Opinion of the Committee of the Regions 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"
Date: 2003-04-09
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU migration policy, admission of aliens, foreign national, higher education, residence permit, vocational training, voluntary work

10.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/5

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions 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’

(2003/C 244/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to 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));

having regard to the decision of the Council of 21 October 2002 to consult the Committee on this
matter, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 12 March 2002 to instruct the Commission for External
Relations to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to its opinion on immigration policy (Communication from the Commission on a common
policy on illegal immigration (COM(2001) 672 final)) and asylum policy (Proposal for a Council Directive
on minimum standards for the qualifications and status of third-country nationals and stateless persons
as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection (COM(2001) 510 final — 2001/
0207 (CNS)) adopted on 16 May 2002 (CdR 93/2002 fin) (1);

having regard to its opinion on the ‘Green Paper on a Community return policy on illegal immigrants’
(COM(2002) 175 final) adopted on 20 November 2002 (CdR 242/2002 fin);

having regard to its opinion on the ‘Amended proposal for a Council Directive on the right to family
reunification’ (COM(2002) 225 final — 1999/0258 (CNS)) adopted on 20 November 2002 (CdR 243/
2002 fin) (2);

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 2/2003 rev.) adopted on 17 February 2003 by the Commission
for External Relations (rapporteur: Mr Gustav Skuthälla, Leader of Närpes Town Council (FIN-ELDR));

whereas establishing common and fair rules on the entry and residence of third-country nationals for the
purposes of studies, vocational training or voluntary service will bring benefits to migrants as well as to
their county of origin and host country. The aim is to promote the entry and mobility of third-country
nationals in the territory of the European Community for the purposes of study;

whereas the objective must be to establish a uniform, fair and open system such that the applicant and
the Member State know beforehand how the application will be assessed under normal circumstances;

whereas this proposal for a directive usefully complements the proposals on immigration for the purpose
of employment and the right of family reunification, and together they form a set of common rules and
a single legal framework;

whereas the Commission must draw the attention of the Council and the Member States to the fact that,
if the proposed directive’s objective of fair and uniform treatment is to be achieved, the concepts used in
the proposal will have to be interpreted broadly and in a way which favours the applicant;

(1) OJ C 278, 14.11.2002, p. 44.
(2) OJ C 73, 26.3.2003, p. 16.

C 244/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.10.2003

whereas since the proposed directives allow Member States to make exceptions, this should be interpreted
to mean that, as a rule, exceptions must be made in favour of third-country nationals. The purpose of the
exceptions is not to encourage Member States to make conditions more restrictive than they are in the
directives;

whereas the basic principle of uniform treatment of third-country students within Member States must
be respected, even though the conditions for admission set by Member States differ from each other.
Checks on entry conditions carried out in one Member State must be valid in all Member States;

whereas close attention needs to be paid to the attitudes of local and regional administrations and
educational establishments towards the joint directives and their interpretation,

adopted the following opinion at its 49th plenary session of 9 and 10 April 2003 (meeting of 9 April).

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGION’S VIEWS

2. Specific comments

1. General comments

‘Our task is to unite peoples, not states’ (Jean Monnet)

1.1.
The Committee of the Regions would reiterate that the
EU is a peace process, born out of the world conflagration
which was extinguished nearly 60 years ago and which
threatened to destroy the very soul of Europe. Nor can the
historic importance which the ending of the division of the
European continent has had in this process be overstated. The
foundations for a peaceful Europe in the future have been
decisively strengthened;

1.2.
However, the pursuit of peace, freedom and security
must not be confined to Europe alone. Article 11 of the Treaty
on European Union requires the Union:

— to preserve peace and strengthen international security,
in accordance with the principles of the United Nations
Charter; and

— promote international cooperation;

1.3.
The Committee of Regions would also point out that
Europeans have, for centuries, travelled outside their own
countries and outside Europe. Third-country nationals have
never studied in educational establishments in the European
Community to the extent that they do now. The Committee of
the Regions would stress the importance of supporting
students who come to Europe from third countries;

The Committee of the Regions

2.1.
welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a directive
on the conditions for entry and residence of third-country
nationals for the purposes of studies, vocational training or
voluntary service. This completes the Commission’s contri-
bution to the preparation of legislative proposals relating to
immigration policy, as provided for in the conclusions of the
Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999 and
in accordance with Article 63(3)(a) and (4) of the Treaty
establishing the European Community;

2.2.
points out that, when considering legislative proposals
on immigration policy, the aim should be to achieve a high
level of harmonisation and that this objective supports the
approximation of the rights and obligations of third-country
nationals lawfully resident in the EU, who also fall within the
scope of the proposed directive, to those of EU citizens;

2.3.
takes a positive view of the admission of third-country
nationals for the purpose of training and education. The
proposal promotes the entry of students from third countries
and will make Europe more attractive in the competition for
international students;

considers recognition of the European Union in third
2.4.
countries as a centre of excellence for vocational training and
other education to be an important objective. The Committee
of the Regions recalls that the European Union has several
objectives and development programmes in the area of training
and education. The Committee proposes that the objective of
promoting the whole of Europe among third-country nationals
as a centre of excellence for training and education should also
be taken into account in the priorities of the EU’s education,
vocational training and youth programmes after 2006;

1.4.
The Commission’s proposed directive can certainly be
criticised on the grounds that it leaves too much discretion to
Member States. The Committee of the Regions would empha-
sise the need for Member States to commit themselves to the
objectives of the directive so that students from third countries
can be guaranteed fair and equal treatment.

