1. What are reporting obligations?
2. Do reporting obligations violate human rights standards?
3. What are the consequences of reporting obligations?
4. Which countries have reporting obligations in place?
5. Are some countries introducing new reporting obligations?
6. How common is reporting in practice?
7. How have reporting obligations been received?
8. Where have reporting obligations been successfully challenged?
9. What are ‘firewalls’?
10. Where do firewall policies exist?

Learn more about terms like ‘irregular residence status’ and ‘undocumented migrants’ on this page.

What are reporting obligations?

Reporting obligations are laws or policies that require public authorities and service providers, such as healthcare workers, teachers, and social service employees, to report undocumented migrants to the public authority responsible for migration control, which might include police, border guards, immigration offices. Thus, ‘reporting’ refers to the act of sharing a person’s personal data, particularly their residence status, with the authorities responsible for migration control.

In some countries like the United Kingdom, there are also specific situations in which private service providers (e.g. banks) might be requested to share personal data about non-nationals with authorities, in a way that can also lead to immigration enforcement. There are sometimes clear exceptions to such duties, for example, for teachers, or medical professionals. However, the exception might not apply to the non-medical/administrative staff working in health care facilities (such as in Germany).

Do reporting obligations violate human rights standards?

Yes. Requiring public authorities, public or private service providers to report undocumented people to the migration authorities violates international and European human rights law, including the following rights:

• Right to equality and non-discrimination: Reporting obligations constitute direct discrimination based on residence status.
  • In 2016, the Council of Europe European Commission against Racism and Intolerance called on state parties to ensure “no public or private bodies providing services in the fields of education, health care, housing, social security and assistance, labour protection and justice are under reporting duties for immigration control and enforcement purposes.”
  • Reporting obligations can also lead to increased discrimination against migrants who have valid residence permits, and racialised people, including citizens.
• Right to privacy and data protection – Reporting obligations also constitute a violation of the right to privacy and data protection enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (article 8) and the EUGeneral Data Protection Regulation.
• Right to health: Under international human rights law, states have a duty to ensure the right to health by taking concrete steps towards realizing universal health care, as well as the preconditions for health.
  • Article 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights further states that everyone has the right to access preventive health care and medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices.
• Right to education: Children’s right to education, enshrined in several international and EU conventions, isalso harmed when administrations or teachers are required to report pupils’ residence status.

What are the consequences of reporting obligations?

Reporting obligations have a wide range of negative consequences:

• Fear and marginalisation: Undocumented people often avoid seeking help from public services or reporting crimes due to fear of immigration enforcement – being issued with an order to leave the country and lose everything they have worked for, and potentially be separated from family members, locked up and/or made to leave the country by force (deportation). This leads to further marginalisation and isolation from essential services like healthcare, education, and housing.
• Health risks: Lack of access to health care results in untreated health conditions, which can worsen over time, and develop to pose life-threatening risks to the person. It is costlier both for the individual and for society when health conditions are not dealt with at an early stage. Ensuring access to healthcare for everyone, regardless of residence status, is crucial for promoting both individual and public health overall.
• Violence, abuse and exploitation: Fear of immigration enforcement often prevents undocumented people from reporting abuse in personal relationships or in the workplace to the relevant authorities. Reporting is often a pre-requisite to access certain services, protections and remedy. Denying access to protection and remedy violates the person’s rights, and traps them in situations of violence and exploitation. In fact, this denial can even trigger violence and exploitation, as people take advantage of undocumented people knowing that they cannot turn to authorities for help.
• Ethical dilemmas for professionals: Employees in sectors like healthcare, education and labour inspection face conflicts between their primary duty to care for patients, students or workers, and their obligation to report undocumented migrants. This can undermine their professional integrity and the trust of service users. Associations of health professionals have taken a strong position in favour of preserving their independence and resisting efforts to involve them in immigration enforcement, such as the UK Royal College of Midwives (2019) and the Standing Committee of European Doctors (2024).
• Erosion of trust: Reporting obligations erode trust between communities and public institutions. When undocumented migrants fear interaction with public services, it hampers efforts to build cohesive, trusting communities, which is vital for public safety, and to provide effective services to the local population.

Racial profiling: Implementing rules targeting undocumented people often results in racial or ethnic profiling, perpetuating prejudice and discrimination. Racialised people, including citizens, are more likely to be questioned about their residence status and even denied access to certain services, support or remedies. Already in 2012, research by EU Fundamental Rights Agency highlighted that migrants are more likely to be victims of hate crime and other forms of abuse and violence.

Which countries have reporting obligations in place?

There is currently no comprehensive mapping of reporting obligations in Europe.

We know that, in Germany, the 1990 Act on Foreigners obliges all public sector workers and offices to report undocumented people to immigration authorities (para 76). This law was replaced by the Residence Act in 2004, which is the current legislation where this provision is included (section 87). While undocumented migrants have the same legal entitlements as asylum seekers to health services, Section 87 of the German Residence Act requires all civil servants, including social welfare offices, to notify the immigration authorities or police when they obtain information about someone without a valid residence permit. The only exception is for schools and other educational and care establishments. Social welfare offices – who manage cost coverage and reimbursement of health services – must report undocumented people who approach them to obtain coverage for health care expenses. Although undocumented migrants are entitled to limited medical services (Section 1 Paragraph 1 Nos. 5, 4 and 6 of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act), reporting obligations hinder access in practice. Due to these various legal contradictions undocumented migrants are in effect only entitled to emergency health care services.

While there is currently no comprehensive mapping, a 2023 Swedish Parliament report found that various EU countries have national provisions requiring some civil servants to report undocumented people to immigration authorities. (The report “Rapport från utredningstjänsten informationsskyldighet beträffande personer utan tillstånd” is not available online but can be sent upon request).

Moreover, a 2021 report by the Fundamental Rights Agency on severe labour exploitation mapped out the duty of labour inspectorates to report to police or immigration law enforcement authorities in 25 EU Member States and found that in 20 Member States, labour inspectorates report irregular migrants to police or immigration authorities either by law, internal documents, or practice.

Are some countries introducing new reporting obligations?

Some countries are considering introducing measures to increase data sharing obligations, notably:

• Sweden: The government is exploring a widely contested proposal to oblige all public sector workers to report undocumented people they come in contact with to immigration enforcement and/or police. In November 2024, the government presented the outcomes of a public inquiry outlining how a potential new law could oblige some public sector workers to denounce undocumented people they come in contact with to the immigration authorities. According to the inquiry, the Swedish government should oblige the following governmental agencies in Sweden to automatically report undocumented people to the Police Authority as they come in contact with them: the Public Employment Service, Social Insurance Agency, Prison and Probation Service, Enforcement Agency, Pensions Agency and Tax Agency. The Swedish police may then pass on the information to the Migration Agency or the Security Service. It also proposes that the Swedish Economic Crime Authority and the Prosecution Authority should be obliged to provide information upon request from an enforcement agency. The inquiry proposes exemptions for health services, schools and social services (see also PICUM’s press release).
• Finland: In its 2023 programme, the Finnish government is also considering the expansion of the obligation to denounce undocumented people.

How common is reporting in practice?

Across Europe, the nature, extent and method of personal data sharing depends on the public authorities and sector. In countries with such obligations, it is quite common that data shared is used by immigration authorities for immigration enforcement (i.e., issuing orders to leave the territory, detaining the person, launching deportation proceedings) or for notifying authorities about outstanding medical bills (for example in the United Kingdom). Even if there is no formal requirement to report immigration status, data sharing can still happen informally or in an ad hoc manner. Furthermore, reporting obligations create a climate of fear which leads to people with an irregular migration status not to seek out access to services such as healthcare.

How have reporting obligations been received?

There is often widespread resistance among professionals and civil society to reporting obligations. Even when the measures are put in place, some professionals practice civil disobedience and refuse to abide by the rules, as they deem them contrary to their values, roles and professional ethics and obligations. For example, in Sweden, in 2022, over 4,000 health care workers pledged to commit civil disobedience and refuse to report their patients should a reporting obligation be implemented in the healthcare sector. When reporting obligations exist, professionals and civil society are often working hard to have them repealed or at least introduce specific safeguards (also known as ‘firewalls’, see below).

Where have reporting obligations been successfully challenged?

In some countries, reporting obligations have successfully been challenged following efforts by wide segments of society (often times involving professionals, institutions as well as elected officials):

• Italy: In 2009, during discussions on the Security Package, the government proposed to require healthcare professionals to report undocumented migrants. In response, civil society and medical organisations launched the campaign ‘Forbidden to report: We are doctors and nurses, not spies!’ (Divieto di segnalzione. Siamo medici ed infermieri, non siamo spie!). The reporting obligation on health professionals was excluded from the final bill.
• United Kingdom: In 2012, the government introduced set of policies aimed at creating a hostile environment for undocumented people. The government also pushed several data-sharing arrangements within the National Health Service (NHS) and externally with other public services, that enable patient data from the NHS to be used for immigration enforcement purposes. In 2018, the government suspended the sharing duty of the National Health Service with the immigration authorities (Home Office) after warnings from MPs, doctors’ groups, and health charities that the policy deterred patients from seeking NHS care and had led to people dying.
• France: Labour inspectors are responsible for checking work permits during inspections but resist sharing information for immigration enforcement. There has been significant pushback from inspectors and criticism from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) regarding joint operations with immigration authorities. A 2006 circular promoting such cooperation, reinforced by later policies, led the ILO to issue recommendations, arguing these joint operations violate the Labour Inspection Convention by undermining inspectors’ independence. In response, the government established “specialised labour inspection sections” to handle cases of irregular work, leaving most inspectors to focus on upholding workers’ rights without involving immigration enforcement.

What are ‘firewalls’?

A ‘firewall’ separates immigration enforcement activities from public service provision and systems, such as healthcare, education, social welfare, labour inspection, or justice. Firewalls ensure that individuals can access these services and interact with competent authorities without fear of migration-related repercussions, such as arrest, detention, or deportation.

Firewalls also safeguard people who have a precarious or uncertain residence status that might avoid interacting with authorities or accessing certain services, in case they would face questioning, denial or even revocation of their status as a result. For example, many migrant workers become undocumented because their residence permits are often linked to their employer. If they complain against their employer, they can lose their job and therefore lose their permission to live and work in the country. As such, firewalls protect all migrant workers from immigration enforcement, whether they have dependent status or are undocumented.

Firewalls are crucial because they allow undocumented migrants to seek assistance, access services and exercise their rights, without fear that it will result in immigration enforcement. This helps in upholding fundamental rights obligations, promoting public health and safety, employment regulations, and other public social objectives.

To be effective, ‘firewall’ safeguards need to be set out in law, policy and practical measures.

For example, in Germany (also see section above “Which countries have reporting obligations?”), civil society organisations have strongly advocated for a firewall in healthcare. Among different actions, Doctors of the World Germany led a campaign supported by over 80 organisations (“GleichBeHandeln”) to have this obligation repealed. In 2021, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V., together with over 30 civil society organisations in Germany, submitted a complaint to the European Commission alleging a breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU data protection law. The complaint was renewed in 2024. Despite a 2021 government pledge to remove the reporting duty, and high expectations for reform, there has been little progress. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women expressed concern in 2023 that Germany has no real intention of changing the law on reporting obligations.

Where do firewall policies exist?

In most countries, people can access public education and health services without their personal data being shared for immigration enforcement purposes. However, even if reporting is not required or systematic, it can still happen in practice. To avoid this, there need to be clear safeguards in law and policy. These should prohibit data sharing between public services and immigration enforcement (“firewalls”) and/or use of personal data collected through public service provision for immigration enforcement purposes.

Examples of explicit firewall policies include:

• Belgium: The Flemish administration for education sent round a circular in 2003 clarifying that undocumented children should not be reported to the police or immigration office while enrolling in and attending primary or secondary school.
• Netherlands: The national ‘free in, free out’ policy, introduced in 2015, allows undocumented people to safely report abuse to the police.
• Spain: Undocumented people can report gender-based violence to police without risking migration enforcement. They can also register at the town hall (‘empadronamiento’) to access healthcare and education, with a strict firewall ensuring their personal data is not shared with migration authorities.

In Germany, a 1990 law obliges most public sector workers to report undocumented people to migration authorities. We spoke to Sarah Lincoln from Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (Civil Liberties Association) to know more about this law and what civil society is doing to have it repealed.

Paragraph 87 of the German Residence Act forces any public authority, including social welfare offices, police, and courts, to report undocumented people they come in contact with to immigration enforcement.

The only exception to this rule was carved out in 2011 for schools and kindergartens.

What this obligation means in practice is that undocumented people avoid any contact with public authorities. They do not go to the police to report abuse or seek justice in courts. Many do not even go to the doctor or end up seeking care only in life-threatening situations.

When it comes to health care, the picture is complex: while undocumented people have a right to limited health care on paper, reporting obligations prevent them from accessing it.

According to the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act, undocumented migrants are entitled to limited medical services in the event of acute illnesses or painful conditions as well as during pregnancy and childbirth. Doctors are not obliged to report undocumented patients because they are not public workers (the German health care system is based on private insurances) and are therefore not covered by the Residence Act.

In fact, doctors are not permitted to report undocumented patients because of a legal duty to confidentiality.

But there have been instances where hospital staff reported undocumented patients nonetheless.

And going to the doctor without an insurance, as is the case for undocumented people, often means paying high medical fees and long-term debt. While emergency life-saving care would be provided, the hospital would still claim medical fees in the absence of insurance.

Getting treatment covered by the state requires a person asking for a permission from the social welfare offices, which are obliged to report undocumented people to the police or the migration office.

“The person would probably not even be able to leave the office. Police would come and arrest them and then put them in immigration detention”, said Lincoln.

As a result, undocumented people do not apply for official health care. Some seek treatment through charities and medical students who provide limited health care for free, in many cases severe Illnesses remain untreated.

In one case, a person who came to Germany from the Balkans in the early 90s and later lost his status, was unable to get a heart operation to avoid a (second) heart attack. In another case, a woman from Northern Africa who had been living in Germany for years was diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer by volunteering doctors and found herself with no option to get treatment.

Official data about health outcomes for undocumented people not accessing health care is lacking. But reports from organisations providing free health care and testimonies show that stories like the ones above are commonplace.

Campaigners and advocates have been fighting this law for years. In 2011, they managed to carve out an exception for schools and kindergartens. Since 2021, a coalition led by Doctors of the World and the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte has been campaigning against paragraph 87 of the Residence Act to allow undocumented people to access health care without risking immigration enforcement. The campaign is being supported by over 80 civil society organisations, with the German doctors’ association and German Churches also repeatedly criticising reporting obligations.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women noted in its 2023 concluding observations that Germany has no intention of repealing or amending section 87 of the Resident Act and called on Germany to reconsider its position.

In August 2021, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte filed a complaint to the European Commission against paragraph 87 of the Residence Act, denouncing violations of the EU data protection rules (the General Data Protection Regulation) and the right to health care as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

While the German government assured that they were considering the complaint (the proposal was in fact taken up by the German government in their coalition programme), they eventually backtracked and on the contrary passed new cuts to social benefits for asylum-seekers, bowing to a political climate ever more hostile to immigration.

Advocates also pursued strategic litigation in German courts, not without challenges. For undocumented complainants, access to courts remains difficult given the court also has an obligation to report to the immigration authorities. And procedures often last too long compared to their urgent medical needs.

Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte is currently awaiting to hear about the outcomes of a second complaint filed to the Commission in April 2024.

This press release is based on an article written by PICUM and published on Statewatch’s website.

A draft text proposed by the Belgian Council presidency, just published by Statewatch, furthers the criminalisation of irregular entry in the EU and threatens people helping migrants.

The text, which was presented to other EU member states on 31st May, is a redraft of proposed changes to the law criminalising the facilitation of irregular migration (2002 Facilitation Directive), which has also been used to criminalise migrants and people acting in solidarity with them.

The Belgian redraft will serve as the basis for further discussions within the Council, with Hungary now in the presidency role until the end of this year, in view of adopting a common position on the revised Facilitation Directive.

Marta Gionco, Senior Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “This text goes in the direction of more, not less, criminalisation of migrants and those who help them. Sadly, we can expect that the final Council position will follow this trend”

Financial benefit

The Belgian Council presidency’s redraft of the proposed Directive confirms that most member states are against the inclusion of a “financial or material benefit” element in the definition of the criminal offence of facilitation, as already indicated by a previous “non-paper”.

The presidency proposes dividing the offence into two parts. Firstly, for the facilitation of irregular entry into or transit through an EU member state, criminal sanctions would apply even if the facilitator did not receive any financial or material benefit. If there is financial or material benefit, this would be considered as an aggravating circumstance and be sanctioned with maximum sentences of at least three years of imprisonment.

Secondly, for the facilitation of irregular stay, criminal sanctions would apply only if there is financial or material benefit, as is currently the case under the 2002 Directive.

Humanitarian exemption

The presidency proposes two options for exempting humanitarian activity from criminal prosecution, in article 3, both of which are inspired by the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs.

The first would clarify that the facilitation of irregular entry and transit does not include humanitarian actors or other assistance “aimed at meeting their basic human needs, in order to preserve their human dignity or physical and metal integrity.”

The second would require states to take “the necessary measures to ensure that humanitarian assistance, or any other assistance aimed at meeting their basic human needs, in order to preserve their human dignity or physical and metal integrity” are not criminalised.

As both options focus on “basic human needs”, acts of solidarity considered to go beyond such needs would still risk to be criminalised.

Limiting “basic human needs” and family members

The redraft further limits the scope of humanitarian exemptions in relation to “basic human needs” and “family members”, by defining both concepts in restrictive ways.

On “basic human needs”, the amended recital 7 would clarify that these only include food, personal hygiene and a place to stay, and ensuring that people are not put “in a state of degradation incompatible with human dignity.”

On “family members”, the text introduces a further limitation to recital 7, narrowing down the definition of family members (who would be exempt from criminalisation) only to spouses or unmarried partners in a stable relationship, parents, children and siblings.

Removal of public instigation offence

The Commission’s proposal includes the offence of “publicly instigating” irregular entry, transit, or stay, a move that was sharply criticised by UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, amongst others.

The Special Rapporteur highlighted the serious risk that this provision would be used against civil society organisations and have a chilling effect on the much-needed provision of information and services to migrants.

The presidency redraft deletes this offence. Member states had previously raised concerns about the proposal, with the German delegation commenting that “this affects freedom of expression and possibly also freedom of the press. This should be avoided.”

On 13 June, the Council of the European Union adopted its position on the Commission’s proposal for a revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive. The European Parliament already published its negotiating mandate in April. More than twelve years after the adoption of the Victims’ Rights Directive, this was an opportunity for governments to stand in solidarity with all victims of crime and to strengthen their rights and treatment. 

Regrettably, with this Council position, States have shown little willingness to commit to enhancing victim rights. They have largely rejected or diluted the EU Commission’s proposals, turning obligations into mere options. This undermines the scope of the Victims’ Rights Directive, leaving diverse crime victims inadequately protected and potentially harmed by the systems meant to protect them and deliver justice. 

For example, specific rights have been removed or weakened, including those relating to safe reporting of crime, court-based support services, access to medical care services, privacy protections, information and participation rights, offender compensation, legal remedies and review decisions. Additionally, the role of NGOs has been diminished by removing commitments to coordinate services – which are largely delivered by civil society – to one of mere consultation. This increases the risk of further stigma, discrimination, or prejudice. Therefore, clear and binding obligations for EU Member States are essential.

This position of the Council contrasts with the European Parliament’s report, which has adopted proposals that build an effective legislative framework for coordinated support, protection and justice. Thus, the European Parliament recognises that the actions and costs involved in this process are investments in our future. 

Every Euro spent on victims’ rights and services reduces the cost of crime and its emotional impact, and it also increases the ability of individuals to return to work, next to the efficiency and effectiveness of criminal proceedings. The European Parliament’s proposals commit to a thriving, safer, more resilient and more just society that upholds EU values, including fundamental rights. 

Member States have recently adopted the Directive on Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, the recast EU Directive on Combating and Preventing Trafficking in Human Beings and they are currently negotiating the Regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat Child Sexual Abuse. This shows a willingness to seek the advancement of the rights of specific victim groups, with a particular focus on children, women and victims of human trafficking. 

Member States should now affirm their commitment to all victims of crime regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex characteristics, age, disability, ethnicity, residence status,, and type of exploitation by enhancing minimum standards for all in the Victims’ Rights Directive Revision. There should be equal treatment of all victims of crime; no victim should be left behind. 

With a new Parliament and renewed vigour, we call on all EU Member States and the European Parliament to stand together – united for every victim in the EU. We call on them to genuinely explore solutions proposed by the European Commission and Parliament that will finally make victims’ rights a reality. We call on them to honour commitments to victims of crime; by adopting a strong Victims’ Rights Directive as the cornerstone legislation for all victims of crime, Member States can demonstrate their commitment to valuing fundamental human rights, human dignity and the European Union’s foundational values.

Signatories

1. AGE Platform Europe
2. Center for Reproductive Rights 
3. Child Helpline International
4. End FGM European Network
5. Eurochild
6. European Disability Forum (EDF)
7. European Forum for Restorative Justice (EFRJ)
8. European Sex Workers Alliance (ESWA)
9. ILGA Europe (the European region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association)
10. La Strada International
11. Missing Children Europe
12. Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM)
13. Validity Foundation
14. Trans Europe and Central Asia (TGEU)
15. Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE Network)
16. Advocates for Victims of Homicide (AdVIC) Ireland
17. A Associação Portuguesa de Apoio à Vítima (APAV Portugal)
18. Association for the Prevention and Handling of Violence in the Family (APHVF/ SPAVO) Cyprus
19. Associazione Italiana di Supporto Vittimologico 
20. Associazione Libra
21. ATENIN Spain
22. Bijeli Krug Croatia 
23. Bily Kruh Bezpeci (Czech Republic)
24. Brottsofferjouren Sverige (The Crime Victims’ Center Sweden)
25. Child Rights Centre Albania
26. DROGA Poland
27. Federation for Victim Assistance Ireland
28. France Victimes
29. Irish Road Victims Association (IRVA); International Road Victims Partnership
30. Klaipeda Social and Psychological Support Center
31. Law and Internet Foundation (Bulgaria)
32. Opferhilfe Berlin e.V.
33. Rete Dafne Italia 
34. Slachtofferhulp Netherlands
35. Skalbes Latvia
36. The Smile of the Child – Greece
37. Victim and Witness Support Service Croatia
38. Victim Support at Court (Ireland)
39. Victim Support Denmark 
40. Victim Support Europe
41. Victim Support Finland (RIKU)
42. Victim Support Flanders, CAW (Belgium)
43. Victim Support Malta 
44. Victim Support Sweden
45. Victim Support UK
46. Vilnius Institute for Advanced Studies (VILIAS)
47. Woman’s Room – Center for Sexual Rights Croatia 
48. Weisser Ring Austria
49. Weisser Ring Germany
50. Victimology Society of Serbia
51. Vilnius Institute of Advanced Studies (VILIAS)
52. White Circle Croatia