11th Meeting of the Council of Europe
Network of Focal Points on Migration (NFPM)
Identifying and protecting vulnerable migrants and refugees in the context of border procedures – advances and challenges in European states
Strasbourg, 19-20 June 2025
Report
Overview
Table of contents
1. Opening of the meeting by Clare Ovey, Director, Directorate of Human Rights
2. Presentation by Andreas Wissner, UNHCR Representative to the European Institutions in Strasbourg
3. Presentation by Grigorios Tsioukas, Deputy Fundamental Rights Officer, Frontex
4. Presentation by Georgia Arapidou, Senior Vulnerability Officer, EU Asylum Agency
5. Presentation by Marco Leidekker, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT)
12. Presentation by Denis Durmish, Project Manager, Congress of Local and Regional Authorities
14. Presentation by Gerald Dunn, Head of Division, European Committee on Legal Co-operation
15. Presentation by Gennadiy Kosyak, Head of Unit, Non-formal Education and Cooperation
16. Theodora Kristofori, Oleksii Murashkevych, Co-operation Programmes Division
Closing Remarks – Nikolaos Sitaropoulos, Head of Division on Migration and Refugees
Clare Ovey highlighted the Network of Focal Points (NFP) as a key platform for policy dialogue and exchange among Council of Europe member states. Organized for the first time by the new Division on Migration and Refugees, the NFP continues the work of the SRSG through biannual meetings and country visits focused on best practices, especially around returns, border procedures, and vulnerable groups. She also introduced the new Action Plan on Migration and Refugees and emphasized ongoing cooperation with international partners like UNHCR and Frontex.
Mr Wissner reaffirmed the strong partnership between the UNHCR and the CoE and emphasized their cooperation on numerous joint legal capacity building events.
Marking World Refugee Day, Mr Wissner highlighted the alarming global displacement figures (123.2 million forcibly displaced people by the end of 2024, with children making up 40%) and stressed the importance of continued solidarity and action from European states.
Key observations included:
Good practices shared included:
A. Italy: Development of a comprehensive Vademecum for the identification and care of vulnerable individuals in the asylum system.
In conclusion, Mr Wissner stressed that flexible, context-specific mechanisms and meaningful engagement with local authorities and refugee-led organizations are essential for inclusive, protective, and sustainable outcomes for vulnerable migrants and refugees.
See Mr Wissner’s presentation in Annex 1 and speaking notes in Annex 2.
3. Presentation by Grigorios Tsioukas, Deputy Fundamental Rights Officer, Frontex
Mr Tsioukas presented the role of the Frontex Fundamental Rights Office (FRO) in safeguarding the rights of vulnerable individuals in the context of EU border procedures. The FRO is an independent entity within Frontex with monitoring and advisory responsibilities, including handling complaints and contributing to agency oversight. It also participates in the Consultative Forum, co-chaired by UNHCR, which brings together civil society actors and agency management for open dialogue on rights protection.
Frontex operates under the EU’s European Integrated Border Management (EIBM) framework, which combines efforts of EU institutions and national authorities such as police and coast guards. FRO is mandated to monitor Frontex’s operations—especially at borders and during screening activities where vulnerabilities may be detected.
Mr Tsioukas highlighted the relevance of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which introduces common rules on border management and asylum, including vulnerability assessments and independent monitoring. Frontex plays a growing role in implementing these new procedures through surveillance, border control, and migration management. A planned review of Frontex’s regulation could expand its standing corps from 10,000 to 30,000 personnel.
The new EU Screening Regulation (2024/1356)—to be implemented by June 2026—requires all member states to conduct health and vulnerability checks at borders and ensure appropriate referrals. Frontex, the EU Agency for Asylum (EUAA), and member states are working on a screening toolbox to support frontline officers in these tasks.
However, several challenges remain. Uniform implementation across member states is not guaranteed. Border personnel may be trained in security but lack the expertise to identify vulnerabilities. He emphasized the need for proper training, the involvement of national human rights monitoring bodies, and the development of protocols and workflows to ensure effective screening and referral.
