Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the presentation of a proposal for a directive and two proposals for recommendations on the admission of third-country nationals to carry out scientific research in the European Community
Date: 2004-11-17
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU research policy, admission of aliens, research staff, scientific exchange

C 71/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2005

(c) Review of the Treaty and its provisions

2.19
believes that it is necessary for the further develop-
ment of the EU to maintain a process of review to decide
which tasks can be performed jointly by a considerably
enlarged Union;

2.20
confirms its will to participate actively and fully in
future revisions of the Constitution and proposes that Member
States include representatives of regions and local authorities in
[CdR
to intergovernmental
their delegations

conferences

198/2003; 3.7.] dealing with treaty-revisions having impact on
the sub-Member State levels and to future as well as in delega-
tions for any future Convention;

(d) Concluding remark

instructs its President to forward this Opinion to the
2.21
Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, and
the European Commission.

Brussels, 17 November 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament on the presentation of a proposal for a directive and two
proposals for recommendations on the admission of third-country nationals to carry out scientific
research in the European Community

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

(2005/C 71/02)

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parlia-
ment on the presentation of a proposal for a directive and two proposals for recommendations on the
admission of
third-country nationals to carry out scientific research in the European Community
(COM(2004) 178 final - 2004/0061 (CNS) - 2004/0062 (CNS) - 2004/0063 (CNS));

HAVING REGARD TO the decision of the Commission of 29 June 2004 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 15 June 2004 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 immi-
grants (COM(2002) 175 final) adopted on 20 November 2002 (CdR 242/2002 fin) (2);

(1) OJ C 278 of 14.11.2002, p. 44
(2) OJ C 73 of 26.3.2003, p. 13

22.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/7

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) (3);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion 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) adopted on 9 April 2003 (CdR 2/2003 fin) (4);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European
Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 (COM(2004) 102 final – 2004/0032 (CNS) (CdR 80/2004 fin)
adopted on 17 June 2004;

HAVING REGARD TO the draft opinion (CdR 168/2004 rev. 1) adopted by the Commission for External
Relations on 17 September 2004 (rapporteur: Mr Skuthälla, Leader of Närpes Town Council (FI, ELDR))

WHEREAS establishing common and fair rules on the entry and residence of third-country nationals for
the purposes of scientific research in the EU will bring benefits to migrants as well as to their country 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 scientific research;

WHEREAS the EU will need 700,000 additional researchers by 2010 if it is to achieve the objective set by
the Barcelona European Council to devote 3 % of the Member States' GDP to research and technological
development by the end of the decade. To satisfy this need it will be necessary to produce interlocking
measures to make science attractive to young people at school,
improve the career prospects for
researchers in the EU and extend the opportunities for training and mobility. As, however, the EU is unli-
kely to produce this considerable number of researchers itself, it will also be necessary to take measures to
attract researchers from outside the Union;

WHEREAS this proposal for a directive usefully complements the proposals on immigration for the
purpose of employment, the right of family reunification and the proposal on the conditions of entry and
residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of studies, vocational training and voluntary service,
and together they form a set of common rules and a single legal framework;

WHEREAS the European Research Area has been the linchpin of the EU's research policy and is the
keystone of the new strategic objective the EU has set itself for the coming decade: to become the most
competitive and dynamic knowledge economy in the world. To achieve this objective it will be necessary
to develop a global strategy to prepare the transition to a knowledge-based society and economy;

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 57th plenary session, held on 17-18 November
2004 (meeting of 17 November).

PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ON A
FOR ADMITTING THIRD
SPECIFIC PROCEDURE
COUNTRY NATIONALS FOR PURPOSES OF SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH

1. The Committee of the Regions' views

on the draft directive:

1.2
stresses the importance of adopting, in addition to the
measures applying to admission of third-country nationals to
carry out scientific research, further coordinating measures to
achieve the objective of investing 3 % of Member States' GDP
in research before the end of the decade. To this end, scientific
careers should be made more attractive to young people,
training and mobility should be
opportunities for
increased for researchers, and research career opportunities
should be improved within the Community. (fourth recital);

further

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS:

endorses the draft Directive, subject to the changes

1.1
proposed below;