2.5.
shares the Commission’s view that admitting students
from third countries to European educational establishments
can have a beneficial effect on the quality and dynamism of
training programmes in Europe and provide establishments
with an incentive to develop high-quality international courses;

10.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/7

considers it important

2.6.
that the directive does not
interfere in conditions for admission to educational establish-
ments or the way in which students are admitted to educational
establishments or training schemes;

2.13.
stresses that, as the level of government which is
closest to the citizen, local and regional authorities have a key
role to play in organising housing, health-care and social
services for third-country nationals. The Committee feels that
the directive’s impact on local and regional authorities’ capacity
to organise such services should be clarified;

stresses that admission requirements, and thus also
2.7.
language requirements, must be set by the educational estab-
lishment concerned. The possibility for a Member State
to create restrictions at national
through language
requirements adds nothing new to the directive; on the
contrary, there is a danger that such restrictions could conflict
with the educational establishment’s own requirements, which
must retain their primacy;

level

2.8.
notes that close interaction will be required at national
level between educational establishments, local and regional
authorities and the authorities issuing residence permits in
order to clarify the conditions for entry in a comprehensive
manner;

2.9.
calls for the introduction of statistical methods for the
collection of data on students from third countries and for the
transfer of such data between different players at national level
and between Member States;

2.10.
vocational training given in the Commission’s proposal;

the broad and flexible definition of

endorses

emphasises that the concept ‘course of study’, which
2.11.
is defined as several consecutive full-time courses, means
different things in different Member States. Apart from basic
training, studies pursued in an educational establishment may
include, for example,
further training programmes which
although they do not lead to a qualification, do lead to an
attestation of competence, which is of considerable importance
from the point of view of future employment. Moreover,
studies may be part of a larger whole in which third-country
nationals return to their home to complete a qualification. The
Committee takes the view that the term ‘course’ should
therefore be interpreted flexibly. In addition, strict interpret-
ation of the word ‘full-time’ could lead to unfair situations.
‘Full-time’ should be taken to mean that studies are the main
reason for entry;

2.14.
thinks that it is important to make entry for the
purpose of voluntary service easier. The Commission’s pro-
posal would for example facilitate entry and residence for
people participating in international
voluntary service
schemes;

2.15.
supports promotion of student mobility between
Member States, on condition that there is adequate harmonis-
ation of entry conditions. The Committee of the Regions draws
attention to the fact that Article 6 allows Members States a
large degree of discretion as regards issuing residence permits
whereas, under Article 7, a third-country national who has
been issued a residence permit in accordance with the pro-
visions of the directive and met certain conditions set by the
Member State concerned has the unrestricted right to reside in
another Member State in order to follow part of a study
programme already begun or an additional course of study;

considers it important that Article 18 of the proposed
2.16.
directive gives students an unlimited right to work. However,
the Committee does not see any reason why the right to work
can be denied to third-country nationals during the first year
of their studies. This restriction puts them at a disadvantage in
relation to other students. Students from third countries must
have the same right to work as other students;

2.17.
considers it important that time limits for processing
applications are specified in Articles 7 and 20. However, the
Committee of the Regions believes that the time limits are
intended to provide more predictability for the applicant and
that they must not be of such length as to create an element of
uncertainty, not only for the applicant but also for the
institutions involved;

points out that the directive makes no mention of the
2.12.
serious housing shortage, especially in metropolitan areas, or
high housing costs, which are major obstacles to study by
third-country nationals in Member States. These issues are also
discussed in the CoR’s opinion on the directive on the right to
family reunification. The genuine concern to ensure that third-
country nationals have access to European know-how requires
that special attention be paid to the student housing situation;

2.18.
finds the wording of Article 6(3) unclear. According
to the Commission proposal, Member States would determine
the course providers and the types of course for which a third-
country national meeting the conditions of paragraph 1(b)
may obtain a ‘student’ residence permit in order to learn a
language. The proposal does not make it clear what is meant
here by language studies or whether learning a language refers
to the Member State’s own language(s) or any language
whatsoever.

