HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"resource_uri": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"id": 153903,
"site_url": "https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/153903-pad-fer-jo-cp-2014-full-assesssment_lastpdf/",
"title": "PAD FER JO CP 2014-Full assesssment_Last.pdf",
"slug": "pad-fer-jo-cp-2014-full-assesssment_lastpdf",
"description": "",
"published_at": null,
"num_pages": 21,
"public": true,
"listed": true,
"allow_annotation": false,
"pending": false,
"file_url": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/fer-jo-cp-2014-pad.pdf",
"file_size": 6627880,
"cover_image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p1-small.png",
"page_template": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p{page}-{size}.png",
"outline": "",
"properties": {
"title": "PAD FER JO CP 2014-Full assesssment_Last.pdf",
"author": "petrovm",
"_tables": [],
"creator": "PrimoPDF http://www.primopdf.com",
"subject": null,
"producer": "Adobe Acrobat Pro 2020 20 Paper Capture Plug-in",
"_format_webp": true
},
"uid": "e8fa48cc-52f6-4767-bde9-ba71ebb64d78",
"data": {},
"pages_uri": "/api/v1/page/?document=153903",
"original": null,
"foirequest": null,
"publicbody": null,
"last_modified_at": "2022-05-09 12:25:24.613830+00:00",
"pages": [
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 1,
"content": "SES FRONTEX - Warsaw, 21 January 2015 Reg.Nr. : FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 Operations Division Joint Operations Unit Land Border Sector Approved at Warsaw .. / .. /2015 Signature Gil Arias Deputy Executive Director - E uropean Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union www.frontex.europa .eu Plac Europejski 6, 00-844 Warsaw , Poland Tel. +48 22 205 95 00 Fax +48 22 205 95 01",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p1-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 2,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 INDEX Contents 1. Background information 4 1 .1 . Brief risk assessment 4 1.2. Operational aim 5 1.3. Period of implementation and operational areas 5 1.4. Participants 5 1.5 . Financial information 5 2. Achievement of objectives 6 3. Link to other Frontex activities and best practices 6 4. Assessment of joint operational activities 7 4.1 . Supporting Response 7 4. 1. 1. Operational concept 7 4.1 .2. Operational results 7 4.1.3. Operational coordination structures 8 4.1.4. Resources deployed 8 4.2. Situational Awareness 8 4.2.1 . Threat s and Risks, modus operandi and trends identified 8 4.2. 2. Information gathering and exchange 11 4.3. Development 12 4. 3. 1. Operational cooperation 12 4.3 .2. Operational briefing / debriefin g 13 5. Main conclusions and recommendations 13 FACT SHEETS - STATISTICS 15 1. Time schedule 15 2. Participation 15 3. Financial information 16 4. Statistics 16 2/ 21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p2-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 3,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 ANNEX: Observation of Fundamental Rights Officer Operational activity number: ....................................................... . Prepared by: ............................................................ . Presented at Directorate Meeting on ...................... . □ Circulation Directorate Approved by ED/ DED: Date Director of Operations Division: Klaus Rosier 3/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p3-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 4,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 1. Background information 1. 1. Brief risk assessment The JO Coordination Points 2014 represents a continuation of the operational activities implemented within the Project Coordination Points 2013 and it was implemented with the aim of establishing a system for collecting and exchanging information between third countries, EU member states and Frontex, which enables the early detection of irregular migration flows that might have an effect upon the EU / SAC external borders. In this regard, operational activities were implemented !a LI:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Commented [Al]: The blanked out parts contain detailed information regarding the operational area. Its disclosure would expose law enforcement officials' patrolling the area and harm the course of future and ongoing operations in the same area, and thus facilitate irregular migration. Therefore, public security will be affected. In light of the above, the text is not disclosed pursuant to the exception laid down in the first indent of Article 4(1 )(a) of Regulation No 1049/ 2001 relating to the protection of the public interest as regards public security. At the Albanian-Montenegrin border during the period under review, 23 persons were reported within the operational area of the JO Coordination Points 2014 in 18 incidents. Most of these persons were linked to refusal of entry incidents (13 incidents/ 15 persons). The number of incidents related to irregular migration was very low (i.e. one illegal border-crossing incident involving the apprehension of two Syrian migrants); in addition , the number of cross-border crime related incidents was also very low (i.e. one smuggling of goods incident and one stolen vehicle incident). At the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian-Serbian border during the reporting period, 583 persons were reported 1111111■ in 276 incidents. Nearly 78% of these persons were linked to refusal of entry incidents (456 persons), followed by persons reported for overstay (31 persons) and persons reported fo r falsification of documents (22 persons). Serbi an nat ionals were chiefly reported fo r refusal of entry and overst ay, while the incidents relat ed t o the falsification of documents were primarily linked to nationals f rom Syri a, Kosovo' and Albania. Nearly 60% of the migrants apprehended within the operational area of the JO Coordination Points 2014, were reported lll1llll1l1II and the main nationalities of the apprehended migrants were Albanian, Syri an and Turkish. Additionally, 14 persons were arrest ed for being involved in smuggling activities and 3 st olen vehicles were detected. At the Moldovan-Ukrainian and Ukrainian-Moldovan border , a tot al of 105 incidents involving the det ection of 189 persons were reported within the operational area of the JO Coordin ation Points 201 5. The highest number of incidents was reported from the I Most persons were reported fo r overstaying (75 incidents). In addition, 54 incidents relat ed to persons being refu sed entry while 52 incidents relat ed t o other types of incidents. The main nat ionalities of the detect ed persons were Moldovan (101) and Russian (54). The number of illegal border -crossings record ed at this bord er section was ve7 low (6 Moldovans and 1 Russian) and all irregular migrants were apprehended within the 111111■ 11111111■- During the reportin g period , 23 irregular migrants were apprehended and 4 facilitat ors were arrested within the operational area of the JO Coordination Points 2014. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian- Serbian border ranked first in terms of migrant apprehensions, followed by the Moldovan-Ukrainian border and the Albanian-Montenegrin border. The main nationalities of the apprehended migrants were Albanian (6), Moldovan (6) and Syrian (6). 1 This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the /CJ Opin ion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. 4/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p4-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 5,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 1.2. Operational aim The operational aim of the Joint Operation Coordination Points was to establish a system for the exchange of information related early detection of recent, actual and future illegal migration trends towards the EU through the territory of the third country . Furthermore, the establishment and exchange of common best practices improved practical cooperation between the competent authorities involved in controlling of irregular migration flows and to tackle other cross-border crime. 1.3. Period of implementation and operational areas The joint operation was implemented during the period 08 April - 16 December 2014. The deployment periods and operational areas were as follow : 1/ Land border between the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia: Commencement 8 April 2014 Termination 16 December 2014 2/ Land border between Moldova and Ukraine: Commencement 1 July 2014 Termination 31 July 2014 3/ Land border between Albania and Montenegro: Commencement 8 Jui 2014 Termin ation 2 September 201 4 1.4. Participants The j oint operation was host ed by the Form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Ukraine and Moldova wi th participation of 12 MSs and SACs, namely Au stria, Croatia, Est onia, Finland, France, Hungary, Netherlands, Lat via, Poland , Romania, Slovenia and Switzerland. Each MS parti cipate wi th one authority. Rega rdin g the number and profiles of the experts deployed within the j oint operation, there were 32 advanced level document offi cers and 5 st olen vehicles detection offi cers. 1.5. Financial information Final budget : EURO 230,000 .00 Tot al commitment: EURO 242,599.15 with 31 numbers of SFD issued Payment consumed: EURO 165,247.00 consumption 91.88 % (consumed budget\"100/committed fund s (EURO 179,856. 93) with 28 fin al payment issued until 12. 01 .2015) 5/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p5-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 6,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 2. Achievement of objectives Enhance border security / Enhance efficiency of border security The objective has been achieved. During the implementation of the joint operation a significant number of document and stolen vehicle experts from twelve Member States have been deployed as Observers to Third Countries, namely to Albania, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova and Ukraine. They were used in most efficient way supporting the Third Countries national authorities in performing border -; checks at selected BCPs. During the implementation period of the JO Coordination Points 2014, a total of': 23 irregular migrants were apprehended: 13 persons were detected at the for abuse of travel documents; 11 persons were involved in t he smuggling of goods; 4 stolen vehicles were detected (1)). The deployment of document experts and stolen vehicle experts at the BCPs where the joint operation was implemented , proved to be very beneficial not only in strengthening the border control system at the BCPs by supporting the local authorities with specialised staff, but also in enhancing the exchange of expertise between the deployed EU experts and the local officers, which further enriched the knowledge of both parties (local officers and EU experts). Enhance exchange of information / Enhance efficiency of the exchange of information The objective has been partially achieved. The insertion of data into JORA system was in many cases in timely fashion and accurate, but there were also cases when the exchange of information was unsatisfactory because of the delays in the incident reporting and/or because of the unproper filling up of information to JORA Template. Identify possible risks and threats The objective has been partially achieved. The data collected during the operational period was primarily quantitative and consisted mainly in statistical data reported t hrough JORA. The lack of debriefing experts deployed within the operationa l area, as well as due to lack of intelligence officers appointed by the host member states hindered t he data collection process and limited access to information regarding routes and modi operandi used by irregular migrants to reach the EU. Focused on media monitoring, as well as communication with the Local Coordinators and t he EU experts deployed in the area, were employed to fill the intelligence gaps regarding irregular migratory flows affecting the operational area, but the resultant information remained limited . 3. Link to other Frontex activities and best practices JO Focal Points 2014 Land The EU experts deployed in the area were acting as a contact persons for t he Guest Officers deployed in other Frontex coordinated operations as well as for the hosting third countries authorities. The support given from Joint Operation Focal Points 2014 Land was highly appreciated and proved to be a useful tool in case of information exchange. High level of cooperation and exchange of information between involved partners were expressed by all stakeholders concerned. Useful practical link between local coordinators was initiated during the common local coordinators meeting, which was held in Warsaw on June 2014 . Local coordinators of JO Focal Points Land and JO 2 Only the operational results linked to irregular migration and cross-border crime were included here 6/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p6-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 7,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 Coordination Points had a chance to meet each other and discuss about the cooperation during the implementation of the operational activity. 4. Assessment of joint operational activities 4. 1. Supporting Response 4. 1 . 1. Operational concept Assessment of implementation of the operational concept in accordance to Operational Plan According to the Operational plan, activities during the JO Coordination points 2014 should enhance the operational cooperation between Member States and Third Countries involved. In order to facilitate operational cooperation, Frontex ensured coordination of actions implemented by Third Countries. Activities implemented wi thin the framework of the operation promoted European border management standards and facilitated exchange of experiences and expertise in Integrated Border Management. Coordination Points were established at the Border Crossing Points between Third Countries and deployed EU experts acted as observers at Coordination Points. EU experts were also acting as contact persons, both for guest officers deployed in other Frontex coordinated operations and their national authorities as well as for the involved Third countries law enforcement agencies. Based on request formulated by the local authorities, EU experts provided practical field training to staff concerned. Based on the above mentioned and the operational results gained during the implementation of the joint operation , the number of incidents involving the deployed EU experts, it is justified to consider that operational concept was implemented according to the operational plan. 4. 1. 2. Operational results The JO Coordination Points 2014 was implemented during the period of 8 Apri l - 16 December 2014 with t he aim of establishing a system for the exchange of information related to the early detection of illegal migration flows towards the EU th rough the territories of third countri es. Furthermore, the est ablishment and exchange of best practices should improve practical cooperation between the competent authorities involved in tackling of illegal migration and other cross-border crime. The collection of operational information from all participants and sources involved shou ld have support risk assessments that underpinned operational activities, thus contributing to the implementation of the Integrated Border Management standards in ord er to benefit all st akeholders. During the implementation of the JO Coordination Points 2014, the following operational results were reported: 15 illegal border-crossing incidents occurred involving the apprehension of 19 irregular migrants 2 facilitation incidents occurred involving the apprehension of 4 irregular migrants and the arrest of 4 facilitators 15 falsification incidents occurred involving the detection of 22 irregular migrants 74 other incidents occurred involving the detection of 22 persons 53 overstay incidents occurred involving the detection of 106 persons (overstayers) 1 prevention of departure incident occurred involving the detection of 5 persons 8 readmission incidents occurred involving the readmission of 12 persons 215 refusal of entry incidents occurred involving 525 persons 12 smuggling of good incidents occurred involving the apprehension/arrest of 17 persons 4 stolen vehicle incidents occurred involving the apprehension of 4 persons 7/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p7-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 8,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 4. 1. 3. Operational coordination structures Due the specific character of the activity (similar to JO Focal Points Land), JO Coordination points 2014 did not have an operational structure similar to other land border operations. ICC or LCCs were not established within the joint operation, neither deployment of Frontex Operational Coordinators at the operational area. Command and control of the EU experts remained with the competent national authority of the host TC. Communication flow of the operational activity followed the standard practise and was channelled directly from CP to FSC. The Local coordinators from respective CPs were responsible of daily based JORA reporting. Furthermore, communication , information and reporting flow at Frontex level were channelled via the FSC which was a practical solution in order to facilitate uniform, permanent and interlinked communication for all actors involved . 4. 1.4. Resources deployed According to the operational plan, activities implemented during the joint operation were focused on border checks . The deployment of EU experts at the operational area was firstly meant to support third countries authorities in performing border checks in general. However, as in all Frontex coordinated activities, the EU experts assisted local staff not only in the verification of travel documents, but also in the verification of other documents of individuals, vehicles or other entities. Based on the request formulated by the local authorities, EU experts provided practical field training to staff host authority staff members concerned. The EU experts deployed within the joint operation were experienced professionals. They had the skills and capacity needed to perform their duties according to the requirements of EBGT profiles (Advanced Level document experts and Stolen Vehicle Experts) and provisions of the operational plan . The added value of implementation of the j oint operation was that most of the EU experts had already parti cipated on Frontex operational activities several times. Russian language skills should be highlighted as an added value especially at the operational area of Moldova and Ukraine. Deployed EU experts with the Ru ssian language skills were highly appreciat ed by the hosting authoriti es and enhanced the effecti veness of the Frontex presence. 4.2. Situational Awareness 4.2.1. Threats and Risks, modus operandi and trends identified 4. 2. 1. 1. Albanian-Montenegrin [borde~ Commented [A2]: The blanked out parts contain detailed info rmation regarding the operational area. Its disclosure would expose law enforcement offici als' patrolling the area and harm the course of future and ongoin g operati ons, and thus fac ilitate irregular mi gration. Therefore , public security During the peri od under analysis 3 incidents were reported f rom the : 1 illegal border - will be affected. In light of th e above, the text is not crossing incident occurred involving the apprehension of 2 irregular Syri an migrants; 1 refusal of entry was disclosed pursuant to the exception laid down in t he fi rst indent of Article 4(1)( a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 relating issued involving 1 Greek national, and the reason for refusal was ' A - no valid travel documents' ; while 1 to the protec ti on of the public interest as regards public other incident occurred involving 1 Albanian national who presented an Albanian passport at the border security. control. This passport was t hen seized by Albanian offi cers because it was not valid. During the period under review, 15 incidents involving the detection of 19 persons were reported from the BCP Murriqan. Most of these incidents were related to refusals of entry and they were primarily associated with Belarusian nationals (6) who were refused entry for reason 'C - no valid visa or residence permit' , as well with EU citizens (4). who were refused entry for reason 'A- no valid travel documents'. One smuggling of goods incident was reported , involving the arrest of 2 Albanian smugglers and the seizure of 1 712 .5 grams of marijuana during the period of analysis . 8/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p8-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 9,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 Additionally, 1 stolen vehicle incident was reported from the smuggler and the seizure of a Volkswagen Golf IV (stolen) . The data reported in FRAN indicates that the number of illegal border-crossings detected at the ~ lbaniarl___ Commented [A3]: The blanked out parts contain detailed information regarding the modus operandi of criminal Montenegrin4 border during the first 11 months of 2014 (236) 5 , increased by approximately 38% compared networks. Its disclosure would jeopardize the work of law to the corresponding period of 2013 . Nearly all apprehended migrants (218) were detected between BCPs enforcement officials and harm the course of future and and very few (3) were detected at BCP. The main nationalities of the apprehended migrants were Syrian ongoing operations , and thus facilitate irregular migration. Therefore, public security will be affected. In light of the (91 ), Eritrean (46) , Albanian (32), Somali (30) and Congolese (10). Roughly 12%of the apprehended migrants above, the text is not disclosed pursuant to the exception were migrants from Western Balkan countries, while the other 88%were travelling as secondary movements laid down in the first indent of Article 4(1 )(a) of Regulation No 1049/ 2001 relating to the protection of the public interest from Greece . as regards public security. Most of the irregular migratory pressure exerted during the first 11 months of 2014, at the Albanian- Montenegrin border, was recorded during the months of January and from April to June. This represents a change in the seasonal patterns, compared to 2013 , when the highest pressure was recorded in the months of August and September and it can be attributed to the fluctuations in the number of migrants travelling on the eastern Mediterranean route, which are reverberating across the Western Balkan region. 4.2.1.2. The Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonian-Serbian ~orde \"'- - - - - -~ Commented [A4]: The blanked out parts contain detailed information regarding the operational area. Its disclosure would expose law enforcement officials' patrolling the area and harm the course of future and ongoing operations, and thus facilitate irregular migration. Therefore, public security During the reporting period , 276 incidents involving the detection of 583 persons were reported from the will be affected. In light of the above , the text is not . Nearly 78% of these persons were refused entry (456 persons), while 31 persons were disclosed pursuant to the exception laid down in the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049 / 2001 relating reported for overstaying and 22 persons were reported for falsification of documents. to the protection of the public interest as regards public The refusal of entry incidents were primarily linked to Serbian nationals (319) and the main reasons for security. refusing entry were 'E - no appropriate documentation justifying the purpose and conditions of stay' (191) and 'I - threat to public policy, internal security, public health or the international relations ' (64). Belarusian nationals (64) ranked second in t erms of the number of refusals of entry and all were refused entry for reason 'C - no valid visa or residence permit '. Roughly two thirds of the persons reported fo r overst aying during the operational period originat ed f rom West ern Balkan countries or from EU member st ates neighbouring the West ern Balkan region: Serbi an nationals (1 5) ranked first , followed by nationals from Bosnia- Herzegovina (5) and f rom Albania (2) . Most of the persons det ect ed for overstaying at were subject to penalties (i. e. these persons were fi ned and banned for t wo years from entering the form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) . With regard t o abuse of travel documents reported from I I , nea rly 55% of the detected persons were nationals of third countries outside the West ern Balkan region, while the other 45% were nationals from third countri es neighbouring the form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (count ri es within the West ern Balkan region). Syrians (9) were chi efly reported for the falsifica tion of t ravel documents, Commented [AS]: Th e blanked out parts conta in detailed information rega rding the modus operandi of criminal netwo rks. Its disclosure would j eopardize the work of law e nforcement officials and harm the course of fu t ure and ongoing ope rati ons, and thus facilitate irregular migration. Therefore, public security will be affected. In light of the above, the tex t is not disclosed pursuant to the exception laid down in the first i ndent of Arti cle 4(1 )( a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 relating to the protection of the public interest as regards public security. During the reporting period, 8 illegal bord er -crossing incidents were reported i nvolving he apprehension of 10 irregular migrants. Most of the apprehended migrants (6 Albanians, 1 Commented [A6]: The blanked out parts contain detailed information rega rding the operati onal area. Its di sclosure Serbian and 1 Somali) were det ected on entry from Serbia to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, would expose law enforcement officials' patrolling the area while the others (2 Turks) were detected on exit from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to Serbia. and harm the course of future and ongoing operations, and thus facilitate irregular migration. Therefore , public security will be affected. In light of the above, the text is not disclosed pursuant to the exception laid down in the first 3 This desig nat ion is without prej udice to positions on status, and is in line with UN SCR 1244 and the /CJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration indent of Article 4(1 )(a) of Regulation No 1049 / 2001 relating of independence. to the protection of the public interest as regards public security. 5 FRAN data (WB-RAN): Illegal border-crossings between BCPs (/ BC- 1A) and ill egal border-crossings at BCP (fBC-18) reported by the Albanian and Montenegrin authorities at the Albanian-Montenegrin border. 9/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p9-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 10,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 [with reference to cross border crime related incidents , during the implementation period of the JO Commented [A7]: The blanked out parts contain detailed information regarding the modus operandi of criminal Coordination Points 2014, the [reported ]10 smuggling of goods incidents involving the arrest networks. Its disclosure would jeopardize the work of law of 14 smugglers (5 former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian nationals, 4 Albanians, 2 Polish, 2 Serbians and enforcement officials and harm the course of future and 1 Kosovar) and the seizure of 45 800 grams of marijuana, 5 320 cigarettes, 700 grams of gold jewelleries ongoing operations, and thus facilitate irregular migration. Therefore, public security will be affected. In light of the and two 7.62 mm bullets . Additionally, 3 stolen vehicle incidents occurred involving the arrest of 3 smugglers above, the text is not disclosed pursuant to the exception (1 former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian national, 1 Polish and 1 Serbian). They were detected on entry laid down in the first indent of Article 4(1 )(a) of Regulation No 1049/ 2001 relating to the protection of the public interest from Serbia by police officers from the as regards public security. According to data reported in FRAN 6 , during the period January-November 2014, the highest migratory Commented [AS]: The blanked out parts contain detailed pressure from all border sections inside the Western Balkan region was recorded at the former Yugoslav information regarding the operational area. Its disclosure Republic of Macedonian-Serbian border which reported a total of 3 312 irregular migrants detected for would expose law enforcement officials ' patrolling the area and harm the course of future and ongoing operations , and illegal-border-crossing. Nearly 98% of the migrants were travelling as secondary movements from Bulgaria thus facilitate irregular migration. Therefore , public security and Greece while the other 2% were nationals of Western Balkan countries. will be affected. In light of the above, the text is not Most of the migrants apprehended at the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian-Serbian border attempted disclosed pursuant to the exception laid down in the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/ 2001 relating to cross the border illegally between BCPs, while very few tried at BCPs. Roughly 98%of the detections were to the protection of the public interest as regards public made by the Serbian authorities, while the other 2% were made by the former Yugoslav Republic of security. Macedonia authorities. Taking into account the precipitous increase in the number of irregular migrants trav elling on the eastern Mediterranean route recorded during 2014, compared to 2013 , and the fact that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian-Serbian border represented the main transit point used by migrants linked to secondary movements to travel across the Western Balkan region, we might expect that the migratory pressured at this border section will remain high in 2015. 4.2. 1. 3. Moldovan-Ukrainian and Ukrainian-Moldovan border During the reportin g peri od, 105 incidents involving the det ection of 189 persons were reported within t he operational area of t he JO Coordin ation Points 2014 at t he Mold ovan-Ukrainian border . The highest number of incidents was reported from t he Most of the det ected persons were reported because of overst aying (75), followed by refusal of entry (54) and by other (52 ). The main nationalities of the det ect ed persons were Moldovan (101) and Russian (54) . The number of illegal border -crossings recorded at this border section was very low (6 Moldovans and Russian) , and all the irregular migrants were apprehended within t he operational area of the ~ peri od under analysis, 7 incidents, involving the det ection of 7 persons, were report ed from the - : 4 other incidents occurred involving 4 Moldovan nationals who were refused exit primarily for not having valid travel documents while 2 incidents of overstaying were reported involving 1 Bulgari an and 1 Ukrainian. During the period under review, 46 incidents, involving the detection of 46 persons, were reported from the : 44 other incidents occurred involving 44 Moldovan nationals who were refused exit primarily for not having valid travel documents. In addition , 2 refusal of entry incidents were reported involving 2 6 lllega/ border-crossings between BCPs (IBC- 1A) and illegal border-crossings at BCP (IBC-1B) repor ted by the fo rm er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Serbian authorit ies at the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia n-Serbian border. 10/2 1",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p10-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 11,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 Lithuanian nationals who were refused entry for presenting expired powers of attorney which entitled them to drive the cars they were travelling in. During the reporting period, 52 incidents, involving the detection of 136 persons, were reported from the . Nearly half of these persons (73) were reported for overstaying and their main nationalities were Russian (27) and Moldovan (25). Refusal of entry incidents (52) ranked second in terms of the number of persons detected during the reporting period and they can be largely attributed to Russian (26) and Moldovan (18) nationals. The main reasons for refusal of entry were 'G - insufficient means of subsistence' (20) , 'F - stayed for three months during a six-month period' (13) and 'A - no valid travel document' (10). Roughly all illegal border-crossing incidents detected within the operational area of were linked to Moldovan nationals (6) and only one incident to Russian nationals (1 ). Additionally, one smuggling of goods incident was reported during the period under analysis from - and involved the arrest of 1 Ukrainian smuggler and the seizure of 6.86 grams of marijuana. The data reported in FRAN indicates that the number of illegal border -crossings recorded during the first 11 months of 2014 (775) decreased by nearly 35% compared to the corresponding period of 2013 (1 184) and that this trend was primarily associated to the decreasing number of apprehensions involving nationals from Moldova and Ukraine. Despite this decreasing trend, Moldovan and Ukrainian nationals were the top two nationalities reported for illegal border-crossings, from January to November 2014, at this border section. Roughly 65% of migrant apprehensions recorded during the first 11 months of 2014 were reported by the Ukrainian authorities, while the other 35% of migrant apprehensions were reported by the Moldovan authorities'. Nearly 68% of these detections involved illegal border-crossing attempts between BCPs, while the other 32% of detections involved illegal border-crossing attempts at BCPs. During the first 11 mont hs of 2014, 38 persons were reported in FRAN fo r the fraudulent use of travel documents at the Moldovan-Ukrainian border and most of these cases involved Moldovan nationals using primarily falsified Moldovan passports (e.g. fa lsified biometric page, page substitution, etc. ). 4. 2.2. Information gathering and exchange The Frontex Situation Centre (FSC ) was responsible to manage close t o real time the dat a processing by collecting, validating and compiling operational information. A const antly updated situational pictu re was provided th rough Daily Situational Reports (DSR) and the visualization in the JORA Dashboa rd and EUROSUR applica tion. The JORA syst em was used to exchange operational information wi th all the participants of the Joint Operation by collecting data via a st andardized Incident Report template. Furthermore FSC was responsible for providing a prompt response to seri ous incidents, based on in fo rmation received through JORA, operat ional reports and open source information. Following the Operational Plan, the reportin g structure was carri ed out without problems. During all implementation phases, FSC was reinforced with support offi cers deployed by parti cipating Member St at es t o Frontex HQ. The FSC was available during workin g days as well as on weekends. The reportin g performan ce in regards to t imeliness arrival of incidents t o the Frontex Situat ion Centre, the following picture came apparent (see point 4.4. Reporting Performance ). (Number of incidents reported in /out due time - according t o the Operat ional Plan). During the operational phase 304 incidents were reported t o FSC. In accord ance with t he Operational Plan, the operat ion was properly creat ed in the JORA, and within the deadline. The reporting structure was respondent to the operational needs, and the incident template for the data collection was created on time. During the operation, the Service and Product Management provided remote support to users , in accordance with the requests received, and managed accordingly the users' feedback. From a technical perspective, the results of the implementation are considered satisfactory. 7 FRA N data (EB-RA N) : Illegal border-crossings between BCPs (/B C- 1A) and ill egal border-crossings at BCP (IBC- 1B) repor ted by the Moldovan and the Ukrainian authorities at the Moldovan-Ukrainian border. 11 / 21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p11-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 12,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 The FOSS (Frontex-One-~top]-Shopl'l) portal was used in order to share operational-related information with Commented [A9]: The blanked out parts contain details related to certain instruments used by law enforcement all Joint Operation participants. In addition, e-mail service was used for daily reporting. FOSS was used officials for information-sharing purposes. Their disclosure according to the standards defined in the Operational Plan. Since FOSS is the main platform and central would jeopardize their work and harm the course of future reference point for operational related information, it is recommended that awareness raising activities and ongoing operations, and thus facilitate irregular migration. Therefore, public security will be affected. In would be undertaken to further promote its use and functionalities , particularly among national authorities light of the above , the text is not disclosed pursuant to the and at the deployment locations. exception laid down in the first indent of Article 4(1 )(a) of Regulation No 1049/ 2001 relating to the protection of the public interest as regards public security. 4 . 3. Development 4.3 . 1. Operational cooperation As a main outcome, operational cooperation during the operational activity was successful and based on mutual understanding. All counterparts were cooperative and supportive which facilitated smooth implementation throughout the activation period in all operational areas. In case of need , participating MSs were keen to support and assist in order to find a proper and most suitable solutions . Cooperation between host TCs and home MSs Operational needs of host TCs were easily defined and communicated during the planning meeting with Frontex and later on Home MSs fulfilled Annual Bilateral Talks requests without remarkable challenges. An additional requests for contribution was made and home MSs fulfilled them according to the operational needs which shows that cooperation between host TCs and contributing home MS worked properly. Information exchange and cooperation during the implementation phase followed the definitions indicated in the Operational Plan. National authorities of the hosting TCs put additional efforts in order to coordinate work and facilitat e support of deployed resources accordingly. No challenges or remarks related to cooperation on the spot bet ween host TC, intern al counterparts and EU experts were report ed. Cooperation with other Union agencies and bodies or international organizations Based on the best practices from the previous years (Project Coordin ation points 2012 and 2013) , the Coordin ation Points of Moldova and Ukraine were acti vated in close cooperation with the Eu ropean Bord er Assist ance Mission t o Moldova and Ukraine (hereinafter : EUBAM). EUBAM supported Frontex acti vities by providing info rmation rega rdin g the situation at the entire bord er section focusing on illegal migrati on in common underst anding with Moldovan and Ukrainian partner and act ed as a backup and liaised with the EU expert s deployed. Furtherm ore, Joint Border Control Operation \" Olvia\", initiat ed by EUBAM , was implemented at the common bord er section of Moldova and Ukraine. It consist ed of four operational phases between 2 June and 19 September 2014 and each phase covered different t argets based on the ri sk analysis and priority assessments by the partner servi ces as well as parti cipating agencies. The EU experts deployed within the JO Coordination point 2014 supported the JBCO by exchange of information. Additionally, operational manager of the joint operation parti cipat ed for phase A (Irregular migration, THB and Illegal border crossings ) of the operation as a representative of Frontex in Operational Coordin ation Unit (OCU). Following the practice est ablished within the framework of the Project Coordin ation Points in Moldova and Ukraine implemented in 2012 and 2013 , EUBAM was supporting the core idea of the Project in all st ages from the operational and logistical point of view. ,,, 12/2 1",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p12-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 13,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 Frontex coordination role Frontex coordinated this operational activity according to the Operational Plan which was prepared transparently and in close cooperation wi th all counterparts. Cooperation and information exchange in this regard was in satisfactory level and should follow the same practise in planning of 2015 activities. 4.3.2. Operational briefing/ debriefing Assessment of Operational briefing and debriefing delivered by FX and Host MS Operational briefings and debriefings were carried out in accordance with Operational plan and Handbook. Local authorities and Frontex representati ves at the area provided a comprehensi ve and well-structured briefing and debriefing meetings . All important and relevant information on national and Frontex level were presented. 5. Main conclusions and recommendations Conclusions Recommendations Albanian-Montenegrin border: Frontex should continue the cooperation with the Albanian authorities within the framework of the The number of illegal border-crossings detected JO Coordination Points 2015. within the operational area of the JO Coordination Points 2014 at the Albanian-Montenegrin border Frontex and the Albanian authoriti es should was very low. explore the possibility of widening operational support by implementing border surveillance The data reported in FRAN for the first 11 months relat ed act ivities within the framework of the joint of 20148 indica tes that : operation. The number of illegal border -crossings det ect ed at t he Albanian-Montenegrin border during the first 11 months of 2014, increased by app roximately 51%compared t o the corresponding peri od of 201 3. Nearly all apprehended migrants were detected bet ween BCPs and very few were detected at BCPs. Roughly 12% of the apprehended migrants were migrants from the West ern Balkan region, while the other 88% were travelling as secondary movements. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian- Frontex and the authorities of the former Yugoslav Serbian border: Republic of Macedonia should explore the possibility of widening operational support by 8 FRAN data (WB-RAN): Ill egal border-crossings between BCPs (/ BC- 1A) and ill egal border-crossings at BCP (I BC-18) reported by the Albanian and Montenegrin authorities at t he Albanian-Montenegrin border. 13/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p13-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 14,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 WB-RAN data indicates that during the fi rst 11 i mplementi ng border surveillance related activities months of 2014, the former Yugoslav Republic of i nto t he framework of the joint :operation1• Commented [AlO]: The blanked out parts contain detailed information regarding the modus operandi of law Macedonian-Serbian border reported the highest enforcement officials. Its disclosure would jeopardize the number of illegal-border crossings. Furthermore, work of law enforcement officials and harm the course of future and ongoing operations , and thus facilitate irregular most of t hese illegal border-crossings involved migration. Therefore, public security will be affected. In light of the above, the text is not disclosed pursuant to the migrants travelling from Greece or Bulgaria as part exception laid down in the first indent of Article 4(1 )(a) of of secondary movements. Bearing this in mind and Regulation No 1049/2001 relating to the protection of the public interest as regards public security. also taking account of t he precipitous i ncrease in the number of irregular migrants travelling on the eastern Medi terranean route recorded during 2014, compared to 2013, we can expect that t he former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian-Serbian border will remai n an important transit point used by migrants associated with secondary movements to travel across the Western Balkan region to the EU. Moldovan-Ukrainian and Ukrainian -Moldovan Cooperation between t he authorities of Moldova borders: and Ukraine with the support of Frontextex should continue in 2015 within the framework of the The number of migrant apprehensions recorded at operation . the Moldovan-Ukrainian border was low during 2014 and was primarily related to migrants from the region (i. e. Moldovans and Russians). Inst ability in east ern Ukraine had a det errent effect , by discouraging non-regional migrants from using Ukraine as a transit country to reach EU /SAC area. JO Coordination Points (all border sections): The data collected within the JO Coordination Points 2014 was mainly quantitative dat a reported in JORA (st atistical dat a). The lack of intelligence offi cers within the operational areas of the JO Coordin ation Points 2014 limited the possibility of collecting qualitative !dat 1. Commented [All]: The blanked out parts contain detailed information rega rding the modus operandi of law enforcement officials. Its di sclosure would jeopardize the work of law enforcement offici als and harm the course of future and ongoing operati ons, and thus facilitate irregular migrati on. The refore, public security will be affected. In light of the above, the tex t is not disclosed pursuant to the exception laid down in the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulati on No 1049/2001 relating t o the protecti on of the public interest as regards public security. 14121",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p14-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 15,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVA LUATION REPORT 2014 FACT SHEETS - STATISTICS 1. Time schedule Preparatory meeting with the HMS n/ a Planning meeting with participating MSs 11-13 February 2014 Operational briefing/ debriefing meetings for 08 April 2014 ; 06 May 2014; 03 June 2014; 01 July 2014; the participants (FYROM) 29 July 2014; 26 August 2014; 23 September 2014; 21 October 2014;18 November 2014; 16 December 2014 Operational briefing/ debriefing meetings for 01 July 2014; 03 July 2014; 29 July 2014; 31 July 2014 the participants (Moldova) Operational briefing/ debriefing meetings for 03 July 2014; 31 July 2014 the participants (Ukraine) Operational briefing/ debriefing meetings for 08 July 2014; 05 August 2014; 02 September 2014 the participants (Albania) Implementation of the joint operation 08 April - 16 December 2014 Evaluation meeting 18-19 November 2014 2. Participation MS Human resources Deployment dates 08.04-03. 05.2014; 03. 06-01 .07.2014; 01 - 29. 07.2014; 29. 07-23. 09.2014; 23.09- Austri a 7 advanced level document officers 21.10.2014; 21. 10-18. 11 .2014; 18. 11 - 16. 12.201 4 03.06-01.07.2014; 01 .07-29. 07.2014; Croati a 3 advanced level document officers 21.10-18. 11 .2014 1 advanced level document officer Estonia 03.07-3 1.07.2014 1 stolen vehicles det ection offi cer Finland 1 advanced level document officer 26.08-23. 09.2014 03.07-3 1.07 .2014; 08. 07-05.08.2014; France 4 advanced level document offi cers 05.08-02. 09.2014; 23. 09-2 1.10.2014 08. 04-06.05.2014; 06. 05-03. 06.2014; Hungary 4 advanced level document officers 03.06-01.07.2014; 18.11-16.12.2014 The Netherlands 2 advanced level document officers 03.07-31.07.2014; 05.08-02.09.2014 Latvia 2 advanced level document officers 03.07-31.07.2014 1 advanced level document officer Poland 01.07-29.07.2014; 03.07-31.07.2014 1 stolen vehicles detection officer 15/ 21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p15-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 16,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 20 14 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 08.04-03.06.2014; 01.07-31.07.2014; Romania 4 advanced level document officers 08.07-05.08.2014; 29.07-21.10.2014 1 advanced level document officer Slovenia 08.07-05.08.2014; 29.07-26.08.2014 1 stolen vehicles detection officer Switzerland 1 advanced level document officer 05.08-02.09.2014 3. Financial information Final budget: EURO 230,000 .00 Total commitment: EURO 242 , 599.15 with 31 numbers of SFD issued Payment consumed: EURO 165,247.00 consumption 91.88 % (consumed budget\"100/ committed funds (EURO 179,856.93) with 28 final payment issued until 12.01.2015) 4. Statistics Commented [A12]: The blanked out parts contain detailed information regarding the operational area. Its disclosure would expose law enforcement officials ' patrolling the area and harm the course of future and ongoing operations , and thus facilitate irregular migration. Therefore , public security will be affected. In light of the above, the text is not disclosed pursuant to the e xception laid down in the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049 / 2001 relating to the protection of the public interest as regards public security. 16/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p16-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 17,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 4.2. The former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonian-Serbian border ( . ) 17/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p17-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 18,
"content": "4.3. Moldovan-Ukrainian and Ukrainian-Moldovan border ( ) 18/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p18-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 19,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 2014 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 4.4. Reporting performance 1. Initial inserti on of incidents into JORA 2. Intermediat e validation on national level (reportin g uni t) (LCC/ ICC) ___ . ■ lll ■ OUI _ ... ·- .. ,tc- 19/21",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p19-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 20,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 20 14 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 3. Summary of the entire reporting sequence, from insertion until FSC validation 20/2 1",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p20-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/153903/",
"number": 21,
"content": "LIMITED Joint Operation Coordination Points 20 14 FRONTEX EVALUATION REPORT 2014 ANNEXES: Observation of Fundamental Rights Officer (full text) Internal Evaluation (for HQ internal use only; not to be presented to Directorate meeting) - as a separate document: Frontex performance (what is considered to be as internal Frontex issues) Specific conclusions I recommendations Miscellaneous 21/2 1",
"width": 2481,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/e8/fa/48/e8fa48cc52f64767bde9ba71ebb64d78/page-p21-{size}.png"
}
]
}
