EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 13.07.2010 
SEC(2010) 884 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Impact Assessment  
 
 
Accompanying the 
Proposal for a 
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
 
on conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals in the framework of an 
intra-corporate transfer  
 
 
{COM(2010) 378 final} 
{SEC(2010) 885} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties …………………………..4 
1.1. Background……………………………………………………………………………4 
1.1.1. Legal and policy context……………………………………………………………...4 
1.1.2. Organisation and timing……………………………………………………………...5 1.1.3. Consultation and expertise…………………………………………………………...5 
1.2. The Impact Assessment Board……………………………………………………….6 
2. Problem definition…………………………………………………………………….6 2.1. Scope of the problem…………………………………………………………………6 
2.1.1. Legal background…………………………………………………………………….7 
2.1.2. Statistics and trends on intra-corporate transfers………………………………...10 
2.1.3. The relevance of ICTs for EU competitiveness……………………………………14 
2.2. What is the problem that may require action?.........................................................16 2.3. EU right to act and subsidiarity…………………………………………………….19 
2.3.1. EU right to act………………………………………………………………………20 
2.3.2. Principles of subsidiairty and proportionality……………………………………..20 2.3.3. EU added value………………………………………………………………………21 
3. Setting objectives……………………………………………………………………21 
3.1. Main objectives……………………………………………………………………..21 3.2. Specific objectives………………………………………………………………….21 
4. Developing policy options…………………………………………………………..22 
5. Analysis of impacts…………………………………………………………………26 5.1. Options……………………………………………………………………………...26 
5.2. Assessment of financial a nd administrative costs…………………………………36 
5.3. Comparative assessment  of policy options………………………………………...37 
6. Identification of the pr eferred policy option……………………………………….39 
7. Monitoring and evaluation………………………………………………………….47 
7.1. Identify core progress indicators fo r the key objectives of the possible 
intervention………......................................................................…………………....47 
7.2. Provide a broad outline of possi ble monitoring and evaluation 
arrangements…………...........................................................……………………....49 
 
EN 3   EN  
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSU LTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 
1.1. Background 
1.1.1. Legal and policy context 
Since the Tampere European Council of 1999, the EU has sought to develop, on the basis of 
the new powers conferred to it by the Treaty of  Amsterdam (Title IV EC), a comprehensive 
immigration policy that would address the pheno menon in all its main dimensions, i.e. legal 
and illegal immigration, integration and coope ration with the countries of origin of 
immigrants. As concerns legal immigration, an d in particular economic  immigration, Article 
79 (2)(a) (b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) explicitly 
empowers the EU to adopt measures laying down conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals and defining their rights.  
The first attempt to define a common legal fr amework at EU level was not successful since 
the 2001 Proposal for a Council Directive on the c onditions of entry and residence of third-
country nationals for the purpose of paid em ployment and self-employed economic activities
1 
did not receive the necessary suppo rt from the Council. It has to  be recalled in this context 
that legal immigration was subject at the time to  unanimity in the Council and consultation of 
the European Parliament. The 2004 Hague Prog ramme recognised the important role legal 
migration will play in  advancing economic development in the EU and asked the Commission 
to present a Policy Plan on legal migration, “including admission procedures, capable of 
responding promptly to fluctuating demands for migrant labour in the labour market”. That 
Policy Plan2 defines a roadmap and a set of actions a nd legislative initiatives for the coherent 
development of EU legal migration policy between 2006 and 2009. It suggests establishing 
EU rules on specific channels of  legal migration (highly skilled  migrants, seasonal workers, 
remunerated trainees, intra-corporate transferees ) and a general directive on the rights of third 
country workers on the other. The Policy Plan  was welcomed by the European Council in 
December 2006 which asked for a rapid exam ination of the Commission's legislative 
proposals, once presented. The first two proposal s – on harmonised rules for the admission of 
third-country nationals for highly skilled em ployment ("Blue Card") and for a general 
framework Directive - were tabl ed by the Commission in October 20073. The proposals 
regarding highly qualified workers (‘EU Blue Ca rd’) and for a general framework Directive 
were presented in October 2007. The Council adopted the first proposal on 25 May 2009; the second one is currently under negotiation in the European Parliament and the Council. Both 
texts exclude seasonal workers from  their scope of application. 
Under the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, endorsed by the October 2008 
European Council, one of the five basic commitmen ts is to organise le gal immigration and in 
particular to increase the attractiveness of  the EU for highly qualified workers and to 
encourage temporary migration. This proposal , together with the proposal on seasonal 
workers presented in parallel, takes forward th e implementation of the Policy Plan on legal 
migration and transposes the commitment made  in the "Pact" into concrete measures. 
                                                
 
1 COM(2001)386.  
2 Adopted by the Commission on 21.12.2005, COM(2005)669 final.  
3 COM(2007) 637 and 638 of 23 October 2007.  
 
EN 4   EN The Stockholm Programme, adopted by the European Council of 10 and 11 December 2010, 
recognises that labour immigrati on can contribute to increased competitiveness and economic 
vitality and that, in the context of the importa nt demographic challenges that will face the 
Union in the future with an increased dema nd for labour, flexible i mmigration policies will 
make an important contribution to the Union' s economic development and performance in the 
longer term. It thus invites the Commission and Council to continue to implement the 2005 
Policy Plan on Legal Migration. 
1.1.2. Organisation and timing 
Lead DG: Home 
Agenda Planning or Work Programme Reference: Comm ission Work Programme 2010 
(31.3.2010 COM(2010) 135 final) 
The chronology of this impact assessment was as follows: 
– December 2007 – July 2008: data gathering and discussion with Member States in the 
context of the Commission's Committee on Immi gration and Asylum (h ereinafter “CIA”); 
– Throughout 2008: consultation and exchange of  views with relevant stakeholders 
(including businesses' represen tatives, social partners) in  a number of meetings and 
conferences; 
– December 2007 – October 2008: external study ordered by the Commission in December 
2007;  
– 29 April and 16 September 2008: Meetings  of the Inter-service Steering Group 
accompanying the Impact Assessment, at whic h participated representatives of the 
Commission's Secretariat General and Director ates-General for Trade, for Employment, 
Social Affairs and Equal Opportuni ties and for External Relations. 
1.1.3. Consultation and expertise  
This report is based on consultations with Memb er States and other st akeholders (including 
ETUC, the International Organisation for Migration, Business Europe, Work Permit 
Foundation, FEACO-Pendo Group, American Chambe r of Commerce to the European Union, 
Mission of Japan to the EU)4. Member States were consulted within the framework of the 
Commission's Committee on Immigr ation and Asylum, at three meetings in 2008. The data 
was collected from these consultations as well as  from case studies and literature reviews. The 
data-gathering and large parts of  the consultations were underta ken through an external study 
from Ernst & Young ordered by the Commissi on in December 2007. That study constitutes 
the main support for this repo rt. The problem, objectives and policy options assessed were 
based on the final report from the contractor and on the basis of a desk analysis of appropriate 
analytical methods and applicable legal documents. 
Moreover, a public consultation wa s carried out with the Green Paper on an EU approach to 
managing economic migration5. The Commission received more than 130 contributions from 
                                                 
4 The summary of the answers by the Stak eholders are presented in Annex  4.  
5 COM(2004) 811 final.  
 
EN 5   EN Member States, the other EU institutions, soci al partners, NGOs, third countries, academia, 
etc.6 and a public hearing was held on 14 June 2005. 
1.2. The Impact Assessment Board 
The IAB was first consulted in January 2009 and gave its first opinion  on 3 February 2009, in 
which, in summary, it requested more informa tion on why EU regulation was an appropriate 
response to the problem identifie d. The Board also asked for:  
(1) less emphasis be put on the functioning of the labour market, given the rather low 
numbers of third-country workers involved, and to demonstrate that EU regulation would be a 
proportionate response. 
(2) better justification of why Article 63 (now  79) of the Treaty was chosen as legal basis 
(and not Article 137 (now 153) on "working conditions for third-country nationals) 
(3) clarification of the key aspects of the proposed approach, including objectives, 
options, criteria, taxation status, right to acces s to work for family members, linkages with 
existing legislation, whether EU national migrants  could be treated less  favourably than third-
country national migrants and the chosen reference points for the equal treatment; 
(4) an analysis of the impact on the number of migrants; The Impact Assessment Report was re-submitted to the IAB in April 2009, which gave its 
second opinion on 12 Ma y 2009. The present version of th e Impact Assessment report has 
been redrafted, with a view to taking these recommendations into account. In particular, the arguments about risks of distortions in the EU labour market and unfair competition have 
been attenuated and nuanced, further clarifica tions have been provided as regards the legal 
basis, options, rights gr anted, links with existing directives , application of Union preference, 
and the justification for EU legal action.  
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 
Companies outside the EU often need to se nd key members of staff, who are not EU 
nationals, to their subsidiary companies located w ithin the EU. Businesses need to be able to 
react rapidly to new challenges, to provide specialist knowledge or skills that are not available 
locally and/or to transfer know-how to their future managers. Developments in the 
organisation of work and allocation within bus inesses also necessitate increasing mobility. 
Companies outside the EU are fa ced with a lack of clear sp ecific schemes in most EU 
Member States, complex requirements, costs, de lays in granting visas or work permits and 
uncertainty about the rules and procedures. Furt her complications arise if the ICT needs to 
move from one Member State to another an d in addition there are differences between 
Member States in terms of conditions of admission and restrictions on family members.  
2.1. Scope of the problem  
2.1.1. Legal background 
                                                
 
6 See 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/c onsulting_public/economic_migration/news_c ontributions_economic_migration_en.htm  
 
EN 6   EN Some specific features account for the fact that ICTs are, partly or en tirely, covered by many 
specific regulations which differ from the ones regulating 'typical' immigrants. First, ICTs 
only cover a small number of skill ed employees of a corporation:  they are typically specialist 
and managers, possessing uncommon knowledge specific to the company, for whom no 
substitute could be found. Sec ond, the decision to post an ICT is  not the result  of a personal 
decision from the migrant but is purely de mand-driven and depends on business needs 
expressed by the enterprise of origin or des tination. Third, ICTs are st ill employees of their 
company of origin. They are carrying out their assignment for a defined period and are due to 
come back to their company of origin at the end of their assignment. Finally, ICTs are also 
closely linked to Trade: considered as a wa y of providing a service and hence fostering 
investments from corporations, they are included in Mode 47 of the World Trade 
Organization's General Agreement on Trade in  Services (GATS) annexed to the WTO 
Agreement.  
EU legal framework 
The transitional arrangements contained in the Acts of Accession of 16 April 2003 and 25 
April 2005 provide that Member States shall give preference to workers from the Member 
States subject to the transitional arrangeme nts over workers who are nationals of third 
countries as regards access to their labour market , to mitigate the fact that these transitional 
arrangements limit the freedom of workers from the Member States concerned to freely move 
to other EU Member States to work . This preferential treatment clause in the transitional 
arrangements is primary EU law and, as suc h, prevails over secondary EU legislation. 
However, the 2003 and 2005 Accession Treaties ar e of temporary importa nce as they will 
irrevocably come to an end in April 2011 and December 2013 at the very latest. 
The 2001 proposal on economic migration  referred to above under 1.1.1 contained some 
specific rules on admission of intra-corporate tr ansferees. Given that this proposal was 
withdrawn, the only existing EU level instrument that also addresses conditions for the 
admission of intra-corporate transferees is a 1994 Council resolution "on limitations on 
admission of third-country nationals on the territo ry of the Member States for employment"8, 
adopted under Article K.1 of the Treaty which se t out definition and princi ples with respect to 
the admission of third-country in tra-corporate transferees to the EU. It is worth noting that 
even at a time when restrictiv e policies prevailed9, intra-corpor ate transferees belonging to 
key personnel were allowed to en ter into EU as a departure from  the general rule set up by the 
resolution. 
Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996  
concerning the posting of workers in the fram ework of the provision of services is of 
relevance. This directive applies to undertak ings established in a Member State posting 
workers, in the framework of the transnational pr ovision of services, to an establishment or to 
an undertaking owned by the group in the territor y of a Member State, provided there is an 
employment relationship between the undertak ing making the posting and the worker during 
the period of posting (Ar ticle 1, point 3). This  directive stipulates that posted workers, 
whatever the law applic able to the employment relationshi p, should be guaranteed the terms 
and conditions of employment in a listed numbe r of areas applicable in the Member State 
                                                 
7  Mode 4 is defined in Article I.2 (d) of the GATS as: “the s upply of a service….by a service supplier of one member, through 
presence of natural persons of a member in the territory of another member”. 
8 OJ No C 274, p. 3-6.  
9 See in particular considerations under A (i) and (ii). 
 
EN 7   EN where they are posted. These are: maximum work periods and minimum rest periods, 
minimum paid annual holidays, minimum rate s of pay, including overtime rates, the 
conditions of hiring out of work ers, in particular the protect ion of workers hired out by 
temporary employment undertakings, health, safe ty and hygiene at work, protective measures 
with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of pregnant  women or women who 
have recently given birth and of children and young people and equality of treatment between men and women and other provi sions on non-discrimination.  
As Directive 96/71 applies to
 undertakings established in a Memb er State, it does not apply in 
principle to intra-corporate transfers whic h concern secondments from an undertaking 
established in a third country to  one or several EU companies.  Consequently, as far as no 
employment relationship happens to be create d between the ICT and the EU undertaking, the 
Directive 96/71 would not apply. 
In addition, except from this intra-EU mobilit y, Directive 96/71 has an impact on the design 
of the future instrument on ICTs, since according to its Article 1.4: " Undertakings established 
in a non-Member State must not be given mo re favourable treatment than undertakings 
established in a Member State ." As a result, with a view to preventing any competitive 
advantage for companies established in thir d countries transferring employees, the latter 
should grant to ICTs at least the level of rights provided in the Directive 96/71 in the areas 
concerned.  
Directive 2009/52/EC providing for minimum standards on sanctions against employers 
of illegally staying th ird-country nationals , adopted in May 2009, prohi bits the employment 
of illegally staying third-country nationals. "E mployment" is defined as the exercise of 
activities covering whatever fo rm of labour or work regul ated under national law or 
established practice for or under the direction and/or supervision of an employer. For the 
purposes of this Directive, an "employer" means any natural person or any legal entity, 
including temporary work agenci es, for or under the direction a nd/or supervision of whom the 
employment is undertaken. Acco rdingly, employers located bot h in the EU and in third 
countries are subject to the provi sions of the said Directive.  
The "Blue Card" Directive  covers the conditions of admi ssion of third country nationals 
holding higher professional quali fications and presenting a work  contract for highly qualified 
employment of at least one year. Moreover, it excludes people enteri ng a Member State under 
commitments made in an international agreemen t facilitating the entry and temporary stay of 
certain categories of trade- and investment-relate d natural persons. Intra-corporate transferees, 
who are temporarily seconded on the basis of a wo rk contract with a th ird country undertaking 
and encompass people entering a Member State under commitments such as those referred to 
above, are therefore excluded from this scope and are accordingly provided relevant specific 
provisions on these aspects. 
The proposal for a Framework Directive  (COM(2007)638) provides for the same exclusion 
as the Blue Card Directive as regards the people covered by trade agreements and also excludes third-country nationals who are poste d. Intra-corporate tran sferees are thus not 
included in the scope of this directive. 
International agreements 
The temporary presence of natural persons, otherwis e referred to as Mode 4, is one of the four 
possible forms of providing a service, as defi ned by the GATS. As regards ICTs falling under 
 
EN 8   EN the definition applying to the sub-categories of manage rs and specialists, the EU 
commitments under the GATS and bilateral Free trade Agreements (FTAs) commits the possibility to have recourse to intra-corporat e transferees in the se rvices and non-services 
sectors, as applicable, and in the context of provision of services, typically for a maximum of 
three years (for managers and sp ecialists) or one year (for gra duate trainees), provided they 
meet the requirements specified in the relevant  commitments, such as prior employment for 
one year. The sub-category of gr aduate trainees, which was introduced for the first time in the 
context of the Doha Development Agenda negotiations, will allow the natural persons belonging to this category to reside  in the EU for a period of 1 year. 
According to the EU schedule of specific commitments under the GATS
10, an ICT is a 
natural person who works within a legal pe rson other than a non-profit organization 
established in the territory of a WTO Member  and who has been employed by it for at least 
the year immediately preceding the date of admission. The natural person is temporarily 
transferred in the context of the provision of  a service through commercial presence in the 
territory of the EU Member State concerned. Th e transfer must be to a commercial presence 
of the aforementioned legal person, constituted in and effectively providing like services in the territory of the EU Member  State concerned. The natural person concerned must belong to 
one of the following categories: managers (persons working in a senior position)
11, specialists 
(who possess uncommon knowledge essential to the establishment's service, research 
equipment, techniques or management)12 or graduate trainees13 (persons with a university 
degree who are transferring for ca reer development purposes or to  obtain training in business 
techniques or methods). 
In addition to ICTs, three other categories of  natural persons are covered under mode 4, 
namely business visitors (who are seeking for temporary entry for the purpose of negotiating 
for the sale of services or are responsible fo r the setting up of a commercial presence and are 
allowed to stay for a maximum of 90 days), contract service suppliers (qualified workers 
engaged in the supply of a service on a temporary basis as employee of a juridical person 
which has no commercial presence in any Memb er State) or independ ent professionals (self-
employed people who have obtained a service co ntract for a period not exceeding 12 months). 
It is to be added that the commitments undert aken under the GATS do not cover conditions of 
entry, stay and work, as stated in the EU schedule.14  
In 2002 an EU-Chile Association Agreement15, in 2008 an Economic Partnership 
Agreement  (EPA) with the CARIFORUM countries16 and in 2010 bilateral Agreements with 
                                                 
10 See WTO Doc. S/L/286 and S/C/W/273 Suppl. 1 of 18 D ecember 2006 and TN/S/O/EEC/Rev.1 of 29 June 2005.  
11 "Who primarily direct the management of the establishment, rece iving general supervision or direction principally from the boar d 
of directors or stockholders of the busine ss or their equivalent, including: directing the establishment or a department or sub -
division of the establishment; supervising and controlling the work  of other supervisory, profe ssional or managerial employees;  
having the authority personally to hi re and fire or recommend hiring,  firing or other personnel actions".  
12 "Persons working within a juridical person who possess uncommon knowledge essential to the esta blishment's service, research 
equipment, techniques or management In  assessing such knowledge, account will be ta ken not only of knowledge specific to the 
establishment, but also of whether the pe rson has a high level of qualification referri ng to a type of work or trade requiring 
specific technical knowledge, including memb ership of an accredited profession".  
13 This category is not currently in cluded in the EU annex to the GATS Agreement but  is part of the revised offer submitted by the  
EU on 29 June 2005 within the framework of the Doha Develo pment Agenda negotiations in World Trade Organization (WTO 
Doc. TN/O/EEC/Rev.1 of 29 June 2005).  
14 See footnote 15 of the EC schedule: " All other requirements of  Community and Member States' laws and regulations regarding 
entry, stay, work and social security meas ures shall continue to apply, including re gulations concerning period of stay, minimu m 
wages as well as collective wage agreements. Commitments on move ment of persons do not apply in cases where the intent or 
effect of such movement is to interfere with or otherwise affect the outcome of any labour/management dispute or negotiation."  
 
EN 9   EN Colombia and Peru on the one hand, Central America on the other, were also concluded, 
including provisions on in tra-corporate transfers which are similar to those laid down in the 
GATS17. 
National legislation 
Following the investigation carried out on the ba sis of the responses provided by 24 Member 
States to the questionnaire Migrapol 20718, the main conclusions that  can be drawn from the 
Member States survey are as follows: 
- There is a general concor dance among Member State on ca tegories admitted as ICTs, 
generally identified as “ key personnel ” or “highly skilled personnel”, but admission criteria 
and work permit durations range widely across EU Member State, and in some cases the 
procedures for admission can be particularly long or difficult.  
- Many Member State grant equal treatment with EU nationals and right to family 
reunification but at the same time, conditions and limitations to such rights exist  and they 
are highly variable between Member States. Mo reover, the possibility for spouses to seek 
employment in the host country regardless of th e duration of the transf eree's stay is rarely 
granted19.  
2.1.2. Statistics and trends on intra-corporate transfers 
The analysis presented here has been cons iderably constrained by limitations in data 
availability and significant lack of comparab ility of migration statistics at EU and 
international level. Moreover, gi ven the very specific nature of the migrant category analyzed, 
there were particular barriers in  retrieving relevant literature.  
Several gaps in data coll ection should be highlighted: 
– At EU level, Eurostat does not provide data on migration flows into the Member States 
including ICTs, as Regulation 862/200720 does not currently provide for such a 
disaggregation of data. The Labour Force Survey  (LSF) provides all the available statistics 
on work force at EU level but does not cover foreigners residing for less than one year. 
– At national level, data is scarce due to the f act that ICTs do not typically receive specific 
residence permits and that according to their le ngth of stay they can enter a Member State 
only with a visa, thereby escaping from the figures . Moreover, even if data is available, the 
statistics are not readily comparable due to significant differences between Member States 
in the definitions, as demonstrated by the responses of EU Member States to the abovementioned questionnaire. In some Member  States, there is no concept of ICT as 
such; others use specific criteria (e.g. salary  threshold), preventing the comparability of 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
15 Entered into force on 1 February 2003.  
16 Including Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, The Domini can Republic, Grenada, , Guyana, Haiti, 
Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent a nd the Grenadines, Saint Christopher and Ne vis, Surinam and Trinidad and Tobago.  
17 However, it should be noted that the category of ICTs as de fined in this latter agreement includes the business visitors.  
18 See Annex 2 for a detailed analysis.  
19 IE allows ICTs's partner to seek employment without requiring a minimum duration of stay, as is the case e.g. for FR (6 months  
of continuous residence).  
20 OJ L 199 of 31 July 2007, p. 23.  
 
EN 10   EN data. Most of the time, ICTs are categorized either as high ly qualified migrants or as 
posted workers.  
As a result, despite in -depth research, only patchy data wa s found regarding numbers of third 
country ICTs in the EU, countries of origin of  foreign ICTs and number, size and sectors of 
EU enterprises/host organizat ions usually hosting ICTs.  
 
EN 11   EN Table 1 ICTs in selected Member States – Absolute numbers  
Country 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
 EU  
Austria21      169 140 
France22      1510 1960 
Germany23      5655 4429 
Italy - -  981 1,095   
Netherlands - - 2,784 3,012 2,632   
Poland24      398 459 
Slovakia    377 355   
Slovenia25 - -    1414 1433 
Spain      1709 1109 
 Non EU  
Canada * 3,800 4,200 4,500 7,400 8,200   
Japan* 3,400 3,600 4,200 5,600 7,200   
United States* 57,200 62,700 65,500 72,600 84,500   
Switzerland*   7,514 4,000 6,200   
 
Source: Statistics provided by Member State in their replies to  Migrapol 207 and ad-hoc query requested by the Commission on 17th March 
2010 
* Alternative source: International Migration Outlook 2008-2009 (SOPEMI – OECD) 
However, converging anecdotal evidence shows th e importance of intra- corporate transfers. 
According to statistics provided by Intern ational Migration Outlook SOPEMI (2008), based 
on selected OECD countries, intr a-corporate transfers (including intra-EU transfers) represent 
around 4% of temporary labour migrants (w orking holidays makers: 21%; trainees: 7%; 
seasonal workers: 23%; other temporary workers: 44%).26 Moreover, according to SOPEMI 
2009, from one fourth to one third of United Kingdom labour migrants are intra-corporate 
                                                 
21 Rotationsarbeitskräfte, Art. 58 Settlement a nd Residence Act. Main economic sectors:  Manufacturing (52); wholesale and retail 
trade; repair of motor vehicles and moto rcycles (44); professional, scientific a nd technical activities ( 18); transporting and storage 
(13); financial and insurance ac tivities (12). Countries of origin : India (19); China (17); US ( 15); Japan (12); Korea (11); Ru ssia 
(10); Bosnia (10).  
22 Residence permit 'employee on mi ssion' covering ICTs (either employees of a FR or a third-country company) earning more than 
1,5 time the minimal wage. Main countries of origin (2009): US  (685); India (545); Japan (380); Chinese (355); Canadian (320); 
Australia (80); Russia (75); Turkey (70); South Korea (70) . Main occupation: 'engineer senior officer' (1325 in 2009).  
23 International exchange of personnel accordi ng to par.31 no. A of the Ordinance on the admission of foreigners for the purpose o f 
taking up employment. Main countries of origin (2009): India (2195); US (560); China (472); Brazil (157); Mexico (153); Japan 
(150); Turkey (137).  
24 Workers posted by a third-country company. Countries of origin (2009): mainly Japan and China; South Korea; Ukraine; Turkey; 
India. 
25 Expatriate employees from third-countries. Countries of or igin (2009): Croatia (925); Bosnia and H. (366); Serbia (87).  
26 The report emphasises that ICTs are particularly difficult to count  since they may be considered as temporary- or permanent-ty pe 
migrants depending on the countries.  
 
EN 12   EN transferees. Looking at the numbers  of ICTs coming from Japan27, more than 4500 would be 
working in the EU in 2008. 
Considering the limits of the above figures in te rms of availability (giv en the reduced number 
of Member States and the short trends), reliability (given that  some countries’ data are taken 
from different sources) and comp arability (given that countries  may include different skills 
and categories of transferees within these data), it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw reliable conclusions from such data. Neverthele ss, a tentative analysis can be performed to 
give a rough picture of the dimension of this phenomenon in and out of the EU. In fact, these 
figures, however limited they may be, show a re levant presence of ICTs  in the Netherlands, 
Germany, Italy, France, Spain and Slovenia and, coupled with the trends at the global level, 
tend to confirm the longstanding relevance of ICTs movements in the developed countries. 
However, proceeding in a one-to-one compar ison between EU and non- EU countries, it 
appears that the level of  ICTs in individual EU Member State is much lower than that in non-
EU countries such as Canada, Japan and Unite d States which tend to attract such kind of 
movements.  
A growing need for intra-co rporate transfers into EU 
In recent years, needs for intra-corporate transf ers across national border s have increased as a 
result of the globalisation of business and sk ill shortages with respect to highly skilled. 
Increases in trade flows, in particular on tr ade related services, computer and information 
services and the business service activities
28 (see Table 1 in Annex 1) , the growth and spread 
of multinationals29, the ongoing re-structuri ng and consolidation of many business sectors 
have prompted growing movements of manageri al and technical employees of branches and 
subsidiaries of multinational corporations, temporarily relocated for short assignments to 
other units of the company30.  
In today’s global economy, pr oduction will increasingly be organised along global supply 
chains. They have become an important factor in ensuring competitiveness on domestic as well as global markets. Around two thirds of the EU’s imports are inputs to other products. As 
a result, open trade helps embed local companies in global production chains, makes 
them more competitive and creates more jobs . Trade and investment flows are 
complementary, create jobs and pr omote transfer of technology. 
According to World Bank and OECD, intra-cor porate transfers make up 42% of the mode 4 
trade in services which itself represents 2% of the overall tr ade related services.
31 
                                                 
27 Extract from the report 'Comprehensive data of companies overseas 2009' based on a questi onnaire completed by Japanese 
companies, Mission of Japan to the European Union, July 2009.  
28 In this connection, Nasscom's contribution is particularly relevant since it highli ghts this linkage between trade and intra-
corporate transfers. Nasscom is a global trade body with over 1200 members focusing on software products and services 
headquartered in India. As a backdrop, it recalls that in 2007, EU services exports  to India amounted to 6.6 billion and EU 
services imports from India in cluded 5.5 billion. Approxi mately 30% of Nasscom business in 2007 was related to Europe, an 
increase of 55% in comparison to 2004. Further substantial growth  is expected in 2009, despite global uncertainties, with an 
expected growth in Europe by 13%. Nasscom observes that as a result of the intensifying trad e relations between the EU and 
India, Europe has become a particular destination for intra-cor porate transferees from India especially in the technology secto r. 
29 See Annex 1.  
30 M. Abella, Policies and Best Practic es for Management of Temporary Mi gration, UN/POP/MIG/SYMP/2006/03, 2006.  
31 Cité par A. Math (IRES) et Alexis Spire (CNRS, CERAPS-Lille), vers une immigration permanente de travailleurs temporaires, 
juin 2004.  
 
EN 13   EN Europe is the largest FDI mark et and the leading re gion and it should be stressed that high-
growth economies (Brazil, Russia, India and Ch ina) are increasingly active in the global FDI 
market32.  
Available data for selected EU Member States shows a growing number of foreign 
controlled enterprises  in recent years33 Data reveal that the num ber of foreign controlled 
enterprises (whose ownership is extra-EU 25 ) appeared to be witne ssing an upward trend in 
the business economy since 199634. In fact, while most Member States report growing trends 
with different percentages over the years 2003-2005, Member States like NL (50.5%), ES 
(43,5%) and especially PT (272.3%) witnessed a considerable increa se of extra-EU 25-
controlled enterprises. Only a few Member States (i.e. BG, CZ35) reported decreasing trends. 
In 2005, foreign affiliates whose ultimate contro l resided in extra-EU countries generated 
approximately 6.5% of the total va lue added by enterprises in Europe36. Compared to the total 
number of foreign controlled en terprises throughout the EU (E U and extra-EU enterprises), 
extra-EU controlled enterprises constituted ar ound 36% of the value a dded by the total of EU 
and extra-EU foreign-controlled enterprises37. NL seems to host the highest share of extra-EU 
foreign affiliates compared to intra-EU foreign affiliates, followed by LT, CY and FR. 
According to available da ta, only six Member States38 report the presence of extra-EU foreign 
affiliates whose percentage is below 25%.  
OECD data also highlights the importance and the growth of the main extra-EU foreign 
affiliates, in particular in the manufacturing sector39. Their annual average increase between 
1998 and 2004 has nearly always been posit ive, especially for DK, DE and SE40.  
2.1.3. The relevance of ICTs for EU competitiveness 
ICTs are typically  needed as  qualified workers  whom the EU economy  crucially needs. 
Indeed transfers usually concer n senior executives needed to  supplement resources in a 
context of skills shortages, to establish operations in emerging markets and to create a highly mobile senior management sta ff able to reproduce culture in diverse locations. A qualitative 
survey carried out in 2008 by Ernst and Young/OECD
41 on the opinions of employers 
                                                 
32 An open world, Ernst and Young's 2008 European attractiveness survey.  
33 According to EUROSTAT data, foreign control means “the contro lling institutional unit is resident in a different country from the 
one where the institutional unit on which it has control is reside nt”. An enterprise is deemed to be controlled by another 
institutional unit that controls, whether dir ectly or indirectly, more than half of the shareholders’ voting power or more than  half 
of the shares. It has to be added that th e number of foreign-controlled companies cannot  be an true "proxy" of ICT's immigratio n, 
since on one side, ICTs’ movements may occur from the main pl ace of business to a subsidiary and vice versa (underestimation of  
the inflows of ICTs); on the other hand, ICTs only refer to  some categories of workers (e.g. managers, key personnel) 
(overestimation of ICTs movements).  
34 See tables 7 and 8 in Statistical Appendi x (Data on foreign-controlled enterprises (inw ard FATS) collected by Eurostat for the  
period 1996-2002).  
35 However, in the previous years (2003-2004), foreign-cont rolled enterprises had visibly increased in CZ (67.8%).  
36 M. Grell, Foreign-controlled enterprises in the EU, Eurostat Statistics in Focus, 30/2008.  
37 Data for 2005 show that EU and extra-EU foreign-controlled en terprises contributed to around 18.1% of the total value added in  
the EU business economy.  
38 PT, CZ, SK, BG, EE, RO.  
39 See Annex 1.  
40 Slightly negative trends, however, have  been witnessed in IE, PL and PT.  
41 DELSA/ELSA/MI(2008)2.  
 
EN 14   EN regarding highly qualified workforce shows that  the needs for highly qualified workers are 
met equally by overseas recruitments and intra-corporate transfers.42 
Human capital is the key to sustaining growth  and securing lasting economic success, as 
talent is becoming the competitive differentiator. A skilled workforce benefits the economy as a whole as it makes it easier for enterprises to adopt new technologies , innovate in products 
and services, processes or work organisation. The combination of glob alisation, increased 
competition, information and communication t echnologies and organisational change will 
also lead to less routine manufacturing and offi ce jobs. As the 'skill inte nsity' of jobs will 
continue to increase, in line with increased consumers expectations, the global competition for 
talent will grow in the future . In that respect, it is wort h noting that Indian and Chinese 
companies are now reporting a la ck of high level skills. Futu re demographic trends add 
further pressure to tackle this challenge. Fewer and fewer young people will graduate from 
schools and universities and the working age population will start to decline from 2013 
onwards. Therefore, EU will need to open up to  global talent. In that context, proactive 
immigration policies 'reaching out' to talents and skills will need to be another component of a 
long-term solution to the threat of labour shortages in Europe.
43 
However, ICTs are not only qualified workers. One of their main characteristics is that they 
meet a demand in situa tions where there are no alternatives : they fill the posts that would 
otherwise be left vacant, since no substitute could be found to occupy a post requiring such a specific knowledge. ICTs bring with them a methodology and particular  skills set which are 
specific to the company's business needs and cu lture. Since the cost of an ICT is usually 
higher to the cost of a local employee, as a result from assignment allowances (per diem, 
accommodation costs, cultural and language trai ning, education fees for the ICTs' children, 
etc.), the ICT would not be brought in if th e skills were readily available locally. It 
follows that business only resort to transfer th e foreign resource if there is a strong business 
case, in the form of needed sk ills, to justify the expenses. 
In contrast with EU Blue Card holders,  ICTs are  also temporary workers . Intra-corporate 
transfers thus meet specific sh ort-term needs . Given that intra-corporate transferees carry 
out time-limited assignments usually followe d by a return to the country where their 
permanent employer is based
44 and that according to available data, they are more likely to 
come from developed countries than from developing countries45, brain drain does not appear 
to be an issue. Even though some  of the ICTs originated in the latter countries, the temporary 
nature of this kind of migration would indeed ra ther result in fostering the transfer of skills 
and knowledge to these countries.  
Since the secondment of ICTs goes along with a st rategy of expansion and investments of 
non-EU companies, they have also the capacity to attract investments . 
Therefore, the transfer of qualified employees to  the EU has the potential to bring skills and 
reinforce centres of excellence in the EU. It  increases investment  flows, strengthens 
                                                 
42 For a in-depth an alysis of the EU state of play as regards highly skille d employment, we refer to the impact assessment carrie d out 
in the framework of the proposal for a Blue Card Directive (Sec (2007)1382).  
43 Excerpts from  New Sills for New Jobs: Action Now. Re port by the Expert Group. February 2010.  
44 See extract from the report 'Comprehensive data of companies overseas 2009' based on a questionnaire completed by Japanese 
companies, Mission of Japan to the European Union, July 2009: the rate of return to Japan after the end of services in EU is 
evaluated at 94%.  
45 See Table 1 ICTs in selected Member States and footnotes.  
 
EN 15   EN management effectiveness, expands EU exports, enhance the competitiveness of EU entities 
in overseas markets46. Such a contribution is even more re levant in time of economic crisis. 
Examples of occurrences of intra-corporate transfers 
-a multinational IT-company with la rge development operations outside the EU has developed a new software 
programme. Due to great demand for this programme in the EU, the company decides to temporarily assign one 
of its workers to one of its affiliate branches in Europe  to introduce the software and train EU employees on this 
system (transfer of know how)  
-newly-recruited staff with management potential are assigned to different branch of the group of undertakings 
in order to gain the same level of experience and knowledge as their counte rparts within the group 
2.2. What is the problem that may require action? 
Obstacles to intra-corporate transfers to Europe: the growing ne eds of EU business 
regarding this kind of mobility  are not satisfactorily met 
As reported by literature and dem onstrated by the cons ultation of relevant stakeholders, some 
factors currently limit the possibility of internationa l firms to rely on mobility of ICTs.  
Many multinationals wishing to transfer thei r personnel claimed some rigidities and 
limitations, including: 
– lack of clear specific schemes  in some EU Member States, although migrants covered by 
the international trade commitments benefit from a specific legal framework; 
– complexity of visa or work permit requirements and uncertainty of the rule ; the 
labour market test constitutes one sign ificant hindrance in  that respect;  
– wide differentiation between EU Member States  with respect to c onditions of admission 
and supporting documents;  
– rigidities and costs in transferring fo reign ICTs from one European corporate 
headquarter to another  (absence of intra-EU mobility): progress in EU integration and 
globalisation has boosted the number of ICTs  who move across Member States, resulting 
in a growing need for intra-EU  mobility. Indeed, intra-EU mobility is considered very 
relevant to stakeholders and a majority of Member States. According to some rough 
estimates, the share of ICTs having recourse to intra-EU  mobility amounts to about 10-
25% of the total number of ICTs. Intra-EU mob ility can take two different forms: firstly, 
during the foreseen duration of the assignment,  the third country national transferred into 
the EU Member States' territory may be assign ed to different entities located in different 
Member States, for example on a part-time basi s or to take part in  different projects 
(development of work in "pro ject mode"); this may be th e case for both managers and 
specialists; secondly, at the e nd of the first assignment, the ICT could be called on in a 
second entity located in another Member State. In particular, rotations across multiple countries within the EU are often organised in the framework of a training programme for 
high level new employees. Part of this intra-EU mobility is already covered by Directive 96/71 and the relevant case-law relating to free dom of provision of services. However, this 
                                                
 
46 International Mobility of the Highly Skilled,  OECD Policy Brief, July 2002. GATS Mode  4 also points to a relation between FDI 
and ICT.  
 
EN 16   EN mobility only concerns posting by EU companie s and does not include posting from third-
country companies. 
As regards costs, they include costs with respect to becoming familiar with diverse national 
regulations, obtaining, translating, transmitting the documents and managing this process. 
These procedures are often dealt with by severa l consultants in each individual Member State. 
Other costs such as travel, accommodation, traini ng, coordination, are to be added if several 
ICTs have to be transferred as opposed to one ICT being transferre d. Indirect costs cover 
possible delay in implementing the project. 
– delays  in completing permit procedures needed to  transfer employees in an efficient and 
timely manner, though fast access to internati onal teams and expertise is essential for 
companies to remain competitive and being ab le to respond to changing customer needs47; 
the time required by Member Stat es to process applic ations vary greatly from a few days or 
weeks to several months (up to 6 months), 3 months being apparent ly an average time 
according to Member States' responses;  
– uncertainty regarding the time need ed to process an application; 
– work permits with too limited a duration  and consequent burdensome renewal 
procedures; 
– difficulty to obtain family reunification  and impossibility for the partner to have access 
to the labour market, although concerns about partner's employment are one of the main 
reasons why staff turn down international assignments48; 
– lack of transferability of pensions schemes. 
Evidence actually exists of the difficulties f aced in order to obtain a permit for ICTs. An 
example is the case of a Japanese manager wh o waited 12 months to be transferred to a 
branch of his multinational company located in Italy. Moreover, after 12 months, he still had 
not received the definitive documents (i.e. the work permit) but only a temporary documentation, with additional problems relate d to family reunification and access of his 
children to the Italian educational system
49. 
The complexity and length of the pro cedures for obtaining the permits could discourage , or at 
least influence, the inflows of ICTs in the EU Member States , with a loss of the potential 
benefit that they could bring  (innovation, competition, expansion of activities, facilitation of 
ICTs from EU/reinforcement of EU position in its relationship w ith international partners, and 
ultimately creation of wealth and growth). It s hould indeed be kept in mind that these highly 
skilled workers are increasingly exercising more choice when it comes to pursuing 
employment that meets their expectations. In that connection, more than 40% of the 
companies surveyed by EY/OECD in 2008 indicated  that administrative burden has directly 
affected the implementation of some projects. 
                                                 
47 According to the qualitative surv ey carried out in 2008 by Erns t and Young/OECD, 80% of compan ies surveyed view that point 
as a main obstacle.  
48 See Work Permit's reply to questionnaire Migrapol 207.  
49 Source: Sole-24 Ore, 11 of March 2007, n. 69.  
 
EN 17   EN In addition, the ease in which companies can move  their key personnel around plays an  
important role in determining whether to set up business in a particular country -and, by 
extension, in a definite area such as Europe. According to a survey undertaken in 2007 on the 
attractiveness of Europe to fore ign investors, almost 70% of th e businesses which participated 
affirmed that the treatment of expatriate executives is an important criterion for selecting an investment location and required greater flexibility and simple r administrative procedures 
within Europe
50. In the same line, additional key areas of reforms cited to encourage business 
investment in the already mentioned Erns t and Young Attractiveness Survey include 
simplification of the regulatory environment on a European level. Knowing that a new FDI 
project in Europe creates in average 87 jobs51, the design of attrac tive rules regarding 
expatriate executives may translate into la rge benefits for the EU labour markets. 
In addition, these rigidities hamper the e ffective implementation of GATS commitments. 
They also result in limiting the ability of compan ies to exploit their inte rnal human resources. 
The need for EU action has been  particularly stressed by some stakeholders  such as Business 
Europe, AmCham EU (companies of Amer ican parentage), Pendo Group (business and 
technology consulting and outsour cing firms), Indian companies represented by Nasscom and 
the Japanese Government. 
Guaranteeing fair competition 
At the same time,  intra-corporate transfers raise the question of possible unfair competition. 
Trade Unions are typically concerned that mode  4 will lead to more EU unemployment, a 
dismantling of the EU's social model and downw ard pressure on wages. In the framework of 
the consultation for the purposes of a proposal on  ICTs, the ETUC stated the view that "the 
directive must be drafted in such  a way that it cannot be used to avoid the protection of wages 
and working conditions (…) and EU law regardin g equal treatment and non-discrimination in 
the workplace (…). Such a directive can be we lcome if its scope only covers executives, 
managers or specialized workforce (…). A Europ ean directive must ensure that ICTs are not 
used for social dumping (…)".  
Since ICTs can be posted from companies locate d in third countries with possible low social 
standards, there is indeed a danger that forei gn companies might pay the minimum salary of a 
low-income country while having the ICT depl oyed in a high-income country, which would 
undercut the national workforce and create an uneven playing field for business. 
The risks of social dumping are to be linked to a series of factors, some of them depending on 
the country of origin (low labour  costs), integral to the tempor ary nature of this category of 
migration (difficulties to inspect the working conditions for labour inspections due to the short period of work) or relating to internatio nal agreements in the area of social security 
(allowing the third country national to remain subject to the home country social security 
regime and resulting in varying levels  of social insura nce contributions). 
This concern is based on anecdotal evidence fr om Trade Unions and mainly fuelled by the 
experience drawn from the EU posting of workers legislation. However, as ICTs are typically 
qualified and well-paid workers, exploitation is usually not a c oncern for social partners.  
                                                
 
50 Wanted: A renewable Europe, European Attractiveness Survey 2007, Ernst & Young.  
51 An open world, Ernst and Young's 2008 European attractiveness survey.  
 
EN 18   EN Possible evolution of the probl em all things being equal 
According to convergent sources, the need for  highly qualified resources  will increase in 
the future. As shown in a medium-term forecast carried out by CEDEFOP52, a shift towards 
services and knowledge-intensive jobs is unde rway and accompanied by a continuing growth 
in demand for many high-skilled non-manual jobs such as management, professional work or 
technical support of those activities. 53 In EU25, between 2006 a nd 2020, the proportion of 
jobs requiring high levels of education atta inment should rise from 25.1% to 31.3%. In 
addition, up to 2020, in EU25 17.7 million additiona l jobs could be created in high-skilled 
non-manual occupations. The 2008 Ernst and Young/OECD survey54 also points out that 70% 
of companies surveyed anticipate an increa se in the hiring of highly skilled workers55 in the 3-
5 next years and more than 80% plan to recru it highly qualified immigrants to meet their 
needs. These projections may be impacted by  the economic turndown; however, the growing 
demand for a more qualified workforce will rema in, as well as the fact that according to 
converging studies, companies rely heavily on their internal labour markets  for skills.  
Another factor that will have a crucial influence in the evol ution of the problem: employers 
are increasingly relying on temporary workers56. 
In absence of any common regulation, companies face difficulties to allo cate at best their 
personnel and to bring in highly- qualified workers from an extr a-EU subsidiary: attractiveness 
of EU for foreign investments and EU compe titiveness are therefore affected. At the same 
time, in the absence of common rules regard ing the working conditions, intra-corporate 
transferees could undercut nationals and EU citizens and bring abou t unfair competition. 
Absence of a clear legal framework and wide differentiations between national regulations 
can also affect the efficient functioning of th e EU internal market: ICTs may be officially 
transferred to Member States where the regul ations are the most attractive in terms of 
administrative procedure or family  rights, then temporarily transferred to other Member States 
without any work permit, taking advantage of the freedom of movement across the Schengen 
area. 
2.3. EU right to act and subsidiarity 
2.3.1. EU right to act  
The legal basis for EU action in the area is es tablished in Article 79 (2) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning the European Union. This Article st ates that "the Union shall develop a common 
immigration policy aimed at ensuring, at all st ages, the efficient management of migration 
flows, fair treatment of thir d-country nationals re siding legally in Member States, and the 
prevention of, and enhanced measures to comb at, illegal immigrati on and trafficking in 
human beings. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, 
acting in accordance with the ordinary legisl ative procedure, shall adopt measures in the 
following areas: (a) the conditions of entry an d residence, and sta ndards on the issue by 
Member States of long-term visas and residenc e permits; (b) the definition of the rights of 
                                                 
52 CEDEFOP: Future skill needs in Europe – Medium-term forecast, Synthesis report, 2008.  
53 Communication from the Commission "New skills for new jo bs. Anticipating and matching labour market and skills 
needs"COM(2008)868 final.  
54 See footnote 41.  
55 Among these workers, a significant number of companies anticipate an increase in the hiring of immigrants from China and India.  
56 SOPEMI 2008, OECD.  
 
EN 19   EN third-country nationals residing legally in a Member State, including the conditions governing 
freedom of movement and of resi dence in other Member States". 
The main purpose of EU action is to design an admission instrument for ICTs, thus, to define 
conditions of entry and rights a ccording to Art 79 of the Treaty. The previous Article 63 TCE 
did not mention explicitly the definition of rights but the conditions  of residence were 
considered to include the working conditions, wh ich were regulated as ancillary matters to 
entry and residence. The same approach had been already adopted for existing migration 
acquis, such as Directives 2003/109 (long-term  residents) and 2005/71 (researchers), or the 
"EU Blue Card" Directive.  
2.3.2. Principles of subsidiarity and proportionality 
It must be noted that the problems fall unde r a competence shared by the Union and the 
Member States. The principle of subsidiarity th erefore applies, requiri ng that the Union does 
not take action unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. 
The reasons for a common intervention at EU  level derive from the following issues:  
Facilitating intra-EU mobility : rigidities in transferring fo reign ICTs from a European 
corporate headquarter to another are important  for multinational companies. The removal of 
these rigidities can only be achieved through action at the EU level, by facilitating intra-EU 
mobility, which requires a common system to admit these workers.  
Enhancing the attractiveness of the EU as a whole : the way ICTs are treat ed, as well as the 
conditions and procedures regulating these movements influence the extent to which 
multinational companies decide to do business or invest in a certain area. Therefore, action at 
the EU level would contribute to  enhance the attractiveness of the EU as a whole for foreign 
investments and send a clear message to third country national ICTs.  
There is a need to provide for common conditions  of admission for ICTs (principle of equal 
treatment ) in order to ensure a fair competition  and prevent risks of unfair competition 
posed by companies who would employ ICTs under sub-standard conditions. 
Fulfillment of EU international commi tments in the context of the WTO:  the high 
differentiation between Member States in terms of entry procedures a nd temporary residency 
rights may hamper the uniform application of the international commitments which EU and 
its Member States has undertaken in the fram ework of the WTO negotia tions (with particular 
reference to GATS Mode 4).  
In this concern, it is worth noting that the conditions under which ICTs can perform their 
economic activity fall under the Common Commercial Policy (which  is an area of exclusive 
EU responsibility), whereas entry and (tem porary) residence conditions fall under the 
immigration policy (an area of shared compet ence between Member States and the Union). 
From this perspective, action at EU level (rat her than at Member State level) on entry and 
residence conditions of ICTs would better ensure full consistency and complementarity 
between immigration policy and Common Commercial Policy .  
2.3.3. EU added value 
Added value lies in the following aspects in particular: 
 
EN 20   EN – ICTs and multinational companies would be nefit from a common, transparent and 
attractive European framework for key personn el, reinforcing the EU knowledge economy 
and fostering investments; 
– A common legal framework laying down co mmon conditions of admission for ICTs 
contribute to ensuring fair competition.  
3. SETTING OBJECTIVES 
3.1. Main objective 
The global objective is to support economic development of EU businesses by better 
responding to their needs for intra-corporate tr ansfers of skills, wh ile guaranteeing fair 
competition. 
This objective is consistent with the EU 2020 strategy which sets the EU the objective of 
becoming an economy based on knowledge and innovation, reducing administrative burden 
on companies and better matching labour supply with demand.  
3.2. Specific Objectives 
The specific objectives, i.e. the immediate objec tives of a possible EU intervention, are the 
following:  
1. To provide for a transparent legal framew ork including a set of common conditions of 
admission for third country national ICTs entering into EU.  
2. To create more attractive conditions of st ay for third country national ICTs and their 
families. 
3. To facilitate (intra-EU) mobility of third country national ICTs  
4. To guarantee fair competition, including a secu re legal status for third country national 
ICTs. 
5. To facilitate the fulfillment of EU internat ional commitments in the context of the GATS. 
4. Developing policy options 
Identification of the list of policy options: 
Option 1: Status quo  
Current developments in Member States would continue within the existing legal framework. 
However, this would mean that the EU as a wh ole would not be attracti ve for enterprises and 
companies, which would still face difficulties in  making best use of their staff, although the 
need for highly qualified resources would be increasing.  
Option 2) Directive dealing with the c onditions of entry and residence of ICTs  
The EU would provide a common definition of an intra-corporate originating from an 
undertaking established outside the territory of a Member State.  
 
EN 21   EN Sub-option 2A: The schedules annexed to the GATS57 would be used to provide a definition 
of an inter-corporate transfer. In order to ensure  that immigration policy is in line with trade 
policy and to make use of already known concepts , the definitions included in the schedules 
could therefore used as a basis, which w ould be adapted when needed. However, the 
schedules cannot be taken up as such, since they do not provide a homogeneous set of 
conditions for the 27 Member States: commitmen ts may vary from one Member State to 
another, including on the specifications of the service sect ors covered. Fina lly, by definition, 
they only concern the sector of services (the tran sfer must be to a commercial presence of the 
legal person providing like services ), whereas an intra-corporate transfer can also take place 
outside the sector of se rvice. As a result, the scope of the intra-corporate transferees as 
defined by the Trade agreements could be slightly  different from that of the future scheme. 
Nevertheless, Member States would not be ex empted from respecting their commitments as 
regards the categories of ICTs who would not be covered by the scheme. 
Accordingly, the definitions target managers, sp ecialists and graduate tr ainee, defined in the 
schedules annexed to the GATS as follows: ‘man ager’ means any person working in a senior 
position, who primarily directs the manageme nt of the host entity, receiving general 
supervision or direction principa lly from the board of directors or shareholders of the business 
or equivalent; ‘specialist’ means any person possessing uncommon knowledge essential and 
specific to the host entity; ‘graduate traine e’ means any person with a higher education 
qualification who is transferring for career deve lopment purposes or to obtain training in 
business techniques or methods. As regard th is latter category, flowing from the Doha 
negotiations, it was considered more consistent to include them into the attractive scheme 
dedicated to ICTs rather than the future propos al for a Directive on remunerated trainees, as 
training is one of the most common objectives of the intra-corporate transfers mentioned by 
stakeholders. 
Sub-option 2B : Instead of being defined along their types of respons ibility in the company, 
key personnel would be indentif ied through salary and qualificati ons criteria, as in the Blue 
Card Directive. This option would thus consis t of amending that Directive by including intra-
corporate transferees in its scope. Specific prov isions could be provide d, where relevant, for 
example as regards the requirement of a work contract with a EU company (irrelevant for 
ICTs), duration of stay (whe reas the schedules under the GA TS foresee that the maximum 
duration of stay is as a rule limited to 3 years for managers and specialists, the Blue Card 
scheme lays down provisions aiming at facil itating the issuing of the long-term residence 
permit (Art 17, 13, 14, 15), labour market test (typically excluded by EU commitments under 
GATS), mobility between the entities of the tran snational corporation (not provided for Blue 
Card holders). 
Criteria of entry  (i.e. admission criteria) would be laid down in accordance with the definition 
chosen.  
Evidence must be provided that the transfer i ndeed took place within a group of undertakings: 
institutional links between host entity and entity of origin must therefore be proved.  
As the system is demand-driven, a document desc ribing the tasks assigned  would have to be 
produced. This supporting do cument would also specify  the remuneration (salary 
arrangements and other related remuneration elements) which must be, whether it is an 
                                                 
57 See WTO Doc. S/L/286 and S/C/W/273 Suppl. 1 of 18 D ecember 2006 and TN/S/O/EEC/Rev.1 of 29 June 2005.  
 
EN 22   EN intrinsic element of the definition or not, at le ast equivalent to that granted to EU posted 
workers (see above on rights).  
With a view to ensuring that the skills of the intra-corporate transferee are specific to the host 
entity and in accordance with EU commitments in the trade area, a pe riod of 12 months of 
prior employment within the sing le legal person could be required58.  
In addition, a third-country national who applies to be admitted as graduate trainee would 
have to present documents proving that he will be doing genuine training and not be used as 
regular worker. Therefore, a training agreemen t including a descrip tion of the training 
programme, its duration and the conditions in whic h he/she is supervised in the performance 
of this programme would be required. The trainee would also have to present documents 
showing his/her the higher e ducation qualification, in line with the requirements provided 
under EU commitments in the trade area.  
No labour market test would be necessary: indeed, the late st EU commitments under GATS 
exclude any labour market test ('economic needs test') and an alignment of these conditions 
should be sought for the sake of consistency between Trade and Immigration policies. In 
addition, such a test would be in contradicti on with the purpose of setting up a transparent and 
simplified scheme for admission of skilled intr a-corporate transferees . ICTs, who belong to 
the internal human resources of the comp any in question, hold very specific positions 
(managers, specialists or graduate trainees) for a temporary duration and on the basis of an 
employment contract concluded with a third country employer: due to these particular 
features, ICTs are usually not considered as lik ely to adversely affect national labour markets. 
However, primary law prevails and for Member States which happen to apply a transitional period to nationals of "new" Member States , Union preference – and consequently labour 
market test- must be applied. 
In line with commitments under GATS, the maximum duration of stay  would be limited to 3 
years for managers and specialists and 1 year fo r graduate trainees. At the end of this period, 
the ICT should have to leave the EU territory, unless he/she is authori zed to change status. 
Criteria of residence and  the rights  to be granted to ICTs: work ing conditions of ICTs would 
be aligned to those laid down by Directive 96 /71/EC on posted workers. As regards other 
categories of rights, different options could be envisaged: 
Sub-option 2C:  in line with EU acquis in  the immigration field (e .g.: Blue Card) and ongoing 
proposals (e.g.: framework direct ive), ICTs would be granted equal treatment with national 
workers of the Member State concerned in a larg e range of rights, in particular representation 
(i.e. right to association and affiliation of workers organizati ons), access to goods and services 
and recognition of diplomas. In order to ensure  consistency with othe r EU instruments (in 
particular the Blue Card Directive) and to avoid putting into question the possible favourable 
status of ICTs, tax benefits would not be not included .  
Sub-option 2D:  the proposal would merely refer to  the provisions of Directive 96/71
59 
regarding working conditions. No other rights would be provided. As a result, ICTs would not 
benefit from the principle of equal treatment in a number of areas such as: recognition of 
                                                 
58 Most Member States are in favour of such a condition, but some of  them would like to shorten or remove this period (ex: NL, SE,  
IT). As regards business organisations, they oppose this criterion. 
59 See 2.1.1. 
 
EN 23   EN diplomas, certificates and other professional qu alifications; and access to goods and services 
and the supply of goods and services  made available to the public. 
These provisions would be without prejudice to  bilateral agreements concluded by Member 
States in this area.  
Option 3) Directive providing fo r intra-EU mobility for ICTs  
In addition to definitions, conditions and admission and rights, provisions would be 
introduced to allow the ICTs to move within the EU , in order to work in several 
establishments belonging to the same group of undertakings and locate d in different Member 
States. The situation where an ICT is posted by the first EU company to another company 
located in another Member State are not covere d by this scheme, as they fall under the posted 
workers Directive.  
This option is supported by a ma jority of Member States (exceptions: DE, EE, SK, CY) and 
deemed highly relevant by all stakeholders. 
A TCN who has been admitted as an ICT and fu lfils the criteria for admission to the second 
Member State could be allowed to carry out part of his/her assignment, upon request, in an 
entity of the same group located in the second  Member State, without having to request a 
second residence permit, provided that the duration of the secondment did not exceed a 
maximum period of time to be determined (e.g. 12 months). 
A document accompanying the first residence perm it issued by the first Member State would 
list the entities of the group of  undertakings in which the ICT was authorized to work. As a 
flanking measure, the second Member State coul d be informed of the conditions of this 
mobility: the applicant would notify to the compet ent authority of the other Member State the 
relevant documents relating to his/her transfer to  that Member State at least 30 days before the 
transfer and would also provide evidence of this  notification to the first Member State. The 
second Member State would thus  have the opportunity to check that the conditions of 
admission specific to the job performed in its terri tory and to the host entity (such as: part of a 
group of undertakings, level of salary and positi on held) are met. When they are not, the list 
of entities where the ICT is allowed to work would not be enlarged and the ICT would thus 
not be authorized to work in those locations. 
The second Member State could require a residence permit if the duration of work exceeds 
three months but could not require the intra-cor porate transferee to leave its territory in order 
to submit applications. 
Option 4) Directive facilitating family reunification and access to work for spouses  
This option would provide common definitions  and conditions of admission. In addition, by 
way of derogation from Directive 2003/86/EC, family reunification would not be made 
dependent on the requirement of obtaining the right of permanent residence and of the ICT 
having a minimum period of residence. 
Residence permits for family members could also  be granted more rapidly (e.g. 2 months).  
In respect of access to the labour market, Member  States could be prevented from applying 
the time limit of 12 months and spouses would thus have access to work in their country of residence. These provisions would be identical to the ones provided to Blue Card Holders. 
 
EN 24   EN Member States mainly agree with this facil itation but usually link the access to the labour 
market to a minimum duration of stay in the EU , in general 6 months (SE, IT and FR). Some 
other Member States are against the creation of  a specific right in this matter (ex: DE, AT, 
CY, PL and RO).  
Option 5) Directive laying down common admission procedures   
Elements of option 2 remain (definition; conditions of admission). In addition, the 
introduction of a single permit for work and residence is proposed: it means that a single 
document allowing to work and reside on the te rritory of the Member State would be issued60, 
which would imply also a one-stop shop proce dure for obtaining the permit. Member State 
mainly agree on this point (except for NL, SK and AT). 
In parallel , a maximum time for processing applications  would be set for the single permit, 
e.g. 1 month: one of the major aims is indeed to facilitate the mobility of  this specific category 
of migrants; moreover, the labour market test  would not be applicable and the procedure 
would be then simplified.  
Member States are generally in  favour of a longer handling-time61. 
Options 2, 3, 4, 5 may be added, whereas the follo wing option is alterna tive to the previous 
ones: 
Option 6) To foster communication, coordina tion, and cooperation among Member States on 
these issues, including through th e open method of coordination  
No new legislation would be introduced but  the Commission would focus its attention on 
complementary and supporting activities. The aim is to bring the legislative practices of 
Member States closer into line through th e gathering and exchange of knowledge and 
information –including best practices–, perf orming comparative analyses, giving advice, 
promoting innovative approaches and best practice, and evaluating experiences.  
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Options 
The assessments of policy options  are presented in the tables below. Brief summaries of the 
policy options are provided above the relevant assessment grid. At the end of each grid, the 
opinions of the consulted stakeholders  on the policy options are reported. 
Each policy option has been assessed according to a ranking, which considers the positive ( √) 
and negative (-) impacts, as well as neutral ones (0), for each of the assessment criteria 
considered.  
Regarding the impact on fundamental rights, it s hould be made clear that  the Charter applies 
to every person irrespective of nationality or re sidence (Article 51). All the options considered 
                                                 
60 These provisions could build on Regulati on 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format fo r residence permits for third-country 
nationals.  
61 According to Migrapol 207, current situation in this area is following: BE: 4-6 weeks; BG, HU, IT, NL, ES: 1-3 months; AT: 6 
months as a rule.  
 
EN 25   EN within this Impact Assessment comply with a ll the rights included in the Charter. However, 
depending on the option chosen, these ri ghts will be more or less enhanced. 
 
EN 26   EN Policy Option 1 – Status quo 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 
Relevance  
To support economic development of EU 
businesses, while guaranteeing a fair 
competition . 0 -The EU is not attractive as a whole for enterprises which face difficulties in 
making best use of their staff, a lthough the need for highly qualified 
resources is increasing. National regulations continue to vary. 
- Some Member States set up specific schemes (facilitations in terms of 
procedures and rights) to attract ICTs  but because of their fragmentation, 
such schemes are unable to enhance the a ttractiveness of the EU as a whole. -
In the absence of EU inte rvention, the issue of intr a-EU mobility for ICTs is 
not addressed, creating obstacles to sw ift and effective allocation of human 
resources for companies. 
- As there is no clarification of the set of rights granted to TCN ICTs, the risk 
of unfair competition towards other posted workers covered by Directive 
96/71 continues to exist. 
Expected Impacts   
Economic Impacts at EU level 0 -A growing number of people are choos ing an international career and the 
needs for higher skills are growing. When admission procedures remain 
under the competence of the Member States , the uncertainty and delays in the 
transference of key personnel and expert s will continue. The competitiveness 
of the EU will therefore be negativ ely impacted, since companies will 
continue to encounter difficulties in  attracting and bringing in ICTs.  
-Moreover, due to difficulties raised by the transfer of th eir nationals, third 
countries could hamper the transfer of EU nationals to subsidiaries 
established in their territory 
Social Impacts at EU level 0 -In the absence of EU common speci fic rules as regards the working 
conditions and further rights applicable to the ICTs transferred by third-
country companies, there is risk of unfair competition by third country 
companies. 
Impacts on third countries 0 -Bilateral agreements in the Trad e area may have an impact on the 
movements of ICTs. 
-The socio-economic position of TC N ICTs would depend on how far 
national rules grant rights and benefits to them. 
Impacts on fundamental rights 0 It depends on national Member State legislation, whether for ICT the 
fundamental rights of Article 7 (i.e. respect for private and family life), 
Article 12 (freedom of association a nd affiliation), Arti cles 15, 21 and 31 
(fair and equal working conditions) a nd Article 34 (social schemes) are 
sufficiently addressed.  
Feasibility 
Administrative burdens 0 N/A 
Difficulty/risks for transposition 0 N/A 
Financial impact 0 N/A 
Stakeholders’ view According to all stakeholders, a st atus-quo would be harmful for the 
competitiveness of EU companies and the valorisation of human resources 
by multinational companies. In additi on, some stakeholders (IOM, ETUC), 
point to the current absence of safe guards regarding the level of rights 
granted to ICTs. 
 
EN 27   EN  
Policy Option 2 - Directive dealing with conditions of entry and residence for ICTs 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of th e policy option necessary to achieve the 
impact 
Relevance  
To support economic development of 
EU businesses, while guaranteeing a 
fair competition VVV (2A, 
2C) 
VV (2B, 
2D) This option provides clear conditions of en try (notably, no labour market test), and 
stay and therefore enhances the transparen cy of the legal environment. Specific 
rules of admission are set up for ICTs. 
However, the rules still vary in terms of  procedure (including the period of time 
needed to process the applications). Rights regarding family reunification are left to 
the discretion of Member States and intra-EU mobility is not provided. 
Sub-option 2A based on the positions occ upied by ICTs provides for a broader 
scope than sub-option 2B, since criteria of salary and qualif ications would not 
apply. In-house experts or managers would thus qualify, even if they are not able to 
demonstrate any higher education qualificati ons. Likewise, graduate trainees could 
be admitted even if they do not yet receive a high salary, provided that their 
working conditions are in line with Direc tive 96/71. On the other hand, salary and 
higher education qualifications are objec tive criteria which could facilitate the 
handling of applications by  immigration authorities. 
Granting equal treatment in a number of rights (2C) would enhance the level of 
protection of TCN ICTs and would therefor e reduce the risk of unfair competition  
Expected Impacts   
Economic Impacts at EU level VVV 
(2A, 2C) 
VV (2B, 
2D) 
  -Establishing common rules for Member States on entry and residence will have a 
positive impact on EU competitiveness and innovation, since it enhances the 
transparency and predictability of the le gal environment which is necessary to 
conduct business: the companies can bring in more easily ICTs. 
-The broader scope of sub-option 2A strengthens such a positive impact 
-Depending on the extent of rights granted to TCNs, constraints on companies 
could be more (2C) or less (2D) significan t since EU companies could have to bear 
increased labour costs. For this reason, attractiveness for employers could be 
reduced. But conversely, the attractiveness of an EU scheme dedicated to ICTs 
could be more marked for ICTs (who, as key staff, are often able to choose the 
location of their work) under option 2C since they will enjoy a wider set of rights, 
thus countering the previous impact.  
 
Social Impacts at EU level VV 
(2A, 2B, 
2C) 
V (2D) 
 -The labour market is not likely to beaffected by these movements of migrants 
endowed with very specific skills, as th ey do not substitute any national or EU 
worker. The scheme must therefore ensure that it only applies to some very specific 
categories of workers and that their labour cost  is not lower than that of nationals or 
EU citizens.  
-Equal treatment of ICTs in a number of areas and common admission criteria will 
remove the opportunities for employers to use the competitive advantages of lower 
waged third country ICTs and reduce the ri sks of displacement or social dumping. 
This impact would be even stronger under 2C 
 
EN 28   EN Policy Option 2 - Directive dealing with conditions of entry and residence for ICTs 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of th e policy option necessary to achieve the 
impact 
Relevance  
Impacts on third countries VVV 
(2A) 
VV (2B, 
2C and 
2D) 
   -Positive impacts on third countri es could be achieved through: 
-enhanced opportunities of migration, str onger under 2A, (thanks to a clearer legal 
framework and facilitated entry), possibly re sulting, in a intens ified transfer of 
skills to third countries;  
-a better attractiveness of the EU (deriving from the common clear picture, and also 
from the set of socio-economic rights); 
-higher level of protection and rights (stronger under 2C; see also fundamental 
rights)  
-and a possible higher level of rem ittances (resulting from better working 
conditions).  
-The risks of brain drain is low since migration is purely temporary. Moreover, 
according to available information, ICTs ' source countries are mainly developed 
and emerging countries.  
Impacts on fundamental rights VV 
(2A, 2B, 
2D) 
VVV 
(2C) This option would strengthen the set of F undamental rights granted to TCN ICTs, 
regarding Articles 15, 21 and 31 (fair and equal treatment). Option 2C would have 
a stronger impact and would in additi on better ensure the right under Art 12 
(freedom of association a nd affiliation) and Art 34 rela ting to social security. 
Feasibility 
Administrative burdens -VV (2A, 
2C) 
-V (2B, 
2D) 
 -The application of new common defin ition and admission criteria will entail legal 
adjustments and result in a larger administrative burden for Member States and 
employers but only in the short term. Sub-option 2B provides objective criteria 
which could be considered easier to apply for immigration authorities. On the other 
hand, definitions put forward under s ub-option 2A are already known by the 
Member States as they flow from Trade commitments. 
-The rights of sub-option 2D appear to be generally respected throughout the EU, 
but rights under 2C would partly and for so me Member States have to be included 
in national legislations and respect ensured. 
Difficulty/risks for transposition -VV 
(2.B) 
-VVV 
(2A, 2.C, 
2D) -This policy option will impose adjustment s on Member States, slightly reduced 
under sub-option 2B (see 'Administrative burden'). 
-However, the present option does not seem to pose major difficulties in 
transposition and appears proportionate. 
Financial impact -V (2A, 
2B, 2D) 
-VV (2C) 
 -Additional costs can be foreseen for Member States and employers, resulting from 
the new scheme and application of equal tr eatment with respect to social security 
rights (2C). However, these costs should be  moderate as ICTs  would not always 
qualify for social security benefits, taki ng account of their short duration of stay. 
Moreover, a reduction of overall costs is likely to occur in the medium term for 
employers, thanks to the common admission system for ICTs. 
 
Stakeholders’ view -According to stakeholders, common defin itions and conditions of admission will 
facilitate inflows of ICTs , thereby having a positive effect on competitiveness.  
-Regarding rights, ETUC is in favour of an enlarged set of rights. Business Europe 
mentions that as workers can claim social security and other benefits, this can cause 
a possible increase in public expenditures 
 
EN 29   EN  
Policy Option 3 Directive providing for intra-EU m obility for ICTs 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 
Relevance  
To support economic development of EU 
businesses, while guaranteeing a fair 
competition VVV  -This option provides for a clear legal framework for ICTs from third 
countries and introduces intra-EU mob ility elements, which allow a swift re-
allocation of their internal resources fo r EU companies, preventing delays and 
costs  
Expected Impacts   
Economic Impacts at EU level VVV  -In addition to transparency of the legal framework and the secured legal 
status of TCNs, the provisions for intr a-EU mobility between  branches of the 
same company will improve EU attrac tiveness for third country businesses 
and investments. From this perspectiv e, positive impacts on the flexibility of 
assigning ICT and, in turn, on EU competitiveness could be achieved.  
As a result from this improvement of EU  capacity to attract  them, the future 
instrument should translate into an add itional flow of third country nationals 
ICTs - those who at present turn down an  international assignment because of 
the burdensome and unclear conditions of admission, stay and intra-EU 
mobility or who are not transferre d since companies are deterred by 
complicated conditions of admission. Howe ver, at the same time, an enhanced 
possibility of intra-EU mobility coul d result in a lower number of ICTs. 
Taken into account these two expected results, a slight increase in the number 
of ICTs could result from the present proposal, which is however not possible 
to evaluate. 
Social Impacts at EU level VV The facilitation of intra-EU mobility will contribute to a better demand and 
supply matching within transnational corporations. 
Impacts on third countries VV The positive impacts of establishmen t of common rules of admission and 
residence (option 2) are slightly strengthened through a facilitated EU 
mobility, since this option a llows for an enlarg ed transfer of skills and at the 
same time enhances the attractiveness of  Europe as a destination for ICTs.  
Impacts on fundamental rights VV  Fundamental rights under art 15, 21,  31, 12 and 34 are still positively 
impacted by option 2. No further rights are touched upon. 
Feasibility 
Administrative burdens 
 -VV  -Apart from the administrative burden brought about by elements of option 2, 
the provision on intra-EU mobility will at first add to the administrative 
burden of Member States since they will need to set up cooperation systems. 
It will also require measures of notifi cations from companies. However, this 
option will eventually simplify the over all administrative burden, since the 
entry procedures will be taken on by th e first Member State and because there 
will be no requirement for re-application of  the ICT within the first months in 
the second Member State. This sub-option will also simplify significantly the 
administrative burden imposed on companies. 
Difficulty/risks for transposition -VV Further commitments from the Member States relating to cooperation 
requirements would be required. Howeve r, a similar system is already in 
place for researchers (without the notif ication obligations) and this could 
inspire the new organisation. 
This action appears to be proportionate  as the administrative burden imposed 
on Member States is outweighed by the benefits flowing from the enhanced 
possibility to easily transfer intra-cor porate staff from one Member State to 
another. 
Financial impact -V 
(business)/-
VV ( 
Member 
States) Additional costs foreseen under option 2 would remain. This option would 
also increase costs for the 1st Member State because of coordination, but 
there would be reduced costs for the 2nd Member State. It would have 
significant positive impact on business whic h would be spared the return costs 
to the country of origin and the cost s of the transfer to the second ICT 
 
EN 30   EN Policy Option 3 Directive providing for intra-EU m obility for ICTs 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 
Relevance  
Stakeholders’ view All the stakeholders agree on allowing ICT intra-EU mobility as this option 
would contribute to a better allocation of human resources. Also it will in 
their opinion increase the car eer opportunities for ICTs.  
 
 
EN 31   EN  
Policy Option 4 Directive facilitating family reunification and access to work for spouses 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 
Relevance  
To support economic development of EU 
businesses, while guaranteeing a fair 
competition VVV -This option includes a clear legal framework for IC transfers from third 
countries (option 2). In addition, it creates more attractive conditions of stay 
for ICTs (see also economic impacts). 
Expected Impacts   
Economic Impacts at EU level VVV -When spouses are able to join the sponsor and are granted access to work 
more rapidly and Member States are not allowed to apply the time limit of 12 
months, this will have a positive eff ect on the willingness of ICT to be 
transferred for a longer period of ti me since concerns about partner 
employment are one of the main reasons why staff turn down an international 
assignment. Because of this, companies will be able to attract ICTs more 
easily and therefore be more competitive. 
Social Impacts at EU level V In addition, since family members would be granted access to the labour 
market, this option would result in a larg er availability of wo rkforce. However, 
access to labour market would be easier fo r family members of of ICTs than 
for family members of nationals of new Member States subject to transitional 
measures, which could be politically diffi cult to defend and run counter to the 
Union preference. Yet, the current remaining transitional measures would not 
apply any more at the time when the directive would enter into force; in 
addition, such a provision was already put  forward by the Blue Card Directive 
and the number of persons concerned would be small. 
Impacts on third countries VV - The positive impacts of establishmen t of common rules of admission and 
residence (option 2) are strengthened tha nks to these further rights relating to 
family reunification; the attractiveness of  a transfer to the EU territory would 
be enhanced and may bring about an increasing number of ICTs  
-The relevance of the remark depending on the country of origin, the 
remittances could be larger. 
-At the same time, the impacts in te rms of circular migration could be 
negative, because an ICT could decide to stay in the Member State when 
united with his/her family and not return to the country of origin. The risks of 
brain drain could also be larger, as the spouse can be considered a second 
immigrant leaving the country of origin  and possibly pursuing a carrier in the 
EU.  
However, according to available info rmation, ICTs' source countries are 
mainly developed a nd emerging countries 
Impacts on fundamental rights VVV Fundamental rights under ar t 15, 21, 31, 12 and 34 are still positively impacted 
(see option 2). Moreover, under this option, article 7 (i.e. respect for private 
and family life) is further promoted.  
Feasibility 
Administrative burdens -VV Besides the administrative burden brought a bout by elements of option 2, this 
option would result in simplification of the administrative burden for the 
family of the TCN regarding access to th e EU territory and the labour market 
and would not add much burden on Memb er States since even if family 
members do not have a right to enter and work, they may already apply for 
residence and work permits. However, Me mber States would have to deliver 
the authorization within a shorter period as foreseen under the common rules 
of family reunification. 
Difficulty/risks for transposition -VV This option would result in adjustments derived from the creation of a specific 
family right. 
 
EN 32   EN Policy Option 4 Directive facilitating family reunification and access to work for spouses 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 
Relevance  
Financial and administrative costs -V Additional costs foreseen under option 2 would remain. The new elements 
introduced by this policy option would have marginal effects in terms of 
increased expenditure by Member Stat e governments, due to specific family 
reunification scheme and in relation to social security/health care services 
possibly granted to ICT and their family. 
However, by facilitating the access of partners to the labour market, these 
costs would most likely be limited for public budgets, since part of them 
would be borne by the employers.  
Stakeholders’ view All stakeholders agree on assigning ICTs the right of family reunification and 
access to work, as this option would rem ove an important obstacle to potential 
ICT for accepting an assignment.  
 
 
EN 33   EN  
Option 5 Directive laying down common admission procedures 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 
Relevance  
To support economic development of EU 
businesses, while guaranteeing a fair 
competition VVV  -This option provides, in addition to  a clear legal framework for IC 
transfers from third countries, ha rmonization of the conditions of 
admission of ICTs in terms of procedure, providing more certainty for 
companies and TCNs and allowing costs saving (see also economic 
impact). 
 
Expected Impacts   
Economic Impacts at EU level VVV -Transparency of the legal framew ork is provided thanks to common 
admission criteria (option 2) but further enhanced by common procedural 
provisions. 
-The introduction of a single perm it for work and residence could 
significantly improve the ability to easily and rapidly transfer key 
personnel. It will also make it more attractive for ICT to be transferred, 
when it is easier to enter the EU. As a result of reduced time and costs for 
attracting ICTs, the ability of EU firms to better and rapidly match request 
and demand in key internal pers onnel will be strengthened. These 
procedural measures aim at further increasing the attractiveness of the 
scheme already provided by the secure d legal status of TCNs (see option 
2). 
Social Impacts at EU level VV When a single permit is introduced as  well as a shorter time to process 
applications, the effort, cost and time to complete the procedure for 
applying for permits will be reduced. 
Impact on Third Countries VV - The positive impacts of establishmen t of common rules of admission and 
residence (option 2) are slightly reinforced by the favourable procedural 
rules. 
Impacts on fundamental rights VV  Fundamental right s would not be affected by such an option. 
Feasibility 
Administrative burdens -V (business)/-
VV (Member 
State ) The measures introduced by this option will simplify the administrative 
burdens for companies and ICTs, making the application procedures for 
work and residence more efficient. On Member States' side, it will add a 
slight administrative burden but will tr anslate into costs saving in the long 
run. 
Difficulty/risks for transposition -VVV This option will add to the adjustments derived from option 2 the 
adjustments required by the applicat ion procedures. 12 Member States 
would have to introduce the single permit  system and invest for this aim. 
Costs saving would occur at the same time due to a reduced labour input. 
However, only 6 Member States already apply or would agree on a 
processing time no longer than 1 month. 
Financial impact -V (business)/ -
VV (member 
States) - Besides these costs flowing from op tion 2, in the short term, Member 
States will have to invest to make the single permit possible and to shorten 
the processing time. In a long-term perspective however, all Member 
States will eventually benefit financia lly from a single permit procedure.  
-On the contrary, business should take  advantage of these simplifications 
in financial terms (less time dedicated to administrative tasks) 
Stakeholders’ view According to all stakeholders, the introduction of a single permit and 
maximum processing time would redu ce time and efforts required by 
companies, which would enhance the e fficient use of corporate resources.  
 
 
EN 34   EN  
Policy Option 6 - To foster communication, coordination, and cooperation among Member States on these issues, including the ope n method 
of coordination 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to achieve 
the impact 
Relevance  
To support economic development of EU 
businesses, while guaranteeing a fair 
competition V -Communication, coordination, exchange  of best practices and cooperation 
among Member States could contribute to approximate national practices on 
TCN ICTs across EU and to create a more harmonised legal framework, 
resulting in an enhanced attractivenes s and a better implementation of EU 
Trade commitments. However, impacts ar e likely to be very limited in the 
absence of a mandatory aspect. 
-In the absence of compulsory regulation regarding the set of rights granted to 
TCN ICTs, the risk of unfair compe tition and substitution of local workers 
continues to exist. 
Expected Impacts   
Economic Impacts at EU level 0/(V) When information on the regulations on en try and stay in the Member States 
are exchanged better between them, this  could improve the quick transference 
of personnel and thus improving the compet itiveness of EU enterprises and EU 
as a whole. However, these impacts will probably be very limited.  
Social Impacts at EU level 0/(V)  Member States gain better access to information on effective policies and good 
practices. When Member States learn of and from each other’s policies, this 
may result in a degree of harmonisation of rights. 
However, no significant impact is expected.  
Impacts on third countries 0 This option is unlikely to have an imp act (positive or negative) on the transfer 
of skills or circular migration.  
Impacts on fundamental rights 0 (no specific effect in this field) 
Feasibility 
Simplification -administrative burdens 0 There will be no simplification or re duction of the administrative burden 
through this policy option. 
Difficulty/risks for transposition 0 No difficulties or risks of transposition  would be envisaged by this policy 
option since it would not impose any additional legislative interventions and 
Member States would have complete di scretion in whether to adapt to the 
content of the information and best practices delivered through this policy 
option. 
Financial impact -VVV At EU and Member State level, additional costs will be recurrent for 
organizing activities such as drafting national action plan s, sharing good and 
best practices, creating networks of expertise, and data collection and 
dissemination.  
Stakeholders’ view According to stakeholders, the exchange of best practises could have positive 
effects on facilitating the entry and reside nce of ICT, although in their view 
this effect will be less than with the other policy options. 
 
 
EN 35   EN 5.2 Assessment of financial and administrative costs 
Policy option 1  (Maintaining the status quo) will not require additional resources besides 
those triggered by individual Member  States on their own initiative. 
The basic provisions of policy option 2 , conditions of entry and residence of ICTs as a 
common definition for intra-corporate transferees and common admission and residence criteria, will require both one-time and recu rring additional costs, as these require an 
adjustment of the procedures in all Member States.  
For enterprises, this policy option holds limited recurring changes in financial and 
administrative costs, except for getting acquain ted with the new legislation and to grant 
possibly more extended socio- economic rights to TCN ICTs. 
Policy option 3  may impose additional costs on the Memb er States, due to the requirement on 
cooperation between Member States. However, the incurring costs for Member States are 
probably slight since a comparable system alre ady exists for the researchers according to 
Directive 2005/71.  
Policy option 4 would have contradictory e ffects (possible slight increase but also benefits) 
and would altogether not bring abou t net costs for Member States.  
Policy options 3 and 4 would not cause any costs for enterprises, and the advantages would be 
high, because of the greater attractiven ess and flexibility of deploying ICT. 
With specific regard to policy option 5 , it would require additi onal resource at EU and 
Member State level in order to respect the time-limits set for processing applications (costs due to the need to comply w ith the time limit, possibly by employing more resources for the 
procedure). Additional costs rega rding the introduction of a si ngle permit for Member States 
that currently do not operate such a system are not expected to be very high (see below). EU 
staff resources (3 months FTE) would be requi red to prepare and channel that legislation. 
Employers would have great advantages of this  option and much lower costs because of the 
single permit, the one-stop shop and the shorter procedures. 
As regards to policy option 6 , additional costs at EU level w ould be mainly related to the 
annual budget for organizing communication and coordination activities (i.e. support to the 
exchange of best practices, cr eating networks of e xpertise, organizing information campaign). 
At Member State level, there would be need for dedicated personnel for the participation to 
the cooperation activities. Regarding Local Governments , additional activities cannot be 
clearly identifiable due to thei r usually indirect involvement in  the admission process of ICT. 
This option would require EU staff resources (1 month FTE annually) for support activities, 
and Member State government resources in term s of cost of time of participants in the 
activities (0.5 months FTE per Member State), as  well as costs to convey information on their 
legislative framework and admission conditions. This option would not imply additional costs 
for employers and third countries. 
Finally, no particular cost s would be delivered on third countries , except for those possibly 
needed to communicate the new regime to potential ICT. Possible gains will be the remittances from ICT to the third country and th e return (after a maximum of three years) of 
more qualified or skilled work force. 
 
EN 36   EN 5.3 Comparative assessment of policy options  
The tables below compare the different policy op tions and sub-options in  order to highlight 
the advantages and disadvantages of the soluti ons identified and to elaborate the preferred 
policy option.  
The comparison is carried out with respect to th e criteria considered for the assessment of 
each policy option and sub-option: 
Relevance to policy objectives (global and specific objectives); 
Impacts (economic impacts, social impacts and impact on Third Countries); 
Feasibility (Simplification of administrative bur den, the risk of transposition and the level of 
administrative costs).  
The sub-options have been compared in relation to  their specific field of intervention, thereby 
identifying those sub-options which are more positive within their related field. 
 
EN 37   EN  
Table 2. Comparison betw een policy options – Intra- Corporate Transferees  
 Assessment criteria PO 2A PO 2B PO 2C PO 2D PO 3 PO4 PO5 PO6 
Relevance to  
global objective 
  
VVV 
 VVV VVV  
VV  
VVV VVV VVV V 
Economic impacts at EU level VVV VV VVV VV 
VVV VVV VVV 0/V 
Social impacts at EU level VV VV VV V VV V VV 0/V 
Impacts on Third Countries VVV VV VV VV VV VV VV 0 Impacts 
Impacts on fundamental rights VV  VVV VVV VV VV  VVV VV  0 
Administrative burden  -V V -V VV V 
-VV -VV -V 
(business)/ 
-VV 
(Member 
State 0 
Difficulty/risks of transposition -VVV -VV -VVV -VVV -VV -VV -VVV 0 Feasibility 
Financial impact  -V  -VV -VV -V 
-V -V -V 
(business)/ 
-VV 
(Member 
State) -VVV 
 
EN 38   EN 6. Identification of the preferred policy option 
Given the outcome of the comparison of policy options, the preferred option should have the 
following features: 
• A common definition of ICTs building on the de finitions of positions occupied by ICTs 
(option 2A) 
• a enlarged set of rights (option 2C)  
• intra-EU mobility (option 3) 
• facilitation for family reunification (option 4) 
• common admission procedure (option 5) 
It is clear that none of the individual policy options completely addresses the problems or 
fully achieves the policy objectives. However, by combining different aspects of the policy 
options, a higher degree of eff ectiveness could be achieved.  
The table below summarizes the aspects of th e assessed policy options, which are included in 
the preferred option.  
 
EN 39   EN Table 3 Intra-corporate Transferees - Preferred Policy option  
Main field of EU 
action Key feature of the preferred policy option Policy options and sub-options 
considered 
Definition of 
ICTs Common definition based on the specific positions 
occupied by ICTs  (managers, specialists and graduate 
trainees) PO 2A 
 
Work contract with a company located in a third-
country and belonging to the multinational 
corporation 
A duration of prior employment, if required 
Professional qualifications in line with the position 
taken 
Higher education qualifications and a training plan for 
graduate trainees  
Conditions of 
admission  
 No labour market test  
PO 2A  
 
A common set of rights including working conditions 
as referred to in Directive 1996/71 and an enlarged set 
of further socio-economic rights   
PO 2C 
Intra-EU mobility PO 3 Conditions of 
residence 
Family reunification  PO 4 
Admission 
procedure Single permit for work and residence PO 5 
 
In the following paragraphs, the characteristics of each aspect of the preferred policy option 
are presented below in terms of advantages and disadvantages, with respect to the main issues 
and fields of expected impacts.  
Main advantages  
Common conditions of admission are an advantag e to the competitiveness and attractiveness 
of EU enterprises belonging to transnational corporations, while the reference to working 
conditions laid down by Directiv e 96/71 and the granting of a seri es of rights ensure a fair 
competition between EU posted workers and third country national intra-corporate 
transferees.  
Facilitating family reunification for ICTs' spous es (without access to work, not to put in a 
more favourable situation ICTs compared to future new Member States) and supporting intra-
EU mobility strengthen the attractiveness of EU for ICTs.  
The single permit for work and residence, along with the maximum time for processing 
applications contribute to a ra pid application and f acilitates the transfer s of key personnel. 
All the above-mentioned advantages will contribute to the EU’s competitiveness and 
attractiveness for enterprises and investments  by facilitating movement of ICTs.  
 
EN 40   EN Main disadvantages  
The main disadvantage of the preferred policy option will be the costs involved: Member 
States will have to make modifications to their legislative frameworks in  order to adapt to the 
provisions of the preferred policy option, mainly concerning the common definition, the single permit, intra-EU mobility and shortened time-limits to handle applications for an ICT 
permit as well as for family reunification. From the employers' perspective, additional time and resources will also be involved to comply  with the new conditions of admission, but the 
simplifications flowing from a common fr amework will far outweigh this necessary 
investment (less time dedicat ed to administrative tasks). 
Assessment of the pr eferred policy option 
The table below summarises the assessment of the preferred policy op tion with respect to 
assessment criteria identified and indicates the provisions of the preferred policy option that 
explain the related rating and specifically contribute to th e achievement of the impacts 
identified. 
Table 4 Assessment of the preferred policy option 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Provisions contributing to the rating 
To support economic 
development of EU 
businesses, while contributing 
to preventing the risk of unfair competition VVV Clear conditions of entry (in particular, no la bour market test), and stay which enhance 
the transparency of the legal environment. Specific rules of admission are set up for ICTs. 
Procedures are simplified (si ngle procedure/permit; shortened processing time), intra-EU 
mobility and family rights are granted to ICTs . Facilitation of intra-EU mobility enhances 
the competitiveness and attractiveness for enterprises and investments. 
Granting equal treatment in the range of right s (2C) enhances the level of protection of 
TCN ICTs and therefore reduce the risk of unfair competiti on and substitution of workers 
Economic impacts at EU 
level VVV The common definition for ICTs and criteria for admission and residence will make it 
more attractive for companies to  transfer their key personnel. It will make the procedures 
rapid and less complex and costly (single perm it, max time to process applications).  
Attractive conditions of residence will make it  attractive for ICTs to be transferred. 
Both will establish that the EU economy is a more competitive and more attractive for 
enterprises and investments.  
Social impacts at EU level √√ -Companies in need of in-house experts and managers will meet their needs more easily.  
-The risk of unfair competition will be prev ented through definite working conditions and 
strict limitation to the scope of the Directiv e to staff who cannot be found on the national 
labour market. 
-Fundamental rights would be st rengthened, in particular with  regard to Articles 7 (family 
life), 12 (freedom of association and affiliati on), 15, 11 and 31 (fait and equal treatment)  
Impacts on Third Countries √√ Positive contributions to (the development of) third countrie are evident through easier 
access to the EU-economy.  
At the same time migration is temporary, thus avoiding the risk of brain drain. 
However, the enhanced attractiveness of the EU and the common regulations cannot 
prevent that ICT may not return to their home country if Member States allow them to 
turn into a permanent status. 
 
EN 41   EN Difficulty/risks for 
transposition √√ Difficulties of transposition will probably arise from: 
a common definition, the introduction of a single permit, intra-EU mobility, the 
application of the principle of equal treatment as regards the rights in the social security 
field and the maximum time for processing applications. 
 
Administrative burden VV/--
(business) A considerable degree of simplification w ill be achieved through the common conditions 
of admission, intra-EU mobility and the esta blishment of the single permit for work and 
residence.  
Financial impact -/ √ Additional costs will by large be short te rm, concerning the costs for introducing a 
common definition and new procedur es for admission and residence. 
In the medium-long term a reduction of costs is likely to occur due to better efficiency of 
the admission system and intra-EU mobility.  
Assessment of the administrative costs 
The following assumptions and estimates were made: 
The number of TCN ICTs admitted to the EU:  although there is only limited data available 
on the number of ICTs moving from third count ries to Member States, it is possible to 
perform an “educated guess”. Under the assumpti on that the number of ICTs correlates on the 
one hand with the size of the Member State in inhabitants and on the other one the number of 
multinationals, the following tentative estimate can  be made: multiplying the number of ICTs 
per country per year (3rd column of the second table) by th e number of countries in one of the 
three categories, gives the total number per category of Member States. Adding those three 
numbers leads to a total approximate annual num ber of ICTs coming to the EU: 17,500 (incl. 
UK and IE) or 15,500 (without UK and IE).  
Estimation of number of ICTs in the EU per year 
Table 5. Available data 
Name of the Member 
State  Number of ICTs 
Austria 140 
France 1960 
Germany 4429 
Italy 1,095  
Netherlands 2,632  
Poland 459 
Slovakia 355 
Slovenia 1433 
Spain 1109 
Total 13,587 
 
 
EN 42   EN Table 6 Estimate numbers of ICTs 
Characteristic of category of 
Member State Name of Member State Estimated number of ICT per 
year per Member State Total number per category of 
Member State  
Large Member States (38 – 83 
million inhabitants) or  a large number of international 
operating companies 
(multinationals) UK 2,000* 2,000 
Medium Sized Member States (6 
– 22 million inhabitants)  
 Belgium 
Bulgaria Czech Republic 
Finland 
Greece Hungary Portugal 
Rumania 
Sweden 200** 1,800 
Small Sized Member States (< 6 
million inhabitants)  Cyprus 
Estonia Ireland 
Latvia 
Lituania Luxemburg 
Malta 20 140 
 EU (incl. UK and IE) 
EU (without UK and IE)  17,500 (approx.) 
15,500 (approx.) 
* based notably on Italy, The Netherlands and Germany. ** based on Slovakia and 
Austria 
 
EN 43   EN The hourly tariffs of Member States' personnel  are estimated to be €23, based on EU 
average hourly labour costs in public administration (NACE L), extracted from Eurostat. The 
examination of an application is  calculated to require 6 hs. 
The preferred option would cause the follo wing additional admini strative costs:  
-implementation  costs in the first two years  for familiarizing with the obligations: the 
following estimations have been made, on the basis of the estimations retrieved from the Impact Assessment on the Blue Card Directive and taking into  account the number of ICTs: 1 
working day and 50 official s/Member State concerned.  
-Costs for processing a application and issuing a ICTs permit (related to the examination 
and assessment of the documentation pres ented, the processing of the relevant 
information in the specific ICT database a nd the notifications of rejections to the 
applicants ): most of these costs with regard to processing the application already occur at 
present and are not additional. If the administra tive costs are assumed to be the same as those 
foreseen for the Blue Card proce dure in case of High Skilled Workers
62, the required time per 
admitted ICT for the Member State would add up to 56 hours. Using a tariff of 23 Euro per 
hour, the costs per ICT would be 1,228 Euro. 16,500 ICT per year would cost the administrations of the Member States at least 20,262,000 Euro  per year to process the 
applications . To these costs would be added  the costs required to process the applications 
which are eventually not approved which could be evaluated, anticipa ting a high rate of 
success (80%) due to a clarified lega l framework, at 6x23x(0,2x16500)=455 400 Euro.  
However, economies of experience would occur af ter one year, with a possible reduction of 
time and of administrative costs occurred for key actions. In parallel , the number of ICTs 
admitted would tend to increase, since EU attractiveness for ICTs would be enhanced. 
-To these costs would be added  costs resulting from coordi nation needed for intra-EU 
mobility. However, a similar system is already in place for researchers and would thus not 
require new organization. Against this bac kground, costs are assessed to be negligible. 
-Costs relating to the shortened pro cessing time and the single permit:  net 
implementation costs for the introduction of a single permit are not expected to be 
considerable, given that under the framewor k Directive (currently under negotiation in 
Council and Parliament) the 12 Member States that currently do not have a single permit 
system would be required to introduce one. Gi ven certain specificities  that a regime about 
ICTs requires, these were excluded from the sc ope of that Directive.  The extension of the 
single permit also to ICTs under the preferred policy option would thus not  entail additional 
costs for Member State after having tr ansposed the framework Directive. 
Costs savings could occur in the 12 Member States (BE, BG, CZ, ES, IE, HU, LV, MT, PL, 
PT, RO, SL) that currently do not have a single pe rmit, notably with respect to assumptions of 
reduced labour input (up to 1 working day less) in a single application pr ocedure that leads to 
a single permit. Assuming an overall total of 42 61 ICTs for the 12 Member States, this would 
entail savings of up to 784 024 Euro. 
                                                
 
62 IA on EC proposal for a directive on Hi ghly Skilled Workers, Final Report July 2007.  
 
EN 44   EN -Obligation to submit annual statistics  to the Commission and ot her Member States on 
numbers of residence permits or visa issued to TCN ICTs. Annua l reporting is calculated to 
require 10hs (see table below). 
Equal treatment in terms of social security ri ghts could also have a cost for those Member 
States which do not already grant them to IC Ts. All Member States already grant equal 
treatment in working conditions. With respect to so cial security rights, gaps in rights that the 
proposal would close are relevant in a number of Member States that appear to have either 
waiting periods of between 1 and up to 10 years before access is granted to rights, or do not 
grant certain rights to TCNs. As far as ICTs  are concerned, these are mainly sickness and 
health care (FI, BG, MT63) and family benefits (FI, BG, LT64, LV65, UK). ICTs are thus 
excluded from access to these benefits, unless a specific regime covered them. Social security bilateral agreements cover a num ber of ICTs, roughly estimated at 50%. For these TCNs, new 
provisions would apply without prejudice of the existing rules derived from the international 
agreement. One third of the number of ICTs con cerned is assumed to be eligible for health 
care and family benefits. For FI (1,914 per capit a expenditure), on an estimation of 200 ICTs 
per year admitted, these additional costs are € 63162 for sickness and health care and € 9141 
for family benefits. For BG, there is no data on expenditure for sickness insurance so that the 
PL expenditure of € 204 is used as a proxy. Th at way, additional costs of € 8316 are expected 
for these rights. For UK, additional costs rela ted to family benefits would amount to € 166 
167. 
                                                
 
63 However, in this last Member State, the number of ICTs is negligible and cost assessment makes therefore no sense.  
64 Same remark as for MT.  
65 Same remark as for MT. 
 
EN 45   EN Table 7 Administrative costs 
Proposal on conditions of entry and residence of ICTs  
 Tariff 
(€ per hour)  
Time  
(hour) Price 
(per 
action or 
equip) Freq  
(per 
year) Nbr  
of  
entities Total nbr
of  
actions Total  
cost Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 
No.   Type of obligation Description of required 
action(s) Target group i e I e           Int EU Nat Reg 
 
1   Application for individual 
authorisation or 
exemption Retrieving relevant 
information from existing 
data Member States –
(Annual reporting 
to COM and other 
Member States) 23  10  23 1 26 26 5980   100%  
          
 Total administrative costs (€) 5980   
    
 
 
EN 46   EN 7. Monitoring and evaluation 
It should be noted that the current problem of lack of data will be remedied by the statistics 
Regulation 862/200766 under which Member States shall supply Eurostat with statistics on 
residence permits and residence of third-c ountry nationals, includi ng number of permits, 
reasons for issuing the permit and its length (Artic le 6). The first reference year is 2008; data 
shall be supplied within 12 months of the end of the reference year. Additional disaggregation 
of the data for the year in which the permit was issued, age and sex of the holder can be 
provided for. 
In accordance with the Commission Communicat ion ‘A Europe of results – Applying 
Community law’, the Commission suggests setti ng up an expert group of representatives of 
the Member States and the Commission ('Contact  Committee'), which wo uld meet to discuss 
issues concerning the transposi tion of the proposed directive,  along the lines of the Legal 
Working Group that meet regularl y to consider the implementati on of for example Directives 
2009/50/EC and 2009/52/EC. The proposed expert group would ensure improved information 
flow between EU and national authorities on how the directive is implemented and is intended 
to help anticipate and resolve problems more effectively.  
The following paragraphs present a possible set of indicators to use in monitoring the effects 
in respect to the main objectives of the EU  intervention. In addition to these possible 
indicators we present a broa d outline of possible monitoring and evaluation arrangements. 
7.1 Identify core progress indicato rs for the key objectives of  the possible intervention 
The table below presents a list of indicators wh ich will make it possible to assess the progress 
and effectiveness of the preferred option in ach ieving the main policy obj ectives. In relation 
to these possible indicators sources of informati on that could be used to collect related data 
and other information are also mentioned.  
                                                 
66 OJ L 199 of 31 July 2007, p. 23.  
 
EN 47   EN Table 8 Potential monitoring and evaluati on indicators of the preferred option 
Main objectives Potential Indicators Sources of Information 
To support economic development 
of EU businesses… - Number of requests for admittance in all 
EU Member States  
- number of admittances in all EU 
Member States 
- number of movements of ICTs between 
all EU Member States 
- average time process the applications of 
ICTs 
- Employer satisfaction about the new 
scheme 
- Measure of the investments - National Labour Force statistics 
- EUROSTAT 
- Single surveys at national level 
- Single surveys at branch level 
- Administrative data from Member State 
authorities 
- Specific ICT Monitoring 
- Surveys amongst ‘ICT-employers’ 
- Surveys amongst ICTs 
- Surveys amongst Member State 
authorities 
 
…while guaranteeing fair 
competition - Working conditions of ICTs in 
comparison with the regular workforce in 
enterprises 
- Period of stay inside the EU as ICT 
- Number of applications for staying in a 
Member State after the ICT-period 
 - National Labour Force statistics 
- EUROSTAT 
- Single surveys at national level 
- Single surveys at branch level 
- Administrative data from Member State 
authorities 
- Specific ICT Monitoring 
- Surveys amongst ‘ICT-employers’ 
- Surveys amongst ICTs 
- Surveys amongst Member State 
authorities 
- Surveys amongst third country 
authorities 
7.2. Provide a broad outline of possible mo nitoring and evaluation arrangements 
As far as monitoring and evaluation arrange ments are concerned, they should involve 
reporting activities pertai ning to both the Commission and the Member States.  
On the one hand, three years after the deadline for the transposition of  the Directive, the 
Commission will publish a report focused on the st atus of implementation of the Directive at 
Member State level and the overall evalua tion of the measures adopted through the 
assessment of the above-mentioned indicators. Fo llowing this report, the examination of the 
results achieved agains t objectives would allow the Commi ssion to decide whether proposals 
for amendment should be put forward in order to best respond to the defined objectives. 
On the other hand, a reporting system at Member  State level will be set up by the means of a 
specific provision included in the Directive. On this basis, Member State will be obliged to 
communicate statistics on the number of ICT permits issue d, renewed and withdrawn, 
 
EN 48   EN disaggregated by citizenship, ag e and sex, by transfer ee position, length of validity of the 
permit and economic sector during the previous calendar year.For this  reason it should be 
considered to ‘enlarge’ EC Regulation no. 862/ 2007 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on EU statistics on migration and inte rnational protection with the target-groups 
ICTs. 
 
EN 49   EN ANNEXES 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 Annex 1. Statistics ………….………………………………………………………….........52 
Annex 2. Survey of Member States' legislations……………………………………..........70 
Annex 3. Case studies: main findings……………………………………………………....83 Annex 4. Stakeholde rs consultation………………………………………………..………91 
References…………………………………………………………………………………103 
 
EN 50   EN ANNEX 1. STATISTICS 
 
Table 1 Inflows of foreign temporary work ers into selected countries (thousands) 
 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
EU 
Austria**         29.8 26.5  
Belgium**         1.6 1.5 5.4 
Cyprus*           9.0 
Denmark**         5.0 5.0 4.5 
Estonia*           0.02 
Finland*           2.5 
France**  
Permanents  6.1  4.8  5.2 5.4 6.3 6.4 9.2 8.0 6.9 7.0 8.9 
APT (a)  4.5  4.8  4.7  4.3 5.8 7.5 9.6 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.4 
Germany**         357.8 362.8 342.3 
Italy**         68.1 77.3 70.6 
Latvia*           0.7 
Netherlands*           6.2 
Slovakia*           1.2 
Spain*           10.7 
Sweden*           5.3 
United Kingdom**         144.5 195.6 183.5 
Non EU  
Australia**  
Permanent settlers  20.2 20.0 19.7 26.0 27.9 32.4 35.7 36.0 38.5 51.5 53.1 
Temporary workers  14.3 15.4 31.7 37.3 37.0 39.2 45.7 43.3 48.8 43.1 48.6 
 
EN 51   EN New Zealand**  
Permanent settlers  .. .. .. 5.0 5.1 6.7 9.8 13.8 12.0 8.2 14.5 
Temporary workers  .. .. .. 25.4 29.5 32.5 43.1 54.6 63.4 69.8 88.1 
United States**  
Permanent settlers 85 117 91 78 57 107 179 175 82 155 246.9 
Temporary workers .. .. 208 242 304 355 414 358 352 397 388.3 
(a) Autorisation Temporaire de Travail 
* Data is extrapolated from Eurost at evidence collected on a pilot basi s. Number of permits issued in 
2005 to non-EU nationals  (Bulgaria and Romania included given their accession only in 2007) for 
employment under a 12 month period in several MS. 
** OECD data, Source: Abella 2006, on data OECD. Total amount of foreign temporary workers (EU 
nationals included) 
 
EN 52   EN Table 2 Permits issued for employment by se lected EU MS to non-EU citizens and 
regions of origin, 2005 (permits va lid for less than 12 months)  
Region of origin EE ES CY LV NL SK FI SE Total 
EFTA 0 0 2 4 184 0 0 0 190 
Central and Eastern 
Europe 7 8171 3025 424 730 562 1917 1993 16829 
Other Europe 0 0 3 10 317 18 85 79 512 
Africa 0 342 907 7 382 14 23 238 1913 
America 4 2014 96 72 1591 136 88 1060 5061 
Asia 7 158 4988 134 2689 423 262 1809 10470 
Oceania 0 3 6 21 285 8 7 148 478 
Others 0 0 7 1 38 0 88 10 144 
Total 18 10688 9034 673 6216 1161 2470 5337 57732 
 
 
EN 53   EN Table 3 Permits issued for employment by se lected EU MS to non-EU citizens and 
regions of origin, 2005 (permits va lid for less than 12 months)  
 Total Employees Self employed Highly skilled 
Region of 
origin Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females 
Total non EU 43556 14176 2768 266 33821 8795 2498 634 
EFTA 193 69 63 4 129 64 0 0 
Central and 
Eastern Europe 27012 8855 1176 143 24812 6339 278 107 
Other Europe 536 87 85 4 369 58 80 24 
Africa 1698 353 96 2 626 247 138 37 
America 4421 1297 368 30 3405 1040 618 212 
Asia 9137 3356 914 76 4144 947 1229 210 
Oceania 438 139 66 6 217 87 154 43 
Others 120 20 0 1 117 13 1 1 
Source: Eurostat, data collected on a pilot basis.  
 