Success will depend on early preparation, sufficient resources, and the use of existing good practices to guide national efforts toward full compliance with the new legal framework.
See Mr Tsioukas’ presentation in Annex 1.
4. Presentation by Georgia Arapidou, Senior Vulnerability Officer, EU Asylum Agency
Ms Arapidou outlined the work of the EUAA in supporting EU Member States to identify and respond to the needs of vulnerable individuals within the framework of border procedures. The EUAA provides operational and technical assistance, delivers training to ensure fair and efficient asylum processes, develops knowledge tools, and engages in external support to third countries.
In line with the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, EUAA applies a program-based approach to ensure early identification and adequate response to the needs of vulnerable applicants. The Agency is actively developing tools to support MS in managing complex and vulnerable cases effectively.
Among key initiatives, she highlighted the EUAA Practical Guide on the Asylum Border Procedure (due early 2026), which targets national process managers and provides guidance on referral, examination, access to appeal, and the interlinking of related procedures. The guide emphasizes the importance of fundamental rights, procedural safeguards, and the identification and support of applicants with special needs.
Another key tool under development is the EUAA Practical Guide on Free Legal Counselling (expected October 2025), which aims to ensure applicants’ effective access to asylum procedures while also supporting MS in improving procedural efficiency. It includes a specific section on legal counselling in the context of asylum border procedures.
Arapidou also presented the Screening Toolbox, developed jointly with Frontex, which provides forms, checklists, and materials for officers conducting preliminary vulnerability checks, particularly during the new EU screening procedures. The annex offers practical guidance on early identification, referral, and appropriate interaction with vulnerable persons.
Further tools include a Toolkit on Access to the Asylum Procedure for first-contact officials (developed with Frontex), and draft operational guidance on implementing the Best Interests of the Child principle in asylum and reception procedures. The latter is a soft-law tool providing step-by-step support for best interests’ assessments.
She also referred to additional resources such as practical guidance on family tracing, a forthcoming guide on age assessment, and EUAA’s vulnerability identification tool—all designed to ensure timely, rights-based responses to individuals with special needs at borders and within asylum systems.
See Ms. Arapidou speaking notes in Annex 1.
5. Presentation by Marco Leidekker, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT)
The CPT formulates preventive recommendations based on visits to places of detention, drawing on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The CPT’s work has a strong influence on ECHR jurisprudence, with mutual reinforcement evident in migration-related cases. CPT recommendations are also informed by insights from medical and field experts on its visiting teams.
Mr Leidekker highlighted that the CPT has visited over 300 immigration detention facilities in its 35-year history, including border facilities. He emphasized that detaining migrants entails significant responsibilities, including access to adequate food, shelter, clothing, and crucially, medical screening on arrival. Such screenings are vital for detecting physical and mental health needs, injuries, and vulnerabilities, and provide information about detention conditions.
CPT findings suggest that state-conducted vulnerability checks are often insufficient in practice, especially during surges in arrivals. Substandard conditions have been observed: overcrowding, unsanitary facilities, lack of heating or adequate clothing, and insufficient medical care.
Mr Leidekker also noted that failures to meet obligations toward vulnerable migrants are not limited to crisis periods or high-arrival countries. Issues persist across Europe: unaccompanied minors detained with adults, single women housed with unrelated men, and individuals with severe mental illness kept in isolation without care.
He concluded by underlining that Article 3 ECHR is absolute and non-derogable. States must uphold the dignity and rights of detained migrants regardless of the circumstances. Detention conditions meet basic standards of care and protection.
See Mr Leidekker’s speaking notes in Annex 4.
Ms Nestorova emphasized the importance of identifying and protecting victims of trafficking among migrants and asylum seekers, particularly at borders. She presented the work of the Council of Europe Anti-Trafficking Convention and its monitoring body GRETA.
She stressed that early identification of victims is a legal obligation, including during asylum and return procedures. However, GRETA has found persistent gaps: in many countries, identification happens by chance rather than through systematic screening. Effective vulnerability assessments, multi-agency National Referral Mechanisms (NRMs), and NGO involvement are essential.
GRETA has issued guidance to support States in meeting their obligations, including:
Ms Nestorova warned that pushbacks and migration externalisation policies often prevent proper identification of victims. She gave examples from several countries:
She concluded by stressing that irregular migration status heightens vulnerability to trafficking, especially for unaccompanied minors. States must ensure that anti-trafficking obligations are upheld, and that anti-smuggling efforts do not endanger potential trafficking victims.
See Ms Nestorova’s speaking notes in Annex 4.
Ms Piquet emphasized the Court’s evolving role as a guardian of fundamental rights in migration-related matters. She noted the steady increase in ECtHR case law in this area, both in terms of interim measures and final judgments.
The Court does not have a fixed definition of "vulnerable persons" and conducts case-by-case assessments. Vulnerability is situational and not always visible. The early identification of vulnerability is crucial and must be conducted by States. Yet, the Court increasingly receives first-instance cases involving failed identification or inadequate protection.
Ms Piquet referred to relevant case law in this area:
· M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011): Violation of Article 3 ECHR due to degrading conditions in Greece.
· Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy (2012): Landmark judgment condemning pushbacks at sea without individual assessment; reinforced non-refoulement and banned collective expulsions.
· Tarakhel v. Switzerland (2014): States must assess conditions before returning families under the Dublin Regulation.
· Rahimi v. Greece (2011): Unlawful detention of unaccompanied minors.
· R.R. and Others v. Hungary (2021): Detention of vulnerable families.
Ms Piquet highlighted a growing tendency to detain migrants reflected in the case law of the Court. She cited a series of recent judgements and decisions:
· Almukhlas and Al-Maliki v. Greece (2025): Death of a minor hidden on a boat, shot by a coastguard. Court found violations of Article 2 (right to life):
· G.R.J. v. Greece (2025): Case of an Afghan unaccompanied minor alleging pushback across the Evros River. No violation found due to insufficient proof of presence in Greek territory.
· A.R.E. v. Greece (2025): Related to a woman alleging forced expulsion in similar circumstances; evidence including witness statements and court decisions from Türkiye convinced the Court of her presence in Greece. Violation found.
These two cases (G.R.J. & A.R.E.) show the Court’s emphasis on proof threshold in pushback cases. The burden often falls on the applicant to establish presence on state territory.
· M.H. and S.B. v. Hungary (2024): Detention of minors who initially claimed to be adults. The Court ruled that authorities must independently verify age; vulnerability takes precedence over initial declarations.
Ms Piquet noted that the actual violations found by the Court are just the tip of the iceberg, with many cases dismissed due to insufficient evidence or failing to meet admissibility criteria. As the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum is rolled out, alignment with the ECHR will be critical to ensure compliance with human rights obligations.
See Ms Piquet’s presentation in Annex 3.
Ms Candura presented Italy’s national efforts to enhance the identification and care of persons with vulnerabilities in migration and asylum procedures. She highlighted the work led by the Ministry of Interior’s Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration to develop a comprehensive, structured approach addressing critical gaps across the reception system. Central to this was the establishment of a National Working Group on Vulnerabilities, composed of national authorities, EU bodies, UN agencies, and civil society organizations, which facilitated a participatory process for the development of key guidance tools.
The Vademecum for the Identification, Referral and Care of Persons Living with Vulnerabilities, published in 2023, is Italy’s first national guidance document offering practical, operational procedures for early identification and support of individuals with specific needs. The document addresses the entire reception chain and is grounded in a multi-stakeholder, rights-based approach.
Implementation of the Vademecum is ongoing and supported by quarterly surveys to monitor progress, including the establishment of local working groups and the adoption of context-specific SOPs. Capacity-building activities are being conducted to strengthen local understanding and coordination. Specific thematic sessions have also addressed issues like trafficking and mental health.
In addition to the Vademecum, Ms Candura introduced two complementary tools: the Toolkit for Gender-Based Violence Risk Mitigation and Child Protection Mechanisms (2024), and the Vademecum for the Reception of Unaccompanied Children (2021, under revision). The Toolkit supports the development of GBV-sensitive SOPs and provides practical tools for local authorities and reception staff, while the Vademecum for children details procedures for early identification, referral, guardianship, and access to services, guided by the principle of the best interests of the child.
Despite the progress made, several challenges persist. These include limited resources, fragmented data systems, the need for continuous staff training, procedural delays, and gaps in access to specialized services, especially in remote areas. Ms Candura underlined the importance of ongoing investment, legal reform, and sustained coordination at national and local levels to ensure protection systems are equipped to meet the needs of vulnerable individuals.
See Ms Candura’s presentation in Annex 5.
Mr Glăvan presented Romania’s institutional structure and operational approach to asylum, in regard to the management of border procedures and the protection of vulnerable individuals. He outlined the role of the General Inspectorate for Immigration (GII), which operates six regional asylum centres under the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
He detailed the legal principles and procedural safeguards governing the Romanian border procedure. Asylum applications submitted at land or air border points are assessed by the GII within three days, leading to one of three outcomes: the granting of international protection and access to the territory, referral to the ordinary asylum procedure, or rejection with no territorial access. Interviews are conducted at the border crossing point unless a favourable decision can be made without one. The process is designed to ensure swift yet rights-respecting decision-making.
Particular attention was given to the treatment of vulnerable applicants. As defined under Article 84 of Law No. 122/2006, persons in need of special procedural guarantees are automatically excluded from the border procedure. Vulnerabilities may also be identified through individual assessments, supported by NGOs and other state bodies. Identified vulnerable persons are housed in appropriate accommodation and benefit from continuous monitoring by medical, psychological, and social assistance departments throughout both administrative and judicial phases.
Mr Glăvan also described Romania’s current efforts to develop integrated border reception centres under the General Inspectorate of Border Police. Romania’s National Implementation Plan for the Pact on Migration and Asylum includes dedicated measures for vulnerability screening and protection. Applicants receive comprehensive, multi-lingual information on their rights and responsibilities from both border authorities and NGO actors.
Independent monitoring is ensured through the involvement of the Ombudsman, who oversees procedural guarantees and conditions in detention facilities. For unaccompanied minors, strong safeguards are in place: legal representatives are appointed to act in their best interest, age assessments are carried out by forensic experts, and the return of children is highly restricted. Cooperation with multiple national authorities ensures comprehensive support.
Among the main challenges identified were shortages of trained experts, particularly for medical and psychological assessments, and the need to build and maintain the necessary human resources as infrastructure expands. Vulnerability identification is not a one-time event but a continuous process throughout the asylum procedure.
See Mr Galvan’s presentation in Annex 5.
Ms Corrigan presented the UK’s approach to identifying and supporting vulnerable individuals throughout the asylum process. She outlined the in-country asylum application procedure, which begins with a screening interview where needs and vulnerabilities are assessed. Reasonable adjustments are made from the outset, including accommodations such as breaks and other support measures.
At the screening stage, questions are asked to establish the claimant’s wellbeing and accommodation needs. Individuals are provided with an information booklet and may be referred to safeguarding hubs, the National Referral Mechanism for potential victims of modern slavery or signposted to Migrant Help for additional assistance. UASC are referred directly to local authority care following their welfare interview. Ms Corrigan stressed that vulnerability is not always immediately visible; rather, it is treated as a dynamic and ongoing process of identification throughout the asylum procedure.
Regarding asylum support and accommodation, statutory partners carry primary responsibilities for delivery of services. Access to healthcare, including mental health services, is available, while accommodation is provided on a case-by-case basis, depending on assessed need.
In reception and accommodation settings, the system seeks to ensure safety and security from the point of arrival through to community dispersal. Migrants are monitored by healthcare professionals over time, and formal health assessments are conducted independently of government staff to encourage disclosure.
Ms Corrigan described the processing procedures at key intake locations: adults and families are taken to the Manston processing centre, where security and immigration checks are conducted and on-site medical staff offer care and advice. UASC are taken to the Kent Intake Unit for similar checks and initial welfare support.
Prioritisation is given to vulnerable applicantswhose cases may involve complex circumstances such as abduction, trafficking, or severe trauma. Dedicated guidance sets out how such cases can be escalated for expedited decision-making.
For children, the UK applies a child-centred approach, ensuring decisions are made in their best interest and prioritising their claims accordingly. Age assessments are conducted in line with established legal standards, notably the Merton criteria.
Finally, Ms Corrigan referenced a body of published guidance supporting this framework, including asylum support contract procedures, healthcare protocols for vulnerable migrants, safeguarding strategies, and child protection cooperation tools.
See Ms Corrigan’s presentation in Annex 5.
Mr Sitaropoulos concluded the day by emphasizing the complex challenges faced by Member States at border entry points, balancing migration management with human rights and rule of law protections. Frontline and North-Eastern European countries require strengthened capacities to provide medical and psychological care, as well as uniform standard procedures.[1]
He highlighted the importance of ongoing legal reviews, procedural safeguards such as guardianship for unaccompanied minors, and enhanced inter-state cooperation, including engagement with North African countries. Data protection for vulnerable persons remains a critical issue.
The new EU Pact and screening regulations are expected to improve protections, supported by independent monitoring mechanisms, though resource constraints persist. The AMIF fund is vital for capacity building, particularly for cultural mediators, interpreters, and medical experts.
The crucial role of cultural mediators was stressed to improve communication and vulnerability assessment at borders. Finally, growing mental health needs among migrants require more specialized responses beyond current frameworks.
12. Presentation by Denis Durmish, Project Manager, Congress of Local and Regional Authorities
Mr Durmish presented the work of the Social Inclusion Committeeof the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. The Social Inclusion Committee addresses migration-related issues by developing reports, recommendations, and organizing field visits focused on refugee reception, protection of IDPs, border region challenges, and unaccompanied minors. Integration of migrants is planned for the 2026 work program.
The Congress’s Centre of Expertise on Multilevel Governance supports democracy and good governance across levels by facilitating dialogue between local, regional, and central authorities, developing projects such as peer reviews, legal opinions, and capacity-building activities. Recent efforts include supporting local authorities in Poland, Moldova, and Romania to address challenges from the Ukraine conflict.
A key initiative is the Toolkit for Emergency Migration Management, developed to guide local authorities and stakeholders through migration emergencies. It offers operational guidelines, self-assessment checklists, and promotes a multifaceted approach across the migration management cycle: preparation, response, and recovery. The Toolkit encourages proactive, cooperative, and resourceful local responses.
Additionally, a Compendium of Good Practices highlights effective migration management and multilevel cooperation at local levels, emphasizing human rights-based approaches. The Congress fosters knowledge sharing and practical guidance to enhance migration management and support for migrants and refugees.
See Mr Durmish’s speaking notes in Annex 3.
Mr Chargeishvili presented the Council of Europe Youth Department’s unique co-management model involving both governments and youth (via the Joint Council on Youth).
He highlighted the 2019 CM Recommendation on young refugees transitioning to adulthood:
Ongoing work includes the review of the recommendation through soft monitoring: trying to learn how the recommendation has been useful for stakeholders, and how to better communicate its importance. Terminology is also being reviewed to cover broader range of definition when it comes to residence status.
14. Presentation by Gerald Dunn, Head of Division, European Committee on Legal Co-operation
Mr Dunn presented the CoE’s current work on addressing child statelessness. He highlighted that stateless persons often live in legal limbo, lacking access to basic rights such as healthcare, education, and housing.
Statelessness is recognised as a key issue in both the Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2022–2027) and the Action Plan on Protecting Vulnerable Persons in the Context of Migration and Asylum (2021–2025).The right to a nationality, guaranteed under international law and the European Convention on Nationality, is essential for enjoying fundamental rights and forming one’s legal identity.
Building on previous work, including a 2021 CoE–UNHCR conference and analysis of European practices, the CDCJ is now focusing on child statelessness during 2024–2026. This includes:
· Revising Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)13 to strengthen principles on reducing child statelessness, access to nationality, and birth registration;
· Compiling a good practice compendium on legal aid, access to justice, and information for children in nationality or statelessness procedures (to be completed by end of 2025).
These activities are led by the CDCJ’s Working Group on Migration (CDCJ-MIG), which includes legal experts from across Europe and observers such as the UNHCR and the European Network on Statelessness.
The Council of Europe has also joined the UNHCR’s Global Alliance to End Statelessness as a “solution seeker.” In May 2025, it co-organised the first Global Alliance Inter-Regional Network Lab, fostering exchange among international organisations on best practices for ending statelessness.
See Mr Dunn’s speaking notes in Annex 4.
15.Presentation by Gennadiy Kosyak, Head of Unit, Non-formal Education and Cooperation
Mr Kosyak presented the new draft Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on the recognition of qualifications and linguistic competences of refugees. The initiative is a response to the persistent integration barriers faced by refugees, particularly highly educated individuals who are unable to access employment or education in line with their qualifications due to lack of documentation, language barriers, and complex recognition procedures.
The draft recommendation aims to assist member States in setting up fair, efficient, and transparent systems for recognising refugees’ qualifications, even when those cannot be fully documented. It builds on the experience of the European Qualifications Passport for Refugees (EQPR), which provides a standardised format to describe and assess refugees' qualifications for use in education or employment settings.
Core principles of the recommendation include:
The recommendation also encourages flexible upskilling programmes, the use of national and transnational recognition tools, and promotes mutual understanding through competences for democratic culture.
Mr Kosyak emphasized that the initiative offers a “win-win” approach: it helps host countries meet labour market needs while also empowering refugees. He concluded by noting that the Council of Europe already provides accessible language support resources, and that higher education institutions are now encouraged to engage more proactively in implementing recognition procedures.
See Mr Kosyak’s presentation in Annex 3.
16.Theodora Kristofori, Oleksii Murashkevych, Co-operation Programmes Division
Mr Murashkevych introduced the work of the Co-operation Programmes Division as the CoE’s operational arm for supporting national authorities and stakeholders on migration-related challenges. The division implements targeted projects in countries such as Armenia, Moldova, and Ukraine, offering tailored assistance across a range of migration issues.
Recent examples include:
Ms Kristofori emphasized that the division’s work builds on CoE standards and case law and is conducted in close cooperation with authorities to address country-specific needs. Their tools and projects aim to provide concrete, tailored solutions through capacity building, peer learning, and the development of context-sensitive resources.
Highlighted initiatives include:
Both speakers underscored that cooperation programmes are demand-driven and respond directly to the practical needs expressed by member states. Successful implementation requires input from a broad range of experts across sectors.
Closing Remarks – Nikolaos Sitaropoulos, Head of Division on Migration and Refugees
Mr Sitaropoulos announced that the DMR intends to launch a series of good practice visitsto CoE member states. The first of these is planned for Croatia in September, with a focus on the country’s border monitoring mechanism—currently the only operational one among EU member states.
Mr Sitaropoulos expressed DMR’s intention to organise at least one additional visit, reinforcing the Council of Europe's commitment to promoting the exchange of experienceand the practical implementation of rights-based approaches in migration management.
List of annexes:
Annex 1: Presentations of International Organisations: UNHCR, Frontex, EUAA
Annex 2: UNHCR speaking notes
Annex 3:Presentations of Council of Europe entities: ECtHR, Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, Education Departament
Annex 4: Speaking notes of the Council of Europe entities: CPT, GRETA, CDCJ
Annex 5: Presentations of member States: Italy, Romania, UK
Annex 6: Written contributions of NFP on identifying and protecting vulnerable migrants and refugees in the context of border procedures – advances and challenges in European states
Annex 7: List of participants
[1] The representative of Poland submitted the following comment in this context: Specific challenges at the eastern external borders of the EU—such as hybrid pressure, instrumentalisation of migration, and large-scale arrivals—underscore the need for tailored operational mechanisms, dedicated vulnerability assessment procedures under crisis conditions, and enhanced cooperation with local authorities and NGOs. Experience from recent emergencies demonstrates the necessity of embedding flexibility and context-sensitivity into all EU-wide guidance and operational tools, including the upcoming EUAA-Frontex screening toolbox.