Regulation takes place at the initial stage of the asylum process. Serbia, not being a member of the EU, is not part of the procedure. In Greece, the majority of outgoing requests concerned family reunification (AIDA, 2015c). Concerns have been reported in cases of unaccompanied children, whose family members are present in another Member State. Flaws in the guardianship arrangements severely limit childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to make use of the Dublin procedure. Large delays take place in the actual transfer of unaccompanied children to another Member State where the family reunification request has been accepted (AIDA, 2015c). Therefore, although the Dublin Regulation has the potential of facilitating a safe way for children to be reunited with their families already residing in the EU, the ineffectiveness of the system results in children deciding to continue the dangerous journey through Europe on their own.

Guardianship Finding: Quality of assistance provided by guardians varies and the system is overwhelmed due to the number of UASC guardians need to represent.

Legal guardians are appointed to all children in the asylum procedure and are typically employees of social services. In Greece, however, guardianship responsibilities are placed on the public prosecutor. The guardianship system is of critical importance, as guardians are the prime people responsible for all legal and personal matters of the child. In all of the countries, the lack of sufficient training of the guardians has been highlighted as an issue of major concern. Children are strongly dependent on the expertise and ability of the guardians to access services. Therefore, it is vital that the guardians possess adequate information to ensure that the best interest of the child is being observed. In the context of the current crisis, it has been reported that guardians are often overwhelmed with the number of young people they have to represent, which severely limits their ability to take proper care of all the children (AIDA, 2015b; AIDA, 2015c). Concerns have also been raised about rules guiding the appointment of guardians. In Serbia, children are appointed three different guardians at different stages of the asylum procedure, which can potentially have a negative impact on the quality of assistance provided. However, the government holds the position that a single guardian would not be able to provide adequate assistance (UNHCR, 2012). In Germany, NGOs have drawn attention to the fact that

Page ! 28 of ! 52

guardians are not appointed prior to the relocation via the new distribution mechanism; therefore, there is a risk that best interest will not be observed in the relocation procedure.

Outcomes Finding: In transit countries, gaps exist in the legal framework with regards to the rejection of UASC asylum applications. In destination countries, the legal framework allows for more favourable outcomes for children.

When a UASC is recognised as a refugee or as a person entitled to subsidiary protection, he/ she is issued a residence permit. In all countries, third country nationals have a right to appeal. In cases where no grounds for international protection are present, states can grant residence permits on other grounds, i.e. humanitarian considerations. In Greece, children are typically allowed to stay in the country until they reach 18, regardless of the outcome of their asylum procedure. In Serbia, the Law on Asylum does not spell out what happens in the specific case of unaccompanied children whose claims have been rejected, which represents an important protection gap. Serbian law, however, allows for granting a temporary protection status in the context of mass influx. In destination countries, the law makes special provisions for unaccompanied children. In Sweden, children are granted a residence permit on lesser grounds and they have more chances of being granted asylum than adults (Ottosson and Lundberg, 2013). Due to the vulnerability of all UASC, there is, according to the Swedish law, no need to distinguish between UASC who apply for asylum and those who apply for a residence permit for other reasons (EMN, 2014). In Germany, even if a childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s asylum claim is rejected, the Residence Act provides an effective protection against the deportation of unaccompanied children who can neither be handed over to a person having parental authority nor to an appropriate reception centre in the country of destination of the deportation. In these cases, a legal obstacle to deportation exists and the foreigner authorities issue an exceptional leave to remain (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Duldungâ&#x20AC;?). Moreover, in Germany, UASC are at times advised against applications for asylum because underage children often have difficulties asserting reasons for asylum and explaining them in a comprehensible manner, hence risking their claim being rejected (EMN, 2010). Therefore, even if children have not filed an application for asylum, they may invoke the ban on deportation or apply for Duldung in order to prevent deportation.

Page ! 29 of ! 52

Integration Measures Family Reunification Finding: Family reunification in transit countries is not applied in practice whereas requirements for family reunification are getting more restrictive in destination countries.

Family reunification is one of the crucial rights from the perspective of unaccompanied children, and reuniting with their parents remains the top concern of many children arriving in Europe. It is also considered a key premise for successful integration into the host society. The Family Reunification Directive obliges Member States to grant unaccompanied refugee children the right to be reunited with â&#x20AC;&#x153;first degree relatives in an ascending line.â&#x20AC;? In Greece, the right is extended to children granted refugee status, although it is not commonly utilised in practice, as children typically move from Greece to the countries of their final destination. Family reunification happens in the context of Dublin III Regulation when relatives of a child are already residing in another Member State. The system, however, is ineffective and slow and discourages children from staying in Greece. In Serbia, the Law on Asylum allows the right to family reunification for those children granted refugee status, subsidiary protection and temporary protection. However, as no child has ever been granted asylum in Serbia, the law has never been applied in this context in practice. In Germany and Sweden, only those who are granted refugee or subsidiary protection status have the right to family reunification. The right is not granted to those granted residence status on humanitarian grounds or those who were granted exceptional leave to remain. In the meantime, Sweden is planning to further tighten the family reunification procedures. For instance, those eligible for subsidiary protection will no longer have a right to family reunification (Government Offices of Sweden, 2015).

Access to Social Benefits Finding: Ensuring appropriate integration measures is a challenge, particularly in transit countries.

In Greece, those who are granted international protection and issued a residence permit have equal rights with citizens of the host country, including access to health care, education and the labour market. Special integration courses are mostly run by civil society organisations. In Serbia, the law does not provide for any special integration and support measures for children recognised as beneficiaries of international protection.

Page ! 30 of ! 52

In Germany and Sweden, children recognised as refugees or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are legally entitled to integration courses. In Germany, however, no such legal entitlement exists for those granted exceptional leave to remain. Moreover, access to education often proves to be problematic, as children arriving in some Federal States tend to be too old for general schooling (in many Federal States compulsory education ends at 16) and the vocational schools are not equipped to cope with their needs (Deutscher Caritas-Verband, 2014).

Transition to Adulthood Finding: Transit countries do not implement measures to facilitate transition to adulthood whereas such measures in destination countries exist but they vary across municipalities.

Greece does not have any transition programs or arrangements for children reaching the age of 18. A similar situation is applicable to Serbia where no UASC has been granted asylum since the Law on Asylum came into place. In Germany, in principle, the Youth Welfare Office can continue to provide various types of care services to UASC over the age of 18 depending on individual needs. As a rule, they may be eligible for this support until the age of 21, which is also the case in Sweden. The assistance available in practice varies widely across the different Federal States of Germany. Guardians are often not sufficiently informed about the different possibilities for transitional assistance and, as a result, a child may lose his/her chance of getting support. In Sweden, when a UASC turns 18, the Migration Agency organises a â&#x20AC;&#x153;turning 18 meetingâ&#x20AC;? and the case of the UASC is handed over to a Case Officer dealing with adult asylum-seekers (SMA, 2016). The municipalities are responsible for facilitating the transition to adulthood for UASC who have been granted asylum; however, specific measures may vary (EMN, 2014). Access to work through internships or networks can be facilitated as part of transition to adulthood measures (Celikaksoy & Wadensjo, 2015).

Return Practices Voluntary and Enforced Return Finding: Due to the transitory nature of the flow, return practices are not applied in Greece and Serbia whereas destination countries rarely implement them in practice.

In Greece, there is a procedure in place for voluntary return through IOM country missions (Greek Council For Refugees, 2016). In both Greece and Serbia, many asylum-seekers, including UASC, abscond before any decision is made on their asylum applications and, therefore, return procedure is rarely applicable. Those who remain in Greece, are typically not returned until they reach the age of majority, at which point they may be subject to deportation.

Page ! 31 of ! 52

Germany does not have return programmes tailored specifically to suit UASC. In principle, children are eligible for voluntary and assisted return. In practice, this happens only rarely; children usually stay in Germany, based on residence permits granted with either international protection or the suspension of deportation. Forced returns are carried out by the Foreignersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Authorities in Germany and by police in the case of Sweden. Both countries apply forced return only when there is sufficient ground that the child will be received by a family member or other authorised entity who can take responsibility for the child. In many cases, however, the Foreignersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Authorities will defer the enforcement of the removal until the UASC concerned has reached the age of majority. After turning 18, children may be eligible for residence permits based on humanitarian grounds and the authorities may avail themselves from issuing deportation orders. According to announcements made by some government officials, Sweden may witness an increase in the number of deportations. It is expected that up to 80,000 asylum claims lodged in 2015 may be rejected and as many as half of them will then be deported to countries of origin (Crouch, 2016). Deportation of children is undertaken under rigorous conditions; nevertheless, the overall tendency with enforced return may have an unfavourable effect on the situation of UASC whose asylum claims were unsuccessful.

Page ! 32 of ! 52

CONCLUSION Unaccompanied and separated children represent one of the most vulnerable groups within the migratory flow and one in growing need for special care and protection assistance. The current crisis poses different kinds of challenges for different countries involved. Refugees and migrants reaching the borders of Europe have a clear goal and preference about where they wish to go. Thus, the vast majority of them do not seek asylum in countries of first entry nor in those they cross along the route. States like Greece and Serbia perceive themselves as transit countries and the emphasis in their response measures has been on prompt facilitation of the movement through their territories. In a situation of continuous arrival of refugees and migrants, transit countries have been preoccupied with managing the flow and less with strengthening their asylum systems. Fear of prohibition from moving forward and the lack of desire among UASC to apply for asylum in transit countries poses a major challenge for protection provision.This does not allow the transit countries to ensure proper identification and registration of UASC which is crucial for launching and providing special care arrangements for them. This, in turn, increases the vulnerability of UASC to falling victim to networks of smugglers and traffickers. Moreover, the highly mobile nature of the movement does not allow transit countries to ensure implementation of principles of best interest. Lack of national capacity, human and financial resources has challenged the effectiveness and adequacy of the management of reception and asylum process in transit countries. The crisis continues to put enormous strain on the capacity of both transit and destination countries to provide adequate reception facilities for the new arrivals. The situation in Greece following recent political developments is of particular concern. Thousands of refugees and migrants are stranded on the Greek-Macedonian border as a result of unilateral decision of some states to tighten restrictions and close their borders. Lack of a structured and predictable support from the EU coupled with the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inability to handle the growing crisis alone heightens the protection risks for UASC. Although Germany and Sweden have well-functioning asylum systems and favourable refugee protection mechanisms, they are also finding it increasingly difficult to cope when the number of arrivals continues to put pressure on public services, including social welfare, health and education. The Government of Sweden has announced that it is no longer able to offer reception in a sustainable manner and has resorted to introducing restrictions to its law. At the same time, the crisis revealed uneven capacities and local variations that exist among

Page ! 33 of ! 52

municipalities in destination countries, who play a crucial role in safeguarding the rights and well-being of UASC. It has also exacerbated already existing concerns about the capacity of the government bodies to process asylum claims in a timely manner, implement family reunification measures and address the increasing number of cases of disappearing UASC. As more barriers are created along Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s borders and the EU is not able to propose credible solutions to the ongoing crisis, response measures remain chaotic both at the EU level and in individual countries. There is a lack of a comprehensive approach for protection of UASC, as confirmed by individual country experiences of Greece, Serbia, Germany and Sweden. As the countries continue to be disproportionately affected by the crisis, capacity to respond to specific needs of UASC differs greatly not only between countries but also within them. While there is a vital need for strong leadership at the EU level as well as for a concerted action between states, it is also essential to establish a comprehensive protection system and mechanism in individual countries.

Page ! 34 of ! 52

RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for the EU Institutions • Provide legal routes for children to join their relatives already in the EU on the basis of family reunification and issue more humanitarian and protection visas in the regions of origin. This would eliminate the risks inherent in the journey. • Facilitate the implementation of the relocation program in a more efficient and timely manner, prioritising UASC. • Develop and adopt a comprehensive plan of action for UASC. Ensure the plan covers all children in migration, including children who do not apply for asylum and children on the move, and addresses the protection needs of children holistically. • Increase comprehensive collaboration, data sharing and coordination between child protection systems, border management and other stakeholders in the different countries on route through Europe. Information about children at risk should be shared safely and quickly in order to address the problem of the missing children and guarantee better provision of protection of UASC in transit. EU should develop standards for data collection and management. • Facilitate sharing of best practices between countries. States with less developed protection systems could benefit from the experiences of countries such as Germany and Sweden whose protection frameworks are more responsive to the specific needs of children. • Develop minimum standards for emergency reception for the countries of first entry. • Develop common guidelines on minimum standards of protection of unaccompanied migrant children who are not in the asylum procedure in order to ensure that all children in all Member States are guaranteed rights and protections in accordance with the UNCRC. • Develop common guidelines for Member States with regards to procedures and transitional services for UASC reaching the age of majority.

Page ! 35 of ! 52

Recommendations for National Governments • Ensure that practical information about procedures, services and available help is provided to children both in transit and in the destination countries. The information should be easily accessible and comprehensible for children. • Ensure that family reunification under Dublin III is applied in an efficient and timely manner so that children arriving in the EU can be reunited with their family members residing in the Member States. Timely application of the procedure would prevent children from continuing the unaccompanied journey and eliminate the risks inherent in it. • Ensure that the best interest assessment is applied as early as possible in the initial reception phase and that guidance is provided for its appropriate conduct. The best interest assessment should consider the child's perspective about decisions concerning his/ her life. • Facilitate cooperation between municipalities so that information, experiences and best practices can be shared and implemented within the countries. • Increase the capacities and improve the conditions for the reception and accommodation of UASC. To the extent possible, reduce differences between provisions of services within countries, so that children are accorded the same levels of protection, regardless of the municipality that is taking care of them. Train personnel on identifying children at risk of trafficking or exploitation and responding to these indicators in order to ensure children’s protection. Ensure continuing collaboration with civil society organisations, which can support and complement state’s efforts in this regard. • Ensure that the procedure for assessing a person’s age is in line with the requirements specified in General Comment No. 6 of the UNCRC. These measures “. . . should not only take into account the physical appearance of the individual, but also his or her psychological maturity. (…) giving due respect to human dignity. (…) In the event of remaining uncertainty, should accord the individual the benefit of the doubt such that if there is a possibility that the individual is a child, s/he should be treated as such.” • Train legal guardians in order to ensure that the interests of the child are upheld and that the child’s legal, social, health, psychological, material and educational needs are fulfilled. Ensure that the number of guardians is sufficient for the services needed. Ensure that there are enough trained interpreters in the languages that UASC speak.

Page ! 36 of ! 52

Recommendations for Civil Society, NGOs and the UN Agencies • Ensure continuing support for government’s response to the current challenges. This includes provision of proper and child-specific reception facilities, health care provision, educational and recreational activities as well as training of government officials, local authorities, law enforcement agencies and social service providers. • Ensure that agencies operating on the ground collaborate and share information with each other to establish a coordinated and cohesive response. • Develop a joint and comprehensive system that would allow protection of children throughout their journey. Agencies in different countries should be able to build on and complement each other’s work to follow up on specific cases and ensure continuous protection to children. The initiative of UNHCR and UNICEF on Blue Dot hubs is an important first step in this regard. • Align response activities of agencies with the needs of children on the move. The best interest assessment should ensure that children participate in decisions affecting them. • Continue joint advocacy efforts to ensure that children’s rights are respected and safeguarded in countries and European immigration policies.

Page ! 37 of ! 52

BIBLIOGRAPHY AFP. (2015). Map of Europe showing the main migrant routes, recently introduced border controls and border fences [Photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/15/croatia-fears-spillover-after-hungary-shutsborder/ AIDA. (2015a). Common asylum system at a turning point: Refugees caught in Europe’s solidarity crisis. Retrieved from http://ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/1038.html AIDA. (2015b). Country report: Germany. Retrieved from http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/germany AIDA. (2015c). Country report: Greece. Retrieved from http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/report-download/aida_gr_update.iv_.pdf Al Jazeera. (2016, February 18). Swedish aid workers try to find lone child refugees. Retrieved from http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/swedish-aid-workers-find-lone-childrefugees-160215162222174.html Amnesty International. (2015). Europe’s borderlands: Violations against refugees and migrants in Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary. Retrieved from https://www.amnestyusa.org/ sites/default/files/ser-mac_migration_report_final.compressed.pdf Anastasiou, A. (2015). Durable solutions for separated children in Europe national report: Greece. Greek Council for Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.gcr.gr/index.php/el/ news/press-releases-announcements/item/download/ 208_68a7506d06718947db2677d33910cfeb BCHR. (2013). Right to asylum in the Republic of Serbia 2012. Retrieved from http://www.bgcentar.org.rs/bgcentar/eng-lat/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Right-toAsylum-in-the-Republic-of-Serbia.pdf Bhabha, J. (2009). Arendt’s children: Do today’s migrant children have a right to have rights? Human Rights Quarterly, 31(2), 410-451.

Page ! 38 of ! 52

B-UMF. (2015). Vorläufige Inobhutnahme –Was ändert sich zum 01.11.2015? Retrieved from http://sfbb.berlin-brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/bb2.a.5723.de/8_Ablauf-Vorl.Inobhutnahme.pdf Caritas Sweden (2016). Asylum Information Database, National Country Report: Sweden. Retrieved from: http://www.refworld.org/docid/55dc35454.html Celikaksoy, A. & Wadensjo, E. (2015). Unaccompanied minors and separated refugee children in Sweden: an outlook on demography, education and employment. Bonn: The Institute for the Study of Labor. The Children’s Society. (2010). Into the unknown: Children’s journeys through the asylum process. Retrieved from https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/into-theunknown--childrens-journeys-through-the-asylum-process--the-childrens-society.pdf. Commissariat for Refugees. (n.d.). Migration profile for the Republic of Serbia for 2014. Retrieved from http://kirs.gov.rs/docs/migracije/ Migration_profile_of_the_Republic_of_Serbia_for_2014.pdf Connolly, H. (2015). Seeing the relationship between the UNCRC and the asylum system through the eyes of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and young people. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 23, 52-77. Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification. (2003). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX: 32003L0086 Crawley, H. (2012). Working with children and young people subject to immigration control: Guidelines for best practice. London, UK: ILPA. Retrieved from http:// www.ilpa.org.uk/data/resources/14627/12.04.25-ilpa_child_gdlines_2nd_ed.pdf Crouch, D. (2016, January 28). Sweden sends sharp signal with plan to expel up to 80,000 asylum seekers. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ jan/28/sweden-to-expel-up-to-80000-rejected-asylum-seekers Deutscher Caritas-Verband (2014). Unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge in

Page ! 39 of ! 52

Deutschland. Rechtliche Vorgaben und deren Umsetzung. Freiburg: Lambertus. Diop, M. (2009). Unaccompanied minors’ rights within the European Union: Is the EU asylum and immigration legislation in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Retrieved from http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/files/news/Full-Version_UnaccompaniedMinors.pdf Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2013). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX: 32013L0033&from=EN Domokos, J. & Kingsley, P. (2015, November 21). Chaos on Greek islands as refugee registration system favours Syrians. The Guardian. Retrieved from http:// www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/21/chaos-greek-islands-three-tier-refugeeregistration-system-syria-lesbos Drywood, E. (2010). Challenging concepts of the ‘child’ in asylum and immigration law: The example of the EU. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 32(3), 309-323. EASO. (2013). EASO age assessment practice in Europe. Retrieved from https://easo.europa.eu/wp-content/uploads/EASO-Age-assessment-practice-in-Europe.pdf Echavez, C. R., Bagaporo, J. L., Pilongo, L. W., Azadmanesh, S. (2014). Why do children undertake the unaccompanied journey? Motivations for departure to Europe and other industrialised countries from the perspective of children, families and residents of sending communities in Afghanistan. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/548ea0f09.pdf ECPAT Germany e.V. (2013). Supplementary report to the first national report of the Federal Republic of Germany 2013 to the United Nations. Retrieved from http://ecpat.de/ fileadmin/user_upload/Materialien/Kinderschutzinstrumente/international/ Supplementary_Report_zum_OPSC_in_Deutschland_von_ECPAT__2013_.pdf ECRE. (2015, September 4). Western Balkans: ECRE news brief. Retrieved from http://ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/1040.html. EMN. (2010). Unaccompanied minors: An EU comparative study. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-10-169_en.htm?locale=en

Page ! 40 of ! 52

EMN. (2014). Policies, practices and data on unaccompanied minors in 2014: Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/libe/dv/ 16_swedish_case_factsheet_/16_swedish_case_factsheet_en.pdf EMN. (2015). Policies, practices and data on unaccompanied minors in the EU Member States and Norway. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/ networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-studies/ emn_study_policies_practices_and_data_on_unaccompanied_minors_in_the_eu_member_ states_and_norway_synthesis_report_final_eu_2015.pdf ENOC. (2016). Safety and fundamental rights at stake for children on the move. Retrieved from http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/sites/default/files/ atoms/files/rapport_enoc.pdf European Commission. (2010). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Action plan on unaccompanied minors (2010 - 2014). Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/4bfe89602.html European Commission. (2016). Annex to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the State of Play of implementation of the priority actions under the European Agenda on Migration Ongoing actions contributing to the protection of children in migration. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/ what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/ managing_the_refugee_crisis_state_of_play_20160210_annex_06_en.pdf EuroStat. (2015). Asylum statistics. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics Fitzgerald, R. M. (2009). Children having a say: A study on childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in family law decision making. Lismore: Southern Cross University. France Terre dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Asile (2012). Right to asylum for unaccompanied minors in the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.france-terre-asile.org/images/stories/mineurs-isolesetrangers/final-report-mie-en-2012.pdf General comment no. 6 (2005): Treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/42dd174b4.html

Page ! 41 of ! 52

Gladwell, C. (2013). No longer a child: from the UK to Afghanistan. FMR, 44, 62-63. Retrieved from http://www.fmreview.org/en/detention.pdf Government Offices of Sweden. (2015). Government proposes measures to create respite for Swedish refugee reception. Retrieved from http://www.government.se/articles/ 2015/11/government-proposes-measures-to-create-respite-for-swedish-refugee-reception/ Greek Council for Refugees. (2016). Types of accommodation. Retrieved from http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/greece/reception-conditions/accessforms-reception-conditions/types-accommodation Group 484. (2014). Challenges of the asylum system. Retrieved from http://azil.rs/doc/Challenges_of_the_asylum_system___web_eng_1_.pdf Huijsmans, R. (2011). Child migration and questions of agency. Development and Change, 42(5), 1307â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1321. IOM. (2016). Mixed migration flows in the Mediterranean and beyond: Compilation of available data and information. Retrieved from https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/ situation_reports/file/IOM-Mixed-Migration-Flows-Mediterranean-and-Beyond-14January-2016.pdf Juris. (2015). Act on the Residence, Economic Activity and Integration of Foreigners in the Federal Territory. Residence Act. Retrieved from http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ englisch_aufenthg/ Lauth, M. (2008). FRA thematic study on child trafficking, report on Germany. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/child-trafficking-09germany_en_5.pdf Lima, M. (2015, October 18). Hashmat Delawari, 15, top; Mohammad Safar Delawari, 14; and Mujtaba Habibi, 14, right, at a youth home in Passau, Germany [Photograph]. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/world/europe/in-waves-ofmigrants-children-arrive-alone-and-settle-in-uneasily.html?_r=2 Lundberg, A., & Dahlquist, L. (2012). Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum in Sweden: Living Conditions from a Child-Centred Perspective. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 31(2), 54-75.

Page ! 42 of ! 52

Macdonald, A. (2008). Protection responses to unaccompanied and separated refugee children in mixed migration situations. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 27(4), 48-62. Malmsten, J. (2014). Unaccompanied children living in transitional houses – voices from Sweden. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care, 10(1), 18-35. Matthews, A. (2014). “What’s going to happen tomorrow?” Unaccompanied children refused asylum. Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Retrieved from https:// www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/What's%20going%20to %20happen%20tomorrow.pdf Missing Children Europe. (2015). Missing unaccompanied migrant children. Retrieved from http://missingchildreneurope.eu/Missingunaccompaniedmigrantchildren MSF. (2015). Obstacle course to Europe: A policy-made humanitarian crisis at EU border. Retrieved from http://www.msf.org/sites/msf.org/files/ msf_obstacle_course_to_europe.pdf Müller, A. (2014). Unaccompanied minors in Germany: Focus-study by the German national contact point for the European Migration Network (EMN). Retrieved from https:// www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/EN/Publikationen/EMN/Nationale-StudienWorkingPaper/emn-wp60-minderjaehrige-indeutschland.pdf;jsessionid=2103EE8AC474D76302F1818C8692D2EC.1_cid294? __blob=publicationFile National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities. (2006). Sweden: Aliens Act (2005:716). Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b50a1c.html Official Journal of the European Union. (2004). Council directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004L0083:EN:HTML Official Journal of the European Union. (2008). Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. Retrieved

Page ! 43 of ! 52

from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L: 2008:348:0098:0107:EN:PDF Official Journal of the European Union. (2012). Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2012/C 326/02. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT Official Journal of the European Union. (2013). Regulation (EU) No 604/2013of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast). Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:EN:PDF Ottosson, L. & Lundberg, A. (2013). ‘People out of place’? Advocates’ negotiations on children’s participation in the asylum application process in Sweden. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 27(2), 266-287. Pfaffenbach, K. (2015). A child eats at a temporary shelter in a sports hall in Hanau, Germany [Photograph]. PBS. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/photos-childrenvulnerable-refugee-crisis/ Save the Children. (2011). Every child’s right to be heard: A resource guide on the UN committee on the rights of the child general comment no.12. Retrieved from http:// www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/Every-Childs-Right-to-be-Heard_0.pdf Save the Children. (2012). Voices of children on the move. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRC/Discussions/2012/ Submissions/SaveTheChildren_2.pdf Save the Children. (2015, September 9). Serbia: 1 in 4 children arrive alone. Retrieved from http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/2015-09/serbia-1-4-children-arrive-alone. Serbia: Law of 2007 on Asylum. Retrieved from www.mup.gov.rs/domino/zakoni.nsf/Asylum%20Law.doc SMA. (2016). Private individuals. Retrieved from http://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals.html

Page ! 44 of ! 52

Social Platform. (2015). Time to act to ensure children’s rights in the EU’s migration policy: 10 action points. Retrieved from http://www.socialplatform.org/news/time-to-act-toensure-childrens-rights-in-the-eus-migration-policy-10-action-points/ Teofilovski, O. (2015). A migrant child blows soap bubbles at a transit camp in Gevgelija, Macedonia, after entering the country by crossing the border with Greece on Sept. 29, 2015 [Photograph]. PBS. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/photoschildren-vulnerable-refugee-crisis/ Townsend, M. (2016, January 30). 10,000 refugee children are missing, says Europol. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/30/fears-formissing-child-refugees UN General Assembly. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty Series, 1577. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38f0.html UNHCR. (2008). UNHCR guidelines on determining the best interests of the child. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/4566b16b2.pdf UNHCR. (2012). Serbia as a country of asylum. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/50471f7e2.html UNHCR. (2014a). The heart of the matter: Assessing credibility when children apply for asylum in the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/55014f434.pdf UNHCR. (2014b). UNHCR observations on the current asylum system in Greece. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/54cb3af34.html UNHCR. (2015). Lesvos Island – Greece. Factsheet. Retrieved from http://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/regionalupdates/Lesvos %20Island%20Factsheet%20-%2012NOV15.pdf UNHCR (2016). Regional refugee and migrant response plan for Europe: Eastern Mediterranean and Western Balkans route. Retrieved from: http://rmrp‐europe.unhcr.org/ 2016_RMRP_Europe.pdf UNICEF. (2015, May 12). Put migrant children’s rights on EU agenda, urges UNICEF

Page ! 45 of ! 52

[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/media/media_81876.html UN OCHA. (2016). Syrian Arab Republic. Retrieved from http://www.unocha.org/syria UN Women. (2016). Gender assessment of the refugee and migration crisis in Serbia and fYR Macedonia. Retrieved from https://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/download.php? id=446 WHO Regional Office for Europe (2015). Serbia: Assessing health-system capacity to manage sudden large influxes of migrants. Retrieved from http://www.euro.who.int/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0010/293329/Serbia-Assessment-Report-en.pdf

Page ! 46 of ! 52

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Terms of Reference (ToR) Project: Legal protection of Unaccompanied and Separated Children (UASC) in Europe Organization: International Rescue Committee (IRC) Background: More people are fleeing war and conflict than at any time since the Second World War and millions of people are at risk of serious and lasting harm. Since the conflict in Syria began more than four years ago, an estimated 11.5 million people – one half of the country’s population – have been forced from their homes. Some 4 million Syrians have fled to neighboring Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, overwhelming their capacity to host the refugees. As a result, millions of people are now seeking refuge outside the Syrian region, especially in Europe. More than 381,000 people have arrived in Europe by boat already this year, with as many as 200,000 more expected before the end of 2015. The IRC is the only international non-governmental aid organization whose relief and development efforts address the needs of displaced people inside Syria, of refugees living in Syria’s neighboring countries and refugees in Greece, and that resettles refugees in the United States while offering advice on resettlement to European governments. According to UNHCR, 1 in 10 of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees is in need of resettlement – some 400,000 people. As a response to the European refugee crisis, the IRC is keen to promote safe, appropriate and durable care arrangements for UASC entering Europe from Syria and other countries. This is in line with the work the organization does overseas both operationally as well as from an advocacy perspective. Given its international experience in this area of work, IRC is well positioned to provide thought leadership on this area with Europe to inform both policies and practice. Questions: • What is the legal framework – laws, policies and procedures – concerning the protection of UASC in Greece, Serbia, Germany and Sweden? Moreover, what are the policy gaps in compliance of the national legal frameworks with European minimum standards of reception of UASC?

Page ! 47 of ! 52

questions and the research findings, what are the policy • Based on the above recommendations for the EU and specific countries? Objective: Outcome of the research is to be used by IRC to enhance protection space for UASC and further develop policy recommendations with regards to safeguarding the rights and well-being in the following areas. Protection of UASC (on the move and countries of destination): • Identification, referral to assistance, registration, reception and right to seek asylum • Guardianship, access to appropriate care, legal advice and other assistance for refugees on the move and arriving in Europe • Family tracing and family reunification possibilities Advocacy and Communications: • Call the attention of policymakers to the needs of displaced refugee children • Work with governments and policymakers in Europe to establish effective asylum system and protection regime for vulnerable and separated children • Provide information on the international legal framework for civil society groups working with refugee children Methodology and Data Sources: The research will mainly use open sources (EU laws, procedures, policies as well as those of selected European countries; UN Conventions, guidelines and policy documents of UN Agencies such as UNHCR, UNICEF, reports and other data). Key informant interviews will take place upon consultation with IRC. Deliverables: A 25-30 page research report (up to 10,000 words)

October, 2015

Page ! 48 of ! 52

Appendix 2: Key Informants Christina Velentza, International Law/Europe Programmes, Academy Stavros Niarchos Foundation Fellow Interview conducted February 2, 2016 via email by Leena Zahra Clare Back, Save the Children, Child Protection Manager Interview conducted January 5, 2016 via Skype by Leena Zahra Corita Tassi, International Rescue Committee, Protection Coordinator Interview conducted February 2,2016 via Skype by Leena Zahra Dörthe Hinz, Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen e.V. Interview conducted on February 2, 2016, via Skype by Agnieszka Maciejewska Elona Bokshi, European Council for Refugees and Exiles Interview conducted February 12, 2016 via Skype by Agnieszka Maciejewska Fotini Rantsiou, Solidarity Now, Field Advisor Interview conducted March 7, 2016 via Email by Leena Zahra Dr. George Joseph, Caritas Sweden, Director Migration Department Interview conducted on February 2, 2016, via Skype by Gulzina Karimova Ivana Vukasevic, Humanitarian Center for Integration and Tolerance, Legal Adviser Interview conducted February 9, 2016 via Skype by Annabelle Wilmott Kenneth Brant Hansen, FAROS, Program Manager Interview conducted January 21, 2016 via email by Leena Zahra Kiriaki Patsianta, Network for Children’s Rights, Lawyer Interview conducted January 30, 2016 via email by Leena Zahra Kiryn Lanning, International Rescue Committee, Child Protection Coordinator Interview conducted November 23, 2015 via Skype by Annabelle Wilmott, Leena Zahra, Agnieszka Maciejewska, and Gulzina Karimova

Page ! 49 of ! 52

Michael Williams, Swedish Network of Refugee Support Groups (FARR), Vice-Chair Interview conducted on February 15, 2016, via Skype by Gulzina Karimova Lena Diez, United Nations Children’s Fund Germany Interview conducted January 22, 2016 via email by Agnieszka Maciejewska Ljubimka Mitrovic, United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Assistant Protection Officer Interview conducted January 22, 2016 via Skype by Annabelle Wilmott Lukas Brunnhoelzl, Lighthouse Munich Interview conducted February 2, 2016, via Skype by Agnieszka Maciejewska Marija Tomić, Divac Foundation, Project Assistant Interview conducted February 3, 2016 via email by Annabelle Wilmott Marios Andriotis, Lesvos Municipality Mayor’s Office, Senior Advisor Interview conducted February 2, 2016 via Skype by Leena Zahra Massimo Moratti, Danish Refugee Council, Protection Programme Manager Interview conducted February 17, 2016 via Skype by Annabelle Wilmott Milena Sosic, Danish Refugee Council, Child Protection Officer Interview conducted February 17, 2016 via Skype by Annabelle Wilmott Nastazia Kotopouli, PRAKSIS, Lawyer Interview conducted January 1, 2016 via Skype by Leena Zahra Sena Maric, Asylum Protection Centre, Research Associate Interview conducted January 22, 2016 via Skype by Annabelle Wilmott Urosh Siljanovich, Refugee Aid Serbia, Attorney-at-Law Interview conducted January 22, 2016 via Skype by Annabelle Wilmott Virginia Xythali, METAdrasi/METAction, Lawyer Interview conducted January 18, 2016 via Skype by Leena Zahra

Page ! 50 of ! 52

Appendix 3: Common European Asylum System The CEAS legislative framework consists of: • Qualification Directive (Directive 2011/95/EU), which sets up common grounds for Member States to grant international protection. Art. 31 contains special provision for unaccompanied children, obliging States to ensure the representation of children by legal guardians or representatives. It details requirements for Member States to ensure that unaccompanied children are placed in appropriate accommodation (with adult relatives, foster family, centres specialised in accommodation for children or in other accommodation suitable for children) and that the child’s views are taken into account when making decisions on this matter. The article obliges Member States to respect the right to family unity with the siblings, to carry out family tracing and to ensure that those working with unaccompanied children receive appropriate training concerning children’s needs. • Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU) which establishes common standards of safeguards to accessing asylum procedure throughout the EU. In Art. 25 the Directive includes specific procedural guarantees for unaccompanied children, such as the obligation of States to appoint legal representative, to conduct a personal interview in a childappropriate manner, to provide children and their representatives with full and adequate information regarding his/ her procedure. The Directive also sets out circumstances in which medical examination may be used to determine child’s age and stipulates that it is possible to prioritise the examination of applications from children. • Reception Conditions Directive (Directive 2013/33/EU) which ensures that a standard level of reception conditions is available to all asylum applicants across different Member States. The Directive includes regulation for detention of children and stipulates that it shall be allowed only in “exceptional circumstances” (Art. 11(3)) and that children shall never be detained together with adults. Art. 23 list factors that Member States need to take into account when establishing the best interest of the child. Members States need to ensure that children have access to leisure activities and rehabilitation services. Moreover, in Art. 24, the Directive establishes specific reception provisions for unaccompanied children, including family tracing, appointment of legal representatives and requirement for special training for those dealing with children. The Directive allows for housing unaccompanied children aged 16 or over in accommodation centres for adult applicants, “subject to best interest” (Art. 24 (2).

Page ! 51 of ! 52

â&#x20AC;˘ Dublin III Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013) which establishes the Member State responsible for the examination of the asylum application. The Regulation obliges Member States to ensure that legal representative represents and/ or assists a child with respect to all procedures provided for in the Regulation (Art. 6(2)). Moreover, Art. 8 states that children should be united with family members or siblings who are legally present in the EU. The Regulation obliges Member States to take best interest of the child as a primary consideration throughout the process (Art. 6(1)). Following the ruling of CJEU in C-648/11 MA & Others the Commission in 2014 proposed an amendment to the Regulation, according to which the principle of best interest will require the determination of status in the country where a child is physically present in order to avoid lengthy determination procedures (provided that family members cannot be traced in other EU Member States).

Page ! 52 of ! 52