EN 54   EN Table 4. Duration of stay of the foreign-bor n population from the five main countries of origin, by country of residence and ed ucation 
level (percentage of the employe d population aged 15 and above) 
   Primary Secondary Tertiary Total 
   0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 
Country Country of birth (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 
Australia United Kingdom 2,6 2,6 94,8 5,6 4,7 89,8 11,1 5,8 83,1 5,7 4,1 90,2 
  New Zealand 22,4 10,7 66,9 22,8 9,7 67,5 24,7 8,6 66,6 23,1 9,8 67,1 
  Italy 0,4 0,3 99,3 1,5 0,9 97,5 5,1 2,4 92,6 0,9 0,6 98,6 
  Former Yugoslavia 8,1 5,6 86,4 15,4 12,2 72,4 21,7 21,0 57,3 12,3 9,8 77,8 
  Vietnam 9,1 22,7 68,3 9,0 18,4 72,5 6,6 10,5 82,9 8,6 19,1 72,2 
Austria Former Yugoslavia  5,4 31,9 62,7 5,9 48,7 45,4 5,2 50,1 44,8 5,6 39,9 54,5 
 Germany 8,0 13,8 78,2 13,3 15,0 71,6 22,7 24,4 52,9 14,3 16,8 68,9 
 Turkey 5,1 30,7 64,2 7,3 27,2 65,5 14,6 33,6 51,8 5,9 30,0 64,1 
 Czech Republic 2,0 3,0 95,1 4,5 8,1 87,4 2,0 14,0 84,0 3,4 7,4 89,2 
 Poland 11,5 30,1 58,5 7,5 33,5 59,0 7,7 29,1 63,2 8,3 32,0 59,6 
Belgium France 6,1 5,2 88,6 16,3 10,1 73,5 33,3 13,1 53,6 14,2 8,0 77,8 
  Italy 2,4 2,6 94,9 5,6 4,1 90,3 19,7 10,1 70,2 4,2 3,4 92,4 
 
EN 55   EN    Primary Secondary Tertiary Total 
   0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 
Country Country of birth (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 
  Morocco 16,3 12,4 71,3 20,9 15,0 64,1 31,2 18,1 50,7 19,2 13,7 67,1 
  Netherlands 18,2 13,1 68,7 26,9 19,4 53,8 30,9 18,6 50,5 24,1 16,4 59,6 
  Germany 6,4 5,5 88,0 9,5 7,3 83,2 19,2 10,1 70,7 10,8 7,3 82,0 
Canada United Kingdom 1,7 2,4 95,9 2,2 3,4 94,5 3,3 3,8 92,9 2,5 3,3 94,2 
 China 17,8 26,1 56,0 24,1 26,3 49,6 53,7 16,4 29,9 33,5 22,3 44,2 
 Italy 0,4 0,6 99,1 0,9 1,0 98,0 1,8 1,5 96,8 0,7 0,8 98,5 
 India 24,8 24,1 51,1 23,5 22,3 54,3 30,2 16,7 53,1 26,6 20,6 52,8 
 United States 5,9 7,8 86,2 6,8 7,2 86,0 7,6 7,4 85,0 7,1 7,4 85,5 
Switzerland Former Yugoslavia 13,8 23,9 62,4 10,8 20,6 68,6 17,9 18,0 64,1 12,7 22,1 65,2 
  Italy 4,1 2,9 92,9 7,6 5,3 87,1 33,2 11,0 55,7 7,6 4,4 88,0 
  Germany 18,2 10,7 71,1 27,0 10,5 62,5 44,1 15,2 40,7 35,4 12,9 51,7 
  Portugal 17,2 16,4 66,4 8,2 15,6 76,1 40,2 4,6 55,2 15,2 15,8 68,9 
  France 21,9 11,2 66,8 26,6 12,2 61,2 49,7 17,1 33,2 35,6 14,1 50,3 
 
EN 56   EN    Primary Secondary Tertiary Total 
   0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 
Country Country of birth (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 
Czech Republic Slovak Republic 2,9 3,8 93,2 5,8 7,0 87,2 5,9 20,4 73,7 4,8 7,2 88,0 
 Former USSR 22,6 32,4 45,1 32,7 36,8 30,6 43,7 26,9 29,4 32,3 32,9 34,8 
 Poland - - 100,0 2,1 7,8 90,0 10,5 - 89,5 1,7 4,0 94,2 
 Germany - 2,4 97,6 - 8,0 92,0 16,5 40,8 42,7 1,1 8,0 90,9 
 Hungary - - 100,0 - - 100,0 - - 100,0 - - 100,0 
Germany Former USSR 6,0 28,6 65,4 4,1 22,0 73,9 2,5 30,6 66,9 4,5 25,9 69,5 
  Turkey 1,6 9,4 89,0 - 8,1 91,9 - - 100,0 1,2 8,8 90,0 
  Poland 1,7 15,3 83,1 1,8 10,7 87,5 - 7,8 92,2 1,4 11,6 87,0 
  Former Yugoslavia 0,1 7,5 92,4 0,1 3,8 96,1 - 1,3 98,7 0,1 5,7 94,3 
  Romania 1,3 8,0 90,7 0,6 7,2 92,2 - 3,2 96,8 0,7 6,7 92,5 
Denmark Turkey 11,8 12,2 76,0 18,7 14,4 66,9 14,2 13,6 72,2 13,5 12,8 73,7 
 Former Yugoslavia 10,4 51,4 38,2 11,2 60,1 28,7 9,5 67,2 23,4 10,6 57,5 31,8 
 Germany 4,2 5,2 90,6 9,9 9,5 80,6 10,7 12,9 76,4 8,7 9,5 81,8 
 
EN 57   EN    Primary Secondary Tertiary Total 
   0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 
Country Country of birth (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 
 Sweden 2,9 3,8 93,4 6,5 7,4 86,1 7,6 9,4 83,0 5,9 7,0 87,1 
 Norway 3,4 6,0 90,6 10,3 8,0 81,7 9,3 13,0 77,7 8,1 9,2 82,7 
Spain Morocco 42,3 13,3 44,5 29,3 10,6 60,0 22,9 8,2 68,9 38,9 12,5 48,7 
  Ecuador 77,4 4,0 18,7 74,0 4,6 21,4 65,3 6,6 28,1 75,2 4,4 20,4 
  France 7,0 4,0 89,0 11,3 7,7 81,0 17,3 8,2 74,5 10,7 5,9 83,4 
  Colombia 71,0 6,7 22,4 71,4 6,8 21,8 59,6 7,9 32,5 69,1 6,9 24,0 
  Germany 23,3 11,1 65,6 20,7 11,6 67,7 21,2 10,5 68,3 22,0 11,1 66,9 
Finland Former USSR 22,8 54,9 22,3 18,0 55,7 26,3 21,1 61,8 17,2 20,5 57,2 22,4 
 Sweden 1,2 11,7 87,1 3,0 2,5 94,5 2,4 3,1 94,4 2,3 5,6 92,1 
 Germany - 26,5 73,5 11,1 2,8 86,2 4,6 31,3 64,1 7,9 13,4 78,7 
 Former Yugoslavia 42,3 39,4 18,3 2,5 93,4 4,1 - 64,4 35,6 17,1 68,7 14,2 
 Vietnam 3,0 51,3 45,7 7,6 41,3 51,1 - - 100,0 4,3 47,5 48,2 
France Algeria 3,3 5,0 91,8 3,3 4,9 91,9 5,4 8,1 86,5 3,6 5,4 91,0 
 
EN 58   EN    Primary Secondary Tertiary Total 
   0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 
Country Country of birth (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 
  Morocco 5,5 11,9 82,7 5,6 9,0 85,4 5,7 8,6 85,7 5,5 10,5 84,0 
  Portugal 4,2 8,6 87,2 2,8 5,1 92,1 5,5 6,2 88,3 3,9 7,8 88,3 
  Italy 1,3 1,0 97,8 5,2 3,0 91,8 20,6 10,2 69,3 3,5 2,1 94,4 
  Spain 1,2 1,0 97,8 3,7 1,8 94,5 19,2 7,4 73,4 3,4 1,7 94,9 
United Kingdom Ireland 1,5 4,4 94,1 6,2 8,2 85,7 11,1 16,0 72,8 6,2 9,4 84,4 
 India 5,9 7,5 86,6 4,1 6,9 88,9 10,3 7,5 82,2 6,9 7,3 85,8 
 Pakistan 10,0 12,1 77,8 4,7 9,4 85,8 7,2 16,9 75,9 8,1 12,1 79,8 
 Germany 0,7 7,5 91,8 5,1 5,7 89,2 8,2 8,9 82,8 5,6 6,9 87,5 
 United States 37,5 15,4 47,1 21,8 11,8 66,4 23,8 16,1 60,2 24,4 14,6 61,0 
Greece Albania 54,7 43,6 1,7 47,8 50,5 1,7 44,3 53,4 2,3 51,5 46,7 1,7 
  Former USSR 63,4 31,2 5,5 68,9 27,3 3,8 70,5 25,7 3,9 67,4 28,2 4,4 
  Germany 39,0 20,5 40,5 38,9 19,8 41,4 40,2 17,3 42,5 39,3 19,2 41,5 
  Turkey 15,8 11,2 73,0 14,0 11,3 74,8 20,3 11,9 67,8 15,7 11,3 73,0 
 
EN 59   EN    Primary Secondary Tertiary Total 
   0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 
Country Country of birth (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 
  Bulgaria 73,5 24,4 2,0 76,2 20,7 3,1 72,3 21,2 6,5 74,5 22,6 3,0 
Hungary Romania 17,4 19,7 62,9 14,0 34,5 51,6 11,4 27,6 61,0 14,6 28,9 56,5 
 Former Yugoslavia 8,0 12,5 79,5 20,7 32,5 46,8 18,5 29,0 52,5 15,8 24,7 59,5 
 Slovak Republic - 2,2 97,8 9,2 1,4 89,4 5,9 7,1 87,1 5,0 2,6 92,4 
 Former USSR 10,3 36,9 52,9 16,7 28,6 54,7 21,8 27,4 50,9 17,3 29,9 52,9 
 Germany 24,3 4,4 71,4 9,1 7,4 83,5 5,4 9,0 85,6 9,6 7,5 82,8 
Ireland United Kingdom 23,5 18,4 58,1 26,4 17,1 56,5 33,5 19,9 46,6 28,2 18,6 53,2 
  United States 14,9 16,1 69,0 28,8 15,8 55,4 40,4 18,9 40,7 34,2 17,8 48,0 
  Former USSR 91,5 6,8 1,7 95,6 3,6 0,8 88,9 9,1 2,0 92,0 6,5 1,5 
  Germany 35,5 17,3 47,2 46,4 18,7 35,0 45,6 22,1 32,3 44,5 20,3 35,2 
  Nigeria 95,9 3,0 1,2 90,7 6,0 3,3 88,1 7,1 4,8 90,1 6,1 3,8 
Italy Switzerland 16,3 14,8 68,9 19,7 15,3 65,0 22,3 17,8 59,9 18,7 15,5 65,8 
 Former Yugoslavia 33,7 37,7 28,6 31,3 46,9 21,8 26,2 45,9 28,0 32,5 40,9 26,7 
 
EN 60   EN    Primary Secondary Tertiary Total 
   0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 
Country Country of birth (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 
 Germany 20,6 14,0 65,4 21,4 15,8 62,9 30,9 18,9 50,1 23,8 16,1 60,1 
 Morocco 36,5 24,7 38,8 31,8 24,5 43,7 33,7 21,3 45,0 35,5 24,5 40,0 
 Albania 57,9 30,0 12,1 47,1 36,7 16,2 49,9 36,7 13,4 53,9 32,6 13,5 
Luxembourg Portugal 32,9 21,4 45,7 40,1 21,4 38,5 38,4 29,3 32,3 35,4 21,5 43,0 
  France 16,4 4,8 78,8 39,8 10,5 49,7 68,0 7,4 24,5 44,2 8,5 47,3 
  Belgium 13,8 7,8 78,4 37,3 12,3 50,5 58,4 14,6 27,0 44,2 12,8 43,0 
  Germany 7,1 3,0 89,9 28,6 9,3 62,0 49,2 11,1 39,7 28,3 8,1 63,6 
  Italy 6,8 3,3 89,9 21,9 6,5 71,6 49,2 8,9 41,8 17,4 5,2 77,4 
Netherlands Indonesia 2,0 1,8 96,2 1,0 2,2 96,7 2,6 1,3 96,1 1,8 1,8 96,4 
 Turkey 4,6 17,1 78,2 6,6 17,6 75,8 11,6 22,1 66,3 5,4 17,5 77,1 
 Morocco 7,7 17,3 75,0 12,5 20,5 66,9 7,6 22,3 70,0 8,6 18,2 73,2 
 Germany 4,5 8,0 87,5 8,9 13,3 77,8 16,4 14,8 68,8 8,7 11,5 79,9 
 Belgium 6,0 7,8 86,1 14,9 9,7 75,4 16,7 13,5 69,8 12,1 10,2 77,7 
 
EN 61   EN    Primary Secondary Tertiary Total 
   0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 
Country Country of birth (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 
Norway Sweden 6,8 9,3 83,9 10,3 13,7 76,1 10,8 16,1 73,1 10,0 14,0 76,0 
  Former Yugoslavia 16,9 46,5 36,6 13,3 60,1 26,7 13,6 58,5 27,9 14,0 57,1 28,9 
  Denmark 2,1 5,4 92,6 3,7 5,6 90,7 5,7 8,5 85,7 4,0 6,5 89,5 
  Pakistan 5,3 10,4 84,4 5,5 10,1 84,5 9,3 8,4 82,3 5,9 10,0 84,2 
  United States 1,6 3,5 94,9 2,5 3,5 94,0 3,8 7,5 88,7 3,0 5,3 91,7 
New Zealand United Kingdom 2,5 2,5 94,9 8,4 6,5 85,0 14,4 7,9 77,7 9,2 6,2 84,6 
 Samoa 10,5 8,3 81,3 16,5 10,2 73,4 12,4 8,1 79,4 14,0 9,3 76,7 
 Australia 6,4 7,6 86,0 15,5 10,3 74,2 20,4 10,2 69,4 15,6 9,9 74,6 
 China 32,9 20,3 46,9 60,2 20,2 19,5 61,0 26,2 12,8 55,6 21,9 22,5 
 Fiji 26,8 14,1 59,1 29,5 14,4 56,1 28,9 12,5 58,6 28,9 13,8 57,3 
Portugal France 8,6 22,3 69,1 11,6 21,0 67,4 8,3 11,5 80,2 9,5 20,5 70,0 
  Brazil 31,3 14,2 54,5 50,1 17,1 32,8 14,6 23,6 61,7 35,4 16,8 47,8 
  Germany 6,9 19,4 73,7 7,0 4,9 88,1 30,1 6,5 63,4 10,8 12,5 76,7 
 
EN 62   EN    Primary Secondary Tertiary Total 
   0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 0-5  
years 5-10  
years 10+  
years 
Country Country of birth (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 
  Spain 7,3 13,3 79,4 2,4 1,2 96,5 44,9 23,7 31,4 11,8 13,1 75,2 
  South Africa 11,0 62,3 26,7 6,5 35,2 58,4 21,2 30,5 48,3 10,2 45,2 44,6 
Sweden Finland 2,0 1,5 96,4 3,1 1,9 95,1 12,2 6,6 81,2 4,2 2,5 93,3 
 Former Yugoslavia 8,9 36,9 54,1 9,0 37,9 53,1 11,6 39,3 49,2 9,4 37,8 52,8 
 Iraq 38,9 32,4 28,8 26,4 29,3 44,3 42,0 24,2 33,8 35,7 28,8 35,4 
 Iran 9,2 14,7 76,1 7,9 8,9 83,2 11,3 7,6 81,1 9,1 9,6 81,2 
 Poland 6,0 9,6 84,4 5,7 7,5 86,8 13,1 7,6 79,3 8,1 7,9 84,1 
United States Mexico 25,4 18,9 55,7 23,2 18,5 58,3 22,8 14,3 62,9 24,7 18,6 56,7 
  Philippines 16,0 20,7 63,4 13,5 18,3 68,1 12,4 17,0 70,6 13,4 18,0 68,6 
  Puerto Rico 10,6 8,7 80,6 12,9 9,9 77,2 15,5 11,5 73,0 12,2 9,6 78,2 
  China 19,0 20,5 60,5 21,1 20,4 58,6 25,2 20,7 54,1 22,3 20,5 57,2 
  Germany 9,2 4,2 86,6 6,8 4,5 88,7 11,6 5,6 82,8 8,8 4,9 86,4 
Source: Database on Immigrants in OECD Countries (DIOC). 
 
EN 63   EN Table 5 Imports of Services to EU15 from non-EU Countries, 1992-2002 (Euro Mil lion - Ecu Million in 1992) 
 
   
 1992 2002 Annual 
Average 
Change 
1992-
2002 (%) Trade 
Balance 2002 
Merchandise 441118 923958 7.7 53089 
All Services 145357 311918 7.9 24361 
Transportation 41830 73075 5.7 5838 
Travel 37317 82231 8.2 -11957 Communications 2692 6930 9.9 -1066 Construction Services 4012 6660 5.2 3685 Insurance 3591 5012 3.4 12676 Financial Services 4766 9908 7.6 12007 Royalties and Licence Fees. 9196 23584 9.9 -8719 Trade Related Services & Leasing 9772 19651 7.2 2006 Computer and Information Services 2192 7508 13.1 5874 
 
EN 64   EN Business Services 13598 51829 14.3 5304 
Legal, Accounting, Management etc. 
Services 2874 11875 15.2 526 
Advertising, Market Research etc. 2143 5605 10.1 -36 Research and Development 2402 10328 15.7 -1095 Architecture, engineering etc. 2868 8559 11.6 3496 Agric, Mining etc. Services 848 538 -4.4 105 Other Business Services 2463 14924 19.7 2308 Services between affiliated enterprises 
nie 6328 9955 4.6 -2343 
Personal, Cultural and Recreational 
Services 3269 6058 6.4 -2008 
Government Services nie 4507 5746 2.5 3003 Services not allocated 2287 3771 5.1 61 
 
Source. EUROSTAT. International Trade in Services EU, 1991-2002 
International trade in services expanded throughout the 1990s. Table 5 shows the value of services imports for EU15 from non–EU  states for the years 1992 
and 2002, distinguishing a range of service type categories. The fi gures indicate a substantial rise of just under 8 per cent o n an annual average basis over the 
ten year period in question. 
 
EN 65   EN However, not all of the service categories distinguished necessaril y involve labour migration. The most likely area to generate  Mode 4 inflows is the broad 
sector covering trade related services, computer and informati on services and the business service activities. The table 1 show s that these categories exhibited 
the strongest growth in the 1990s: EU15 imports for these ac tivities rose from €26 billion to €79 billion, or by 15.1 per cent between 1992 and 2002. It is 
worth noting that this increase went along with a rise in th e corresponding services exports figures by 7.8 per cent annually b etween 1992 and 2000, in 
particular in the export of computer and information services, a nd to a lesser extent some business activities. Exports for the  former (i.e. computer services) 
category rose by as much as 25 per cent annually, nearly doubl e the corresponding imports increase (13 per cent). The “trade ba lance” data for 2002 reveal 
that trade in services generated a net EU15 cash inflow of over €24 billion in that year. Significant contributions to this fav ourable outcome arose from 
positive balances for the insurance and financial areas, computer related services and business services generally67. 
                                                 
67 study on assessing the question of applying nu merical ceilings to the temporary movement  of contract service suppliers (mode 4)  in the context of the Gats negociations  on trade in services, report to the EU 
Commission, J.J. Sexton, Dublin, 7 April 2005  
 
EN 66   EN Table 6 Number of foreign-controlled enterp rises (Industry and services - excluding 
financial intermediation and public administ ration) in selected EU MS: ownership of 
enterprise by extra-EU 25 countries, absolute numbers 
Member States 2003 2004 2005 
Bulgaria 2199 2169 1942 
Czech Republic 2034 3412 3393 
Estonia 110 127 - 
Spain 901 926 1329 
France 5410 5979 6249 
Italy 4270 4292 4766 
Cyprus - 127 - 
Latvia 762 802 - 
Lithuania 433 485 578 
Hungary 470 502 586 
Netherlands 1362 1417 2132 
Austria 817 - - 
Portugal 351 346 1288 
Romania 440 700 684 
Slovenia 471 552 - 
Slovakia 90 298 324 
Finland 615 639 684 
Sweden 3014 3066 3234 
Total 23749 25839 27189 
Source: Eurostat 
 
EN 67   EN Table 7 Number of foreign-controlled enterp rises (related to the business economy: 
industry, construction and market services) in  selected EU MS: ownership of enterprise 
by extra-EU 25 countries, absolute numbers 
Member States 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 
Austria - - - 767 779 
Denmark - 301 - - - 
Germany (a) 2975 - - - - 
France - - 4472 4954 - 
Ireland (b) - - 318 - - 
Italy - - - - 3500 
Netherlands - 1243 969 1355 1561 
Finland - 471 550 539 - 
Sweden - - 1951 2667 3165 
United Kingdom - 8047 - - - 
Source: Eurostat 
(a) Extra-EU countries considered are Switzerland, Japan and US (b) Data available only for the manufacturing sector (NACE category D) 
 
EN 68   EN Table 8 Number of main extra-EU foreign affiliates in the manufacturing sector 
 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
Denmark  60 112 104 102   
Finland   102 110    
France   397 374 465 473 496 
Germany   626 624 996 978 967 
Ireland   306 345 347 312 277 
Italy     1210   
Netherlands  301 298 343 418 394  
Poland   183 171 168 183 181 
Portugal 26 19 24 15 19   
Spain   282 297 295 307 314 
Sweden   242 285 290 360 402 
UK       1978 
Source: OECD “Measuring Globalization – Activities of Multinationals”, 2007 
 
EN 69   EN ANNEX 2. SURVEY OF MEM BER STATES' LEGISLATIONS 
2.1. National regulations on highly skilled workers  
Significant policy developments took place in a number of Member States regarding the 
admission of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment , which indicates the 
existence of labour shortages in sectors requ iring both highly-skilled and lower-skilled 
workers in those countries. A substantial nu mber of member states practise a policy of 
selective high-skilled immigrati on consisting of reducing and f acilitating the administrative 
procedures applicable to the admission for em ployment purposes of t hose who are labelled as 
‘high-skilled, talented or well-educated’68.  
The priorities, challenges and policy responses differ greatly  from one state to another 
according to their divergent national histories of settlement and colonialism, perceived societal problems and labour market needs, as well as the economic and po litical situation in a 
given time period.  
Most of the countries studied ha ve a specific scheme for highl y skilled immigrants but this 
category must not be mistaken with ICTs. The Netherlands  practices a selective and demand-
driven immigration policy that is rooted in economic considerations69. According to Section 
13 of the Aliens Act an accelerated procedure for high-skill ed migrants has been in force 
since 1 October 2004. High-skilled immigrants will not need to experience the long and 
tedious bureaucratic procedures of applying for a work permit70.In Germany , the 
Employment Ordinance – Foreign Countries  provides that highly skilled migrants are 
directly eligible for a pe rmanent settlement permit upon entering the German territory71. The 
Federal Employment Agency does not need to give its consent to these categories of 
immigrants to ensure a quick response to th e application by the Foreigners Office. The new 
Art. 9 of the Arrêté Royal modifiant l’Arrêt é Royal du 9 juin 1999 relatif à l’occupation 
des travailleurs étrangers in Belgium  gives a clear preferential tr eatment to the category of 
persons falling within the priv ileged status of highly skilled workers allowing them to renew 
their work permit for a ne w period of four years.72 The Settlement and Residence Act of 
Austria  provides in Art. 41 a special settlement permit – key worker  which will be granted 
in an accelerated procedure in  the case of qualified personnel73.  
                                                 
68 There is a wide diversity as regards the definition give n to high-skilled immigrants in each national legal system.  
69 Section 13 of the Aliens Act provides that  «an application for the issue of residen ce permit shall be granted only if: (b) the  
presence of the alien would serve a real inte rest of the Netherlands». V. Marinelli (2005).  
70 An immigrant is high-skilled if s/he is in possession of a contract and proves that s/he will be earning at least 45,495 or 33 ,363 
euros if his/her age is less than 30 years old. Other countries who define who is a highly sk illed immigrant based on salary ar e: 
Austria, Belgium and Germany.  
71 Section 19 provides that highly qualifie d persons are: scientists with special  technical knowledge, teaching personnel in 
prominent positions or scientific personnel in prominent positions, or specialists a nd executive personnel with special profess ional 
experience who receive a salary corresponding to at least twice the earnings ceiling of the statutory health insurance scheme. 
Also, Section 18 says that labour migration may take place ta king into account «the requirements of the German economy, 
according due consideration to the situati on on the labour market». «In justified individual cases, a residence permit will be issued 
for the purpose of taking up employment when there is a public intere st, and in particular a regiona l interest or an interest r elating 
to the economy or the labour market  
72 Art. 9.6. Arrêté Royal modifiant l’arrêté royal du 9 juin 1999 rela tive à l’occupation des travailleurs étrangers, 6 Février 2003 . 
(AR 2003-02-06/41). S. Gsir et al. (2005).  
73 Special legal rules also exist for the h ealth sector. Qualified personnel are defined according to income threshold. Workers w ill be 
qualified as such if they earn more that 60% of the income threshold for social security contributions ( Höchstebeitragsgrundlage ). 
Policy Report, National Contact Point Austria (2005).  
 
EN 70   EN In France , immigration is regulated according to  the perceived economic needs of the 
country. The main principle seems to be that nobody should become a public burden, and 
hence that the applicant must have sufficient income and sickness/health insurance coverage. 
The Loi relatif à l’immigrat ion et a l’intégration presents a new residence permit called the 
residence permit mentioning  competencies and skills  (La carte de séjour portant la mention 
compétences et talents)74. This permit shall be granted to those immigrants who, because of 
their special competences or sk ills, may contribute significantly  and durably to the economic 
situation or the intellectual, scientific, cultural, humanitarian or sportive development of 
France and of the country  of his/her nationality75.  
The United Kingdom has also opened its borders to highly skilled workers from third 
countries. Job seekers with excellent university degrees and at least tw o years of professional 
experience as well as key workers may be issu ed work permits, provided the state of the 
labour market allows this. Their st ay can last for up to four years. After th ree years, they may 
apply for immigrant status, which about 25% of these workers do successfully.  
In Sweden  the government uses targeted permits  aimed at highly skilled workers or 
immigrants of exceptional talent. These target ed permits, which are valid for a renewable 
period of up to 48 months, are granted once a jo b offer has been made and require a minimum 
income and guaranteed housing. In Denmark, fo reign experts are given the opportunity to 
receive a residence permit after specific assess ment is made of prevailing circumstances. 
Furthermore, foreign experts receive a tax reduc tion for their first thr ee years of residence.  
Other countries do not have a specific system  for high-skilled immigration. In the case of 
Poland , while the policy priorities of the Polish Immigration Law  seem to give preference 
to highly skilled and qualified migrants76, there are no specific rule s addressing or facilitating 
that goal77. Spain  does not have a general system for th e ‘highly-skilled’ either. The annual 
quota (contingente) system is one of the main mechanisms for legal labour migration. The 
government annually approves a quot a that provides a technical estimation of the number of 
workers who are deemed as ‘necessary’ by employers and the Autonomous Communities78. 
The administrative mechanisms for their incorp oration into the labour market are simplified79. 
It also encourages hiring immigrant workers in the countries of origin80. In the Czech 
Republic , a pilot project on the selection of qualifie d labour from specified  third countries is 
                                                 
74 See R. Blio, C. Wihtol de Wenden and N. Meknache (2003). Article  L341-2 Code du Travail (Loi nº 2005-32 du 18 janvier 2005 
art. 147 Journal Officiel du 19 janvier  2005 en vigueur le 1er janvier 2006).  
75 This type of residence permit is valid for three years and may be renewed once if the holder is a national of one of the count ries 
having special historical tights ( zone de solidarité prioritaire ) with France. The permit allows  the bearer to carry out a 
professional activity of his/her choice as part of the law  
76 Art. 53.1.2. The Aliens Law which states that a residence permit will be granted to an immigrant who «carries out an economic 
activity which is beneficial to the national economy and in par ticular, contributes to the develo pment of investments, transfer  of 
technology, innovations or job creation».  
77 In 2004 a few amendments were introduced in  the new laws regulating the access to labour market by immigrants, yet there is no  
system for highly qualified immigr ants. Regulation of 9 February 2004 of the Mini ster of Labour, Economy and Social Policy to 
amend the Regulation concerning detailed pr inciples on issuance of promises of work permits and work permits to foreign 
workers, of 19 December 2001, Text No. 236. Dziennik Ustaw , 25 February 2003, No. 27, pp. 1494-1503.  
78 Quotas are established according to the labour sector, territory and kind of employment. The competent authority drawing up th e 
contingente  is the Secretaría de Estado de Inmigración y Emigración , after consulting the Tripartite Employment Commission on 
Immigration, which is a permanent platfo rm for cooperation between the state and th e social partners (employers and trade 
unions). A. Balch (2005).  
79 It offers the possibility for them to obtain visa and resi dence and work permit at the same time in the embassy  
80 See Art. 77-83 of the Royal Decree 2393/2004.  
 
EN 71   EN in place to attract skilled workers for settlem ent. This scheme can also be accessed by 
students who have studied in Czech  universities and high schools. 
A particularly interesting development that appear s, to a certain extent, to be the result of the 
outflow of their nationals to other Member St ates for the purpose of employment concerns the 
growing labour shortages that  have been identified in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania  and the 
interest expressed by employers there in hiring workers from third countries. In Estonia , 
employers would like to employ qualified worker s, particularly in the construction and IT 
sectors but they are discouraged by the complex rules applicable to hiring workers from third 
countries. In Latvia , plans are being discussed to facil itate access of employment for third-
country nationals, particularly specialists, in light of depopulation and the low birth rate. A 
related development concerns amended regulations, which enable students in Latvia to work up to 20 hours a week and the possibility for asylum-seekers to obtain a work permit until a 
final decision is taken on their status. Emigration from  Lithuania  has resulted in a significant 
decrease in the population, which is not however reflected in the offici al statistics indicating 
that by the end of 2005 there were 22,100 fewer persons in the country than by the end of 
2004. As a result, job shortages have appeared in  the construction and retail sectors, hospitals 
and educational establishments. There has also  been an adverse imp act on investment in 
Lithuania with some companies considering wit hdrawal or reconsidering their entry in the 
country because of the lack of  an appropriate labour force.  
2.2. National regulations on ICTs 
The investigation has been carri ed out on the basis of the res ponses provided by the Member 
States to the questi onnaire Migrapol 207
81.  
The present analysis covers the 24 EU Member States which provided responses to the 
questionnaires and is mainly focused the following areas: definition; entry and residence conditions; rights granted and, in particul ar, specific provisions regarding family 
reunification. 
14 MS have specific provisions  for ICTs, who are typically defined as follows: 
-employees of a foreign company, working on the territory of the Member  States in order to 
carry out a specific activity or service; 
-employees transferred on the basis of a specific agreement or programme; -trainees
82 of a foreign company part of  an intra-corporate transfer. 
Most of Member States83 generally limit the admission of the ICTs to the following 
categories: managers, key staff pe rsonnel, high skilled personnel. 
As far as the entry and residence conditions  are concerned, admission criteria usually 
include: 
                                                 
81 The questionnaire Migrapol 207 has been circulat ed in the framework of the 28h CIA Meeting.  
82 This is the case of FI, IE, ES, NL.  
83  DE, ES, IE, NL, SK, DK and SE 
 
EN 72   EN -certificates attesting the level of education, qualification and pr evious training activities (CZ, 
DE, NL, AT); 
-previous experience in the same activity (ES, NL and IE84); 
-thresholds regarding the annua l minimum salary (IE, NL, FR85). 
Some Member States provide for further c onditions for the admission of ICTs, by fixing 
annual quotas for third countries employees (this is the case of RO) or  placing percentage 
caps to the number of ICTs for each company86. 
Work and the residence permits are usually issued separately87.  
The duration of the work permit is highly variable across EU Member States, ranging from 
1 month to 2 years. However, in all the Member States these permits are renewable. The 
duration of residence permit is generally li nked to the duration of the work permit. 
Finally, some Member States88 explicitly foresee geographical and professional limitations as 
regards the validity of the permit. 
As far as the rights are concerned, Member States usually grant the ICTs equal treatment 
with EU nationals . In particular cases89 it is specified that health assistance is guaranteed.  
Finally, it is worth noting that many Memb er States foresee explicit provision for family 
reunification . Family reunification may be allowed fr om the beginning of  the stay of the 
ICT90; or after 6 or 18 months of continuous residence of the ICT91; or if the work permit 
exceeds a certain duration92. 
Generally, the permit to reunification is granted to the spouse and the children. In Ireland, 
spouse and dependant are allowed to seek em ployment and apply for a spousal/dependant 
work permit. 
In the light of the above, the main remarks can be summarized as follows: -there is a general concordance among MS on categories admitted as ICTs, generally 
identified as “key personnel” or “highly sk illed personnel”, but admission criteria and work 
permit durations range widely across EU Member States. 
-Procedures for admission can be particular ly long or difficult (e.g. SK and RO).  
                                                
 
84 For at least one year.  
85 France requires a gross salary of 1,5 SMIC (Salaire Minimum Interprofessionel de Croissance); the Netherlands requires a salar y-
criterion of at least € 47.565 (younger then 30y: € 34.881); Ireland requires a minimum annual salary of € 40,000.  
86 This is the case of Ireland where the number  of ICTs should not exceed 5% of the tota l Irish workforce in a company, although i n 
exceptional circumstances such as small or  start-up companies a higher percentage ma y be permitted on a strictly temporary basi s 
with an absolute limit of 50% of non-EEA staff.  
87 Except from DE and DK.  
88  PL and SE.  
89  IT, CZ, and LT.  
90  e.g.: ES. 
91  e.g.: FR, AT in particular circumstances. 
92  e.g.: SE.  
 
EN 73   EN -Many Member States grant equal treatment with EU nationals a nd right to family 
reunification but, at the same time, conditions and limitations to such rights exist and they are highly variable between Member States. More over, the possibility for spouses to seek 
employment in the host count ry is rarely granted.  
-The wide differentiation between EU Member St ates and the lack of clear and/or specific 
schemes in some of them create severe difficulties to foreign multinational companies which are faced with highly variable systems acro ss EU and have to fulfil complex and long 
procedures.  
 
EN 74   EN 2.3 Summary of Member States' responses to Migrapol 207 
The analysis focuses on replies to Section B of Migrapol 207. 
Legislation concerning Intra-Corporate Transferees 
Entry and residence conditions 
MS Presence of 
specific 
rules Categories’ Definitions 
Admission criteria Work and 
Residence Permit Rights granted and 
limitations Family 
reunification 
AT Y -"rotational workforce": as 
defined in the GATS but not limited to the service 
sector 
-key personnel (not 
temporary) -check of health 
insurance and work conditions 
-required diploma 
and documents for work qualification 
-university degree 
for graduate trainee  
 -residence and 
work permit is for one year but 
renewable 
-visa up to 6 
months 
-single procedure 
-processing time: 6 
weeks for key personnel; 6 
months as a rule  generally not 
provided but possible for key 
personnel 
BE N -schemes for managers and 
high skilled skilled workers   -no work permit for 
workers posted to 
the main place of business 
-processing time: 4-
6 weeks  -family 
reunification and 
right to work 
BG N -superior managing 
personnel 
-specialists -no labour market 
test n.a. n.a. n.a. 
CY N n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 
CZ Y -reference to GATS 
category -proof that the 
applicant is covered by the GATS 
-certificate attesting 
the level of qualification; 
-declaration about 
the type of work, place of work and 
the period during 
which the work will be performed, statement of the 
employer expressing 
his intention to employ the ICT 
-no labour market 
test -the work permit 
may be issued for the maximum 
period of one year; 
renewable 
-work permit 
limited to a specific 
post -as regards social assistance 
this is generally guaranteed to a person with a permanent 
residence in the Czech 
Republic and to ES/EEA citizens whose stay in the 
Czech Republic is longer than 
3 months (allowance for living and supplement for housing). 
-family allowances after 365 
days n.a. 
DE Y skilled personnel part of an 
exchange within a Company or Companies 
belonging to the same -a)university or High 
Professional school degree or a 
comparable -work permit 
restricted to a specific employer -employment conditions equal 
to German standards. -generally not 
allowed but granted on a case-
 
EN 75   EN Entry and residence conditions 
MS Presence of 
specific 
rules Categories’ Definitions 
Admission criteria Work and 
Residence Permit Rights granted and 
limitations Family 
reunification 
Group; 
ICT holding specific 
knowledge and indispensable to prepare a 
project overseas  qualification; 
-a)b)salary level 
equal to German standards 
-a)b) no LM test -duration no longer 
than three years. by-case basis 
DK93 N -the regulation applies to 
foreign professionals who 
play a leading role in a company. -the salary and 
employment 
conditions must correspond to Danish 
standards. 
-employment 
contract or offer -residence permit 
for work purposes, 
issued for a period of maximum three 
years with 
possibility of extension. n.a. n.a. 
EE N -no restriction regarding the 
type of work performed 
 -valid work contract 
with an employer 
-seconded to another 
country for a certain 
period of time 
-Host entity has to be 
registered in Estonia 
and has responsibility as a 
sponsor -ICTs receive a 
residence permit for employment; 
. n.a. n.a. 
EL Y -companies holding a 
specific legal status 
(trading, trade & industry, constructions, shipping);  
-directors, administrators, 
legal representatives and managing executives of 
subsidiaries and branches 
of foreign companies which are legally activated in 
trading in Greece -the Greek company 
must employ at least 
100 Greek nationals 
-TCNs must possess 
scientific knowledge 
in their field of expertise, in which 
their counterparts are 
lacking  
-certified copies of 
the employment 
contract, diplomas  
-the number of 
employees may not 
exceed 5% of all Greek employees  -residence permit 
initially issued for a 
period of one year; may be renewed for 
two years 
 n.a. family 
reunification 
ES Y workers posted by a TC 
company (its principal place of business is outside 
the EU/EEA): 
-contract services suppliers; 
-ICT (including for the 
purpose of a training); -prior employment in 
the foreign company: 
9 months, in the 
same job: 12 months; 
-the ICT habitually 
resides and works in 
the foreign country 
 -single application 
-xork permit with 
duration of one 
year with 
possibility of extension one more 
year (in any case 
linked to the duration of the n.a. -specific family 
reunification scheme for 
managers and 
highly qualified workers 
                                                 
93 The concept of ICTs does not exist on a separate basis in Danish law.  
 
EN 76   EN Entry and residence conditions 
MS Presence of 
specific 
rules Categories’ Definitions 
Admission criteria Work and 
Residence Permit Rights granted and 
limitations Family 
reunification 
-highly qualified workers in 
charge of the monitoring of 
works or services 
performed by Spanish 
companies  activity); 
-work permit 
restricted to a specific employer 
and place 
-processing time: 1-
3 months 
FI N expert duties in the middle 
or top management of a 
company or that requires 
special expertise  work permit with 
different duration 
with respect to the 
categories: 
-up to 18 months; -up to a maximum 
of two years n.a. n.a. 
FR Y TCN transferred to France 
in order to realize an 
activity within the same company -the ICTs are either 
employees of a FR 
company or a TC company 
-they earn more than 
1,5 time the minimal wage: 
-prior employment in 
the foreign company: 3 months  -a single permit 
(carte de séjour 
temporaire « salarié en mission ») is 
issued. The 
duration of such permit is up to 
three years 
renewable.  
 n.a. family 
reunification is 
allowed whether the ICT can prove 
a continuous 
residence for at least 6 months; 
 
HU N n.a. in some cases (i.e. 
key personnel) the 
work permit is issued 
without the labour market test. -work permit 
(exceptions: chief 
executives and 
members of the supervisory board 
of business 
associations with foreign 
participation; 
persons who will carry out work that 
involves 
commissioning, guarantee service activities performed 
on the basis of a 
private contract with a foreign-
registered 
company, if such does not exceed 
fifteen consecutive 
days)  n.a. 
IE Y eenior management; 
key personnel; trainees. -the employee or 
transferee in question must have been 
working for a 
minimum period of 12 months with the 
overseas company 
prior to transfer; -the duration of an 
Intra Company Transfer Permit is 
for a defined period 
depending on the reason for transfer; 
-applications may n.a. -spouses and 
dependents, once they are legally 
resident in the 
State on the basis of being the permit 
holder’s Spouse or 
Dependant, are 
 
EN 77   EN Entry and residence conditions 
MS Presence of 
specific 
rules Categories’ Definitions 
Admission criteria Work and 
Residence Permit Rights granted and 
limitations Family 
reunification 
-minimum annual 
salary of €40,000. 
-the number of ICTs 
cannot exceed 5% of 
the total Irish 
workforce in a firm (except for 
exceptional cases) be granted for a 
maximum period of 
up to 24 months in the first instance 
and may be 
extended upon application to a 
maximum stay of 
five years. 
-work permit for a 
specific employer free to seek 
employment and 
apply for a Spousal/Dependant 
work permit; 
-the spouse and 
dependant children 
can apply to join 
the transferee in the State while the transferee is 
lawfully in Ireland. 
IT Y n.a.  -work and 
residence permit 
(Entry visa issued by Italian 
Embassy); 
-the permit’s 
duration is equal to 
that of the work 
permit (not less than one year) and 
cannot be renewed. -the residence permit entitles 
its holder to register in the 
National Health Service. -the alien’s family 
members can 
follow him and are issued a residence 
permit which has 
the same duration as the worker’s 
permit, considering 
that the duration of the worker’s 
residence permit is 
not less than one year. 
LT Y  n.a.  -no work permit for 
ICTs -ICTs enjoy equal treatment 
with nationals with regard to 
working conditions, including 
pay and dismissal, health and social security and pensions (if 
social taxes are paid in LT), 
freedom of association and affiliation n.a. 
MT N n.a.  -provided a Work 
permit; 
-maximum duration 
of one year (renewable); 
-the work permit 
has to specify the 
job (position) and enterprise, agency 
or organization 
where the alien will be employed. -all employees in Malta have 
equivalent rights in respect of 
working conditions. n.a. 
NL Y key staff 
(manager/specialists) of an 
international company; 
graduate trainees in an 
international company. -for both categories: 
required 
University/high 
vocational training qualifications; 
-for category b): 
required a traineeship program; 
-for category a): 
required a salary-criterion of at least € 
47.565 (younger then  n.a. n.a. 
 
EN 78   EN Entry and residence conditions 
MS Presence of 
specific 
rules Categories’ Definitions 
Admission criteria Work and 
Residence Permit Rights granted and 
limitations Family 
reunification 
30: € 34.881); 
-for category b): 
required a market-conform salary;  
-for category b): 
required a period of employment of at 
most 3 years. 
PL Y a) ICTs posted for the 
period not exceeding 30 
days in the calendar year; 
b) ICTs posted for the 
period exceeding 30 days in 
the calendar year; 
c) ICTs posted to Poland 
within framework of a 
service provided by a 
foreign establishment for the Polish one.  specific permit are 
issued with regard 
to the category: a) no work permit necessary, visa for 
the purpose of 
work; b)c) work permit  
the duration of the 
work permit differs for each category: 
a) limited to 30 
days in the calendar year; b) general 
work permit rules 
apply; c) generally limited to the 
duration of 
contract; 
residence permits 
are granted for a 
period exceeding 3 months. Maximal 
period – 2 years. It 
is possible to renew the residence 
permit or change its 
conditions. rights granted differ with 
respect to the categories: a) 
since no legal relationship with the Polish entity is entered into, TCNs has contract-based 
rights; b) generally, same as 
for nationals performing work on limited-time duration 
contracts; c) generally, not 
worse then minimal for nationals performing work, as 
regards remuneration: not 
lower then average in the sector/position. 
-some limitations are 
envisaged for the categories mentioned: a)  not limited; b) 
and c) limited to specific 
employment with a specific employer and in a certain 
location; 
-possibility to change status.  -same as general 
for TCN-workers, 
based on the European Social Charter. 
PT Y GATS -proof that the 
transfer occurred 
within a group 
-same services 
between 2 companies 
-prior employment: 1 
year    
RO N n.a.  -the vacant positions 
cannot be filled in by Romanian citizens, 
citizens of other 
European Union Member States, of 
the signatories of the 
Agreement on the European Economic 
Area, as well as by 
permanent residents on the territory of n.a. n.a. n.a. 
 
EN 79   EN Entry and residence conditions 
MS Presence of 
specific 
rules Categories’ Definitions 
Admission criteria Work and 
Residence Permit Rights granted and 
limitations Family 
reunification 
Romania; 
-they meet the 
special requirements regarding 
professional training, 
activity experience and authorization, 
which are requested 
by the employer according to the laws in force; 
-they produce proof 
that are medically fit to perform the given 
activity and have no 
criminal record incompatible with 
the activity 
performed or to perform on the 
territory of Romania; 
-they fit the annual 
number of 
employees approved 
by Government decision; 
-the employers have 
their obligations to the State budget paid 
up to date.  
SE Y -leadership position within 
an international concern or 
within a business which is their subcontractor or 
customer, and who in this 
capacity needs to work in Sweden; or: 
-specialist duties within an 
international concern or 
within a business which is their subcontractor or 
customer (so-called 
concern-transfers), and in this capacity needs to work 
in Sweden for more than 
one year; or: 
-employment within an 
international concern and 
who needs to work in Sweden in order to obtain 
training in business 
techniques or methods. -no LM test -a temporary work 
permit can be 
issued for a maximum period of 
48 months and it 
can in some cases be extended to 3 years depending on 
the sector 
concerned 
-permit valid for a 
specific employer 
and occupation -the ICT must be ensured 
salary, insurance protection 
and other conditions of employment in accordance 
with applicable collective 
agreements or practices in the relevant occupation branch; 
-during the period of 
admission, permits are 
restricted to a specific occupation and a specific 
employee. -if a permit is 
issued for more 
than six months, family 
reunification is 
allowed immediately. 
 
EN 80   EN Entry and residence conditions 
MS Presence of 
specific 
rules Categories’ Definitions 
Admission criteria Work and 
Residence Permit Rights granted and 
limitations Family 
reunification 
SK Y Workers employed by a 
foreign legal person: 
-essential senior executive; -specialist; 
-person at the managing 
position within the legal person (manager), and who 
responds for establishment 
of a commercial representation of the service provider in the SR. -the alien is required 
to attach documents 
not older than 90 days to the 
temporary residence 
application, and which confirm: 
-duration of prior 
employment: 1 year 
-the IC transfer (e.g. 
amendment to the 
contract employment 
specifying the position and type of 
work and place of 
employment) 
-no LM test 
-financial means of 
stay; 
-proof of 
accommodation 
during the temporary residence; 
-Proof of integrity. 
Upon the permit 
issuance within 30 
days: 
-proof of not 
suffering from any 
disease that 
endangers the public health; 
-proof of medical 
insurance. -provided a Work 
permit and 
Temporary Residence Permit; 
-the work permit 
for the intra-corporate transfer 
may be issued for 
the period of the transfer, maximum for a period of 1 
year; 
-the work permit is 
renewable; 
-the temporary 
residence permit for a period 
necessary for the 
purpose achievement, 
maximum for a 
period of 2 years. n.a. n.a. 
SL94 N  -the ICT must be in 
possession of a valid travel document whose period of 
validity exceeds the 
intended period of stay in the Republic 
of Slovenia by at 
least three months; 
-must be in 
possession of an 
appropriate health insurance; 
-must be in -work permit issued 
by the competent Authorities; 
-residence permit 
for employment or 
work purposes, issued oh the basis 
of a work permit; 
-work permit issued 
for a maximum of 
one year 
(renewable for no longer than two 
years); n.a. -TCN who has 
resided for at least year in SL on the basis of a 
residence permit of 
at least one year  
                                                 
94 The concept of ICTs does not exist in the Slovenian law.  
 
EN 81   EN Entry and residence conditions 
MS Presence of 
specific 
rules Categories’ Definitions 
Admission criteria Work and 
Residence Permit Rights granted and 
limitations Family 
reunification 
possession of 
sufficient funds for 
subsistence during his/her stay in the 
country, or his/her 
subsistence must be guaranteed otherwise 
and valid work 
permit. -residence permit 
linked to the 
duration of the Work permit. 
 
 
EN 82   EN ANNEX 3. CASE STUDIES: MAIN FINDINGS 
In the countries studied (Germany, the Netherla nds and the USA), regulations managing entry 
and temporary residence of ICTs may be part of  more general regulati ons on (highly) skilled 
labour. The entry conditions are generally simple r than those applicable  to other (temporary) 
migrants, e.g. no labour market check is needed.  
 
EN 83   EN ICT Case study n°1 - German work permit  
BACKGROUND  
On August 1st 2000, the Green Card regulation was introduced to admit IT specialists for businesses 
and to address the emerging need for specialists in othe r industries. It is generally agreed that the Green 
Card was unsuccessful, in that it  did not succeed in bringing abou t the additional IT workers as was 
expected.  
The new Immigration Act (1 January 2005) has replaced  the former German Green Card Initiative. This 
new provision of the Immigration Act is not limited to IT specialists.  
The national regulation for employment, Section 31 on International exchange of Personnel and 
External Projects (December 2007), distinguished two gr oups of transferees, one is of employees posted 
in foreign projects and one is of intra-corporate transferees. 
Legal provisions 
Under the national regulation for employment, an ICT is described as a qualified, skilled employee 
holding a university or high professional degree or a comparable qualification, in the context of 
exchanges of personnel within an inte rnational company or corporation.  
Specialists and skilled employees of an internationa lly operating group who are transferred temporarily 
to Germany can obtain a work permit provided that the intended assignment can be seen as a part of a personnel exchange program for inte rnationalization of the group. 
A residence permit can be granted without a economic need test for employment / labour market check 
The permit is valid for at least one year with a ma ximum of three years. An extension over three years 
is not allowed. Permits cannot be renewed, but the status of the employee could be changed. 
The terms of employment, especially on salaries, should be comparable to those of German employees 
in similar positions. 
The approval from the labour agency is limited to the individual employer. 
One cannot make a claim on family reunificati on, but admission is allowed by discretion. 
It is sufficient that the company sends, from time to time, skilled employees also from Germany to other 
countries. 
This kind of work permit can be obtained from a special labour authority (ZAV), without a labour 
market check, which usually speed s up the visa process considerably.
95 
Conclusion and remarks 
There have been different programmes introduced to  attract different kinds of skilled workers to 
Germany, not always successful. There are still a lot of barriers faced by companies that would like to 
attract skilled workers. In some cases companies will a ttract their employee through the International 
Personnel exchange, to find a way around the bureaucratic situation. 
                                                 
95 Baker & McKenzie's Global Migration & Executive Transfers practice (2006) Immigration Manual 2006. 
 
EN 84   EN ICT Case study n° 2 - Dutch work permit 
BACKGROUND  
On 1 October 2004, the skilled worker regulation came in to force. To this end, the Aliens Employment 
Act, the Aliens Decree 2000, the Regulations on  Aliens 2000 and the Alie ns Act implementation 
guidelines were amended.  
The background of the skilled worker regulation is th e Lisbon Strategy, an EU-agreement to turn the 
European Union into the most dynamic knowledge economy in the world. 
A skilled worker96 is a migrant who comes to the Netherlands  in order to work in paid employment, 
receiving a certain income. In order to comply with  the skilled worker regulation, the employer for 
whom the skilled worker shall work must have signe d a declaration and submitted certain documents to 
the IND (The Immigration and Naturalisation Service). 97 
There are no special regulations regarding ICT in the Netherlands. The Intra-Corporate Transferee can 
however apply as a skilled worker. Many ICT are adm itted to the Netherlands this way because of the 
easier and quicker procedures that is involved specifically for skilled workers. From 2005 to 2007 
between 2500 and 3000 skilled workers a year were admitted through this Skilled Worker Regulation..  
More than 2,000 employers and institutes have alre ady signed statements to enable the admission and 
residence of knowledge migrants. It has become clea r that companies use the scheme specifically to 
bring international managers, researchers and ICT st aff to The Netherlands. The top three countries of 
origin are: India, the United States of America and Japan.98 
LEGAL PROVISIONS  
For aliens who meet the conditions of the skilled wo rker regulation, obtaining a residence permit is 
easier and can be done quicker than for aliens who apply for a residence permit via the regular 
procedure based on paid employment. 
Also the employers do not need a work permit for non-EU subjects when employing skilled workers, 
while a decision about the application for a residenc e permit is taken within fourteen days through a 
separate procedure.  
An employer can bring a foreign employee to the Netherlands as a skilled worker, if: -the employer has signed a declaration on the admi ssion of skilled workers and the employer has been 
admitted to the procedure by the Immigr ation and Naturalisation Service; and 
-the employee is to work as an employee and pr oves this by means of an employment contract; and 
-the employee earns a gross income of at l east € 46,541 or €34,130 if he is under 30.  
The employee must apply for a provisional residence permit at the Dutch embassy or the consulate in 
the country of origin or continuous residence.  
The residence permit is granted for the period of th e employment contract, with a maximum of five 
                                                 
96 Several terms are used in English to identify this kind of employee; knowledge wo rker, knowledge migrant and skilled worker.  
97 Source: EMN.  
98 Source: IND - The Immigrati on and Naturalisation Service.  
 
EN 85   EN years. 
The (registered) partner of the labour migrant will be given a residence permit for the period of one 
year. The residence permit of the children is the same as the residence permit of the highly skilled 
migrant. Family members are free to work on the labour market. 
One attractive aspect of employing foreign nationals  both labour migrants and highly skilled migrants 
in the Netherlands is that many will qualify to receive 35% of their income tax free. The effect of this is 
to make the overall tax burden similar to that faced in the UK.  
After 3 years in the Netherlands on a work permit, it is usually possible for an individual to obtain 
permanent residence. Thereafter they are free to take up any lawful employment and no longer require an employer-sponsored work permit. 
CONCLUSION AND REMARKS  
The work permit legislation in the Netherlands ma kes it possible for employees’ spouses to get a job. 
With the law passed in April 2005 the importan ce of dual careers for highly qualified people to 
international companies is recognized and this was welcomed by global companies who need highly 
skilled internationally-mobile workforces. 99 
It seems however, that bringing specialized pe rsonnel to the Netherlands  has become increasingly 
difficult with employers facing stricter rules a nd time-consuming procedures. Universities and high-
tech companies are complaining that they cannot get bright people and top talent to come from distant 
countries to the Netherlands to work  for a specific period. The procedures are said to be too slow and 
complicated. 
In a recent letter to parliament, the Dutch governme nt requested relaxing a number of restrictions on 
knowledge migrants. The aim of the new strategy is to  make it much easier for this labour talent from 
abroad to find their way into the Dutch labour market.100 
In 2007 the Immigration and Naturalisation Service concluded that there were a few obstacles in the 
functioning of the law and in attracting the target group:  
The residence applications should be processed with in a two-week period, which proves not always to 
be the case. 
Collaboration between the various or ganizations involved is not yet fully streamlined. The obstacles are 
found in the area of the issuance of the residence pe rmits and the registration of the migrants’ personal 
data. 
Not all target groups are reached due to the salary criterion.  There is a risk of fraud, because no pre-selections are made to assess companies for their reliability and, 
if necessary, block them from participating in the scheme.
101 
 
                                                 
 
99 Source: Stichting Permits/Permits Foundation  
100 Source: Foreign Investment Agency (NFIA.com) April 20, 2006  
101 Source: IND (April 2007)  
 
EN 86   EN ICT Case study n° 3 - NAFTA ICT Visa 
Background  
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was designed to open borders and promote free 
trade between three countries: Canada, the United States and Mexico. This agreement was signed on 
December 17, 1992 and implemented on January 1, 1994. As a treaty under international law, NAFTA 
is a complex trade agreement, which brought sign ificant immigration consequences. NAFTA is an 
expansion of the earlier Ca nada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CFT) of 1988. Border restrictions were 
largely unaffected by the 1988 Free Trade Agreement. It intends to facilitate the movement of U.S., 
Canadian and Mexican business persons across each country’s border through streamlined procedures. 
Chapter 16 of NAFTA, entitled “Temporary Entry for Business Persons” provides for the temporary 
entry of businesspersons among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 
TN (Trade NAFTA) status is a special non-immigrati on status unique to citizens of the United States, 
Canada and Mexico. It allows Amer ican, Canadian and Mexican citizens the opportunity to work in the 
United States or Canada under a somewhat limited set of occupations. Business persons included in 
NAFTA are grouped under four categories: Busi ness Visitors, Professionals, Intra-Company 
Transferees, Traders and Investors 
Provisions foreseen by the law/agreement examined 
Intra-Company Transferees are businesspersons employ ed by an enterprise to perform management or 
executive functions or those which involve specia lized knowledge, and are being transferred to an 
enterprise, parent branch, subsidiary or affiliate d branch located in the United States, Canada or 
Mexico. The Chapter Sixteen, Annex 1603, “Tempor ary entry for Business Persons”, section C-Intra-
Company Transferees provides that: 
Each Party shall grant temporary entry and prov ide confirming documentation to a business person 
employed by an enterprise who seeks to render services to that enterprise or a subsidiary or affiliate 
thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, executiv e, or involves specialized knowledge, provided that the 
business person otherwise complies with existing immigr ation measures applicable to temporary entry. 
A Party may require that such business person sha ll have been employed continuously by such 
enterprise for one year within the three-year period immediately preceding the date of the application 
for admission. 
No Party shall, as a condition for temporary entry unde r paragraph 1, require labor certification tests or 
other procedure of similar effect; or impose or maintain any numerical restriction relating to temporary entry under paragraph 1. 
Notwithstanding paragraph 2, a Party may require a business person seeking temporary entry under this 
Part to obtain a visa or its equivalent prior to en try. Before imposing a visa requirement, such Party 
shall consult with a Party whose business persons w ould be affected with a view to avoiding the 
imposition of the requirement. With respect to an exis ting visa requirement, a Party shall, at the request 
of a Party whose business persons are subject to the re quirement, consult with that Party with a view to 
its removal. 
Even though the three countries are bounded to appl y the above provision of NAFTA Agreement, there 
are nevertheless some differences in the type of cl assifications and in the procedures applicable in the 
three concerned States. 
United States of America:
 
NAFTA Intra-Company Transferees are admitted in th e US under the L-1 classification. L-1 applies to 
 
EN 87   EN intra-company transferees who come to the Unite d States to perform services in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The L-1 is generally issued for th ree years (one year only for a new company). It 
may be renewed for up to seven years for a person employed in an executive or managerial capacity, 
and up to five years for a person employed in  a capacity requiring specialized knowledge. These 
limitations on stay do not apply to L-1 employees who wo rk six months per year or less in the U.S. or 
who commute regularly to part-time work in th e U.S. Dependents (spouses and unmarried children 
under 21 years of age) of L-1 workers are entitled to L-2 status, and L-2 spouses may apply for work 
authorization in the United States. To qualify as a NAFTA Intra-Company Transferee people must: 
-be a Canadian/Mexican citizen; -be in an executive or managerial capacity, or one  involving specialized knowledge, in which case they 
must prove that they possess such knowledge and th at it is required for their proposed employment; 
-have been engaged in a similar position within the en terprise for at least one out of the previous three 
years; 
-be transferred to an enterprise that has a clear relationship with the enterprise in which they are 
currently employed; 
-comply with the country’s existing tem porary entry immigration requirements. 
Once applicants have a job offer, confirmed by a le tter presented to an immigration or consular officer, 
visas involve little paperwork or delay, which makes them well-suited for meeting companies’ needs in 
a timely manner. Canadians need only to supply jo b documents, proof of citizenship and an approved 
Petition for temporary worker before they will be admitted to the U.S. For Mexicans, the process is 
slightly more complicated and can’t take place at a po rt of entry. A Mexican citizen must obtain first a 
visa at a US consulate (generally in Mexico). Once the visa stamp is obtained in the passport, they may 
enter the US in a similar manner to a Canadian citizen . 
Mexico:
 
To work in Mexico as an Intra-company Transferee , an approved FM-3 FORM will be required, which 
American and Canadian citizens can obtain from a Mexican embassy or consulate or from a National 
Migration Institute office within Mexico, or on the Internet. 
When applying for the required FM-3 form, the Ameri can and Canadian citizens must demonstrate that 
they meet the qualifying criteria as a NAFTA Intra- Company Transferee. FM-3 forms are valid for one 
year but they may request up to four  extensions of one year each before they need to get a new form. 
When applying for an FM-3, the following information will be required:  -a letter in Spanish from the employer addressed to the immigration authority  
-a passport (valid for at least six months from the date of application)  -two recent passport-size photos 
-cash or a money order for the application fee. 
The letter from the company in Mexico must contain the full name and address of the applicant, request 
for a FM-3 Visa, and refer to the attached documen tation. In addition, the arrangements for payment 
and the location(s) of work within Mexico should be  explained. The information demonstrating that the 
applicant meets the requirements of a NAFTA Intra-Company Transferee is also required. 
 
EN 88   EN Canada:  
Canada allows for the transfer of certain employ ees (executives, senior managers and specialized 
knowledge workers) to the Canadian branch, subsidiary  or affiliate of an international company without 
the involvement of Human Resources Social Devel opment Canada (HRSDC). American or Mexican 
Companies can use the Intra-Company Transferee provi sions to transfer their employees to Canada with 
respect for the following conditions: 
-they must have worked at least one year in the preceding three-year period for the United States or 
Mexican employer who wishes to effect the transfer;  
-The employee must be in an executive or managerial position, or one involving “specialized 
knowledge” relating to their company’s business;  
-the employee must be transferred to Canada to  work temporarily for the same or an affiliated 
employer;  
The enterprise in the USA or Mexico must have either a parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate 
relationship with the Canadian firm  
They need a work permit.  Transferees should be prepared to supply the following documentation when applying for a work 
permit: 
-Proof of citizenship; 
-Outline of pre-arranged position in Canada, including: duration of stay; description of employment as 
executive or specialized knowledge; 
-Proof of relationship between Ca nadian and foreign employers; 
-Proof of previous employment w ith organization: minimum of one c ontinuous year in the last three 
years; similar position to the one being offered in Canada. 
Initial work permits for Transferees will be valid for at most three years. Transferees entering Canada to 
open or work in a new office will be grante d permits valid for up to one year only. 
Extensions may be granted for up to two years at a time. Executive Transferees can be granted permits 
for up to seven years in total. Specialized knowledge  workers can receive permits valid for up to five 
years in total. 
KEY LESSONS  
Immigration patterns were not affected by NAFTA. The long-term trend in legal and unauthorized 
labour migration from Mexico to the United States continued and even accelerated after NAFTA was 
implemented. 
The first 10 years of NAFTA agreement show that Canadians’ use of TN status is particularly large. By 
contrast, relatively few high-skilled Mexican workers enter the U.S. Cost of living, the education 
differential and language are barriers that stop Mexi cans to make use of NAF TA. Also, Americans do 
not make use a lot of the TN visa as the U.S.A is the biggest host country to receive high-skilled 
workers. 
 
EN 89   EN The L-1 visa applied in the US see ms to be an excellent visa for multinational employees. It offers 
immediate and future immigration benefits and is  a solution for employees who would otherwise not 
qualify for visas. It does not require the company to tr y to find a U.S. worker first, pay a prevailing 
wage or refrain from laying off U.S. workers. Hold ers may adjust to permanent residency, and do not 
need to demonstrate non-immigrant intention. 
 
 
EN 90   EN ANNEX 5 STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION  
5.1. Questionnaire for the stakeholders  
A questionnaire has been sent to  the stakeholders in the framew ork of the consultations for the 
Impact Assessment on Community instruments on economic migration, including: seasonal 
workers, remunerated trainees and Intra-Corpor ate Transferees. The questionnaire is divided 
in three sections, concerning the three sp ecific categories of immigrant workers.  
The complete questionnaire and list of stakeholders was de livered, asking stakeholder to 
complete the section/s in which they have sp ecific interest or have  developed relevant 
experience. Below are reported th e list of all stakehol ders involved and the relevant sections 
of the questionnaire.  
The consultation began on 11 of Febr uary and ended on 7 of April.  
List of stakeholders: 
ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation); 
Business Europe; UEAPME (European association of craft,  small and medium-sized enterprises); 
International Organizatio n for Migration (IOM); 
International Labour Organisation (ILO); Migration Policy Group; University of Kent; Nijmege University; Université Libre de Bruxelles; CEPS; Caritas Europe; European Platform for Migrant Workers Rights; Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association; Platform of European Social NGOs (Social Platform); ENAR – European Network against racism; European Coordination’s for Fore igners Rights to Family Life; 
Euro-Mediterranean Consortium for Applied Re search on Internationa l Migration (CARIM); 
 
EN 91   EN European Women's Lobby; 
AISEC; Work Permit Foundation; Migration Policy Institute; OECD; UN-DESA; FEACO - European Federation of Mana gement Consultancies Association; 
AmCham EU – American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union; 
Mission of Japan to the European Union. 
A more selected group of stakeholders wa s contacted for a second round of consultation 
during the last phase of the Impact Assessment in order to gather re levant stakeholders’ 
opinions regarding the list of policy options identified and ag reed with DG JLS and their 
potential economic and social im pacts. Replies were received from Business Europe and from 
ETUC whose opinions and observations have b een reported and used to complete the 
assessment of each policy option. 
 
EN 92   EN Questionnaire for stakeholders 
Section 3: Intra-Corporate Tranferees Question 3.1.  
a. The preliminary research carried out in the context of this assignment identified some 
relevant issues concerning the socio-economic context , which can be classified into the 
following categories: 
Effects on the EU labour market: matching skil ls and labour shortage s, innovation, R&D and 
capabilities, EU attractiveness for Foreign Direct Investments,  GDP growth, productivity and 
competitiveness at EU level; 
Other social issues: because of  the exemption from labour market  test and due to potential 
difficulties to check ICT's remuneration, possi ble effects on wages and employment; socio-
economic integration of ICT, family reunificatio n and access to work for spouses, their access 
to social security and health care services; 
Main issues in sending countri es: brain drain, skills availab ility and human resources; 
Circular migration: helping EU  Member States addressing thei r labour needs, supporting the 
development of countries of origin.  
Are these issues a reason for concern? Coul d you explain the rationa le behind your answer? 
b. What other issues and problems do you identify, if any? 
a. Do you think that there is a need for an EU  intervention and the need for an EU-level 
approach to address these issues? 
YES 
 NO 
 
 Please explain your choice below: b. If you think that EU intervention is essen tial or useful, could you please motivate your 
choice and explain what woul d be in your opinion the added value of EU action? 
c. If you think that EU interventi on is not appropria te (or not fully ap propriate), could you 
please motivate your choice and explain why thes e objectives could be better achieved at 
national level?  
Question 3.3 As defined at this stage, the set of objectives , that the Commission initiative 
could pursue, are the following:  
enhancing the competitiveness and the attr activeness of the EU economy for ICT; 
reinforcing the EU position in its rela tionship with international partners; 
 
EN 93   EN ensure quickly and effective entry procedures for ICT; 
granting favorable residence conditions for ICT102; 
What is your opinion on the relevance/pertinence of each one of the above mentioned 
objectives? Are there other globa l or specific objectives that  you consider important to 
include? 
                                                 
102 It is worth mentioning that the conditions under which ICTs  can perform their economic activity broadly fall under the common 
commercial policy. Therefore, the immigration policy can onl y address entry procedures and residency rights of ICTs.  
 
EN 94   EN Question 3.4 What is your opinion on th e options listed below? Wh ich would be the positive 
and negative effects of the solutions that you identified?  
  Explanation of the 
choice Possible positive and negative 
effects 
With reference to the introduction of a common single procedure in all MS for the application by ICT and trainees for a residence/work permit, would it be appropriate?  
 Yes  
No   
Should equal 
treatment with EU nationals be ensured?  
 Yes  
No   
Should family 
reunification and access to work to spouses be granted?  
 Yes  
No    
Should intra-
EU mobility (still in a context of intra-corporate transfers) be allowed?  
 Yes  
No   
 
EN 95   EN   Explanation of the 
choice Possible positive and negative 
effects 
Upon the ICT's return to his/her country of origin, should provisions ensuring the transfer of pensions' rights or the payment of a lump sum be introduced? 
 
 Yes  
No   
 
Question 3.5 With regard to the definition of  ICT and the categories included103, which could 
be the possible solutions? Which would be the positive and negative effects of such solutions? 
Question 3.6  
a. Which conditions of entry  (i.e. criteria to be fulfil in order to be admitted as ICT and 
procedures for admission) would be applicable for ICT?  
What should be the duration of the permit ? Would it be possible to renew it ? 
b. Among the rights  listed below, which ones should be gr anted? Please explain the choice 
and specify the positiv e and negative effects 
  Explanation of the 
choice Possible positive and negative 
effects 
Protection against discrimination at 
work  
 Yes  
No   
Equal treatment 
with national workers in respect of wages  Yes  
No    
                                                 
103 According to art. 14 of the 2001 Proposal for Council Directive on the conditions  of entry and residen ce of third-country nati onals 
for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic activities, “Intra-corporate transferees shall either be: (a) “key 
personnel”, that is to say persons working in a senior m anagement or executive position within a legal entity, receiving genera l 
supervision or instructions principally fr om the board of directors or stockholders of the business or their equivalent; (b) 
“specialists”, that is to say persons possessing uncommon know ledge essential to the establishment’s service, research 
equipment, techniques or management”  (COM(2001) 386 final).  
 
EN 96   EN   Explanation of the 
choice Possible positive and negative 
effects 
Join a social protection scheme  Yes  
No   
Access free to 
public medical health services  Yes  
No   
Free housing  Yes  
No   
Adequate 
prevention of occupational accidents or diseases  Yes  
No   
Others (please 
specify)   Yes  
No   
 
Additional comments 
 
EN 97   EN 5.2. Outcome stakeholder analysis – first consultation 
Below is the list of those st akeholders which specifically answered the s ection of the 
questionnaire on Intra-Corporate Transferees: 
Business Europe; International Organizatio n for Migration (IOM); 
European Coordination’s for Foreigners Rights to Family Life (hereinafter COORDEUROP); 
Work Permit Foundation; FEACO-Pendo group; American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union Mission of Japan to the European Union The consultation began on February 11
th and ended on April 7th. After having collected all 
contributions, an in-depth analysis of their contents and insights wa s carried out and is 
presented in the following paragraphs. Since the analysis was performed in relation to each 
question, each analysis is introduced by a genera l overview of the issues and concerns raised 
by each question and to which stakeholders were  expected to give their views and remarks 
A) Problem definition 
Most stakeholders agree that the issues c oncerning the socio-economic context, mentioned 
above are relevant. Many of  them raise the issue of overall competitiveness of the EU and its 
attractiveness for foreign direct investment . Business Europe, for example, is concerned 
that the difficulties in attracting ICTs w ill hamper companies to innovate, remain a. The preliminary research carried out in the context of this assignment identified some relevant issues concerning the socio-economic 
context , which can be classified into the following categories: 
a. Effects on the EU labour market: matching skills and labour shortages, innovation, R&D and capabilities, EU attractiveness for Foreign 
Direct Investments, GDP growth, productivity and competitiveness at EU level; 
b. Other social issues: because of the exemption from labour market test and due to potential difficulties to check ICT's remunera tion, 
possible effects on wages and employment ; socio-economic integration of ICT, family reunification and access to work for spous es, 
their access to social security and health care services; 
c. Main issues in sending countries: brain drain, skills availability and human resources; 
d. Circular migration: helping EU Member States addressing their labour needs, supporting the development of countries of origin.  
Are these issues a reason for concern? Could you explain the rationale behind your answer? 
b. What other issues and problems do you identify, if any? 
 
 
 
EN 98   EN competitive and expand their activities , and ultimately negatively effect the creation of 
wealth and growth. The FEACO-Pendo Group mentions  that the current state of play, of each 
EU Member States having separate rules and re gulations reduces the competiveness of the EU 
in an increasing global market and faced by shortages of skilled labour. The EU should 
instead be able to recruit quickly and move  ICTs quickly, accord ing to the FEACO-Pendo 
Group. The Mission of Japan to the European  Union emphasizes the point of the EU’s 
attractiveness for foreign direct investments. 
The Work Permit Foundation addressed, as the only stakeholder, the issue of brain drain  by 
stating that ICTs often return to their home country with the benefit of the added experience 
and development potential. The other stakeholde rs do not make notice of brain drain as a 
problem. 
As an additional problem, the International Or ganisation for Migration is concerned for the 
absence of safeguards ensuring that ICTs undergo equal treatment with nationals in terms 
of wages and working conditions . The Mission of Japan to the European Union also raises 
this issue, but emphasizes more on the practical  issues for ICTs, such as moving to other 
Schengen Agreement countries, difficulties in home doctor applications, residence registrations and opening bank accounts. 
B) Subsidiarity and EU Added Value  
Question 2 
a. Do you think that there is a need for an EU  intervention and the need for an EU-level 
approach to address these issues? (YES/NO and explanation of the choice)  
b. What other issues and problems do you identify, if any? 
c. If you think that EU interventi on is not appropria te (or not fully ap propriate), could you 
please motivate your choice and explain why thes e objectives could be better achieved at 
national level? 
All stakeholders agree th at there is a need for an EU intervention.  Many stakeholders 
emphasise the need for unifying the current 27 di fferent systems for app lication and residence 
in common rules or principles.  
According to most of the stakeholders, the adde d-value of EU interventi on would be useful to 
establish, singe, fast and transparent pr ocedures, or common principles of entry, 
admission and residence for ICTs and their family members . For employers EU 
intervention would be more increased simplicity, transparency, and efficiency in obtain work 
permits and visa for ICT and the lifting of re strictions on the moveme nt of ICTs between 
Member States (Work Permit Foundation).  
Some stakeholders also mention that more a ttractive policies would support attractiveness of 
the EU as a business location and to ensure that member states stay competitive (Business Europe, Work Permit Foundation, Internat ional Organisation for Migration). 
 
EN 99   EN C) Objectives (question 3) 
Most stakeholders consider each of the objective stated above as relevant.  
Only Business Europe states that instead of a set of objectives there should be a key objective 
wh
ich 
is 
to 
ens
ure 
qui
ck 
an
d 
eff
ective entry procedures for ICT.  
The International Organisation for Migration raises the additional objective of  creating 
transparency for companies by the applying one set of rules and procedures to all the 
Member States.  
The Mission of Japan to the European Union makes as an additional remark that the 
objectives currently focus just  on the rights of ICTs. They suggest exempting ICTs from 
certain obligations, such as language requirements, only rele vant to economic migrants.  
D) Policy Options (question 4) 
Question 4 The stakeholders where asked to express th eir opinion on the following elements:  
Common single procedure 
Equal treatment Family reunification and access to work to spouses Allowing Intra EU mobility  Pension rights 
Common single procedure 
All stakeholders agree on the need fo r a common single procedure, because: 
It will simplify and accelerate the procedur e both for the employer and the migrant (The 
International Organisation for Migration) 
It would be a business-friendly solution. However,  they warn for grouping ICTs together with 
remunerated trainees. In their view the latter should be subject to simpler admission criteria. Question 3.3 As defined at this stage, the set of objectives , that the Commission initiative could pursue are the following:  
enhancing the competitiveness and the attractiveness of the EU economy for ICT; 
reinforcing the EU position in its relationship with international partners; ensure quickly and effective entry procedures for ICT; granting favorable residence conditions for ICT
1; 
What is your opinion on the relevance/pertinence of each one of the above mentioned objectives? Are there other global or 
specific objectives that you consider important to include? 
 
EN 100   EN They foresee as a positive effect of a single procedure that all business initiated transfers (as 
opposed to individual initiated migration) could be processed through a single ‘fast track’ 
procedure. Possible negative they foresee is that it would become  more difficult to transfer 
trainees (The Work Permit Foundation).  
It will not only enhance the benefit of ICT, but  also help to promote the attractiveness of the 
EU as a Single Market (American Chambe r of Commerce to the European Union). 
Also the FEACO- Pendo group s uggests a fast track single ap plication pro cedure as the 
preferred policy option. They recommend as an additional remark, to combine the work permit, visa and residence permit in a single  permit for third country ICTs temporarily 
assigned to the EU (sim ilar to the elements contained in the proposed Direct ive for highly 
skilled workers). They also recommend that a pr oposed directive should allow Member States 
to waive some of the minimum requirements which would be harmonised under the Directive 
if they believe lower requirements are justified. 
Equal treatment 
All stakeholders that replied ag ree on the need of equal treatme nt for third-country ICTs to 
EU nationals.  
The International Organisation for Migration und erlines that equal treatment will enhance the 
attractiveness of the EU economy for ICT. 
The Work Permit Foundation also mentions equal treatment to family members of ICT. They 
recommend to apply equal treatment to rights  and duties that accrue as a result of being 
legally resident and employed and paying taxes and social premia. They suggest to omit the 
application of specific Member States requir ements for longer-term migrants to speak the 
language and attend inte gration courses for ICTs and their family members. The Work Permit 
Foundation foresees as positive effects of equal treatment the integration of ICTs and their 
family members for the period of the assi gnment without being a burden on public funds. 
Negative effects are in their opini on not significant as ICTs remain a limited time in the host 
country and their residence is dependent on a contract of employment. Their numbers are 
small (less than 1% of the total employed st aff) and they are not a drain on public funds. 
The American Chamber of Commerce to the EU st ates that the EU shoul d continue its efforts 
in the liberalisation of the movement of people in the EU internal market in the least discriminatory possible manner for non-EU nationa ls including Japanese citizens. Their point 
of view is that equal treatment with EU nati onals will only enhance the benefits of ICT but 
also help to promote the attractiveness of the EU 
Family reunification and access to work for spouses 
All stakeholders agree on assigning ICTs the righ t of family reunification and access to work 
for spouses. 
Business Europe mentions that if family reuni fication or access to work for spouses is not 
granted, it is difficult to c onvince staff to take assignments of a longer duration.  
According to the International Organisation for Migration, th e ease in which companies can 
move around their key personnel can play an important role in de termining whether to set up 
 
EN 101   EN business in a particular country. Therefore fam ily reunification and access to work for spouses 
should be facilitated. 
The Work Permit Foundation remarks that the expe rience in internationa l companies is that 
policies that apply to the family members often determine the success of an international assignment. In particular, concerns about part ner employment are one of the main reasons 
why staff turn down an international assi gnment. Therefore the Work Permit Foundation 
suggests that family members should be allowe d to accompany the ICT without waiting time. 
Also they should be allowed to join at a late r date without additional bureaucracy (i.e. still 
linked to the ICT). They suggest that spouses and family members should be given immediate 
and open access to the labour market without  an additional work permit requirement.  
The FEACO- Pendo remarks that the spouses shou ld be given free access to the labour market 
of all EU Member States dur ing the validity of the work permit of his/her ICT spouse. 
The American Chamber of Commerce also sees family reunification and access to work for 
family members as a mean to promote the a ttractiveness of the EU as a single market. 
As an additional remark to this question, the Work Permit Foundation foresees the following 
positive effects of family reunification and granting spouses the right to work:  
- For EU/ Member States: an attractive climate for skills and talented ICTs, enhanced country brand, 
supports trade and investment, helps integration,  the whole family can contribute to economy.  
- For employers: reduced cost of assignment fa ilure, help to attract/retain mobile talent 
- For ICT family: mobile, motivated family, partner can work and maintain skills, eases 
transition back to employment in home country 
- Negative effects: None. ICT numbers are sma ll (1% of employees). No t all partners will 
want to work or find a job. They have to comp ete with local nationals. If the partner is the 
best person for the job, this will cont ribute most to the local economy.  
Allowing intra-EU mobility  
All the stakeholders agree on allowing ICT In tra-EU mobility. Although the Work Permit 
Foundation suggests to make it subject to a c ontinuing or new contra ct of employment. 
Business Europe emphasis that companies should be able to move executive and professional 
staff from country to country depending on co mmercial needs or where the ICT can be most 
productive for a specific period. 
The International Organisation for Migration mentions that intra EU mobility for ICTs 
increases the attractiveness for business of EU Member States and the EU economy as a 
whole. 
The American Chamber of Commerce highlights that the progress in EU integration and 
globalisation has boosted the number of ICT w ho move across Member States. Against this 
background they suggest that free intr a-EU movement should be allowed. 
Pension rights 
 
EN 102   EN Three stakeholders, who are stated below, agre e on the importance of pension rights for ICTs: 
According to the International Organisation for Migration it will foster the circularity of 
migration and increases the chances that the ICT with a pension will go back to their countries 
of origin. 
The Work Permit Foundation states that transf er of pension rights or accrued value or, 
perhaps more realistically, a lump  sum refund of the contributions  will be welcome. The view 
as positive effect the reduced costs to employers or employees depending on how it would be 
administered. 
The American Chamber of Commerce mentions suggests that from th e viewpoint securing 
income of elderly people, it is essential that pe nsioners are guaranteed the reasonable scope of 
rights of pension benefits proportionate to th e insurance premium paid  in the country of 
appointment, upon the return of IC T to his/her country of origin . If its purpose is to prevent 
non-refund for the insurance premiums paid in the country of appointment, it will help reduce 
economic burden of ICT and promote personnel and economic exchanges. Furthermore, they 
suggest it will be necessary for ICT to have a choice between rece iving benefits as pension or 
as lump-sum payment. 
E) Additional comments (remarks not strictly linked to a specific question) 
As an additional remark, The FEACO-Pendo Group summarizes the specific costs companies 
have to bear as a result of the various barrier s and constraints encountered by companies when 
looking to temporarily transfer third country ICTs to the EU. Those are direct costs to 
companies related to obtaining a work permit, visa and residence permit and additional costs 
to companies such as delays in assigning the ICT due to the length and complexity of the various procedures; lost opportunity costs if  the ICT cannot be assigned to the required 
location at all or on time to perform the work. In some cases, contracts are lost resulting in 
lost revenue for the company; increased attrit ion rate if cannot assign ICTs easily; reduction 
in productivity of ICTs. 
The Mission of Japan to  the European Union highlights i ssues such as the length of time 
required for the issuance, the complexity of  procedures, the expiry period, renewal 
procedures, language requirements, inconsistency in service at the local levels as problems 
associated to the issue of residence and work permits, as well as visa procedures for ICT and 
their families. 
 
EN 103   EN REFERENCES 
Commission Documents 
Communication on circular migra tion and mobility partnerships  between the European Union 
and third countries, COM (2007) 248 final 
Commission Communicati on, The demographic future of Europe – from challenge to 
opportunity, COM(2006) 571 final 
Commission Communication 402 fina l. See also: -MEMO/06/296 EU policy to fight illegal 
immigration COM (2006) 
Commission Communication 699 fi nal of 21 December 2005. See also: IP/05/1664 Economic 
migration in the EU – Commission presents  a roadmap on Legal Migration COM (2005) 
Commission Communication on A Common Agenda for Integration: Framework for the 
Integration of Third-Country  Nationals in the European  Union , COM (2005)389 final; 
Commission Communication on Priority actions for responding to the challenges of 
migration: first follow up to Hampton Court , COM(2005)621 final; 
Commission Communication on Impr oved effectiveness, enhan ced interoperability and 
synergies among European databases in th e area of Justice and Home Affairs , 
COM(2005)597 final; 
Commission Communication on European values in the globalised world:  Contribution of the 
Commission to the October Meeting of Head s of State and Govern ment , COM(2005)525 
final; 
Commission Communication on Migr ation and Development: Some concrete orientations , 
COM (2005)390 final 
Commission Communication First Annual Re port on Migration and Integration , 
COM(2004)508 final 
Commission Communication Study on the links between legal and illegal immi gration , COM 
(2004)412 final; 
Commission Communication on Im migration, integration a nd employment , COM(2003)336 
final; 
Commission Communication on Integr ating migration issues in the EU relations with third 
countries , COM(2002)703 final; 
Commission Communication on A Community immigration policy , COM(2000)757 final 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum st andards on procedures in 
Member States for granting and with drawing refugee status OJ L 326/13, 13.12.2005 
 
EN 104   EN Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 November  2005 on a specific pro cedure for admitting 
third-country nationals for purpos es of scientific research; 
Council Decision of 12 July 2005 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member 
States, OJ L 205 of 06.08.2005 (New Lisbon Agenda). 
Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-
country nationals for the purposes of studi es, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or 
voluntary service applicable  as of 12 January 2007 
Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29th April 2004 on minimum st andards for the qualification 
and status of third country nationals or stat eless persons as refugees or as persons who 
otherwise need international pr otection and the content of th e protection granted OJ l 304/12, 
30.9.2004  
Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country 
nationals who are long-term resident s (applicable as of 26 January 2006) 
Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 Septembe r 2003 on the right to family reunification 
(applicable as of 3 October 2005); 
Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family  reunification OJ L 
251/12, 3.10.2003 
Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the 
reception of asylum seekers OJ L 31/18, 6.2.2003  
Council Directive 2003/109/EC. See al so:IP/06/56 Status of thir d-country nationals who are 
long-term residents in the EU : deadline for rules to take effect on 23 January 2006 
Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary 
protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a 
balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the 
consequences thereof OJ L 212/12, 7.8.2001  
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 imple menting the principle of equal treatment 
between persons irrespective of  racial or ethnic origin 
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for 
equal treatment in employment and occupation 
Council Document on Common Basic Principl es on integration , Council Document 14615/04 
of 19 November 2004 
Council Conclusions on A Common Agenda for Integration , Council Document 14390/05 of 
1-2 December 2005; 
Council Recommendation 2005/762/EC of 12 October 2005 to facilitate the admission of 
third-country nationals to carry out scient ific research in th e European Community; 
 
EN 105   EN Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14  May 2003 extending the provisions of 
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of third 
countries who are not already co vered by those provisions so lely on the ground of their 
nationality; 
Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 Febr uary 2003 establishing the criteria and 
mechanisms for determining the Member St ate responsible for examining an asylum 
application lodged in one of the Member St ates by a third-country national OJ L 50/1, 
25.2.2003 
Council Resolution of 20 June 1994 on limitation s on the admission of th ird-country nationals 
to the territory of the Member States for employment; 
Council Resolution of 30 November 1994 relati ng to the limitations admission of third-
country nationals to the territo ry of the Member States for the purpose of pursuing activities 
as self-employed persons; 
Council Regulation n°1612/1968 on freedom of moveme nt for workers (in particular, article 
19(2) for the “Community preference”). 
Green paper on The future of the European migration network , COM(2005)606 final Green Paper on Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations , 
COM(2005)94 final; 
Green Paper on An EU approach to mana ging economic migration , COM(2004)811 final; 
IP/06/1345 Entry into force of key asylum law creating a «level play ing field» in asylum 
policies throughout Europe hampered by failure  of timely transposition by most Member 
States 
IP/05/1079 Commission adopts major package of measures in the field of immigration and 
asylum 
IP IP/06/1026 Package of measures to reinfo rce solidarity between Member States and the 
fight against illegal immigration 
MEMO/05/291 New orientations on the extern al dimension of immigration and asylum 
policies 
MEMO/05/290 Integration of third-country nationals 
MEMO/05/288 Common standards on return MEMO/06/437-
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesActi on.do?reference=MEMO/ 06/437&format=HTML&a
ged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en] The EU meets the entire Af rican continent in 
Tripoli to launch a partnershi p on migration and development 
MEMO/05/494 Policy Plan on Legal Migration 
 
EN 106   EN MEMO/06/15 Status of third-c ountry nationals who are long-te rm residents in the EU : 
deadline for rules to take  effect on 23 January 2006 
MEMO/06/297 Rapid reaction teams of border guards Presidency Conclusions on A Comprehensive Mi gration Policy, Europe an Council, Brussels, 
14th-15th December 2006. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs /cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/92202.pdf 
Recommendation 2005/761/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council of 28 
September 2005 to facilitate the issue by the Memb er States of uniform short-stay visas for 
researchers from third countries  travelling within the Commun ity for the purpose of carrying 
out scientific research; 
Treaty Establishing the European Community OJ C 325, 24.12.02 Treaty on European Union OJ C 325, 24.12.02 
 
EN 107   EN Studies in the field of legislation: 
Apap, Joanna and de Groot, Gerard-René and Besselink, Leonard F.M. and Carrera, Sergio 
and Groenendijk, Kees and Guild, Elspet h and Niessen, Jan and Pratt, Sandra. The Nexus 
between Immigration, Integra tion and Citizenship in the EU . Collective Conference 
Volume/April 2006. CEPS Challenge Papers, 10 April 2006. 
Apap, Joanna and Carrera, Sergio. Maintaining Security within Borders: Towards a 
Permanent State of Emergency in the EU ? CEPS Policy Briefs No. 41, October 2003. 
Apap, Joanna and Carrera, Sergio Towards a Proactive Immigration Policy for the EU? 
CEPS Working Document No. 198, December 2003 . 
Balzacq, T. and S. Carrera (eds.), Security versus Freedom: A C hallenge for Europe’s Future , 
Ashgate Publishing, 2006. 
Balzacq, T. and S. Carrera, Migration, Borders and Asylum: Trends and Vulnerabilities in EU 
Policy , CEPS, Brussels, 2005 
Bia, Maria Teresa. Towards an EU Immigration Policy:  Between Emerging Supranational 
Principles and National Concerns . EDAP paper, 2/2004. 
Carrera, Sergio, and Geyer, Florian. Terrorism, Borders and Migration: The Commission's 
2008 Policy Strategy in the Area of  Freedom, Securi ty and Justice.  CEPS Policy Brief, No. 
131, 1 June 2007. 
Carrera, Sergio. Building a Common Policy on Labour Immigration: Towards a 
Comprehensive and Global Approach in the EU?  CEPS Working Document, No. 256, 7 
February 2007. 
Carrera, S. , A Comparison of Integration Programme s in the EU: Trends and Weaknesses,  
CHALLENGE Research Paper, Centre for Eur opean Policy Studies, CEPS: Brussels, March 
2006. 
Carrera, S, A Typology of Different Inte gration Programmes in the EU,BRIEFING 
PAPER:ORDER FORM No IP/C/LIBE/OF/2005-167, January 2006. 
Carrera, Sergio ‘ Integration’ as a Process of Inclusion for Migrants? The Case of Long-Term 
Residents in the EU . CEPS Working Documents No. 219, 1 March 2005. 
Carrera, Sergio and Formisano, Marco. An EU Approach to Labour Migration: What is the 
Added Value and the Way Ahead ? CEPS Working Documents No. 232, 1 October 2005. 
Carrera, S. and M. Formisano, An EU Approach to Labour Migration: What is the Added 
Value and the Way Ahead ?, CEPS Working Docume nt, No. 232/October 2005. 
Cyrus, N. and D. Vogel, «Germany», in J. Niessen, Y. Schibel and C. Thompson (eds), 
Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A P ublication of the European Migration Dialogue , 
Migration Policy Group, Brussels/Warsaw, 2005 
 
EN 108   EN Ellermann, Antje." Limiting the scope of conflict: Deportation and damage control in 
Germany and the United States ". In European Union Studies Association (EUSA) > Biennial 
Conference > 2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, pages 49, Nashville, TN. 
Faria, Cláudia Preventing Illegal Immigration: Reflec tions on Implications for an Enlarged 
European Union . EIPSACOPE 2003(1):pp. 1-5. 
Geddes, A, The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe , London: Sage Publications, 
pp. 126-48, 2003 
Givens, Terri and Luedtke, Adam. " The politics of EU immigration policy " . In European 
Union Studies Association (EUSA) > Bienni al Conference > 2003 (8th ), March 27-29, 2003, 
pages 35, Nashville, TN. 
Guild, E. Making the EU Citizens' Agenda Work . CEPS Policy Brief, No. 122, 9 February 
2007. 
Guild, E., The Legal Elements of European Identit y: EU Citizenship and Migration Law , The 
Hague: European Law Library, Kluwer  Law International, pp. 201-14, 2004 
Guild, E., ‘ Mechanisms of Exclusion: Labour Migration in the European Union ’, in J. Apap 
(Ed), Justice and Home Affairs in the EU: Libe rty and Security Issues after Enlargement, 
Edwar Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, pp. 211-234, 2004 
Herz, Dietmar. " European immigration and asylum  policy: scope and limits of 
intergovernmental Europeanization.".  In European Union Studi es Association (EUSA) > 
Biennial Conference > 2003 (8th), Marc h 27-29, 2003, pages 29, Nashville, Tennessee. 
Hugelin, Laurent. " L'incidence d'une nouvelle politique communautaire de l'immigration sur 
le partenariat euro mediterraneen = The Impact  of a new Community immigration policy on 
the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership ". In EURO-MED INTEGRATION AND THE 'RING 
OF FRIENDS': THE MEDITERRANEAN'S EUROPEAN CHALLENGE, VOL IV , Xuereb, Peter G., Eds. European Docume ntation and Research Centre, 2003 
Iglicka, K., P. Kazmierkiewicz and A. Weinar, Poland, in J. Niessen, Y. Schibel and C. 
Thompsson (eds), Current Immigration Debates in Eur ope: A Publication of the European 
Migration Dialogue , Migration Policy Group, September 2005. 
König, K. and B. Perchinig , «A ustria», in J. Niessen, Y. Sc hibel and C. Thompson (eds), 
Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A P ublication of the European Migration Dialogue , 
Migration Policy Group, Brussels/Warsaw, 2005 
Korys, P. and A. Weinar, Poland, in J. Niessen and Y. Schibel, Immigration as a labour 
market strategy – European and North American Perspectives , Migration Policy Group, June 
2005. 
Lahav, Gallya. " Opposition to immigration: Self-intere st or public interest?". In European 
Union Studies Association (EUSA)  > Biennial Conference > 2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, 
pages 27, Nashville, TN. 
 
EN 109   EN Luedtke, Adam. " European Integration, Public Opinion and Immigration Po licy: Testing the 
Impact of National Identity ". In European Union Studies Association (EUSA) > Biennial 
Conference > 2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, pages 39, Nashville, Tennessee. 
Maas, Willem " The future of European migration rights ". In European Union Studies 
Association (EUSA) > Biennial Conferen ce > 2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, pages 13, 
Nashville, TN. 
Menz, Georg." Changing patterns and parameters in EU immigration policy" . In European 
Union Studies Association  (EUSA) > Biennial Conferen ce > 2003 (8th), Ma rch 27-29, 2003, 
pages 38, Nashville, TN. 
Niemann, Arne." Dynamics and countervailing pressures of visa, asylum and immigration 
policy Treaty revision: explaining change an d inertia from the Amsterdam IGC to the 
Constitutional Treaty ". In European Union Studies Association (EUSA) > Biennial 
Conference > 2005 (9th), March 31-April 2, 2005, pages 61, Austin, Texas. 
Niessen, J. and Y. Schiebel, Immigration as a labour market  strategy: European and North 
American perspectives , Migration Policy Group, Brussels, 2005 
Sterkx, Steven. " Cross-pillarisation at the intersection of EU migration and refugee policy 
and the Union's external relations ". In European Union Studies Association (EUSA) > 
Biennial Conference > 2003 (8th), Ma rch 27-29, 2003, pages 27, Nashville, TN. 
Schneider, H. and A. Wiesbrock ‘ The Council Directive on Family Reunification: 
Establishing Proper Rights for Third Country Nationals?’ , in H. Schneider (ed), Migration, 
Integration and Citizenship: A Challenge for Europe’s Future, Forum Maastricht: Maastricht, 2005 
Thielemann, Eiko " Does Policy Harmonisation Work? The EU's Role in Regulating 
Migration Flows " . In European Union Studies Associat ion (EUSA) > Biennial Conference > 
2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, pages 27, Nashville, Tennessee. 
Studies on Member States Legislation:  
Apap, J. and S. Carrera , Spain’s new regularization procedur e: Is this the way forward?  
CEPS Commentary, Brussels, February 2005. 
Apap, J, Shaping Europe’s Migration Policy: A Com parative Analysis of a Selection of 
Member States and Candidate Countries ‘Gr een Card» and Equivalent Legislation: A 
Comparison of Strategies in Germany, Swed en, The Netherlands, the UK, Czech Republic, 
Hungary and Poland , CASE, Poland, 2004. 
Apap, J, ‘ Shaping Europe’s Migration Policy: New Regimes for the Employment of Third 
Country Nationals: A Comparison of Strategies  in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and the 
UK’, European Journal of Mi gration and Law 4: 309-328, 2002. 
Arango, J. and R. Sandell, Inmigración: Prioridades par a una Nueva Política Española , 
Informes Elcano, Real Instituto Elcano, December 2004. 
 
EN 110   EN Balch, A., Spain, in J. Niessen and Y. Schibel, Immigration as a Labour Market Strategy – 
European and North American Perspectives , Migration Policy Group, 2005. 
Blio, R., C. Wihtol de Wenden and N. Meknache,  ‘France’, in J. Niessen, Y. Schibel and R. 
Magoni (eds), EU and US Approaches to the Management of Immigration , Migration Policy 
Group 2003. 
Cimade, Service Oecuménique d’Entrade, Analyse du projet du loi rela tif a l’immigration et a 
l’integration , 12 avril 2006. 
Collectif Uni(e)s contre une immigration jetabl e, Nouvelle analyse du projet de loi modifiant 
le code de l’entrée et du séj our des étrangers et du droit d’ asile (CESEDA), retriavable from 
http://www.contreimmigrationjetable.org/, 2006 
European Migration Network, Policy Analysis Report on Asyl um and Migra tion: Belgium , 
July 2004 to December 2005, retrievable from  http://www.dofi.fgov.be/fr/1024/frame.htm, 
2005 
Federal Governments Commissioner for Migration, R efugees and Integration, A Manual for 
Germany , , www.integrationsbeauftragte.de, January 2005 
Federal Ministry of Interior, Immigration Law and Policy , retrievable from 
www.bmi.bund.de, 2005 
Federal Office for Migration and Refugees/B undesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge , « The 
Impact of Immigration on Germany’s Society », in Berlin Institute for Comparative Social 
Research (eds), The Impact of Immigration on Europe’s Society: A Pilot Research Study 
undertaken by the European Migrat ion Network, Berlin: BIVS, 2005 
Federal Office for Migration and Refugees /Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 
Concept for a Nation-wide Integration C ourse (retrievable from www.bamf.de). 
Hamilton, K., P. Simon and C. Veniard , The Challenge of French Diversity , Migration 
Information Source www.migrationinformatiom.com , 2004 
Justitie, Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, Bringing a foreign employee to the Netherlands , 
January 2006. 
Justitie, Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, Residence in the Netherlands , May 2006. 
Justitie, Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, The Civic Integration Examination Abroad , 
March 2006. 
Marinelli, V, «The Netherlands», in J. Ni essen, Y. Schibel and C. Thompson (eds), Current 
Immigration Debates in Europe : A Publication of the Eu ropean Migration Dialogue, 
Migration Policy Group, Brussels/Warsaw, 2005 
Martiniello, M. and A. Rea , Belgium’s Immigration Policy Brings Renewal and 
Challenges ,Migration Information Source ( http://www.migrationinformation.com ), 2003 
 
EN 111   EN National Contact Point Austria within the European Migration Network, « The Impact of 
Immigration on Austria’s Society: A Survey of Recent Austrian Migration Research », in 
Berlin Institute for Comparative Social Res earch (eds), The Impact of Immigration on 
Europe’s Society: A Pilot Research Study unde rtaken by the European  Migration Network, 
Berlin: BIVS, 2005 
National Contact Point The Netherlands, « A review of recent literature on the impact of 
immigration on Dutch society », in Berlin Institute for Compara tive Social Research (eds), The 
Impact of Immigration on Europe’s Society:  A Pilot Research Study undertaken by the 
European Migration Network, Berlin: BIVS, 2005 
Ortega Martín, E., Manual Práctico de De recho de Extranjería, Europea Temática, European 
de Derecho: Editorial  Jurídica: Madrid, 2005. 
Pérez-Díaz, V., B. Álvarez-Miranda and C. González-Enríquez (2001), España ante la 
Inmigración , Fundación La Caixa, Colección de Estudios Sociales, No. 8, 2001. 
Policy Report, National Contact Point Austria, Immigration and Integration in Austria , 
Reference Period 1 July 2004 to 31 Decembe r 2005, European Migration Network, 2005 
Santolaya, P. ,España, en E. Aja y L. Díez, « La Regulación de la Inmigración en España », 
Obra 
General Studies 
Abella M., Policies and best practices for m anagement of temporary migration , June 2006 
Agunias D., Linking Temporary Worker Schemes with Development , 2007 
Agunias D., From a zero-sum to a win-win scenario? li terature review on circular migration , 
2006  
Baker & McKenzie's Global Migration & Executive Transf ers practice (2006) Immigration 
Manual 2006.  
CEDEFOP report: “Future skill needs in Europe Medi um-term forecast - Synthesis report” , 
2008 
Cholewinski R., Temporary Migration in Europe in th e Past and Present: General Features 
and Protection Afforded , Presentation to the ILO Work shop on Temporary Migration — 
Assessment and practical proposals for ov ercoming protection gaps, Geneva, 18-19 
September 2003 
Ernst & Young, Ernst & Young Attractiveness Survey for Europe , 2007 
ECFIN, Labour Migration Patterns in Europe : Recent Trends, Future Challenges , 2006 
European Migration Network EMN Policy Analysis Report 2005. Den Haag: European 
Migration Network Dutch Nati onal Contact Point, April 2006 
 
EN 112   EN Federal Ministry of Finance Germany Handbook Ru les on the supply of work or services in 
relation to the EU freedom of services and estab lishment. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Finance, 
2006 
Fotakis C. and Coomans G., “ Demographic ageing, migration and the challenge for growth 
and labour market sustainability ” - The Economic and social aspe cts of migration, conference 
jointly organized by European Commission and OECD, January 2003  
Gächter A., Training measures for y oung people continued, EIRO, August 1999 
GèDAP, Berlin Institute for Co mparative Social Research, Migration and Asylum in Europe 
2003 , Project financed by the European Commission 
Grell M., Foreign-contro lled enterprises in the EU, Eurost at Statistics in Focus, 30/2008 
Home Office UK Border Agency, Work Permit s Guidance for Employer s training and work 
experience scheme, April 2008 
Hornbeck J. F.,“NAFTA at Ten: Lessons fr om Recent Studies”, CRS Report for Congress, 
February 13, 2004 
ILO, Temporary foreign worker programmes: Polic ies, adverse consequences, and the need 
to make them work , 2002 
ILO, A Fair Globalization: Cr eating opportunities for all , 2004 
Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), Bringing a foreign employee to the 
Netherlands, December 2007 
Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) Th ird country higly-skille d migrants in the EU  
- Small scale study III , April 2007 
Jansen M., and Piermartini R., The Impact of Mode 4 on Tr ade in Goods and Services,  
November 2004 
Kuptsch C. and Oishi N., Training abroad: German and Japanese  schemes for workers from 
transition economies or developing countries , ILO 1994 
A. Math (IRES) et Alexis Spire (CNRS, CERAPS-Lille-, vers une immigration permanente 
de travailleurs temporaires , juin 2004 
Meyers D. W., Temporary Worker Programs: A Patchwork Policy Response, Migration 
Policy Group , 2006 
Nonimmigrants – v. 06.a; Temporary Migration to the United States: Nonimmigrant 
Admissions Under U.S. Immigration Law U. S. Immigration Report Series, Volume 2, 
January 2006  
OECD,  International Mobility  of the Highly Skilled , OECD Policy Brief, July 2002 
OECD, Offshoring and employment: trends and impacts , 2007 
 
EN 113   EN OECD, Measuring Globalization – Ac tivities of Multinationals , 2007 
Ratha D., Leveraging Remittances for development , 2007  
Ruhs M., The potential of temporary migration programmes in future international migration 
policy , 2005 
Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Gabriela  Rodríguez Pizarro, Submitted Pursuant to 
Commission on Human Ri ghts Resolution 2002/62, Addendum, Mission to the Philippines,” 
United Nations Economic and Social Counci1, 2002 
Rodríguez Pizarro G., Report of the Special Ra pporteur, Submitted Pursuant to Commission 
on Human Rights Resolution 2002/62, Addendum, Mi ssion to the Philippines, United Nations 
Economic and Social Counci1, 2002  
Sole-24 Ore, “ Vicepresidente in Italia fermo da 12 mesi a Tokyo ”, 11 of March 2007, n. 69 
SOPEMI – OECD, International Migration Outlook , 2007 
UNDESA, World Economic Survey , 2004 
Vogel S., Traineeships: a barrier or stepping stone to employment?, Cologne Institute for 
Economic Research, May 2007 
Wasem R. E. “Immigration Policy for Intr acompany Transfers (L Visa): Issues and 
Legislation” CRS Report for Congr ess, RL32030 Updated October 24, 2005 
World Bank, Global economic prospects – Economic implications of remittances and 
migration , 2006 
 
EN 114   EN Websites 
www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis  
www.usimmigrationsupport.org/visa_h3.html  
www.cic.gc.ca   
travel.state.gov   
www.nafta-visa.com/tn_visa.html   
www.americanlaw.com/cdnnafta.html  
www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk /workpermits/workpermitarrangements/  
www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/employers/points/  
www.permits2work.co.uk/employers /trainingworkexperience.asp  
www.arbeitsagentur.de  
www.auswaertiges-amt.de  
www.goethe.de/ges/pok/thm/mui/en2622050.htm  
www.geo.international.gc.ca/canada-europa/f inland/embassy/need_w ork_experience-en.asp  
www.aucc.ca/programs/intprograms/cimo/index_e.html  
www.fulbright.fi  
www.cimo.fi  
www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-s heets/52aTraineeVisa.htm