Commission staff working document accompanying the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a common Immigration Policy for Europe: Principles, actions and tools - Impact assessment {COM(2008) 359 final} {SEC(2008) 2027}
Date: 2008-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, admission of aliens, border control, foreign policy, illegal migration, impact study, integration of migrants, migration control, political cooperation

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 17.6.2008 
SEC(2008) 2026 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on A common Immigration Policy for Europe: 
Principles, actions and tools 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2008) 359 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2027} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 

PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES TO TACKLE (problem definition) ................... 7 

WHAT ARE THE MAIN POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS AND OBJECTIVES? 
(explanatory memorandum) ....................................................................................... 42 

FUTURE METHODOLOGY: BETTER GOVERNANCE OF IMMIGRATION ... 54 

ANNEX 1 – OVERVIEW TABLE.......................................................................................... 56 

ANNEX 2 – STATISTICAL DATA ....................................................................................... 61

EN 

2 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Procedural Issues and Consultation of Interested Parties 

Lead DG: 

JLS 

Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security 

Agenda Planning reference: 

Reference number 2008/JLS/216 of the Commission Legislative Work Programme 2008. 

This  impact  assessment  has  been  prepared  among  others  on  the  basis  of  diverse  impact 
assessments, including impacts assessments or staff working documents accompanying : 

–  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  policy  priorities  in  the  fight  against  illegal 

immigration of third-country nationals1,  

–  the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for 

sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals 2, 

–  the  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  the  conditions  of  entry  and  residence  of  third-country 

nationals for the purpose of highly qualified employment 3,  

–  the proposal for a Directive on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-
country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common 
set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State4, 

–  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions – Report on the 
evaluation and future development of the FRONTEX Agency5; Examining the creation of 
a  European  Border  Surveillance  System  (EUROSUR)6-  Preparing  the  ext  steps  in  border 
management in the European Union7. 

Joint Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion as well as Reports on Migration and 
Integration have also been used to frame this Impact assessment. 

This report has been drafted with input from a number of consultations held between different 
directorates  within  the  Directorate-General  for  Justice,  Freedom  and  Security  and  other 
competent  services,  including  EMPL,  EAC,  ECFIN,  REGIO,  TAXUD,  TRADE,  MARKT 
and  SG.  This  input  has  been  provided  through  various  meetings  held  between  Commission 
officials with responsibility for different files and written contributions. Meetings of the inter-
service  steering  group  on  migration  were  held  on  14  January  2008  (at  Director  General's 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

SEC(2006)964. 
SEC (2007)603. 
SEC(2007)1403. 
SEC(2007)1393. 
SEC (2008)149. 
SEC(2008)152. 
SEC(2008)154. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
level),  on  17  March  2008  (at  Director's  level),  on  7  April  2008  (at  expert  level)  and  on  28 
April  2008  (again  at  Director  General's  level)  with  representatives  of  the  abovementioned 
DGs  as  well  as  RELEX,  DEV,  AIDCO,  ESTAT,  SANCO,  RTD,  TAXUD  and  COMM 
attending.  

The  Impact  Assessment  was  revised  to  take  into  account  the  opinions  issued  by  the  Impact 
Assessment  Board  on  7  May  2008  and  10  June  2008.  All  the  comments  made  by  the  IAB 
were  taken  into  consideration  in  the  revised  Impact  Assessment:  the  IA  report  structure  has 
been modified in order to come closer to the standard structure, especially through adding a 
section  on  objectives;  a  clearer  link  to  the  Lisbon  Strategy  has  been  inserted;  it  has  been 
emphasized which principles were new and to which problems they responded, notably thanks 
to  an  overview  table;  necessity  and  added  value  of  EU  action  has  been  systematically 
assessed,  the  problem  definition  has  been  completed  and  the  references  to  resources  needs 
have been clarified. 

The Communication will primarily focus on suggestions for political principles and a vision 
for  further  policy  development  of  a  common  EU  migration  policy.  The  operational  bullet 
points  are  used  mainly  as  a  point  of  illustration  only  in  order  to  clarify  the  further  steps  in 
implementing the principles. This accompanying report is therefore a simplified version of an 
impact assessment insofar as it only consists of a problem definition, an overview on the main 
orientations  and  objectives  (explanatory  memorandum)  and  an  insight  into  the  future 
methodology. This is without prejudice to the fact that forthcoming  measures implementing 
the common principles will be subject to a full impact assessment, when appropriate. 

1.2. Policy framework and context 

Immigration is a complex issue and has become one of the most visible challenges posed by 
globalisation to EU Member States. Recognising that a common approach was necessary to 
manage migration more effectively, the Treaty of Amsterdam, adopted in 1997, foresaw the 
development  of  a  common  immigration  policy  as  part  of  an  EU-wide  area  of  freedom, 
security  and  justice.  To  this  end,  a  new  Title  IV  was  inserted  into  the  EC  Treaty,  which 
included the legal base for EU measures in the field of immigration (Articles 62 and 63 EC).  

Realising that a new approach to managing migration was necessary, EU leaders set out the 
elements  for  a  common  EU  immigration  policy  at  the  October  1999  European  Council  in 
Tampere (Finland). The approach agreed in Tampere in 1999 was confirmed in 2004, with the 
adoption  of  the  Hague  Programme,  which  has  set  the  objectives  for  strengthening  freedom, 
security and justice in the EU for the period 2004-2009. This approach includes legislation, as 
well  as  practical  cooperation,  and  requires  close  and  constructive  cooperation  between  all 
actors involved. This common policy is based on four principles: 

•  a  comprehensive  approach  to  the  management  of  migration  flows,  by  tackling  all  the 

different aspects of migration;  

•  fair treatment for third country nationals; 

•  the development of partnerships with countries of origin and of transit, including policies 

of co-development; 

•  a separate common policy for asylum. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

Since  the  Tampere  European  Council  of  1999,  the  EU  has  sought  to  develop  a  common 
immigration  policy  that  would  comprehensively  address  the  phenomenon  in  all  its  main 
dimensions, i.e. legal and illegal immigration, integration and cooperation with the countries 
of origin of immigrants. In order to provide a coherent and efficient response to the challenges 
and  opportunities  related  to  migration,  such  a  comprehensive  policy  has,  for  the  first  time, 
been  defined  by  the  European  Council  in  December  2006,  building  on  the  Tampere 
conclusions,  the  Hague  Programme  and  the  Global  Approach  to  Migration  adopted  by  the 
European Councils in 2005 and 2006. This comprehensive approach focuses on all stages of 
migration, with the aim of harnessing the benefits of legal migration and includes policies to 
fight illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. It is based on the general principles 
of subsidiarity, proportionality, solidarity, respect for the different legal systems and traditions 
of the Member States. It is also based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms 
of  migrants,  the  Geneva  Convention  and  due  access  to  asylum  procedures.  It  requires  a 
genuine partnership with third countries and must be fully integrated into the Union's external 
policies.  

In  June  2007,  the  European  Council  emphasized  the  need  to  make  rapid  progress  in 
developing such a comprehensive common policy and called on the Member States and the 
Commission to ensure that adequate human and financial resources are allocated, within the 
existing financial framework, in order to enable the timely implementation of this policy. 

