Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Green paper on an EU approach to managing economic migration (COM(2004) 811 final)
Date: 2005-06-09
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU migration policy, admission of aliens, migrant worker

C 286/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.11.2005

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Green paper on an EU approach
to managing economic migration

(COM(2004) 811 final)

(2005/C 286/05)

On 11 January 2005, the European Commission adopted a Communication addressed to the Council, the
European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:
Green paper on an EU approach to managing economic migration.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 24 May 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Pariza
Castaños.

At its 418th plenary session, held on 8 and 9 June 2005 (meeting of 9 June 2005), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 137 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions.

1. Introduction

it past
the first reading by the Council. Since then, some
Member States have drawn up new laws on economic migrants
and immigration-related matters have become hot topics on
many political agendas.

1.1
Although five years have passed since the Tampere
European Council acted upon the mandate of the Treaty of
Amsterdam,
the goal — to give the European Union a
common immigration and asylum policy — has not been
achieved. Some progress has been made and the Commission
has drafted numerous political and legislative proposals, but
these have not been adequately discussed by the Council. The
EESC has worked with the Commission and has drawn up a
number of opinions aimed at contributing to a real common
policy and harmonised legislation in the field of migration.

1.2
Today we are in a new situation. The Hague Programme
adopted in November 2004 sets out to develop immigration
and asylum policies over the coming years. The Programme
the Constitutional Treaty,
also falls within the scope of
strengthening the commitment to a future common immigra-
tion policy in Europe. (1)

1.5
The Thessaloniki European Council of 19-20 June 2003
stressed ‘the need to explore legal means for third country
nationals to migrate to the Union, taking into account the
reception capacities of the Member States’ (4). In its Opinion on
Immigration, integration and employment (5), the EESC stressed
the urgent need for the EU to have an active policy for
economic migration, and harmonised legislation. Demographic
trends in the EU (6) and the Lisbon Strategy mean that Europe
will need to adopt active policies for admitting economic
migrants, whether they be highly skilled or less skilled workers.
Although each country has its own needs and specifics, the
opening of channels for economic migration is a characteristic
common to all Member States.

1.3
The Commission's Green Paper covers the central theme
of immigration policy: the conditions for admitting economic
migrants and the means of managing these migratory flows.
Admission laws form the hard core of immigration policy. At
present, only national laws exist, which differ greatly from one
another and are, in most cases, restrictive.

1.6 What is more, the citizens of the new Member States
are temporarily restricted in their right to freedom of residency
and work, which is an anomaly. The EESC hopes that this
restriction can soon be removed. During the transitional phase,
citizens of the new Member States should have the right to
preferential treatment.

1.4
Over three years have passed since the Commission
drew up its Proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions
of entry and residence of
third-country nationals for the
purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic
activities. (2) The EESC and the Parliament issued Opinions (3)
supporting the proposal. However, the proposal did not make

1.7
The EESC is concerned to note the political difficulties
surrounding immigration policy, and the negative reaction
from certain sectors of the public and media. Political and
stop using racist and xenophobic
opinion leaders must
language in debates, and must act with due responsibility and
political concern to educate the public.

(1) Article III-267.
(2) COM (2001) 386 final.
(3) See the EESC Opinion in OJ C 80 of 03.04.2002 (rapporteur: Mr
Pariza Castaños) and the EP Opinion in OJ C 43E of 19.2.2004
(rapporteur: Ms Ana Terron i Cusi).

(4) See point 30 of the Conclusions of the European Council
(5) See the EESC Opinion in OJ C 80 of 30.03.2004 (rapporteur: Mr

Pariza Castaños).
(6) See Commission

communication

on

demographic

change,

COM(2005) 94 of 16.3.2005.

17.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/21

1.8
In the debate on this Green Paper, all sides must strive
to set aside the many prejudices and fears that labour migration
currently inspires. The EESC wishes to make a conscientious,
rational contribution to this debate.

2. Comments on the issues raised in the Green Paper

2.1 What degree of harmonisation should the EU aim at?

— To what extent should a European policy on labour migra-
tion be developed and what should be the level of Com-
munity intervention on this issue?

— Should a European migration law aim at providing a
comprehensive legal framework covering almost any third
country national coming to the EU or should it focus on
specific groups of immigrants?

— Were the sectoral legislative approach to be chosen, which
groups of migrants should be addressed as a priority and
why?

— Do you consider that other approaches — such as a Euro-
pean fast track procedure — should be explored? Could
you propose other options?

The EESC states that it is indeed necessary for the
2.1.1
admission of economic migrants to be regulated at EU level; to
ensure this, there must be a high degree of legislative harmoni-
sation, as set out in the draft Constitutional Treaty. In previous
Opinions, (7) the EESC has already called for the EU to rapidly
develop a common immigration policy and harmonised legisla-
tion. The European Union and the Member States need an
open form of
immigration
through channels that are legal and transparent, for both highly
skilled workers and those working in less skilled jobs.

legislation that allows

labour

The Constitutional Treaty sets the limits for common
2.1.2
‘the right of Member States to deter-
immigration legislation:
mine volumes of admission of third-country nationals coming
from third countries to their territory in order to seek work,
whether employed or self-employed.’ (8) The EESC believes that
this limit does not prevent the Union from reaching a high
the admission of
degree of
economic migrants, which could be achieved gradually in order
to allow Member States time to adapt.

legislative harmonisation for

(7) See the EESC Opinions on the Communication on a Community
immigration policy, OJ C 260, 17.9.2001 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza
Castaños) and on the Communication on illegal immigration, OJ C
149, 21.6.2002, (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños).

(8) Article III-267 5.

the EESC
In line with the Commission's proposal,
2.1.3
(horizontal)
legislative framework is
believes that an overall
preferable to sectoral
legislative proposals. The legislative
proposal submitted by the Commission received the support of
the EESC. It included the conditions for entry and residency of
migrants working in paid employment, self-employment or
other economic activities for over three months in the territory
of a Member State. Additionally, specific rules could be drawn
up for particular situations such as seasonal workers, workers
transferred within a company, service providers, etc.

2.1.4
If the European Council were to opt for a sectoral
approach (geared towards highly skilled migrants), it would be
discriminatory in nature. This might be easier for the Council,
but it moves away from the provisions of the Constitutional
Treaty.

2.1.5 Moreover, even though most national laws deny entry
to high and low-skilled workers,
the
informal economy and undeclared work are still on the
increase. (9) As the EESC made clear in its Opinion, (10) in some
Member States there is a clear link between the lack of legal
channels for economic migration and the increase in illegal
migration.

immigration,

illegal

2.2 Preference for the domestic labour market

— How can we ensure that

the principle of

‘Community

preference’ is applied in an effective way?

— Is the existing definition of Community preference still rele-

vant? If not, how should it be changed?

— To which other economic migrants (apart from intra-corpo-
rate transfers of key personnel) might the logic of Com-
munity preference not apply?

— Apart from long-term residents, which categories of third-
country nationals — if any — should be given preference
over newly arriving third-country workers?

— Should a priority right — subject to precise conditions —
be granted to third-country nationals who have temporarily
left the EU after having worked there for a given period?

(9) See the opinion on The role of civil society in helping to prevent
undeclared work (SOC/172), adopted at the plenary session on 6/
7.4.2005 (rapporteur: Mr Hahr)

(10) See the Opinion on the Commission communication, Study on the
links between legal and illegal migration (COM(2004) 412 final)
adopted by the plenary session on 15.12.2004 (rapporteur: Mr
Pariza Castaños).

C 286/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.11.2005

— Would facilitating mobility of third country workers from
one Member State to another be beneficial
for the EU
economy and national labour markets? How could this be
put in to practice in an effective way? With which limita-
tions/facilitations?

— How can the European Public Employment Services (PES)
and the EURES Job Mobility Portal contribute to facilitating
labour migration of third-country workers?

