EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 13.07.2010 
SEC(2010) 885 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Summary of the Impact Assssment  
 
 
Accompanying document to the 
  
Proposal for a 
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
on conditions of entry and residence of third-co untry nationals in the framework of an intra-
corporate transfer 
  
 
{COM(2010) 378 final} 
{SEC(2010) 884} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
As a result of the globalisation of business and skills demand, movements of managerial and 
technical employees of branches and subsidiari es of multinational corporations, temporarily 
relocated for short assignments to other units of the company, have in recent years become more crucial. However, a number of factors currently limit the scope for international 
companies to rely on mobility of third-country national intra-corporate transferees (ICTs): the 
lack of clear specific schemes, the comple xity and diversity of visa or work permit 
requirements, rigidities, costs and delays in transferring foreign ICTs from one European 
corporate headquarters to anothe r and the difficulties with secu ring family reunification. In 
practice, there is general agreement among EU Member States (MS) on the categories 
admitted as ICTs, generally identified as ‘key  personnel’, but the admission criteria and the 
duration of work permits vary widely across EU  MS and in some cases the procedures for 
admission can be particularly long  or difficult. In addition, right s granted to IC Ts are highly 
variable between MS. The lack of data does not allow a complete a nd objective picture. 
Available data show, however, that the number of ICTs in individual EU MS (e.g. around 
4
 500 third-country nationals in Germany, 3  000 in the Netherlands, 2  000 in France and 1  000 
in Spain, Italy and Slovenia) is much lower th an in non-EU countries such as Canada, Japan 
and the United States. 
This situation is likely to influence the inflows of ICTs into the EU MS, leading to loss of the 
potential benefits that they could bring (innovation, competi tion, expansion of  activities, 
putting the EU in a stronger position in its re lationships with intern ational partners and, 
ultimately, creation of wealth and growth), and could have an adverse impact on investment 
location.  
In addition, these rigidities hamper effective implementation of GATS commitments relating 
to ‘mode 4’, which do not cover conditions of en try, stay and work, and also limit companies’ 
ability to harness their potential.  
2. SUBSIDIARITY PRINCIPLE  
The main reasons for common action at EU level stem from the following issues:  
• Facilitating intra-EU mobility . Rigidities in transferring fo reign ICTs from one European 
corporate headquarters to another take on part icular relevance for multinational companies. 
Action at EU level is the only way to remove  these rigidities, by facilitating intra-EU 
mobility (in the framework of intra-corporate movements), which requires a common system for admission of such workers.  
• Enhancing the attractiveness of the EU as a whole . The treatment granted to ICTs along 
with the conditions and procedures governing their movements influence the extent to 
which multinational companies decide to do business or invest in a certain area. Therefore, action at EU level could help to make the EU as a whole more attractive for foreign 
investments and send a clear message to third-country national ICTs.  
• Promotion of such transnational movements requires a climate of fair competition . In this 
connection, there is a need to  lay down common working co nditions and other rights for 
ICTs. 
 
EN 3   EN • Facilitating the EU’s international co mmitments in the context of the WTO . Action at 
EU level (rather than at MS level) on entr y and residence conditions  for ICTs could better 
ensure full consistency and complementarity be tween immigration policy and the 
common commercial policy .  
EU added value 
The added value lies in the following aspects in particular: 
– Third-country national ICTs and foreign companies would benefit from a common, 
transparent and attractive European framew ork for key personnel, reinforcing the EU 
knowledge economy, allowing better use of huma n resources of multinational companies 
and fostering investment. 
– A common legal framework la ying down common conditions of admission and stay for 
ICTs would guarantee fair competition.  
3. OBJECTIVES  
The overall goal that possible EU action should pursue is to support economic development of 
EU businesses by responding better to their needs for intra-corporate transfers of skills, while contributing to guaranteeing fair competition. 
This objective is consistent with the EU 2020 Strategy, wh ich sets the Community the 
objective of becoming an economy based on knowledge and innovation, reducing the 
administrative burden on companies and better matching labour supply with demand. Measures to make it easier for third-country manage rs, specialists or gradua te trainees to enter 
Europe in the framework of an intra-corporate tr ansfer should be seen in  this broader context. 
The specific immediate objectives of possible EU action are:  
1. to provide a transparent legal framework, including a set of common conditions of 
admission for third-country national ICTs entering the EU; 
2. to create more attractive conditions of stay for ICTs and their family; 
3. to facilitate (intra-EU) mobility of third-country ICTs; 
4. to guarantee fair competition, includ ing a secure legal status for ICTs; 
5. to facilitate the EU’s international commitments in the context of the GATS. 
4. P
OLICY OPTIONS  
The following options were considered: 
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 whole would not be 
attractive for enterprises and companies, which would still face difficulties in making best use 
of their staff, although the need for highly qualified resources w ould be increasing.  
 