In  December  2007,  the  European  Council  stressed  that  further  developing  such  a 
comprehensive  common  policy  remained  a  fundamental  priority  in  order  to  respond  to 
challenges  and  opportunities  of  globalisation.  Underlining  the  need  for  a  renewed  political 
commitment, the European Council asked for further policy developments and rapid progress 
towards  a  Comprehensive  EU  Immigration  Policy.  This  policy  should,  as  underlined  by 
European Council Conclusions also  in June 2007, be based on common political principles, 
addressing  all  aspects  of  migration.  These  should  serve  as  the  platform  for  all  future 
operational measures further developing this policy. The Lisbon Treaty, if entering into force 
in January 2009 as foreseen, will provide new tools and instruments, as well as a reinforced 
legislative  base  to  achieve  the  objectives.  One  key  innovation  in  this  field  will  be  the 
extension  of  the  co-decision  procedure,  which  is  already  the  procedure  utilised  in  all  other 
areas of immigration, to the adoption of legal instruments in the area of legal migration. This 
will  bring  about  an  important  change  in  the  legal  immigration  field,  as  measures  will  no 
longer  be  subject  to  reaching  unanimity  of  27  Member  States.  In  the  past  the  unanimity 
requirement  has  lead  to  the  adoption  of  minimum  standards  Directives,  whose  provisions 
often represent the lowest common denominator as they had to be acceptable to all Member 
States. The co-decision provision, coupled with the qualified majority voting in the Council, 
should allow the adoption of more ambitious Directives with a truly EU dimension and added 
value  moving  beyond  minimum  standards.  Other  important  changes  include  the  clear 
recognition  of  the  importance  of  adopting  common  measures  to  define  the  rights  of  legally 
residing  third-country  nationals,  to  combat  trafficking  in  human  beings,  to  conclude 
readmission  agreements  and  to  support  Member  States'  actions  and  measures  aimed  at 
fostering the integration of legal immigrants (article 63 a). In this respect, it is important to 
underline  that  measures  in  the  aforementioned  fields  have  already  been  adopted  under  the 
current  legal  base:  however,  such  explicit  wording  in  the  Lisbon  Treaty  is  an  important 
recognition  of  the  necessity  of  EU  action  in  such  a  broad  and  multifaceted  area.  Other 
examples of change introduced by this Treaty concern (article 62) the gradual establishment 
of  an  integrated  management  system  for  external  borders,  the  measures  on  short-stay 
residence  permits  and  the  provisions  relating  to  passports,  identity  cards  and  residence 
permits,  although  the  latter  will  remain  under  unanimity  and  simple  consultation  of  the 

EN 

5 

   EN 

European  Parliament.  The  principle  of  solidarity  and  fair-sharing  of  responsibility  between 
the Member States, including its financial aspects, shall be at the basis of borders, asylum and 
immigration policies, as explicitly underlined by article 63 b. In this case as well, the Lisbon 
Treaty recognises an already existing funding block of the common policy. 

In  this  context,  it  shall  be  recalled  that  the  area  of  borders  and  immigration  is  one  where 
Member States and the EC have shared competence: this will not be changed by the Lisbon 
Treaty. When discussing and analysing the common policy and its future developments it is 
therefore necessary to be mindful that not all the measures that are, or will be, necessary to 
further  develop  and  consolidate  the  comprehensive  common  policy  will  require  EC 
intervention. In certain cases, they will fall under the exclusive competence of Member States, 
consequently,  EU  action  could  only  take  the  form  of  political  commitments,  possibly 
supported  by  EU  coordination  and/or  funding.  An  example  of  this  is  policy  relating  to  the 
integration of legally staying third-country nationals, where, (even if the Lisbon Treaty enters 
into force) there would be no competence to adopt any legislative measures to harmonise laws 
or  regulations  in  Member  States.  Notwithstanding  the  lack  of  a  legal  base,  the  Union  has, 
since  Tampere,  been  developing  a  common  framework  on  integration,  based  on  common 
basic principles agreed by the Council in 2004. It has also encouraged regular dialogue and 
exchange of best practices among the Member States, and financially supported their efforts 
to  develop  their  integration  policies  and  measures  based  on  the  common  basic  principles. 
Another  example  of  shared  competence  is  the  labour  immigration  policy:  the  EU  has  full 
competence  to  adopt  measures  on  the  conditions  and  procedures  for  entry  and  residence  of 
labour  migrants,  but  Member  States  maintain  full  competence  to  determine  the  volumes  of 
third-country  nationals  coming  from  third-countries  in  order  to  seek  work.  This  means  that 
directives  on  labour  migration  can  be  adopted,  but  that  they  can  only  set  down  eligibility 
criteria for admission, as the final decision on the application or the setting out of quotas will 
remain with the Member States. 

Furthermore with the re-launch of the Lisbon Strategy, the European Union and its Member 
States, are committed to a new partnership aimed at securing sustainable growth and jobs. As 
recognised  by  the  2008  Spring  European  Council  immigration  has  become  an  important 
factor  for  the  development  of  the  EU's  Lisbon  Strategy,  acknowledging  that  appropriate 
management  of  economic  immigration  is  an  essential  element  of  EU  competitiveness. 
Moreover  and  while  to  a  certain  extent  immigration  may  help  to  alleviate  the  challenges 
arising  from  population  ageing,  it  will  play  a  more  crucial  role  in  helping  to  address  future 
labour and skill shortages as well as to increase  the  EU's  growth potential and prosperity, 
complementing ongoing structural reforms. 

One  of  the  four  priority  areas  is  "investing  in  people  and  modernising  labour  market".  One 
instrument which will assist in the achievement of this goal is to support migrants, notably by 
fostering  skills  development.  Migration  is  also  an  emerging  policy  priority  within  the  next 
three-year cycle of the Integrated Guidelines 2008-2010. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

Box 1 Definition of an (im)migrant 

Following much of the recent literature, in most of the following analysis an (im)migrant is 
defined as an individual that resides in another country than the one where he or she was born 
( i.e. a "country of birth" approach rather than nationality has been used to identify. The main 
reasons  for  this  are  that  the  foreign  born  concept  gives  a  better  picture  of  migrants  by 
including  naturalized  immigrants  and  because  of  the  fact  that  most  of  the  more  recent 
migration  literature  and  research  seems  to  favour  foreign-born  over  foreign  nationals  when 
analysing migrant populations (see for example Munz and Fassmann (2004)). 

However, a major practical drawback of this approach is that harmonised labour force survey 
data  available  from  the  European  statistical  authority  (Eurostat)  for  Bulgaria,  Ireland  and 
especially Germany does not include information on specific country of birth, which has an 
impact of the representativeness of the results for the EU as a whole.  

The  total  population  resident  in  EU  Member  States  can  be  divided  into  three  basic  groups 
based on place of birth, namely, those born in the Member State of residence ("native-born"), 
those born in another EU Member State ("other EU born") and those born outside of the EU 
("non-EU  born").  The  latter  two  groups,  although  both  foreign-born,  may  have  different 
residence and labour market rights, and differ in terms of labour market outcomes.  

2. 

PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES TO TACKLE (PROBLEM DEFINITION) 

In  December  2007  the  European  Council  asked  for  further  policy  developments  and  rapid 
progress towards a Comprehensive EU Immigration Policy on the basis of a renewed political 
commitment. This policy should be based on common political principles, encompassing all 
aspects of migration.  

To achieve this, in the years to come, the EU and the Member States would need to tackle the 
following  problems  and  challenges  and  to  adapt  the  existing  measures  already  devised  in 
response to them:  

2.1. 

SHRINKING EU POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC AGEING 

One  of  the  most  principal  issues  that  must  be  taken  into  account  and  analysed  when 
examining  the  future  problems  and  challenges  facing  the  EU  is  the  impact  of  demographic 
ageing on EU societies and labour markets, and subsequently, the policies needed to address 
the consequences of this change. 

