Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, vocational training or voluntary service" (COM(2002) 548 final — 2002/0242 (CNS))
Date: 2003-03-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: foreign national, foreign student, residence permit, vocational training, voluntary work

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/29

In particular, it points to the Opinion currently being prepared
on the ‘Action plan to counter the social, economic and
regional consequences of the restructuring of the EU fishing
industry’ and, given the essentially artisanal nature of the
sector in this region, the role that could be played by women.

2.31.
In the meantime, the introduction of socio-economic
measures by the Member States must be harmonised so as to
prevent undesirable distortions of competition and ensure
appropriate levels of social protection. This is currently not
the case.

Brussels, 26 March 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council
Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of
studies, vocational training or voluntary service’

(COM(2002) 548 final — 2002/0242 (CNS))

(2003/C 133/07)

On 21 October 2002 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 March 2003. The rapporteur was Mr Pariza
Castaños.

At its 398th plenary session on 26 and 27 March 2003 (meeting of 26 March), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 88 votes to none with five abstentions.

1. Summary of the proposed directive

The draft directive concerns entry and residence con-
1.1.
ditions for four distinct categories of third-country nationals.
The first is students, meaning those entering for higher or
professional education purposes. The second is school pupils,
meaning those in secondary education and coming through
exchange schemes. Thirdly are unremunerated trainees, receiv-
ing vocational
training without pay. The fourth category
comprises volunteers, those coming to perform solidarity-
based activities as part of a voluntary programme carried out
by a non-profit organisation.

1.3.
In order to allow persons of any of the four categories
to enter, the directive imposes a number of requirements
common to all four categories and others which are specific to
each of them. The common requirements are, basically, to
hold a passport and parental authorisation (where applicable),
to have health-care insurance, not to be considered a threat to
public policy, and to have paid the fees for processing the
residence permit (where required by the Member State).

The directive will not apply to asylum seekers or
1.2.
persons receiving subsidiary protection, or to persons with
long-term resident status.

1.4.
Students (in higher or professional education) must
also prove that they have been admitted to an educational
establishment, they have adequate resources to cover their
costs and, where the Member State so requires, that they
possess sufficient language skills and have paid the establish-
ment’s enrolment fees.

C 133/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

1.5.
School pupils taking part in an exchange programme
must, in addition to the general requirements, be within age
limits determined by each Member State, show that they have
been admitted to a secondary education establishment, show
that they are taking part in an exchange programme, prove
that the body running the exchange scheme assumes liability
for them and, lastly, that they will be hosted by a family during
their stay.

provided the initial conditions of issue continue, although
renewal is subject to demonstrating progress in the studies
undertaken. Permits for exchange pupils are for a non-
renewable one year period, as are those for unremunerated
trainees and volunteers. Only permits for trainees may be
renewed on an exceptional basis.

1.6.
In addition to the general requirements, unremunerated
trainees must be covered by a training contract with an
enterprise or training establishment, must have sufficient
resources to meet their subsistence costs and, if the Member
State so requires, have adequate knowledge of the language.

1.7.
In addition to the general requirements, volunteers
must be within age limits determined by each Member State,
hold a contract with the organisation running the voluntary
programme specifying the volunteer’s tasks and the resources
provided to cover subsistence costs, be covered by liability
insurance for their activities and receive an introduction to the
host State’s language, history and political and social structures.

1.8. Mobility within the European Union is envisaged only
for students. Students holding a residence permit for one
Member State may apply for one in another Member State in
order to follow part of the studies already commenced, or to
follow another course complementing the one completed.

1.9.
The draft directive states that each Member State is to
determine the subsistence resources which students and unpaid
trainees must have.

1.13. Member States which have issued permits may with-
draw them if the holder no longer meets the initial conditions,
or on grounds of public policy.

1.14.
The draft directive regulates entitlement to paid work,
whether employed or self-employed, specifying that this must
take place outside study time and allowing Member States to
set maximum working hours within a range of 10 to 20 hours
a week. It also provides that Member States may withhold this
right during the first year of residence and withdraw it if
students fail to make sufficient progress in their studies.

Procedural guarantees are provided regarding sub-
1.15.
mission of permit and renewal applications. Grounds must be
given in any decision to refuse, refuse to renew, or withdraw a
permit, and such decisions may be challenged in the courts.

1.16.
The draft directive also provides for a fast-track
procedure for issuing student and pupil exchange permits. This
may be done by formal agreement between the appropriate
Member State authority and the educational establishment or
organisation operating the exchange scheme.

Health-care insurance is required for all four categori-
1.10.
es of person: in the case of students, the draft directive states
that insurance which may be provided by the establishment in
which they are enrolled is sufficient.

2. General comments

1.11.
Any Member State may limit exchange schemes to
pupils from countries which reciprocate by admitting nationals
from that Member State.

1.12.
The residence permits issued are different in each
case. Student permits are to be for one year and renewable

for a directive,

2.1. With this proposal
the European
Commission is continuing to fulfil the mandate given by
the Tampere European Council, which declared a common
immigration policy for the EU to be a political objective. The
aim of the directive is to ensure proper legal management of
migration flows, opening legal channels for the entry of
persons for study, training and voluntary purposes. The EESC
welcomes the Commission’s intention to legislate on legal
channels of immigration. In all its opinions, the Committee

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/31

has criticised the Council regarding the general thrust of its
decisions, and the lack of a clear undertaking for immigration
to be channelled through legal and transparent arrangements.
In its opinion on illegal immigration (1), the EESC called for
work to be speeded up on common EU legislation providing
for legal immigration, guaranteeing fair treatment for immi-
grants, and promoting integration-oriented policies and social
attitudes.

2.2.
The EU’s foreign policy increasingly embraces cooper-
ation and association programmes with the developing
countries. Training young people from these countries in the
EU involves investment in human resources which the Member
States should foster under these cooperation programmes. The
Erasmus World programme, which promotes quality higher
education and cooperation with third countries, should be
used to develop closer links and lay the foundations for
better cooperation between the EU and students’ countries of
origin (2). There is also a need to encourage recognition of
academic and professional qualifications (3) in order to facilitate
student mobility.

The EESC generally supports the content of the pro-
2.3.
posed directive. It opens the door to suitable common EU
legislation for managing migration flows of students, trainees
and volunteers.

The EESC sees the mobility granted to students, to
2.4.
complete their studies in Member States other than those
granting the original permit, as a positive step forward. Free
movement for students will allow them to enhance their
education, and will bring them closer to enjoying equal rights
with European students.

2.5.
The EESC also warmly welcomes the right to work up
to a maximum of 20 hours a week, and during holiday periods,
which the draft directive grants to students. Students need
basic economic resources in order to continue with their
studies; a limited amount of work experience will also be
beneficial to their education and familiarise them with Euro-
pean host societies.

2.6.
The proposed approach regarding procedural guaran-
tees is also appropriate, notwithstanding the comments made
below.

2.7.
The first aspect of the proposal to which the EESC
would wish to contribute with its views is a tangential one: the
opportunity for students to stay in the host country after
completing their studies. It is no secret that several Member
States have gone so far as to amend their immigration laws to
facilitate this, and that there is a growing interest in retaining
them as workers given the lack of skilled manpower in
some sectors. The phenomenon may expand considerably,
generating a dangerous brain drain away from developing
countries.

2.8.
The draft directive refers to this issue in the explanatory
memorandum (4), pointing out that the brain drain must not
be amplified, but arguing that this is not the business of the
directive under discussion but rather of the directive on the
entry of migrants for employment purposes (5). The EESC
would emphasise a basic idea: training in Europe for third-
country young people should constitute a factor for develop-
ment of those countries, not a problem (6).

This is a complex issue, where the right to employment
2.9.
of an individual who has completed their studies must be
reconciled with the concern of the country of origin not to
lose its most qualified citizens. Member States should,
in
cooperation with the countries of origin, take steps to help
students (once their studies are completed) find employment
in their countries of origin, by means of cooperation and
association programmes.

2.10.
The Committee also proposes that the European
Commission introduce a system for assessing how many
persons, whose studies were funded from their countries of
origin, are now working in the EU. This should provide a
picture of the human capital which thus flows from the less
developed countries towards the EU. On the basis of this
estimate, the EU Member States should respond by helping
these countries in their development efforts, more specifically
by contributing to the funding of their educational systems.

( 1) EESC opinion in OJ C 149, 21.6.2002.
( 2) EESC opinion on Erasmus World.
( 3) EESC opinion in OJ C 61, 14.3.2003.

(4) Point 1.4.
(5) EESC opinion in OJ C 80, 3.4.2002.
(6) EESC opinion on the Communication from the Commission on a

Community immigration policy, OJ C 260, 17.9.2001.

C 133/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

3. Specific comments

3.1.

Entry and residence conditions

that in several Member States, what is considered to be a one-
year course covers a period of nine months: a restrictive
interpretation of this article should not lead to nine-month
permits being issued not covering holiday time, as this would
mean removing the opportunity to work during the holiday
period, as provided in Article 18.

3.1.1.
Articles 6(1)(b) and 9(b) stipulate that the Member
States will define the resources students and unremunerated
trainees respectively must have. In the Committee’s view, it
should be added that these resources must be determined
bearing in mind that they are entitled to work part-time and
during holidays (subject to the limits indicated in Article 18).

3.2.3.
The condition that ‘acceptable progress’ must be
made in studies in order to renew students’ permits must be
accompanied by extensive safeguards against arbitrary action
by Member States. Article 11(2)(d) should guarantee that
any decision is based on the opinion of the educational
establishment and, consequently, on academic grounds.