C 244/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.10.2003

3. The Committee of the Regions’ recommendations

Recommendation 1

Article 6(1)(c): Specific conditions for students

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

has,

c)
if the Member State so requires, sufficient
knowledge of the language of the course followed by the
student;

has,

c)
if the Member State so requires, sufficient
knowledge of the language of the course followed by the
student;

Reason

The possibility for Member States to lay down requirements regarding language knowledge is unnecessary.
This provision could, moreover, conflict with the language requirements set by educational establishments
for the admission of third-country nationals. The admission requirements of educational establishments
must be regarded as sufficient and overriding. They should, of course, take into account the ability of the
student to get by in the community where the establishment is located. The possibility for Member States
to lay down language requirements adds nothing new to the directive, but could become an obstacle to
the pursuit of studies.

Recommendation 2

Article 18, second sub-paragraph: Work by students and unremunerated trainees

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Member States may withhold this right for the first year
of residence and may withdraw it if the student does not
make sufficient progress in his studies.

c) Member States may withhold this right for the first
year of residence and may withdraw it if the student
does not make sufficient progress in his studies.

Reason

The possibility to withhold in full the right to work for the first year of studies and the possibility to
withdraw the right to work if the student does not make sufficient progress in his studies reflects an
exaggerated fear that the system will be abused. Withholding the right to work from students from third
countries for the first year of studies puts them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other students. It could prove
difficult to assess the progress made by student as a ground for refusing to renew his permit to work a
limited number of hours a week. This a grey area where it is unclear where to draw the line.

There are also regional considerations to take into account where work takes place alongside studies.
Both private and public sector employers could see students from third countries as an important pool of
labour during the time they are studying. This consideration should take precedence over restrictions at
national level.

10.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/9

Recommendation 3

Article 10: Specific conditions for volunteers

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Member States may issue a ‘volunteer’ residence permit
to a third-country national only if, in addition to the
general conditions stipulated in Article 5, he:

Member States may issue a ‘volunteer’ residence permit
to a third-country national only if, in addition to the
general conditions stipulated in Article 5, he:

a)

is not below the minimum age nor above the
maximum age set by the Member State concerned;

a)

is not below the minimum age nor above the
maximum age set by the Member State concerned;

Reason

There are no objective reasons justifying a maximum age limit. Moreover, such an age limit would run
counter to the political principles championed by the European Union in the field of vocational training
and lifelong learning.

Recommendation 4

Article 15(2)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Member States may withdraw residence permits or visas
on grounds of public policy, public security or public
health. Public policy and public security grounds shall
be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the
third-country national concerned. Public health shall not
be invoked by Member States as a reason for revoking
or not renewing a residence permit or expelling the
holder solely on the ground of
illness or disability
suffered after the issue of the residence permit.

Member States may withdraw residence permits or visas
on grounds of public policy, public security or public
health. Public policy and public security grounds shall
be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the
third-country national concerned. Public health shall not
be invoked by Member States as a reason for revoking
or not renewing a residence permit or expelling the
holder solely on the ground of illness or disability
suffered after the issue of the residence permit.

Reason

Illness or disability can under no circumstances be a criterion for withdrawing a residence permit.

Recommendation 5

Article 20(1)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1. Without prejudice to Article 7, decisions on appli-
cations for admission or renewal shall be adopted and
the applicant shall be notified not later than 90 days
after the date of the application.

1. Without prejudice to Article 7, decisions on appli-
cations for admission or renewal shall be adopted and
the applicant shall be notified not later than 6090 days
after the date of the application.

C 244/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.10.2003

Reason

The 90-day time limit for administrative decisions on applications for entry or for renewals is certainly
excessive and creates uncertainty for both the applicant and the institutions involved. By way of example,
the 90-day time limit is generally longer than academic holidays. Thus, cases may arise where a student
applying for a renewal of his residence permit may, for purely administrative reasons, be forced to leave
the territory of the Member State concerned during his studies.

Brussels, 9 April 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on:

— the ‘Communication from the Commission: More research for Europe Towards 3 % of GDP’,

and

— the ‘Communication from the Commission: The European Research Area: providing new

momentum — strengthening — reorienting — opening up new perspectives’

(2003/C 244/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the European Commission Communications on More Research for Europe: towards 3 %
of GDP (COM(2002) 499 final) and on the European Research Area: providing new momentum —
strengthening — reorienting — opening up new perspectives (COM(2002) 565 final);

having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 12 September and 17 October 2002 to
consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community;

having regard to the decision of its president of 26 June and 5 October 2002 to instruct the Commission
for Culture and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to its Opinion on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the
Council concerning the multiannual framework programme 2002-2006 of the European Community for
research, technological development and demonstration activities aimed at contributing towards the
creation of the European Research Area (COM(2001) 94 final) (CdR 283/2001 fin) (1);

having regard to its Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the regional
dimension of the European Research Area (COM(2001) 549 final) (CdR 442/2001 fin) (2);

having regard to the ongoing implementation of the sixth of the framework programmes for research,
which have become an integral part of regional and supraregional research support;

having regard to the progress already made towards the European Research Area;

(1) OJ C 107, 3.5.2002, p. 111.
(2) OJ C 278, 14.11.2002, p. 1.