2.2.5
The EURES network coordinates Member States'
public employment services, with the aim of covering existing
jobs by encouraging mobility between European workers. This
network is an important tool for effective management of the
EU labour market and the new migratory flows. To aid the
management of migration flows, the EURES network should
effectively link labour supply and demand in Member States,
and should include migrant workers in the system, as they tend
to be more mobile.

The directives to combat discrimination in the market-
2.2.1
place must be observed in the new European immigration legis-
lation.

The principle of Community preference should apply to
2.2.2
all
individuals belonging to the EU labour market, not just
national or Community workers. (11) The EESC believes that the
principle of Community preference should extend to:

— citizens of Member States;

— third-country nationals who are long-term residents; (12)

2.2.6
In the future, the EURES network could also play a
major role in helping Member States' consular services to
manage new migration in the countries of origin. A system
if not filled by the EU
could be set up whereby a vacancy,
labour market within a maximum of 60 days, could be opened
to applicants in the country of origin via the consular services,
who would need to employ staff specialised in the labour
market and labour migration. The EU delegations could also
inform interested parties of the opportunities existing in the
EURES network.

— third-country nationals with legal permission to reside and

work in a Member State; (13)

2.3 Admission systems

— third-country nationals who have legally resided and
worked in the EU (although temporarily living in their
country of origin).

Promoting the mobility of migrants between the
2.2.3
country of origin and the host country is positive for the
economic and social development of the country of origin, and
it will prevent some migrants from finding themselves in illegal
situations; the EESC therefore believes that if the right to prefer-
ential treatment is to be introduced and implemented, it should
be extended to third-country nationals who have temporarily
left the EU, having worked there for a set period of time, if
intending to migrate again.

All the reports analysing the problems of the labour
2.2.4
market
the low mobility of workers.
in Europe highlight
Promoting mobility is one of the objectives of the European
employment strategy. Clearly, migrants can greatly help to
improve mobility between Europe's labour markets. Once a
high degree of harmonisation has been reached in immigration
law, mobility and common management of migratory flows
will become easier.

(11) Council Resolution of 20 June 1994
(12) See the EESC Opinion on the Status of third-country nationals who
are long-term residents, OJ C 36, 8.2.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza
Castaños)

(13) See the EESC Opinion on the Conditions of entry and residence of
third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment, OJ C
80, 3.4.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños)

— Should the admission of third-country nationals to the EU
labour market only be conditional on a concrete job
vacancy or should there also be the possibility for Member
States to admit third-countries nationals without such a
condition?

— What procedure should apply to economic migrants who

do not enter the labour market?

In its Opinion (14) on the proposal for a Directive on
2.3.1
admission, the EESC pointed out that there should be two
systems for legally admitting migrants:

2.3.2
A high proportion of economic migration can be
channelled by providing job offers while the migrant is in the
country of origin. This is the most suitable system for specia-
lised and seasonal workers, and is used by major companies
and associations able to recruit workers in their countries of
origin.

(14) See the EESC Opinion on the Conditions of entry and residence of
third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment, OJ C
80, 3.4.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños)

17.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/23

2.3.3
However, small businesses, craft industries, domestic
service and care for dependent persons form a part of the
labour market which recruits from the migrant population. In
such cases it is impossible for the employer and the migrant
worker to have prior knowledge of one another in the country
of origin. In some countries, such jobs are filled via the black
economy and illegal
In the abovementioned
Opinion, (15) the EESC proposed that Community legislation for
legal admission of migrants should include a temporary resi-
dence permit
It would be valid for six
months, and would be managed by each Member State in
cooperation with the social partners.

for seeking work.

immigration.

— Do you consider that the economic needs test is a viable
system? Should it be applied in a flexible way, taking into
account for instance regional and sectoral characteristics or
the size of the company concerned?

— Should there be a minimum time period during which a
job vacancy must be published before a third-country appli-
cant can be considered for the post?

— In what other way could it be effectively proved that there

is a need for a third country worker?