EN 4   EN Option 2: Directive dealing with the conditions  of entry and residence of intra-corporate 
transferees.  The EU legislation would provide a common definition of intra-corporate 
transferee, either targeting some specific posi tions within the transnational corporation (2A), 
or identifying key personnel through salary and qualifications criteria (2B), as in the Blue 
Card Directive. It would also lay down harm onised criteria for entry, a common set of rights, 
possibly including a range of social and economi c rights (2C) in addition to basic working 
conditions (2D), and a maximum duration of stay. This option would create a more 
transparent legal environment. However, the rule s would still vary betw een Member States in 
terms of procedure and family rights a nd EU mobility woul d not be provided. 
Option 3: Directive providing for intra-EU  mobility for intra-corporate transferees.  In 
addition to the points covered by option 2, provis ions would be introduced to allow intra-
corporate transferees to move w ithin the EU and work in several establishments located in 
different Member States. Swift and simple tr ansfer from third-country to EU companies 
would, however, not be ensured and fam ily issues would not be tackled.  
Option 4: Directive facilitating family re unification and access to work for spouses.  By way 
of derogation from Directive 2003/86/EC, family  reunification would no t be made dependent 
on obtaining the right to perm anent residence and on the intra-corporate transferee having a 
minimum period of residence. Residence permits  for family members would be granted more 
rapidly. Moreover, in respect of access to the labour market, th e time limit of 12 months could 
possibly be removed. As a result, companies would be able to attract intra-corporate 
transferees more easily. However, the right to work for spouses could put the members of the 
family of ICTs in a more favourable situation th an the members of the family of nationals of 
new Member States subject to transitional measures. 
Option 5: Directive laying dow n common admission procedures.  A single document allowing 
the holder to work as an intra-corporate tran sferee and to reside on the territory of the 
Member State would be issued. In parallel , a maximum time for processing applications 
would be set (e.g. 1 month). This option would significantly improve the ability to transfer 
key personnel easily and rapidl y and reduce the time and costs for attracting intra-corporate 
transferees.  
Option 6: Communication, coordination and cooperation among Member States.  This option 
would contribute, to a certain extent, to a pproximating national practices on intra-corporate 
transfers from third-country nationals across the EU and creating a more harmonised legal 
framework. However, the impact is likely to  be very limited if the measures are not 
mandatory. 
 
EN 5   EN 5. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
Table 1: Comparison between 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 
burdens  -V V -V VV V 
-VV -VV -V 
(business)/ 
-VV (MS) 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 (MS) -VVV 
 
6. THE PREFERRED OPTION  
Comparing the options and their impact, the preferred option is a combination of options 2, 3, 
4 and 5 . A harmonised definition of intra-corporate transferee based on the specific positions 
occupied by ICTs within the group of undertakings  (option 2A), enlarged social and economic 
rights (option 2C), intra-EU mobility (option 3) , enhanced family rights (option 4, without 
access to the labour market for partners) and fast-t rack procedures (optio n 5) would contribute 
to better allocation of intra-corporate staff acr oss third-country and EU entities and make the 
EU more attractive for third-country nationa l key personnel of multin ational corporations, 
while offering guarantees against unfair competition.  
 
EN 6   EN Table 2: 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 
Single permit for work and residence PO 5 Admission 
procedure Maximum time for processing applications PO 5 
 
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 Directive 96/71 and the application of e qual treatment in a series of 
rights principle ensures a fair  competition between EU work ers and third country national 
intra-corporate transferees.  
Facilitating family reunification for ICTs' spouses (without access to work) and supporting 
intra-EU mobility strengthen the attractiveness of EU for ICTs.  
The single permit for work and residence, joint 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 investme nts by facilitating movement of ICTs.  
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 
 
EN 7   EN single permit and intra-EU mobility. 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. 
Administrative costs 
The number of ICTs is estimated to be roughly 16  500 a year. The hourly tariffs of MS 
personnel are estimated at €  23. Examination of an application takes six hours. 
The preferred option would give rise to the fo llowing additional admini strative costs for MS 
authorities: start-up costs in the first two year s for familiarisation with the obligations (one 
working day and 50 officials per Member St ate concerned); costs for processing an 
application and issuing a reside nce permit (most of th ese costs connected with processing the 
application already arise at present); costs resu lting from the coordination needed for intra-EU 
mobility; obligation to submit annual statisti cs to the Commission and other MS on the 
numbers of residence permits or visas issued  to third-country nati onal ICTs (10 hours per 
Member State). 
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Monitoring and evaluation arrangements will take the form of a Commission evaluation 
report three years after the deadline for transposition of the Directive, based on Member States’ reports. Member States would also be  required to send the Commission and the other 
Member States statistics on the numbers of thir d-country nationals who were granted a single 
permit or had their permit renewed or withdraw n during the previous calendar year, indicating 
their nationality and their occupation.