2.1.1. Definition of the problem 

As a result of diverse shifts in demographic features of the EU population, and further to the 
withdrawal from the labour market of the baby boomers cohort, the working age population  
is  projected  to  face,  in  the  coming  years,  a  sizeable  decline.  This  will  have  adverse 
consequences relating to pension expenses, health spending and long-term care, dependency 
ratio and more broadly to the dynamism of economy. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Fertility trends  

Life  expectancy  is  currently  rated  at  75.6  for  men  and  81.8  for  women.  Historically, 
progresses  in  life  expectancy,  linked  to  general  socio-economic  progress,  public  health 
measures  and  medical  treatment,  has  been  obtained  through  declining  mortality  rates  in  the 
early-life,  and  then  in  mid-life.  The  improvement  of  life  expectancy  is  now  mostly  attained 
through improvement in the late- life.  

Life  expectancy  is  expected  to  continue  increasing,  although  there  is  inevitably  a  degree  of 
uncertainty as regards the pace of this change. 

Size and composition of the EU population 

As a result of a declining crude fertility rate, combined with a stable crude mortality rate, the 
population rate is not able to grow naturally.  

Because of the rising life expectancy and current rates of migration, the total population size 
will remain broadly at the same level until 2050. However, as a result of both an increase in 
the total world population from 6.4 billion today to 9.1 billion in 2050, and the zero annual 
population  growth  rate  in  Europe,  the  share  of  the  EU  population  relative  to  the  rest  of  the 
world will be decreasing. According to the UN population projections (2004), the share of the 
EU-25  in  the  total  world  population  is  projected  to  go  from  7%  today  to  around  5%, 
compared to the share of 15% a century ago8.  

In  addition  to  this  loss  of  relative  importance  in  terms  of  numbers,  the  structure  of  the  EU 
population is projected to undergo serious shifts. According to Eurostat’s baseline population 
projection, the median age of the EU citizen is expected to increase between 2004 and 2050 
from  39  to  49  years.  In  parallel,  according  to  Eurostat  projections,  the  share  of  the  total 
population over 80 is expected to rise from 4.1% in 2005 to 6.3% in 2025 and to 11.4% in 
2050. 

One of the most striking characteristics of this demographic change that will be most visible 
from an early point will be the declining age amongst the working population. 

The decline of the working age population- economic and social consequences 

Although the population of working age (aged 15-64) is already due to decline from around 
2011  onwards,  total  employment  in  the  EU-25  is  expected  to  continue  growing  until 
approximately 2017, due  to  rising labour force participation, mainly  from  women  and  older 
workers9. According to the "baseline" scenario of Eurostat's 2004 population projections, the 
natural decrease of the population (already reported in some EU countries) is expected to be 
registered  on  a  European  scale  as  soon  as  2011,  whereas  our  competitors  (USA,  China  and 
other  emerging  economies)  would  continue  to  demonstrate  a  more  favourable  outlook  in 
terms of labour supply. The size of the working age population (15-64) is projected to be peak 

8 

9 

A significant illustration of this loss of influence of the EU population compared to that of its neighbour 
is  given  by  the  examples  of  Italy  and  Egypt:  in  1950  Egypt  had  less  than  half  the  population  size  of 
Italy; in the early 1990s, both countries were of equal size; by 2050, Egypt's population is likely to be 
about three times that of Italy’s. 
Female  participation  is  expected  to  rise  from  55%  today  up  to  65%  by  2025,  while  older  workers 
employment rates should increase from 40% to 47% for the same period. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
approximately around the year 2010 (331 million) and then to decline to about 255 million by 
2050. 

The  loss  for  the  working  age  population  is  estimated  to  be  53  million  (or  17%)  by  2050 
compared  with  2005  levels  (308  million).  The  balance  between  the  working  age  population 
and the retired one will be therefore be deeply modified. The old-age dependency ratio, which 
compares  the  number  of  people  over  65  to  the  number  of  people  aged  15-64,  would 
consequently rise from 25% at the present time, to 53% in 205010. 

Finally,  the  reduction  in  employment  is  projected  to  result  in  a  declining  annual  average 
potential GDP growth rate in the EU-25, from 2.4% in the period 2004 to 2010 to only 1.2% 
in  the  period  2031-2050.  In  fact,  in  the  long-term,  productivity  improvements  would  be  the 
sole contributor to economic growth.11 Linked with an increasing number of older people, the 
doubling  of  the  old-age  dependency  ratio,  a  growing  pressure  on  the  health-care  and  long-
term care system, as well as the pension expenditure is projected. Social protection will have 
to adapt to this new situation.  

The importance of migration  

Against this backdrop, migration has become a major determinant of demographic evolution 
in the EU.  

While  overall  the  EU  was  an  area  of  emigration  during  the  19th  century,  it  became  an 
immigration continent during the 2nd half of the 20th century.  Migration was boosted by  the 
economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s, and then was mainly fed by family migration during 
the  1970s,  following  the  first  oil  shock  and  the  subsequent  rise  in  unemployment.  Average 
annual  net  entries  for  the  EU-25  more  than  tripled  from  around  198,000  people  during  the 
1980s to around 750,000 people per year during the 1990s12. Net migration into the EU has 
then  seen  a  substantial  increase,  rising  threefold  between  the  mid-1990s  and  early  2000  to 
reach  around  1.5  to  2  million  from  2002  onwards  (although  a  sizeable  part  of  this  can  be 
attributed to regularisation13 of illegal immigrants, notably in Spain)14 

Immigration has constituted the main element of EU demographic growth since 1992, and has 
far outweighed the contribution from natural change over recent years15. Despite this data, it 
is interesting to note that many Europeans still do not assume that immigration could turn into 
a necessary progress16. 

The main migratory movement is still, and is likely to remain, immigration into the EU from 
neighbouring countries, Africa and, increasingly, South America (into Spain).  

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 

16 

In  some  Member  States  of  South  Europe,  according  to  projections,  one  third  of  workers  will  have  to 
care for two thirds of old people. 
See  Economic  Policy  Committee  and  European  Commission  (DG  ECFIN)  (2006),  ‘The  impact  of 
ageing on public expenditure: projections for the EU25 Member States on pensions, health-care, long-
term  care,  education  and  unemployment  transfers  (2004-2050)’,  European  Economy  Special  Reports, 
No. 1. 
Economic papers, DG Economic and financial affairs, Sept. 2006: Labour migration Patterns in Europe: 
Recent trends, Future Challenges, p.5-6 
Also known as amnesty or legalisation of residence status in other Member States. 
See figure 3 in annex 2 
This trend is particularly marked in western Germany, eastern Austria, the north of Italy, Slovenia, the 
south of Sweden and regions in Spain, Greece and the United Kingdom. 
What are the migrants' contributions to employment and growth? A European approach. HWWI, 2007 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
2.1.2. Existing responses 

Demographic change is high on the European policy agenda. Following a major public debate 
launched by the Green Paper ‘Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the 
generations’ of March 200517 as well as discussions at the heads of state level and government 
at the Hampton Court informal summit of October 2005, the Commission presented its view 
on the demographic challenge in its 2006 Communication “The demographic future of Europe 
— from challenge to opportunity”18. 

That Communication explained that the current policies are not viable in the long term, in that 
they  do  not  address  the  expected  decrease  in  the  active  population  and  the  prospect  of 
slippage in public finances. The source of the problem is not higher life expectancy as such, 
rather  it  is  the  inability  of  current  policies  to  adapt  to  the  new  demographic  order  and  the 
reluctance of businesses and citizens to change their expectations and attitudes, particularly in 
the labour market. In short, the Member States are facing a problem of retirement rather than 
a problem of ageing. Of course, it falls above all to the Member States to formulate specific 
responses  to  the  demographic  challenge.  This  Communication,  however,  developed  a 
reference  framework  at  Community  level  for  these  policies  from  the  Member  States.  The 
framework set out five areas that respond to a common perspective of restored confidence: 

•  Promoting demographic renewal in Europe 

•  Promoting employment in Europe: more jobs and longer working lives of better quality 

•  A more productive and competitive Europe 

•  Receiving and integrating migrants in Europe 

•  Sustainable  public  finances  in  Europe:  guaranteeing  adequate  social  security  and  equity 

between the generations. 

According  to  this  communication,  immigration  cannot  be  "the"  solution  to  all  the  problems 
and challenges relating to demographic ageing of EU societies19, but it has been stressed that 
therefore  well-managed  immigration  is  likely  to  bring  numerous  positive  consequences 
tending  to  offset  the  negative  consequences  of  population  ageing,  notably  by  increasing 
labour supply.  

2.1.3. Objectives 

In line with this 2006 Communication, the overall objective - from a migration point of view - 
is to ensure a well managed and transparent migration policy and to integrate newly arrived 
immigrants into European societies, which requires the design of a common policy on legal 
immigration,  organising  both  legal  immigration  and  the  integration  of  immigrants,  while 
taking into account the interests of the countries of origin.  

These objectives are mainly reflected in principles 1, 2 and 3, partly in principles 6 and 9. 

17 
18 
19 

COM(2005)94 final 
COM(2006) 571, 12.10.2006 
A study by the United Nations has shown that to prevent from population ageing, unrealistic massive 
flows  of  young  migrants  would  be  required19.  For  example,  to  keep  the  age  structure  in  Germany 
unchanged, over 3 million migrants per year would have to be admitted. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
2.1.4.  Subsidiarity  principle  (see  section  2.2.4  due  to  close  inter-connexion  with  section 
2.2 Labour and skill shortages) 

2.2. LABOUR AND SKILLS SHORTAGES 

2.2.1. Definition of the problem 

At  the  present  time,  there  are  around  three  million  vacant  jobs  in  Europe  and  a  number  of 
Member  States  encounter  labour  and  skills  shortages20,  exacerbated  by  a  low  mobility  of 
workers across the EU.21  

The  need  for  more  both  high-skilled  immigration  and  low-skilled  labour  is  on  the  rise  and 
third-country  migrants,  already  overrepresented  at  the  highest  skill  levels  and  at  the  lowest 
skill levels, are expected to play an increasingly important role in meeting demands for labour 
at the low and high-skill ends of the labour market. 

Skills and labour shortages 

Partly  as  a  result  of  economic  globalisation  and  its  consequent  re-localisation  and 
outsourcing, labour markets are polarizing toward the extreme ends of the skills scale. 

Satisfying  job  vacancies  in  high-skill  sectors,  such  as  engineering,  information  technology, 
pharmaceuticals, healthcare and educational sectors is becoming increasingly troublesome in 
certain  regions22.  The  growing  importance  of  a  knowledge-based  economy,  structural 
economic  change,  the  growth  of  the  service  sector,  the  delocalization  of  labour  intensive 
production¸  the  outflows  of  nationals  (brain  drain)  all  contribute  to  these  conclusions. 
Employment  growth  rates  for  those  with  a  high  level  of  educational  attainment  is  therefore 
increasing23:  between  1996  and  2003,  it  increased  by  2.9%,  while  it  was  actually  in  the 
negative  for  those  with  low  educational  attainment.  The  same  pattern  is  reported  for 
employment  growth  rates24  in  high-education  sectors25,  such  as  manufacture  of  office 
machinery and equipment, computers and related activities, education, health and social work, 
or activities of membership organizations.  

From a long-term perspective, according to recent medium term forecasts of skills supply and 
analyses  of  possible  labour  market  imbalances  in  Europe  over  the  period  2006-2015 
(CEDEFOP, 2007), substantial structural change is likely in the future, with continuing shifts 
away from the primary sector and traditional manufacturing, towards services and knowledge-
intensive jobs. Of 13 million additional jobs generated between 2006 and 2015, distribution, 
transport, hotels and catering together are projected to see employment grow by 3.5 million, 

20 

21 

22 
23 
24 
25 

It  needs  to  be  recalled  that  labour  shortages  occur  where  the  demand  for  workers  in  a  particular 
occupation  exceeds  the  supply  of  workers  who  are  qualified,  available,  and  willing  to  do  that  job. 
Within  this  definition,  two  types  of  shortages  can be  distinguished:  aggregate  labour  shortage  (where 
the labour market is near to full employment) and shortages due to a mismatch with the labour market 
(due to a skills shortage, regional or preference mismatch, information deficits). 
Currently  EU  workers  represent  only  2,5%  of  the  EU  working  age  population.  The  recent  migration 
flow  to  the  EU  of  third-country  migrants  of  working  age  (15-64)  measured  as  a  share  of  the  EU 
working  age  population,  has  been  significantly  higher  (around  2.5  times)  than  the  recent  flow  of 
migrants from other EU countries (1.5% versus 0.6%). 
In Germany for example, vacancies for engineers rose nearly 30% over the past year to around 23,000. 
ISCED 5-6: tertiary education. 
equal to 3% per year as compared to 1% in other sectors 
I.e. sectors with at least 40 % of their workforce having attained higher education level 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
while employment in non-marketed services, including health and education, is projected to 
grow  at  a  similar  rate.  Business  and  miscellaneous  services  have  the  best  prospects  for 
employment, with almost 9 million additional jobs expected to be created between 2006 and 
2015.  

The main implications for occupational employment will be continuing growth in demand for 
many  high-skilled  non-manual  jobs  such  as  management,  professional  work  or  technical 
support  of  those  activities  but  also  for  some  lower-skilled  categories  (service  workers, 
especially in retail and distribution).  

The key role of third-country migrants 

The current contribution of non EU migrants to labour and skill shortages 

Non-EU  nationals  already  play  an  important  role  in  meeting  demands  for  labour  at  the  low 
and  high-skill  ends  of  the  labour  market.  At  EU  level,  working  age  migrants  from  third 
countries tend to be slightly overrepresented at the highest skill levels and more significantly 
overrepresented  at  the  lowest  skill  levels,  suggesting  that  they  potentially  play  an  enhanced 
role  in  meeting  demands  for  labour  at  the  low  and  high-skill  ends  of  the  labour  market.26. 
Immigrants’ skills are, however, not evenly distributed between the EU Member States.  

A  number  of  countries  have  already  set  up  specific  schemes  to  attract  highly  skilled 
migrants27 and the incidence of third-country nationals in the highly skilled occupations28 is 
rapidly increasing. In 2004, the share of non-EU nationals in highly skilled employment was 
2.3% in EU 15, compared to 1.8% in 1999. Third-country highly skilled workers incidence of 
total employment is even growing at a relatively higher rate when compared to the trend of 
highly skilled EU nationals29.  

On  the  other  hand,  most  countries  continue  to  accept  rather  large  numbers  of  low-skilled 
migrants  from  outside  of  the  EU30.  Compared  to  native-born,  a  high  share  of  third-country 
migrants are employed in hotels and restaurants, private household and construction sectors, 
and also, although to a lesser extent, in real estate rentals and business activities.  

The untapped employment potential of third country residents 

26 

27 

28 
29 

30 

While the high skilled ratio of the immigrant population born in a country outside the EU-27 is slightly 
higher  than  the  one  of  the  natives,  the  medium-skilled  ratio  of  the foreign-born  is  significantly  lower 
and the low skilled rate significantly higher: What are the migrants' contributions to employment and 
growth? A European approach. HWWI, 2007 
The  proportion  of  recent  third  country  working  age  migrants  with  tertiary  education  exceeds  25%  in 
Belgium,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  France,  Poland,  and  particularly  in  Sweden  (almost 
40%, which exceeds the share of high-skilled EU born by 12.5 percentage points) 
According to ISCO 88 classifications, categories 1, 2 and 3.  
Between 1999  and  2004,  in EU 15,  the  share  of highly  skilled  workers  (ISCO  categories  1,  2  and 3) 
coming from third countries as compared to total number of employed increased at an average annual 
growth rate of 4.8% (0,8% for EU nationals) 
More  than  40%  of  the  non-EU  born  of  working  age  who  arrived  within  the  last  6  years  to  Austria, 
Belgium,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Greece,  France,  Italy,  Portugal  and  Spain  had  not  attained  an  education 
equivalent to upper secondary school. The gap in the share of low skilled between EU born and recently 
arrived non-EU migrants is most pronounced in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece and Italy 
(where shares differ by more than 10 percentage points). 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
In  order  to  cope  with  these  skills  and  labour  shortages,  harnessing  the  unused  employment 
potential  among  third-country  nationals  is  a  key  priority.  Indeed,  in  many  countries,  the 
unemployment rate of non- EU-nationals is almost twice as high for non-EU nationals (17%) 
as for EU nationals (9%) and sometimes three times higher than those for native-born.31  

However,  migrants'  labour  market  outcomes  differ  widely  across  Member  States.  Two 
groupings of Member States can be identified with regard to employment of non-EU migrants 
relative to native-born. In the new immigration countries (Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain) 
and  the  new  Member  States,  third  country  migrants  have  higher  employment  rates  than  EU 
born,  while  in  old  Member  States  (and  Poland)  the  reverse  is  true32.This  grouping  is  not  so 
apparent when comparing the non-EU born who have been resident for less than six years to 
EU-born. Nevertheless, there is a high correlation between employment rates of recent non-
that  relative 
EU  migrants  and 
performance  in  terms  of  ease  and  rapidity  of  migrants'  integration  into  employment  has 
effects that persist into the longer term labour market outcome for migrants. 

long-term  established  non-EU  migrants,  suggesting 

These differences in employment outcomes have to be linked to the various entry channels for 
immigration, since non-economic migrants did not prepare their access to labour market, also 
possibly  hindered  by  legal  restrictions.  The  composition  of  migrants  inflows  vary 
significantly from one Member State to another. In most Member States a significant part of 
immigration continues to be labour migration, but family formation and reunification together 
with  immigration  on  humanitarian  grounds  have  taken  over  as  important  driving  forces  for 
immigration in Europe in recent decades, accounting in part for differences in the gender mix 
of migrants33.  

Moreover, differences in educational level go some way toward explaining  the employment 
gaps. In EU-15 in 2005 around 28% of men of working age with EU nationality had only a 
basic level of education, while the figure for  non-nationals  was  42%.  28%  of  men  with  EU 
nationality  had  tertiary  education,  and  only  19%  of  non-nationals.  Figures  for  women  show 
lower rates but similar patterns.  

But a number of other drivers contribute to this situation, since while observing the highest 
employment  rates  for  the  highest  educated  persons  across  EU  Member  States,  for  most  of 
them (except for the UK) the employment rate gap between highly educated recent migrants, 
and  highly  educated  EU-born,  significantly  exceeds  the  employment  gap  between  lowest 
educated migrants and non-migrants34.  

31 
32 

33 

34 

This is the case in Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden. 
in  countries,  like  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  the  Netherlands,  Poland  and  Sweden,  the  employment 
rate  differential  to  natives  is more  than 15 percentage  points  and  the difference between  employment 
rates  for  recent  migrants  and  natives  is  even  more  marked,  particularly  in  Austria,  Belgium,  Finland, 
France, the Netherlands and Sweden (all with gaps of more than 20 percentage points). 
According to the OECD SOPEMI 2007 report, the  main  reasons for immigration33 into EU Member 
States  in  2005  were  family  and  work-related.  However,  there  were  very  wide  variations  across 
individual  Member  States.  For  example,  30%  of  new  arrivals  in  the  UK  to  around  60%  in  France 
arrived  for  family  reunification,  while  40%  or  more  of  migrants  arrived  for  work-related  reasons  in 
Belgium,  Denmark,  Portugal  and  the  UK;  as  for  humanitarian  migration,  this  accounted  for  15%  or 
more in the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. 
This tendency is confirmed in all OECD countries: see A profile of immigrants populations in the 21st 
century, OECD, 2008 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
Gender and cultural background are key drivers too: female non-EU nationals face particular 
difficulties compared to their EU-national counterparts, in particular for highly skilled women 
where  the  difference  between  employment  rates  for  non-EU  and  EU  nationals  exceeds  20 
percentage  points.  This  differential  may  be  increased  by  cultural  patterns35.  Age  is  another 
factor,  since  young  people  with  a  migrant  background  are  disproportionately  affected  by 
unemployment  (12-25  percentage  points).  Difficulty  in  harnessing  diplomas  acquired 
overseas and discrimination measures are other crucial factors to take into consideration. The 
correlation between the employment performance of non-EU born and EU-born needs also to 
be underlined, showing that migrants' performance in the labour market is also a reflection of 
the overall labour market situation in general. In addition, the lower employment rates in the 
old  Member  States  probably  reflects  a  lower  acceptance  of  irregular  work,  and  different 
welfare  state  systems  compared  to  other  Member  States  with  higher  employment  rates  for 
migrants (where less generous systems may put greater pressure on migrants to work in order 
to survive).  

Although  improving  the  labour  market  performance  of  non  EU  residents  needs  to  remain  a 
priority,  generating  a  greater  social  cohesion  and  avoiding  costly  dependence  on  welfare 
payments, "external" human resources will be also needed. 

Attracting new migrants 

•  Highly skilled workers36 

In the future, the EU will not be able to rely exclusively on national human resources. In fact, 
in the EU, people with high educational attainments have actually reached high employment 
rates37.  Furthermore,  the  different  measures  foreseen  by  the  revised  Lisbon  Strategy, 
including  the  reduction  of  unemployment  levels  and  the  improvement  of  educational 
attainments of many young people, require investment and time to deliver.  

Hence,  to  be  able  to  adjust  labour  demand  and  supply  on  a  relatively  short  notice,  the 
possibility of sourcing skills outside of the EU will be crucial, while paying attention to the 
prevention of possible adverse consequences of such a demand in terms of "brain drain" on 
source countries.  

However,  the  share  of  skilled  migrant  workers  remains  low,  compared  to  other  OECD 
countries. It is evaluated by 1.7% in the EU, compared to 9.9% in Australia, 7.3% in Canada, 
and 3.2% in the US. Highly skilled migrants continue to pursue North America as their main 
destination38.  These  data  reveal  a  substantial  challenge  for  the  EU  in  attracting  highly 
qualified workers from third countries with respect to the main worldwide benchmarks.  

35 

36 

37 

38 

some  immigrant  women,  notably  from  Turkey,  countries  of  the  Middle  East  and  North  Africa  who 
witness  the  lowest  employment  rates  in  EU,  are  reluctant  to  enter  the  labour  market  for  cultural  or 
religious reasons. 
For  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  labour  market  situation  and  trends  in  the  high  segment  of  the  labour 
market,  as  well  as  on  the  impacts  of  admission  and  intra-EU  mobility  of  third-country  highly  skilled 
workers,  see  the  impact  assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  highly  skilled 
employment (COM(2007)637 and SEC(2007)1403 of 23.10.2007). 
In  EU  15,  the  employment  rate  of  highly  educated  people  was  82.5%  in  2004  However,  it  is  worth 
noting  that  labour  shortages  and  high  unemployment  rates  can  co-exist  in  the  labour  market  (e.g. 
Germany and Sweden) 
A profile of immigrants populations in the 21st century, OECD, 2008. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
Different  factors  account  for  this  situation,  among  which:  historical  ties,  the  language 
preferences,  the  high  previous  labour  demand  for  low  skilled  workers  in  the  European 
manufacturing sector, the institutions and expected income differences.. An important element 
influencing  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU,  with  respect  to  highly  qualified  workers,  is 
represented by the barriers to EU intra-mobility, which is a driver of both the demand and the 
supply  side  of  highly  qualified  workers.  The  possibility  to  work  trans-nationally  is  also 
crucial,  by  moving  back  and  forth  between  the  source  and  the  receiving  country  without 
losing rights. 