The draft directive explains that students who are
3.1.2.
insured by virtue of being enrolled with an establishment
are considered to hold the required health-care insurance
(Article 6(b)). The EESC believes the same should apply to
exchange pupils, unremunerated trainees and volunteers; in all
cases, the host establishment or company can assume liability
for their health-care insurance.

Knowledge of the course language, which Member
3.1.3.
States may require of students (Article 6(1)(c)), should be
assessed according to flexible criteria. For example, language-
learning could proceed in parallel with studies, subject to an
adequate initial level.

3.1.4.
The proposal states that trainees must have sufficient
resources to cover their subsistence expenses (Article 9(b)), in
the same way as for students. The EESC feels that it should be
added that such resources may, in the case of trainees, be
provided by the company or training centre concerned. This
would enable people from less developed countries to enter
for training periods financed by development cooperation
funds provided by bodies, companies and training centres.
Such an arrangement must not involve payment for work. The
resources should be directed to the organisation or institution
running the cooperation programme.

3.2. Residence permits

3.2.1.
Under Article 10 of the proposal, concerning resi-
dence permits for volunteers, the Member States are to set a
minimum and a maximum age. The EESC would point out
that older people are increasingly involved in carrying out
voluntary work: the reference to a maximum age should
therefore be removed.

3.2.2. With respect to the period for which residence
permits are granted to students, a possible problem arising
from matching the permit duration to the study period should
be avoided. Article 11(1) stipulates that the permit is to be
issued for a period of one year, except where the course of
study is less than one year. The Committee would point out

3.3. Rights

3.3.1.
The draft directive grants students the right to work,
under conditions which, as set out in the general comments
above, the EESC considers appropriate.

3.3.2.
The EESC urges that the directive grant unremuner-
ated trainees the right to work part-time and during holiday
periods on the same footing as students. There is no justifi-
this
cation for the Member States being able to restrict
possibility (Article 18).

3.3.3. Measures must be introduced to prevent unpaid
trainees receiving training in a company from being exploited
for work purposes. No company should be allowed to use
trainees illegally as unpaid labour. It is right to stipulate that
they may not carry out paid work in the same enterprise where
they are being trained (Article 18). Employees’ trade union
representatives should also be informed of the situation of
these unremunerated trainees.

3.4.

Procedure

3.4.1.
The EESC warmly welcomes the scope that Article 19
gives the Member States to allow, by way of exception, other
procedures for residence permit applications, and to allow
regularisation where considered appropriate.

It

is

important

3.4.2.
fast-track procedures be
that
implemented by means of agreements. The Erasmus World
programme will provide new opportunities to foster agree-
ments of this type between EU and third country educational
establishments (1).

(1) EESC opinion on Erasmus World.

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/33

3.5.

Procedural guarantees

The EESC considers the proposed maximum period
3.5.1.
of 90 days for administrative decisions on admission or
renewal to be excessive: the time limit should be no more than
60 days.

EESC has argued in previous opinions (1), such appeals must
have suspensory effect on administrative decisions, where
they involve amending, withdrawing or refusing to renew a
residence permit.

The draft directive grants the right of individuals to
3.5.2.
apply to the courts for review of decisions. However, as the

(1) EESC opinion on the Proposal for a Directive on the status of
third-country nationals who are long-term residents, OJ C 36,
8.2.2002.

Brussels, 26 March 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council adopting a multiannual programme (2004-2006) for the
effective integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in education and
training systems in Europe (eLearning Programme)’

(COM(2002) 751 final)

(2003/C 133/08)

On 19 December 2002 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-
mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 March 2003. The rapporteur was
Mr Rodríguez García Caro.

At its 398th plenary session on 26 and 27 March 2003 (meeting of 26 March), the European Economic
and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1.

Introduction

The conclusions of the Lisbon European Council in
1.1.
March 2000 included the need for European education and
training systems to be adapted to the needs of the knowledge
economy, and declared information technologies to be one of
the basic components of this new approach.

1.2.
In these conclusions, the Member States were also
urged to ensure that this new economy did not compound,
inter alia, problems of social exclusion, and called for the
promotion of digital literacy.

1.3.
eLearning is the educational component of the Action
Plan eEurope 2002 (2), which develops the Lisbon strategy. Its
targets include connecting schools to the Internet and training
as many teachers as possible in these technologies. The Action
Plan eEurope 2005 (3) includes eLearning as one of the most
important measures.

The eLearning Action Plan (4) developed the four action
1.4.
lines of the eLearning initiative in ten key actions in order to

(2) See the Action Plan eEurope 2002 — An information society for

all — COM(2000) 330 final

(3) See the Action Plan eEurope 2005 — An information society for

all — COM(2002) 263 final.

(4) See the Commission Communication — eLearning — Designing

tomorrow’s education — COM(2000) 318 final.