— Should the economic needs test be repeated after the expiry
of the work permit, if the work contract — by means of
which the third-country worker has been admitted — has
been/will be renewed?

2.3.4
The economic needs test or a specific job vacancy is
necessary for managing new migration. This system will make
it possible to offer the migrant the job in the country of origin,
so that most migration will be channelled through this proce-
dure.

2.3.5
The system requires the EURES network to operate
properly and the consular services to have specialised staff. The
period over which a job vacancy published throughout the EU
i.e. 1-2
should be open to new migrants must be short,
months. If the system is prolonged, the employer could find
the system inefficient.

2.3.6
It is always advisable for these systems to be managed
flexibly, since the European labour markets do not display
great mobility. Mobility is higher in more highly skilled, better
paid jobs. However, mobility is low in the majority of jobs,
even within a single country. For many economic activities and
occupations, the labour market is actually highly segmented,
giving rise to a number of different markets.

(15) See the EESC Opinion on the Conditions of entry and residence of
third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment, OJ C
80, 3.4.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños)

to be legally admitted,

On the expiry of a work permit that has enabled an
2.3.7
immigrant
is
renewed, there should not be any need to repeat the economic
needs test. If the person is registered as a job-seeker with the
public employment service of the country of residence, then
the economic needs test should not be required either.

the work contract

if

— What alternative optional systems could be envisaged?

— Could a selection system work as a possible general rule at
EU level for admission of economic migrants to the labour
market and what should be the relevant criteria?

— How could employers be provided with comprehensive
access to the CVs of applicants in the whole EU and how
should EURES be enhanced in this context?

— Should the possibility to grant a ‘job seeker permit’ be fore-

seen?

The Member States' authorities,

2.3.8
in cooperation with
the social partners, might consider that for some occupations,
sectors or specific regions, the labour market should be opened
up to migration without testing economic needs. For these flex-
ible systems, various procedures could be implemented, such as
temporary job seekers' permits, green cards or quotas (if these
have been established in agreements with third countries).

2.3.9 Migrants admitted with a job seeker's permit would
have a defined period in which to seek work. The EESC has
proposed a period of six months, and in the British system a
period of one year is granted. These people should have
medical insurance and sufficient financial resources.

In order

2.3.10
to create a flexible fast-track selection
system in the EU for admitting economic migrants, could be
required to fill in a form providing information such as their
years of professional experience, qualifications, language skills,
relatives in the EU, etc. Each Member State could use this
system in line with its requirements. Employers could consult
job seekers' CVs via the EURES network. The admission criteria
should be based on this information, avoiding any kind of
discrimination.

2.3.11 Member States, in cooperation with the social part-
ners, would decide whether
to admit migrants with a
temporary job seekers' permit. The public employment services
would work with job seekers in their search for employment.

C 286/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.11.2005

2.4 Admission procedures for self-employment

2.6 Possibility of changing employer/sector

— Should the EU have common rules for the admission of
self-employed third-country nationals? If yes, under which
conditions?

— Should there be limitations to the mobility of the third-
country worker inside the labour market of the Member
State of residence? If so, which (employer, sector, region,
etc.), under what circumstances and for how long?

— Should more flexible procedures be possible for

self-
employed persons who wish to enter the EU for less than
one year to fulfil a specific contract with an EU client? If so,
which?

2.4.1
The EESC agrees that the EU should have common
legislation with a high degree of harmonisation for the admis-
sion of third-country nationals to work in self-employed activ-
In its Opinion (16) on the proposal for a Directive on
ities.
admission, the EESC expressed its support and made several
proposals for improvement.

2.4.2
A specific law could be drawn up, or the Directive
itself could include both self-employed workers and workers in
paid employment, as proposed by the Commission.

2.5 Applications for work and residence permit(s)

— Should there be a combined ‘work-residence permit’ at EU

level? What are its advantages/disadvantages?

— Who should be the holder of the permit? The employer, the

employee, or should it be held jointly?

2.6.1

The permit-holder must always be the worker.

2.6.2 Member States should ensure that, when a person has
obtained a residence permit on the basis of a job offer from a
company, that company immediately fulfils the employment
registration requirements for this worker, and registers him or
her with the social security system. The first step in this
person's career in the Member State which granted the resi-
dence permit must be made with the company which offered
the job. However, afterwards, the worker should be able to
change company without sectoral or regional restrictions.

2.6.3
Nonetheless, it would be desirable for any change of
company to be notified to the authorities issuing the permit, at
least during the first year of validity. This would act as a check-
up system to detect potential fraud by fake companies set up to
facilitate immigration.

— Or should a single application (for both work and residence

permits) be proposed?

2.6.4
The immigrant employee, in line with national labour
laws, should inform the employer of his departure from the
company in advance.

— Are there other options?

The relationship between residence and work permits
2.5.1
shows clear differences in the various Member States. The EESC
believes that harmonised legislation is needed for the EU. The
authority responsible for issuing permits would be that of each
Member State. Permits granted by a Member State should be
recognised as such in the rest of the EU.

The EESC recommends

the legislation keep
2.5.2
bureaucracy to a minimum and make things easy for the
persons concerned, i.e. the migrants, employers and authorities.
It would be advisable to have a single permit, namely, the resi-
dence permit, which would be combined with a work permit.

that

2.5.3
procedures.

A ‘one-stop-shop’ system would simplify the current

(16) See the EESC Opinion on the Conditions of entry and residence of
third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment, OJ C
80, 3.4.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños)

2.7 Rights

— What specific rights should be granted to third-country

nationals working temporarily in the EU?

— Should the enjoyment of certain rights be conditioned to a

minimum stay? If so, which rights and for how long?

— Should there be incentives — e.g. better conditions for
family reunification or for obtaining the status of long term
resident –to attract certain categories of
third-country
workers? If yes, why and which ones?

The starting point for this debate must be the principle
2.7.1
of non-discrimination. Migrant workers, whatever the period
for which they are authorised to reside and work, must have
the same economic, labour and social rights as other workers.

17.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/25

2.7.2
The right to family reunification is a fundamental one;
however, it is not properly protected by the EU directive, or by
some national laws (17). The EESC calls on the Commission to
adopt a new legislative initiative focusing on the proposals of
the European Parliament and the EESC (18). The right to family
reunification, which is a fundamental human right, should
apply equally to all third-country nationals, without one group
of migrants being given priority over another.

The Commission's Green Paper does not address the
2.7.3
obligations that immigrants should fulfil. The EESC believes
that everyone — EU and non-EU citizens alike — have a duty
to obey the laws of the country they reside in.

2.7.4
The Constitutional Treaty's Charter of Fundamental
Rights must be adhered to when drawing up Community legis-
laws currently in
lation on immigration, as certain national
force contain provisions that run counter to the Charter.

2.7.5
The EESC agrees with the Commission that certain
rights depend on the duration of residency. Rights for those
with temporary residency will be different from those with
long-term resident status. In specific terms, the EESC proposes
a series of rights that should be granted to third-country
nationals temporarily and legally working and residing within
the EU:

— the right to social security, including healthcare;

— the right to have access to goods and services, including

housing, under the same conditions as nationals;

— access to education and vocational training;

— recognition of degrees, certificates and qualifications in the

context of Community law;

— the right to the education of minors, including funding and

study grants;

— the right to carry out teaching and scientific research in

accordance with the proposal for a Directive (19);

(17) See directive 2003/86/EC
(18) See the EESC Opinions in OJ C 204, 18.7.2000 (Rapporteur: Ms
Cassina) and OJ C 241, 7.10.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Mengozzi) and
the EP opinion in OJ C 135, 7.5.2001 (rapporteur: Mr Watson)
(19) See the Commission's proposal for a directive (COM(2004)178) on
the admission of third-country nationals to carry out scientific
research. See also the related EESC opinion adopted by the plenary
session on 27.10.2004 (rapporteur: Ms King)

— the right to free legal aid in cases of need;

— the right of access to a free placement service;

— the right to be taught the language of the host society;

— respect for cultural diversity;

— the right

to free movement and residence within the

Member State.

the EESC proposed that

2.7.6
The Directive on the Status of third-country nationals
who are long-term residents mentions some specific rights for
these individuals, particularly regarding the stability of their
right to residency and the possibility of free movement and
residency in other EU Member States. In its Opinion, (20) the
EESC expressed its position on new rights. The most important
of these are the political and civil rights. In the abovementioned
Opinion,
long-term residents be
granted the right to vote in municipal and European elections,
like EU nationals. The EESC also adopted an own-initiative
opinion (21) calling upon the Convention ‘to provide a new
criterion for granting Union citizenship: citizenship should be linked
not only to nationality of a Member State, but also to stable residence
in the Union’ and for citizenship of the Union to‘be granted not
only to nationals of the Member States but to all persons who reside
on a stable or long-term basis in the European Union’. The EESC
proposes that the Commission adopt new initiatives geared
towards this objective.

the EESC also adopted an own-initiative
2.7.7
In 2004,
Opinion (22) proposing that
the European Union and the
Member States ratify the International Convention on the Protection
of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families,
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in
1990, (23) with the aim of promoting migrant workers' funda-
mental rights not only in European but worldwide. The EESC
proposes that the Commission adopt new initiatives for the
ratification of the Convention.

2.7.8
meets ILO standards.

The EU should ensure that

immigration legislation

(20) See the EESC Opinion on the Status of third-country nationals who
are long-term residents, OJ C 36, 8.2.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza
Castaños)

(21) See points 6.4 and 6.5 of the Opinion on Access to European
Union citizenship, OJ C 208, 3.9.2003 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza
Castaños)

(22) See the EESC Opinion on the International Convention on
Migrants, OJ C 302, 7.12.2004 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños)
(23) Resolution 45/158 of 18 December 1990 which came into force

on 1 July 2003

C 286/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.11.2005

2.7.9
Equality between men and women, which is enshrined
in the Community acquis, should be guaranteed under immigra-
tion legislation. All Community legislation combating discrimi-
nation should also be guaranteed.

tion must be extended, covering the overall management of
migratory flows.

2.7.10
The EESC does not recommend incorporating discri-
minatory criteria into the fundamental rights in order to attract
certain specific migrant categories.

2.8 Integration, return and cooperation with third countries

— What kind of accompanying measures should be envisaged
economic

to facilitate
migrants, both in the EU and in the countries of origin?

admission and integration of

— In line with EU development policies, what could the EU do
to encourage brain circulation and address the potentially
adverse effects of brain drain?

— Should developing countries be compensated (by whom
and how) for their investment in human capital leaving for
the EU? How can negative effects be limited?

— Should host and home countries have an obligation to
ensure the return of temporary economic migrants? If so, in
what circumstances?

— How can return be managed for the mutual benefit of host

and home countries?

— Should a preference in terms of admission be granted to

certain third countries and how?

— Could such preferences be linked to special frameworks,
such as the European Neighbourhood Policy, pre-enlarge-
ment strategies?

Cooperation with countries of origin must be funda-
2.8.1
mental
to the European policy for admitting workers and
managing migratory flows. Their interests — and not just Euro-
pean interests — should be taken into account. The EU must
not contribute to creating further obstacles to development. If
people from developing countries emigrate to Europe,
this
should contribute to the economic and social development of
these countries.

2.8.3
As mentioned in the Green Paper, brain drain is a
strong negative factor for countries of origin, because they do
not receive any return on the investment they make in training.
Moreover, current European policies for recruiting qualified
workers may exacerbate this problem considerably. It is there-
fore important to set up compensation policies for the losses
suffered by these countries. The EU must significantly increase
investment in cooperation and development programmes that
include funding for education and training and research activ-
ities in the countries of origin. For example, the EU should
target investment in a practical way to facilitate economic and
social development by increasing the number of training places
in third countries that produce qualified workers, such as
teachers, nurses, doctors and engineers. Many third countries
restrict the number of training places due to lack of resources
with the result that many of their nationals that meet the entry
requirements have to wait a long time for a place in the
teaching institution. Increasing the number of training places
should reduce the impact of the brain drain. Europe must also
be more generous in trade negotiations.

2.8.4
Voluntary return to the country of origin should be
facilitated for workers able to contribute to development
through their professional skills or entrepreneurship. It would
therefore be important to improve the possibilities offered by
the directive as regards the rights of long-term residents to
return temporarily to their country of origin. Residents
(nationals of a third country) wishing to return to their country
of origin with a work or investment project should not lose the
right to residency.
‘Brain circulation’ between home and EU
countries will only be possible if European legislation is flex-
ible.

2.8.5
Brain circulation could also be facilitated by encoura-
ging member state nationals of dual heritage to return to their
parent's/grandparent's country of origin with a work or invest-
ment project of fixed duration.

2.8.2
Some European governments are keen to have the
cooperation of the countries of origin in combating illegal
immigration, maintaining border controls and returning depor-
tees. The EESC has expressed the opinion (24) that this coopera-

(24) See the EESC Opinion on the Communication on illegal immigra-

tion, OJ C 149, 21.6.2002 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños)

2.8.6
European cooperation programmes should promote
investment projects involving professionals or investors from
the country of origin, particularly those who have returned
from abroad. Funding should be given to investment projects
set up by individuals residing in the EU but wishing to return,
even temporarily, to their country of origin.

17.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/27

In its Opinion (25) on the Community return policy
2.8.7
and the Opinion (26) on the Green Paper, the Committee shared
its views on how voluntary return could contribute to the
economic and social development of the countries of origin.

2.8.10
Also, in the cooperation agreements that the EU has
reached with countries and regional groupings, there could be
preferential conditions for access to migration, avoiding any
ethnic or cultural discrimination.

2.8.8
The management of migration in cooperation with
countries of origin should be improved. In countries with a
high number of migrants, the consular services of the Member
States should have specialised staff. The EU delegations in these
countries could also cooperate more actively.

2.8.9
candidate countries.

The EU could draw up preferential agreements with

2.8.11
Lastly, the EESC reiterates its proposal for integration
to be incorporated into European migration policies. The
Committee has made many proposals in various Opinions (27)
and at the Conference (28) held in 2002. The European Union
should draw up a European programme for integration with
adequate resources under the new financial perspectives. The
EESC will work with the Commission to draw up such a
programme. The Green Paper should make reference to all rele-
vant international and European treaties and conventions (29).

Brussels, 9 June 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(27) See the EESC Opinion in OJ C 80 of 30.03.04 (rapporteur: Mr
Pariza Castaños) and the Opinion on Immigration, integration and
the role of civil society organisations, OJ C 125, 27.5.2002
(rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños – co-rapporteur: Mr Melícias)
(28) See the appendix to the Opinion on Immigration, integration and
employment, OJ C 80, 30.3.2004 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños)

(29) ILO:

— Migration for Employment Convention (revised), 1949 (No. 97)
— Migration for Employment Recommendation (revised), 1949

(No. 86)

— Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975

(No. 143)

— Migrant Workers Recommendation, 1975 (No. 151)
— Articles 24 and 26 of the ILO Constitution
— Resolution concerning a fair deal for migrant workers in a

global economy, June 2004

Council of Europe:
— European Social Charter, 1961 (No. 35) and Revised European

Social Charter, 1996 (No. 163)

— European Convention on the legal status of Migrant Workers,

1977 (No. 93)
European Union:
— The EU Charter of fundamental rights, 2000 (Part II of the

Constitutional Treaty, 2004)

United Nations:
— Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not

Nationals of the country in which they live, 1985

— International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 1990
No. 158).

(25) See the EESC Opinion on the Communication on the Community
return policy, OJ C 85, 8.4.2003 (Rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños)
(26) See the EESC Opinion on the Green Paper on the Community
return policy, OJ C 61, 14.3.2003 (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños)