Author
Responsibility for reception
Until 29 October 2023, the primary responsibility for the provision of material reception conditions laid with the Ministry of Home Affairs. Due to the institutional changes that occurred in 2023, from that date on, the primary responsibility for the provision of material provisions is assigned to the Ministry in charge of Migration.[1] Nevertheless, the responsibility for the provision of material reception conditions to asylum seekers who pass the admissibility procedure and are in the regular procedure lies with the Ministry of Employment, Solidarity and Social Security.[2] The authorities can cooperate with other public entities and/or private non-profit organisations within the framework of a MoU to ensure the provision of such services.[3]
For the majority of the year, the practical framework for the reception of asylum seekers in Portugal stemmed from bilateral MoUs,[4] the resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 103/2020 of 23 November 2020, establishing a single system of reception and integration of applicants for and beneficiaries of international protection, and the internal regulations of the Single Operative Group (SOG) it created.[5]
According to the Resolution, the main features of the single system of reception and integration were as follows:
- The system covered all applicants and beneficiaries of international protection, including unaccompanied children, resettled refugees, and relocated asylum seekers;
- A Single Operative Group (SOG) was established. The SOG had a restricted and an extended line-up;
- The restricted line-up of the SOG ensured its coordination and was composed by ACM, SEF and ISS;
- The extended line-up of the SOG developed technical and operational tasks. In addition to ACM, SEF and ISS it included: the Directorate General for Higher Education (DGES), DGEstE, Portuguese Institute of Sports and Youth (IPDJ), IEFP, ANQEP, SCML, ACSS, DGS, and IHRU. The resolution further established that other entities with competences in the fields of reception and integration, namely CPR, were part of this line up.
- ACM was responsible for organising periodic meetings (at least one every month), providing logistical and administrative support, and preparing the regulation of the SOG;
- The resolution further detailed the responsibilities of ACM, SEF and ISS within the context of the SOG;
- The SOG was established for 5 years with possibility of extension. Instruments concerning reception and integration of applicants for and beneficiaries of international protection in force must be adjusted to the provisions of the resolution.
Within the framework of the SOG, three subgroups were created to handle operational matters: the social monitoring subgroup, the unaccompanied children subgroup, and the programmed arrivals subgroup.[6]
The social monitoring subgroup of the SOG replaced the previous structure for referral and follow up on the provision of reception conditions to spontaneous asylum seekers. The group was composed by ACM, SEF (both replaced by AIMA since the beginning of its operations), CPR, ISS, and SCML, and meets twice a month. The extended line-up of the SOG used to meet once a month.
The process of termination of the activity of SEF and ACM led to the suspension of the activity of the SOG,[7] with the exception of the social monitoring sub-group.
In practice, for most of the year, the following entities were competent to provide reception conditions to spontaneous applicants, depending on the type and stage of the procedure and/or the profile of the applicant:
- The Institute for Social Security (ISS) provided material receptions conditions to asylum seekers in the regular procedure;
- Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (SCML) assisted asylum seekers who have submitted an appeal against a Dublin decision or a first instance decision (with the exception of a first instance decision in the regular procedure) as well as certain categories of asylum seekers in the regular procedure (e.g., vulnerable cases such as unaccompanied children initially accommodated at CACR that move into assisted apartments and former unaccompanied children initially accommodated at CACR; or individuals and families with strong social networks in the Lisbon area);
- The Portuguese Refugee Council (CPR) provided reception services to asylum seekers in the admissibility (including Dublin) and accelerated procedures on the national territory. CPR also provided material reception conditions to unaccompanied children within the regular procedure and at appeal stage, in accordance with protective measures adopted by Family and Juvenile Courts in the framework of the Children and Youths at Risk Protection Act (see Legal Representation of Unaccompanied Children).
- The Immigration and Borders Service (SEF) was responsible for the provision of material reception conditions within the context of border procedures and procedures in detention following a removal order (see Conditions in Detention Facilities).[8]
Following the termination of SEF, and the beginning of AIMA’s operations, some changes have occurred to the practical arrangements in place for the provision of material reception conditions to asylum seekers. Notably:
- While the Asylum Act determines that the Ministry in charge of migration is responsible for the provision of material reception conditions to applicants detained at the border, detention at the border is managed by PSP following the transfer of competences previously assigned to SEF. PSP is a police authority under the Ministry of Home Affairs.[9]
- Since the last trimester of 2023 CPR has been unable to ensure the provision of accommodation to all spontaneous asylum seekers as per previous practice both due to the lack of further capacity of infra-structures, and to the lack of funding to that effect.[10]
- AIMA has been directly providing accommodation to asylum seekers under the competencies assigned by the Asylum Act to the Ministry in charge of Migration.[11]
According to the information available to CPR, AIMA provides accommodation in hostels/hotels. CPR has received consistent reports of significant issues impacting asylum applicants within this context, namely: lack of information, lack of access to material reception conditions, instances of withdrawal of accommodation immediately following notification of a negative decision (in violation of the applicable legal framework), frequent and often unannounced changes of place of accommodation, and lack of response to specific needs (including access to health care). This is not the case according to AIMA.[12]
Despite the institutional changes, ISS, SCML and CPR continued to work on the above-mentioned areas.
The right to reception and sufficient resources
The law provides for the right of asylum seekers to material reception conditions regardless of the procedure they are in,[13] with the exception of a possible withdrawal or reduction of those conditions in the case of ‘unjustified’ subsequent applications.[14]
Asylum seekers are entitled to support from the moment they apply for asylum,[15] and until a final decision is reached on their asylum application,[16] without prejudice to: (i) the suspensive effect of appeals,[17] and (ii) the provision of material reception conditions beyond the final rejection in case of ongoing need for support on the basis of an individual assessment of the applicant’s social and financial circumstances.[18]
Only asylum seekers who lack resources are entitled to material reception conditions.[19] The law provides for criteria to assess the sufficiency of resources that consist in either the lack thereof or a level of financial resources which is inferior to the ‘social support allowance’.[20] While until 2023, ISS has interpreted this provision as referring to the social pension (pensão social),[21] the practice changed in 2023. As such, in 2023, the provision has been interpreted as referring to 70% of the Social Support Reference Index (Indexante de Apoios Sociais, IAS).[22] According to the information provided by ISS, the reference value of 70% will rise to 85% in 2024, and to 100% of the IAS in 2025. Consequently, in 2023, the reference value for the calculation of the allowances was of €333.16, per the information shared by ISS. ISS reported that this change was implemented in response to the increasing cost of living.
According to ISS, cases are reassessed every three months and the provision of material reception conditions is maintained where indicators of a lack of resources subsist.
Asylum seekers can be requested to contribute,[23] or reimburse,[24] partly or in full, the cost of material reception conditions and health care depending on the level and the point in time when the authorities become aware of their financial resources. However, neither the law nor administrative guidelines specify at what point the asylum seeker is required to declare any financial resources they might have.
In practice, the majority of spontaneous asylum applicants were systematically referred by SEF and benefited from the provision of material reception conditions by CPR in the framework of admissibility and accelerated procedures on the territory. This has been done without a strict assessment of resources by SEF as most asylum seekers had recently arrived in the country and were considered as being manifestly in need of assistance. In cases where they had financial resources or relatives in Portugal, certain asylum seekers chose not to benefit from the accommodation provided by CPR.
In the last quarter of 2023 CPR has been unable to ensure the provision of accommodation to all spontaneous asylum seekers as per previous practice both due to the lack of further capacity of infra-structures, and to the lack of funding to that effect.[25]
AIMA has been directly providing accommodation to asylum seekers under the competencies assigned by the Asylum Act to the Ministry in charge of Migration.[26]
Access to CPR’s Refugee Reception Centre (Centro de Acolhimento para Refugiados, CAR) that accommodates isolated adults and families is dependent on written referral from SEF-GAR/AIMA-CNAR. The transition from border facilities to reception centres within the territory is carried out smoothly in general. As for unaccompanied children, referral by the asylum authority to CPR’s CACR is made by the most expedient means available such as telephone or email, and children released from the border are escorted by the authorities to the premises.
For asylum seekers who have opted for private housing with relatives, the provision of material reception conditions such as financial assistance by CPR is dependent on the presentation of an individual certificate of the asylum application.
CPR does not proactively engage in means assessments for the duration of the provision of material reception conditions given that access to paid employment is, in practice, limited at this stage.
Following admission to the regular procedure, or if the application is deemed inadmissible or is rejected in an accelerated procedure,[27] the asylum seeker is referred CPR to the Single Operative Group (SOG) through its social monitoring subgroup. The SOG decides on the provision of material reception conditions in the regular procedure (by ISS), or at appeal stage (by SCML), based on an individual report that includes information on the socio-economic circumstances of the individual. Given that asylum seekers admitted to the regular procedure are often unemployed, and lack financial resources, it is not common to cease the provision of material reception conditions at this point.
In previous years, and despite practical challenges and concerns,[28] spontaneous asylum applicants did not face systematic obstacles in gaining access to available material reception conditions (e.g., due to delays in the issuance of the individual certificate of the asylum application or a strict assessment of resources).
However, since the last quarter of 2023, CPR has received consistent reports of significant issues impacting asylum applicants who are provided accommodation directly by AIMA, namely: lack of information, lack of access to material reception conditions, instances of withdrawal of accommodation immediately following notification of a negative decision (in violation of the applicable legal framework), frequent and often unannounced changes of place of accommodation, and lack of response to specific needs (including access to health care). This was not the case according to AIMA.[29]
[1] This includes admissibility procedures (including Dublin procedures); accelerated procedures, border procedures, subsequent applications and applications following a removal decision: Article 61(1) Asylum Act. As previously mentioned, until the end of 2023 migration was part of the portfolio of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs.
[2] Article 61(2) Asylum Act.
[3] Article 61(1) and (2) in fine Asylum Act.
[4] Notably MoUs between the Ministry of Home Affairs / SEF and CPR, between ISS and CPR, and between the ISS and Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (SCML).
[5] Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 103/2020 of 23 November 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3oBLXQm.
[6] In 2022, a new SOG sub-group was created in order to address the area of vulnerabilities within the asylum system. It is composed by ACM, CPR, ISS, SCML, SEF, and UNHCR. According to the information available at the time of writing, the sub-group will be led by UNHCR during the first semester of 2023, and will identify services and mechanisms to address specific vulnerabilities.
[7] The last meeting of the extended line-up of the SOG took place on 20 September 2023.
[8] Article 61(1) Asylum Act.
[9] PSP’s competencies at the border were used by AIMA in recent public statements to reject any responsibility for the situation of asylum seekers detained at the border, a position hardly compatible with the provisions of the Asylum Act. See, for instance: Rádio Renascença, “Há pouco que a AIMA possa fazer” pelos migrantes que dormem no aeroporto, 25 January 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/yd4v79vm.
[10] On the one hand, there were significant delays in the provision of AMIF funding at national level, on the other since the beginning of its operations AIMA publicly stated that it wanted to evaluate the provision of services by the organisation before renewing any cooperation frameworks. While AIMA and CPR signed a contract for the provision of accommodation for a limited number of asylum seekers in January 2024, this did not ensure the payment of services previously ensured by the organisation and did not provide sufficient resources for CPR to continue ensuring the usual reception model. In fact, by the end of the year the organisation often faced financial constraints leading to delays in the payment of financial allowances to asylum seekers and salaries to employees. See, for instance: Público, Conselho Português para os Refugiados confirma salários e verbas em atraso, 8 January 2024, availble at: https://tinyurl.com/t73nw4ue. Within the context of the right of reply of the authorities to the draft AIDA report, AIMA affirmed that it has expanded reception capacity and that the procedures adopted aimed to ensure transparency. It also confirmed that the transition between financial frameworks created constraints, but asserted that such constraints had been overcome by June 2024. Information provided by AIMA, 25 June 2024.
[11] Article 61(1) Asylum Act.
[12] Within the context of the right of reply of the authorities to the draft AIDA report, AIMA noted that all asylum seekers are informed of the available accommodation and its conditions, and that all asylum seekers were offered accommodation. It has also noted that asylum seekers are duly informed of changes to their accommodation arrangements, and that applicants are referred to healthcare authorities. AIMA did not provide further information regarding the procedures and criteria for withdrawal of accommodation. Information provided by AIMA, 25 June 2024.
[13] Articles 51(1) and 56(1)-(2) Asylum Act.
[14] Article 60(3)(f) Asylum Act. The reference to an “unjustified subsequent application” seems to indicate that the potential withdrawal or reduction would only occur at the end of the 10-day admissibility/preliminary assessment as per Article 33(4). According to the information available to CPR, such possibility was not enforced in the past, as SEF referred subsequent applicants in need of housing to the relevant entities. AIMA’s practice in this regard is not yet clear.
[15] Articles 51(1), 56(1) and 2(1)(ae) Asylum Act that entitle third-country nationals or stateless persons who have “presented” an asylum application to material reception conditions. The presentation of the asylum application is to be understood as preceding the registration of the asylum claim under Article 13(1) and (7) Asylum Act.
[16] Article 60(1) Asylum Act.
[17] Articles 60(1) in fine and 30(1) Asylum Act.
[18] Article 60(2) Asylum Act.
[19] Articles 51(1) and 56(1) Asylum Act.
[20] Article 56(3) Asylum Act.
[21] That, in 2023, stood at € 291,38. Decree-Law no. 464/80 and Ministerial Order no. 24-B/2023. According to the referred Decree-Law, the social pension is measure of solidarity to offer social protection to the most vulnerable populations. It is provided, among others, to nationals, who are not entitled to a pension from the contributory social security system who lack any revenue or whose revenue is below the value of the social pension (Article 1).
[22] Act no.53-B/2006, of 29 December as amended, and Ministerial Order no.298/2022. In 2023, the IAS stood at € 480.43.
[23] Article 56(4) Asylum Act.
[24] Article 56(5) Asylum Act.
[25] On the one hand, there were significant delays in the provision of AMIF funding at national level, on the other, since the beginning of its operations AIMA publicly stated that it wanted to evaluate the provision of services by the organisation before renewing any cooperation frameworks. While AIMA and CPR signed a contract for the provision of accommodation for a limited number of asylum seekers in January 2024, this did not ensure the payment of services previously ensured by the organisation and did not provide sufficient resources for CPR to continue ensuring the usual reception model. In fact, by the end of the year the organisation often faced financial constraints leading to delays in the payment of financial allowances to asylum seekers and salaries to employees. See, for instance: Público, Conselho Português para os Refugiados confirma salários e verbas em atraso, 8 January 2024, availble at: https://tinyurl.com/t73nw4ue.
[26] Article 61(1) Asylum Act.
[27] This includes rejected asylum seekers released from the border after the expiry of the 60-day time limit (see Duration of Detention).
[28] These included, as reported in the past, the provision of support by CPR to asylum seekers accommodated in private accommodation in remote locations (e.g., due to the lack of information from SEF’s regional representations regarding available assistance and costs associated with travel and communications for initial and follow-up interviews with social workers at CPR).
[29] Within the context of the right of reply of the authorities to the draft AIDA report, AIMA noted that all asylum seekers are informed of the available accommodation and its conditions, and that all asylum seekers were offered accommodation. It has also noted that asylum seekers are duly informed of changes to their accommodation arrangements, and that applicants are referred to healthcare authorities. AIMA did not provide further information regarding the procedures and criteria for withdrawal of accommodation. Information provided by AIMA, 25 June 2024.