(3) OJ C 73 of 26.3.2003, p. 16
(4) OJ C 244 of 10.10.2003, p. 5

emphasises that implementation of the Directive must
1.3
not lead to a brain drain in emerging and developing countries.
Complementary measures to encourage researchers to return to
their country of origin and to promote researcher mobility
must be adopted in partnership with the countries of origin in
order to create a global migratory policy. The CoR would stress
the importance of submitting concrete proposals in 2004 in
accordance with the Council's request of 19 May 2003. (sixth
recital);

C 71/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2005

considers it appropriate that

1.4
researcher admission
should not require a work permit in addition to a residence
permit. However, in addition to the procedures provided for by
the standard admission procedures are still
the Directive,
important for doctoral students who are doing research as part
of their study programme, since the Directive does not apply to
them. (seventh recital);

1.5
endorses the proposal to give research organisations a
key role in the researcher admission procedure. However, it is
extremely important that the division of responsibilities and
duties between the research organisation and the authorities
should be clear in order to avoid duplication and clumsy
bureaucratic solutions. The CoR would stress that, for reasons
of legal certainty, it is important to establish clearly the area of
competence of each party. Cooperation between the research
organisation and the authorities should not impinge upon the
authorities'
legal right to carry out monitoring and control
activities. (eighth recital);

highlights the vital

1.6
importance of the hosting agree-
ment in the admission procedure. In the hosting agreement the
researcher undertakes to carry out the specific research project
and the research institution undertakes to host the researcher,
provided he is granted a residence permit. Since the hosting
agreement is a precondition for admission, it must include all
the relevant information needed to assess each case. Informa-
tion regarding the research project should also be provided in
detail so that the research organisation and – exceptionally –
the relevant authority can assess the situation. The Committee
of the Regions feels that these aspects have been adequately
addressed in the Directive. (ninth recital);

1.7
notes that the research organisation's overall economic
responsibility for any costs incurred by the researcher during
his residence in the Member State could constitute a change to
established admission and residence practice. The Committee of
the Regions would stress the need to establish with some accu-
racy the budget lines intended to cover the researcher's resi-
dence, health and return expenses, and the starting point for
economic responsibility. (tenth recital);

1.8
considers that the definition of a ‘researcher’ is appro-
priate, as a broad interpretation will enable the directive to be
implemented extensively. There is, for example, no requirement
for the applicant to have worked explicitly as a researcher in
the country of origin. However, the purpose of admission must
be to carry out a research project, in conjunction with which
teaching in a higher education establishment is also allowed.
(eleventh recital);

also be covered by the definition. It is extremely important that
the organisation can be regarded as conducting research and
has been approved by the Member State where it is located.
(Article 2);

stresses the need to take on board the views of the
1.10
regional and local authorities with regard to prior approval of a
research organisation that wishes to host researchers from a
third country. (Article 4);

1.11
endorses the option to withdraw or refuse to extend
approval of a research organisation. This can occur when a
research organisation no longer meets the conditions laid down
in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Article 4; when the researcher
does not meet the conditions laid down in Articles 5 and 6;
and when the research organisation has entered a hosting
agreement with a third-country national against whom the
Member State has invoked Article 8(1). The CoR believes that
the availability of legal sanctions will provide an incentive to
carefully comply with the provisions of the directive,
thus
giving it a preventive capacity. (Article 4);

stresses

the need for

1.12
researchers with residence
permits and valid travel documents to be able to carry out part
of the research project in the territory of another Member
State, as long as the procedure poses no risk to law and order,
security or public health. Depending on how long this part of
the research project takes, a new hosting agreement might have
to be concluded. On the basis of the hosting agreement, the
researcher must be granted residence in the other Member
State. The CoR notes that it is also appropriate to facilitate
greater mobility within the EU, and this should be regarded as
improving its international competitiveness. (Article 13);

1.13
considers the requirement for the competent authority
to make a decision within 30 days of submission of the appli-
cation for admission or extension of the residence permit to be
necessary in order to guarantee procedural rapidity.
In this
connection the CoR would emphasise that, for reasons of legal
certainty, uniform conventional
administrative procedures
should be employed whenever an application is deemed to be
complicated, as the prescribed deadline does not have to be
met in such cases. (Article 15).

Proposal for a Council recommendation to facilitate the admission of
third-country nationals to carry out scientific research in the European
Community

1.9
notes that ‘research organisation’ has been appropriately
defined. In order to achieve the objective of investing 3 % of
GDP in research, private sector establishments and firms should

considers that the measures contained in the recom-
1.14
mendation are an important step towards gradual compliance
with obligations and rules resulting from implementation of
the directive;

22.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/9

for

the

notes

example

recommendation

1.15
that
researchers should be exempt from the work permit require-
ment or granted one automatically, which should help to speed
up processing times. Given the EU's major long-term need for
researchers, there is also justification for only issuing limited
duration work and residence permits when the needs of the
country of origin make this necessary. (Recommendations 1a,
1c and 2b);

1.16
stresses the importance of early involvement of
research organisations in the researcher admission procedure in
order to create a climate of mutual confidence and optimum
cooperation between the
research organisations and the
competent authorities. (Recommendation 2 c);

to family reunification, by,

1.17
endorses the recommendation to promote family
reunification where this is not mandatory under the terms of
the directive on the right
for
example, permitting family reunification applications to be
submitted following arrival in a Member State. The CoR would
also stress the importance of processing family members' resi-
dence applications within a short timeframe. Any potential
problems the researcher's family might experience with their
residence application could dissuade the researcher from relo-

cating to the Member States. (Recommendations 3a, 3b and
3d).

Proposal for a Council recommendation to facilitate the issue by the
Member States of uniform short-stay visas for researchers from third
countries travelling within the European Community for the purpose
of carrying out scientific research

stresses the need for the Member States to make wide
1.18
use of the option to issue multiple entry visas. For reasons of
competition, it is also appropriate to take account of the length
of the research project when establishing the validity period of
the visa. Such pragmatic solutions are likely to improve the
relocation in a climate of global competition.
appeal of
(Recommendation 2);

1.19
highlights the need for the Member States to comply
with the principles established in the recommendation in order
to facilitate mobility for researchers who often travel for short
periods. Accordingly,
that
researchers who relocate to the European Union are acting in
good faith, and this should also be taken into consideration in
connection with their obligation to produce documentation
when applying for a visa. (Recommendation 3).

to assume

appropriate

is

it

2. Committee of the Regions' recommendations (amendments)

Recommendation 1 on the draft directive

8th recital (page 24 of the Swedish language version)

Commission proposal

CoR amendment

The specific procedure for researchers is based on colla-
boration between the research organisations and the immi-
gration authorities in the Member States:
it gives the
former a key role in the admission procedure with a view
to facilitating and speeding up the entry and residence of
third-country researchers in the Community while preser-
ving Member States' prerogatives with respect to immigra-
tion policing.

The specific procedure for researchers is based on colla-
boration between the research organisations and the immi-
gration authorities in the Member States:
it gives the
former a key role in the admission procedure with a view
to facilitating and speeding up the entry and residence of
third-country researchers in the Community while preser-
ving Member States' prerogatives with respect to immigra-
tion policing, including by other authorities.

R e a s o n

The involvement of research organisations should not deprive the authorities of their right to carry out
immigration policing. Since these tasks are not the sole responsibility of the police, it is appropriate to
mention other authorities' immigration policing activities. There should be no need to draw up an exhaus-
tive list of these authorities within the Community.

C 71/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2005

Recommendation 2 on the draft directive

Article 4 1) (page 27 of the Swedish language version)

Commission proposal

CoR amendment

Any research organisation wishing to host a researcher
under the admission procedure laid down in this Directive
must first be approved for that purpose by the Member
State where it is located.

Any research organisation wishing to host a researcher
under the admission procedure laid down in this Directive
must first be approved for that purpose by the Member
State where it is located. Local and regional considerations
should be taken into account in the approval procedure by
aiming to secure appropriate geographic locations for such
research organisations.

R e a s o n

The addition is needed in order to stress the importance of including regional and local views in the global
assessment of factors that are important in the decision-making process.

Recommendation 3 on the draft directive

Article 15 2) (page 32 of the Swedish language version)

Commission proposal

CoR amendment

shall be given for

Reasons
any decision refusing,
amending, refusing to renew or withdrawing a residence
permit. The decision shall specify the appeal procedures
available and the time limit for taking action.

shall be given for

Reasons
any decision refusing,
amending, refusing to renew or withdrawing a residence
permit. The notification shall specify the appeal procedures
available and the time limit for taking action. The notifica-
tion shall contain directions regarding the appeal proce-
dure and include information regarding the necessary
content of and appendices to any appeal document, the
deadline for submitting the appeal and details of the board
of appeal.

R e a s o n

For reasons of legal protection, any decision affecting a person's rights and obligations must state as clearly
as possible how that person should go about challenging the decision.

Brussels, 17 November 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB