In December 2008, the EU Council adopted the so-called ‘Returns Directive’ with the aim of devising common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. Among its more controversial provisions are the exclusion of some irregular migrants from its scope, the possibility to detain a migrant for a period up to 18 months, the possibility of a re-entry ban into the EU for a period of 5 years and the chance to detain and return unaccompanied minors.

‘Civic integration’ programmes and tests for third-country nationals (TCNs) have increasingly become part of member states’ legislation implementing EC immigration law and the EU Framework on Integration. The civic dimension of integration consists of various programmes and tests requiring TCNs to demonstrate that they know and respect the receiving society’s history, institutions and values.

The 21st century has brought new and challenging dimensions to our understanding of security and migration. The old Cold War framework of security as related to war and peace, international relations and foreign affairs has given way to a multiplicity of competing notions, including internal security, human security and even social security. At the same time, migration has become a hotly contested issue, characterised by an enormous difference of views and objectives.

According to the literature covering the impact of educational inclusion or exclusion of immigrants and ethnic minorities on their political participation, it appears that most authors take for granted that having been educated facilitates actions understood to fall within this scope. This report reveals that this stance is largely undermined, however, by the fact that the levels of opportunity for participation by these groups are legally limited.

This paper was prepared as part of the INCLUD-ED Project, an Integrated Project of the 6th Framework Programme of the European Commission. Integrated Projects bring together the critical mass of activities and resources needed to achieve ambitious clearly defined scientific objectives and are expected to have a structuring effect on the fabric of European research. INCLUD-ED was the only project focused on compulsory education which was selected in the last Calls for Proposals of the 6th Framework Programme.

This paper presents the final policy recommendations coming out of the CHALLENGE project on the Changing Landscape of European Liberty and Security. It aims to provide a synthesis of the main policy-relevant inputs that have been presented during the five-year research project and at the same time, refining them in light of the Stockholm programme to be adopted at the conclusion of the Swedish Presidency of the EU in December.

The European Union is currently engaged in formulating a new five-year strategy for the development of the next phase of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), to replace The Hague Programme of 2004, which expires at the end of this year. In June 2009, the European Commission published its views on the new so-called ‘Stockholm Programme’, which will be adopted under the Swedish Presidency in December, in its Communication “An area of Freedom, Security and Justice serving the citizen: Wider freedom in a safer environment”.

This Background Briefing is one in a set of four dealing, respectively, with immigration, asylum, borders and data protection. They are produced as part of a CEPS project on “Informing the Immigration Debate: Preparing for the European Parliament Elections 4-7 June” supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, an independent charitable foundation that funds and promotes social justice initiatives (for more information, see http://www.bctrust.org.uk).

This Background Briefing is one in a set of four dealing, respectively, with immigration, asylum, borders and data protection. They are produced as part of a CEPS project on “Informing the Immigration Debate: Preparing for the European Parliament Elections 4-7 June” supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, an independent charitable foundation that funds and promotes social justice initiatives (for more information, see http://www.bctrust.org.uk).

This report provides a state of the art of the main interdisciplinary academic discussions, EU acts and European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law surrounding issues related to citizenship, migration and integration. The report was finalised in mid-2008 and has provided the basis upon which the work conducted by the Justice and Home Affairs Section at CEPS in the framework of the ENACT research project funded by DG Research of the European Commission has been developed.

The upcoming Swedish presidency of the EU will be in charge of adopting the next multi-annual programme on an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), during its tenure in the second half of 2009. As the successor of the 2004 Hague Programme, it has already been informally baptised as the Stockholm Programme and will present the EU’s policy roadmap and legislative timetable over these policies for the next five years.

This paper assesses the impact and potential effects of inadequate domestic transposition of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States and the effects of the transitional arrangements secured in the latest rounds of enlargement on the status and practice of European citizenship in an enlarged EU.

A growing number of security policies are based on access to and exchange of personal data, frequently with an international scope. While transatlantic measures generally include the EU as a single actor, the last two years have seen a proliferation of bilateral agreements between the US and individual EU member states. These agreements usually seek to extend abroad a range of specific, internal security measures. This paper aims at studying the position of relevant actors and their capacity to increase their power or to quell resistance during the process of extra-territorialisation.

Citation by one national court of another state’s jurisprudence or legislation has attracted much attention recently, especially in relation to the interpretation and application of constitutional and international human rights norms. Commentators document these practices, judges extol or deride them, and academics theorise about them. A commonly shared assumption is that the comparative undertakings are accurate and systematic, if superficial.