It  is  also  important  to  take  into  account the  growing  demand  from  multinational  companies 
regarding the possibility to transfer temporarily skilled workers to other offices or affiliates. 
In that respect, the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) already foresees 
favourable  treatment  for  managers  and  specialists  temporarily  transferred  within  a 
multinational group ("intra-corporate transferees") within the framework of the provision of a 
service.  However,  in  the  absence  of  rules  providing  the  conditions  of  admission  for  these 
workers, the implementation of these GATS provisions is only partial.  

Another important factor to factor in to draw highly skilled workers is the perception of EU 
from outside. From prospective immigrants' view, the EU appears too often as a "fortress with 
closed  gates",  despite  shifts  in  immigration  policies  performed  in  some  Member  States.  In 
order  to  reverse  this  perception,  a  higher  level  of  information  on  legal  pathways  and  rights 
granted to immigrants is required. 

•  Non qualified workers 

Typically, this category of workers is offered poor working conditions: high work uncertainty, 
poor working conditions –notably more risks of accidents at work and more frequent access to 
unhealthy occupations39- part-time jobs and low wages.  

While the role of non-EU immigrants is likely to expand in the future in these growing sectors 
rejected  by  local  workers,  this  sectoral  concentration  of  immigrants  may  lead  to  the 
reinforcement  of  the  reluctance  of  nationals  to  take  these  jobs  and  an  accentuation  of  the 
segmentation of the labour market, worsening discrimination and make create difficulties for 
migrants  to  climb  the  social  ladder.  Moreover,  this  trend  might  trigger  adverse  effects  on 
particular  groups  or  sectors,  since  empirical  findings  point  towards  the  concentration  of 
undesirable effects on blue-collar workers in manufacturing industries and on unskilled labour 
in services40.  

In this context, a differential of rights between native and migrant workers is an aggravating 
circumstance for this segmentation, generating unfair competition.  

2.2.1 Existing responses  

Regarding economic migration, a stocktaking of the existing measures evidences a reluctance 
displayed by Member States to limit their sovereignty on this matter. This was demonstrated 
through the 2001 Proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of 

39 
40 

Literature study on migrant workers, 2008, European Agency for safety and heath at work 
What are the migrants' contributions to employment and growth? A European approach. HWWI, 2007; 
European  Integration  Consortium  (2001)  The  impact  of  Eastern  Enlargement  on  Employment  and 
Labour markets in the EU member States 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
third-country  nationals  for  the  purpose  of  paid  employment  and  self-employed  economic 
activities41 which proposed a general framework covering all types of economic migrants did 
not  receive  the  necessary  support  from  the  Council.  This  proposal  was  the  first  attempt  to 
define a common legal framework at EU level specifically concerning economic migrants.  

Apart from the Directive on the researchers42, the debate fully resumed in January 2005, when 
the  Commission  re-launched  the  debate  regarding  the  need  for  common  rules  on  the 
admission  of  workers  from  third-countries  through  a  Green  Paper  on  economic  migration43. 
Building upon this consultation, the Commission released a policy plan on legal migration in 
December  200544,  announcing  five  legislative  initiatives  that  would  be  presented  between 
2007 and 2009.  

In  October  2007  the  Commission  presented  the  two  first  legislative  proposals:  the  general 
Framework Directive45 aims at simplifying procedures for admission of third-country workers 
and granting a common set of rights to all third- country workers already admitted and legally 
working  in  a  Member  State;  the  Directive  on  the  admission  of  highly  qualified  migrants 
creating the EU Blue Card46, aiming at supporting Member States' efforts in attracting and – 
where necessary – retaining the highly qualified third-country workers needed in their labour 
markets,  including not  only  a fast-track admission  procedure based on common criteria and 
favorable  conditions  for  residence  and  family  reunification,  but  also  a  possibility  for 
exercising  demand-based  intra-EU  mobility  without  being  penalized  in  terms  of  family  life 
and of the period necessary to acquire EC long-term residence.  

The  remaining  proposals  on  seasonal  workers,  intra-corporate  transferees  and  remunerated 
trainees will follow in autumn 2008. 

2.2.3. Objectives  

Against this  background,  and  in  line  with the  purely  demand-driven policy pursued  to  date, 
the  global  objective  is  to  manage  migration  in  order  to  alleviate  sectoral  and  occupational 
shortages  of  labour,  while  giving  full  effect  to  the  Community  preference  and  and  fully 
tapping and valorising the labour market contribution of third-country workers already legally 
resident in the EU. 

The specific objectives consist of: 

–  a comprehensive assessment of present and future labour market needs and the setting up 
of migration profiles, providing a clear picture of the migrants’ employment potential, with 
a view to enhance the matching of labour market needs; this orientation will pave a new 
way in migration policy; 

–  enhancing the employment potential of third-country nationals (notably through measures 
aiming at upgrading their educational attainments, enhancing their training to match their 
skills with labour market needs, allowing for a better recognition of qualifications, fighting 
against  discrimination  and  illegal  work  and  promotion  of  employment  for  immigrant 

41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

COM(2001) 386 final. 
Council Directive 2005/71/EC. 
COM (2004)811 final. 
SEC (2005)1680. 
COM(2007)638. See also section 2.2.1.. 
COM(2007)637. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
women,  also  by  means  of  granting  them  access  to  the  labour  market  within  the  shortest 
delays); 

–  the establishment of a legal framework defining clear rules of admission and residence for 
third-country  workers,  allowing  a  swift  reaction  to  labour  market  needs,  enhancing  the 
attractiveness of Europe for workers and business and granting a common set of rights to 
non EU workers; 

–  an intensified partnership with third countries in order to better conciliate the interests of 

originating and receiving countries; 

–  awareness-raising measures, targeting on the one hand the host societies to enhance their 
awareness  of  migrants'  contributions  and  their  acceptance  (in  this  connection,  the 
demonstration  of  a  strong  will  to  fight  against  illegal  immigration  will  help  advance  this 
process), on the other hand to the prospective migrants to encourage them to come. 

These objectives are mainly reflected in principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10 and 11. 

2.2.4 Subsidiarity principle 

Legal basis 

The legal basis for EU action is to be found in Article 63 of the EC Treaty and in Article 79 of 
the Lisbon Treaty. 

Necessity for an EU intervention 

A policy implemented in one Member State can generate an indirect impact on other Member 
States; moreover, the lack of homogeneous rules and coordination, and the absence of a clear 
message  at  an  EU  level,  bring  about  adverse  consequences  and  consequently  call  for 
European action  (in particular in the Schengen area): 

–  the  lack  of  knowledge  regarding  the  migration  skill  composition  at  an  EU  level  and  the 
needs  of  diverse  labour  markets  can  result  in  contradictory,  non  rational  ("sub-optimal") 
decisions and under-harnessing of EU citizens or third-country residents (e.g. encouraging 
inflows  of  new  migrants  while  neglecting  the  employment  potential  of  migrants  already 
settled in another Member State)47;  

–  differences  between  national  legislation  on  workers  (in  terms  of  definition,  entry  and 
residence conditions) can produce distortions in the selection mechanisms through which 
the third-country nationals decide where to localize in EU territory (i.e. they can be more 
attracted either by an easy system of accession or by a wider system of recognised rights 
rather than by a demand of occupation); 

–  differences  in  terms  of  access  to  the  labour  market  of  third-country  nationals  who  have 
been admitted for reasons different from employment, but who nonetheless have a right of 
access  to  the  labour  market  (family  members,  students,  etc.)  may  also  create  important 

47 

see  also  conclusions  of  the  European  Council  of  13/14  March  2008,  point  14  ("it  invites  the 
Commission to present a comprehensive assessment of the future skills requirements in Europe up to 
2020") 

EN 

17 

   EN 

                                                 
distortions  in  terms  of  labour  market  efficiency.  Where  standards  have  been  fixed  at  EU 
level, EU intervention is necessary to modify them; 

–  especially in the case of highly skilled workers, the obstacles  to internal mobility for third-
country nationals may be a key discouraging element in their decision of entering the EU 
economy,  although  this  is  by  no  means  the  only  element  driving  immigration  choices  of 
this category of workers; by the same token, the parceling of rules across Europe may deter 
multinational  companies  to  establish  a  affiliate  or  a  headquarter  in  Europe,  knowing  that 
the transfer of their employees will be a time-consuming and burdensome process; 

–  in  those  Member  States  where  a  low  level  of  rights  is  granted  to  third-country  workers, 
employers could benefit from the recognition of poor working conditions (the rights gap), 
as  they  would  avoid  a  set  of  responsibilities  and  related  costs.  These  situations  would 
create  an  unfair  competition  between  EU  Member  States  and  would  affect  the  proper 
functioning of the internal market.  

–  Finally,  the  actions  of  individual  Member  States  with  regard  to  cooperation  with  third 
countries  is  not  sufficient  and  may  be  contradictory  (see  chapter  2.5  for  further 
developments). 

Added-value of an EU intervention 

–  the  EU  is  in  a  better  position  than  each  individual  Member  State  to  establish  an  overall 
assessment  of  migration  profiles  allowing  for  a  complete  picture  of  the  labour  market 
situation and the details of the composition of the labour supply; 

–  the building of a legal framework aiming at providing homogeneous rules across Europe in 
terms  of  entry  and  residence  conditions  and  introducing  intra-EU  mobility  at  least  for 
certain categories of workers will be better achieved (or can only be achieved) at EU level; 

–  a  common  message  towards  prospective  migrants  will  be  clearer  and  more  effective 

released by EU; 

–  EU  as  a  block  of  27  Member  States  is  also  in  a  stronger  position  to  negotiate  with  third 

countries than individual Member States. 

2.3. INSUFFICIENT INTEGRATION OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS  

As  a  consequence  of  increasing  inflows  of  immigrants,  European  societies  are  today  more 
acutely faced with the question of diversity. Although some Member States experienced the 
phenomenon  earlier,  the  whole  of  Europe  has  now  gradually  become  a  destination  for 
immigrants.  In  2006,  18.5  million  third-country  nationals  were  registered  in  Europe, 
equivalent to just under 3.8% of the total population. If one focuses on migrants rather than on 
foreign nationals, the number is 27.3 million, representing 5.6% of its total population48. 

A  fundamental  element  of  a  well-managed  migration  policy  is  the  successful  integration  of 
legally residing immigrants, which results in stronger economies, greater social cohesion, an 
increased feeling of security and cultural diversity, finally stepping up the Union's position in 
the  world.  Although  a  growing  number  of  Member  States  recognise  the  vital  importance  of 

48 

COM(2007)780. Romania and Bulgaria are considered as EU nationals. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

                                                 
integration policies, which fall within their competence, and despite the increasing supporting 
role played by the EU, many integration challenges remain and call for a new step change.  

2.3.1. Definition of the problem 

Mainstreaming 

Mainstreaming integration has become an integral part of policy making and implementation 
across a wide range of EU policies. However, effective sharing of information, coordinating 
with all tiers of authorities and stakeholders and paying due attention to the mainstreaming of 
gender  equality  and  to  the  specific  needs  of  migrant  youth  and  children,  are  still  major 
challenges. 

Evaluation and indicators 

More  detailed  data  can  help  to  avoid  confusion  and  improve  the  visibility  of  immigrants' 
contribution  to  the  host  society's  development.  Yet,  the  capacity  to  collect,  analyse  and 
disseminate integration-related information, including gender disaggregated statistics, is still 
not  available.  Monitoring,  evaluation  of 
integration  policies  and  programmes  and 
identification of specific indicators are to date insufficient. 

Management of diversity 

Integration  of  third-country  nationals  has  been  the  subject  of  a  debate  focussing  on 
discrimination phenomena and cultural and religious diversity. In some cases, dramatic events 
were crucial in influencing the public perception of immigration.  

Structural initiatives targeting the host population to reinforce its ability to adjust to diversity 
are still underrepresented in national strategies. 

Education and empowering immigrants 

Average educational attainment of non-nationals is generally substantially lower than that of 
nationals49, which raises concerns about their future personal and professional development50. 

In addition, improving the knowledge of the host society and of its language by immigrants is 
a major challenge.  

Shared values 

Not  enough  is  done  to  actively  ensure  that  all  residents,  including  immigrants,  understand, 
respect, benefit from, and are protected on an equal basis by the full scope of values, rights, 
responsibilities,  and  privileges  established  by  the  EU  and  Member  State  laws,  including 
respect  for  the  principles  of  liberty,  democracy,  respect  for  human  rights  and  fundamental 

49 
50 

See chapter 2.2  
Yet, as seen above, in several countries, because of the presence of high-skilled migrants, the situation 
is  reversed  for  tertiary  education.  An  important  factor  which  accounts  for  the  varying  ability  of  the 
education system to make converge the level of foreign-born population is the different composition of 
the  foreign  population  in  individual  countries,  in  terms  of  the  national  origin  and  socio-economic, 
educational and linguistic background of the immigrant population. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

                                                 
freedoms,  and  the  rule  of  law,  the  concepts  of  dignity,  freedom,  equality  and  non-
discrimination, solidarity, citizen’s rights, and justice. 

Employment  

The integration of immigrants into the labour market remains a major challenge of integration 
policies. It is notably related to recognition of qualifications, discrimination at the work place 
and specific difficulties encountered by immigrant women. 

Social aspects and access to services 

As  reported  in  a  number  of  National  Action  Plans  for  Social  Inclusion  and  through  EU 
studies, there is considerable evidence of the gaps in social outcomes that persist between the 
host country nationals and migrants, albeit at a different scale according to other factors such 
as country of origin or motives for migration.  

At EU level, non-EU migrants face much higher risks of poverty than people born in the host 
country (30% against 16%). The gap is even greater for households with children.51  

Although  in  a  growing  number  of  cases  the  capacity  of  service  providers  to  interact  with 
immigrants  and  initiatives  on  equal  access  to  public  institutions  are  launched,  many 
immigrants  still  face  barriers  when  trying  to  access  social  protection  and  essential  services 
(health care, housing, etc.) that are key for a successful integration.52 Cultural and language 
barriers,  lack of knowledge about the existing system, poverty are among the drivers which 
account  for  this  situation.  Some  reports  also  highlight  a  lack  of  awareness  of  anti-
discrimination  legislation  among  health  professionals  and  administrative  staff.  Equality  of 
treatment  in  terms  of  health  and  safety  at  the  workplace  is  another  important  dimension, 
especially  when  considering  that  immigrants  are  employed  more  often  than  nationals  in  the 
so-called "3D" jobs (dirty, dangerous and demanding work). 

Participation and citizenship 

While  participation  of  immigrants  in  the  democratic  process  is  increasingly  perceived  as  a 
significant aspect of successful integration, migrants' representatives are not often involved in 
the elaboration/implementation of integration policies.  

Host societies and discrimination 

Migrants  often  face  negative  stereotypes,  which  are  expressed  directly  or  indirectly.  The 
promotion  of  non-discrimination  and  equal  opportunities  for  all  is  key  integration  issue.  In 
this last respect, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights53 witness the prevalence 
of  direct  and  indirect  ethnic  discrimination,  such  as  discrimination  in  recruitment  and 
redundancy  practices  and  views  that  different  rates  of  unemployment,  at  least  partly  reflect 
forces of discrimination, rather than simply reflecting factors such as differences in education 

51 

52 

53 

Source: EU-SILC 2005. The size of families, unemployment, low wages, and poor working conditions 
mainly contribute to this situation. 
as  highlighted  during  the  CLIP  conference  of  Conference  European  cities  integrating  migrants  of  7 
April 2008 
Annual report, 2006 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
or  skill  levels.  This  conclusion  is  shared  by  the  European  Agency  for  safety  and  health  at 
work in a recent study54. 

2.3.2. Existing responses 

The  successful  integration  of  lawfully  residing  third-country  nationals  in  the  societies  of 
Member States is one of the greatest challenges of immigration policy and a key element in 
promoting  cohesion  within  the  EU.  In  the  2004  Hague  Programme,  EU  Heads  of  State  and 
member  state  Governments  requested  the  establishment  of  a  coherent  European  framework 
for  integration.  Following  the  adoption  of  Common  Basic  Principles  on  integration  by  the 
JHA  Council  in  November  2004,  the  Commission  presented,  in  September  2005,  a 
communication with proposals for a common framework (handbooks, website, annual reports, 
NCP  meetings,  ministerial  conferences,  integration  forum,  integration  fund,  etc.)  within 
which,  through  concrete  measures both  at  EU  and  national  level,  these  principles  should  be 
put  into  practice.  An  Integration  Fund  has  been  created  in  2007  to  financially  support 
integration policies at national and EU level. 

Moreover,  EU  legislation  provides  a  strong  framework  of  anti-discrimination  legislation55. 
The European Year of Equal Opportunities for All in 2007, and the European Year of Inter-
cultural  Dialogue  in  2008,  have  contributed  to  raise  awareness  in  these  matters,  but  further 
efforts are needed. 

With  regard  to  the  social  security  rights,  the  EU  has  had  a  quite  decisive  impact  on  the 
situation of migrants through the existing provisions or proposals in the field of social security 
coordination  concerning  third  country  nationals  (through  extending  the  EU  coordination 
provisions  to  third  country  nationals;  through  association  agreements,  or  community 
instruments). In 2003, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation 859/0356 
which extends the provisions of Regulation 1408/71 to third country nationals who are legally 
residing  in  the  EU  and  in  a  cross  border  situation.  The  objective  of  this  Regulation  is  to 
provide third country nationals, who fulfil the abovementioned conditions, the same treatment 
as  EU  nationals  as  regards  coordination  of  social  security  schemes  across  the  EU.  As 
Regulation 1408/71 will be replaced by Regulation 883/04, the Commission adopted, in July 
2007, a proposal extending the provisions of Regulation 883/04 to third country nationals who 
are legally residing in the EU and in a cross border situation (COM (2007)439). This proposal 
will  have  to  be  adopted  before  the  regulation  becomes  applicable  in  order  to  avoid  a 
significant setback for the equal treatment of legally residing immigrants with regard to their 
social security contributions.  

As concerns the broader issue of granting equal treatment as yet another mean of improving 
immigrant's  integration  into  the  labour  market  and  the  host  society,  in  October  2007  the 
Commission presented a legislative proposal (the so called "general Framework Directive57") 
which sets down a minimum common level of rights for immigrant workers in terms of equal 
treatment in a series of areas. Such equal treatment with nationals of the host Member State 
entails: working conditions (including pay and dismissal), health and safety at the workplace, 

54 
55 

56 
57 

Literature study on migrant workers, 2008 
Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons 
irrespective  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  and  directive  2000/78/EC  of  27  November  2000  establishing  a 
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. 
OJ L 124 of 20.05.2003 
COM(2007)638. See also section 2.2.1. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

                                                 
education, vocational training, recognition of qualifications, social security (including health 
care),  export  of  pensions  once  they  are  paid,  access  to  goods  and  services  (including 
procedures  for  housing)  and  tax  benefits.  Once  adopted,  this  proposal  will  –  amongst  other 
things – contribute to improve the legal status of legally workers third-country nationals. 

2.3.3. Objectives 

In line with the "Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU", the 
overall objective of European policy is to improve the dynamic, two-way process of mutual 
accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States. 

This objective involves: 

–  to develop a more coherent approach to integration,  

–  to  reinforce  the  sharing  of  information  and  best  practices  as  well  as  the  coordination 

between all stakeholders; 

–  to better monitor and evaluate integration policies; 

–  to set up targeted language classes and tuition to facilitate integration at school; 

–  to focus on introduction programmes, including language and civic orientation courses for 

newly-arrived; 

–  to  prevent  unemployment  through  education  and  training,  a  better  recognition  of 
qualifications, fight against discrimination and illegal work and promotion of employment 
for immigrant women; 

–  to  foster  anti-discrimination  and 

information  measures  and  cooperation  between 

governmental stakeholders and engagement of companies in debates on integration; 

–  to provide specific help and information to allow migrants’ access to services, especially 

health services; 

–  to  reflect  on  active  citizenship  and  naturalisation  processes  as  elements  to  strengthen 

opportunities for involvement in the host society. 

The  principle  3  elaborates  on  this  general  objective,  although  integration  into  the  labour 
market is mainly targeted in principle 2. 

2.3.4. Subsidiarity principle 

Legal basis 

The legal basis for EU action is to be found in Article 63 of the EC Treaty and in Article 79 of 
the Lisbon Treaty. 

Necessity for an EU intervention 

Immigration is a permanent feature of European society. If the flow of immigrants is orderly 
and well-managed, Member States reap many benefits. Taken together and across all Member 
States, these benefits advance the European process and strengthen the Union’s position in the 

EN 

22 

   EN 

world. A critical aspect of managing migration is the successful integration of legally residing 
immigrants and their descendants. The failure of an individual Member State to develop and 
implement  a  successful  integration  policy  can  have,  in  different  ways,  adverse  implications 
for other Member States and the European Union. For example, intercultural challenges faced 
in a Member State after a dramatic event might spread to neighbouring States, as proven by 
the example of the Danish cartoons.  

Moreover, following patent failures to implement successful integration strategies in the past 
(see dramatic events in Denmark, Netherlands and UK), Member States started a process of 
revision of national integration strategies and strongly asked for exchange of information and 
best practice at EU level so as to learn from each other's mistakes and successful experiences 
in this area. New Member States, which are just now facing integration challenges, can also 
greatly benefit from the long experience of other Member States. 

The policy proposed by the Commission with respect to integration also responds to requests 
from  the  European  Council  (as  regards  educational  field,  see  conclusions  of  the  EC  (13/14 
March  2008),  point  15  ("improve  the  achievements  levels  of  learners  with  a  migrant 
background"), or more broadly EC of 14 December 2007, point 25 ("integration is a pivotal 
element  of  the  comprehensive  European  migration  policy.  The  European  Council  calls  for 
better coordination between migration and integration policies"), or EC conclusions of 14/15 
December 2007, point 24 e). 

Added-value of an EU intervention 

The  precise  integration  measures  a  society  chooses  to  implement  should  be  determined  by 
individual Member States, however, mainstreaming of national policies and exchange of best 
practices is better achieved by measures taken at the EU level. An EU intervention allows also 
through  the  Integration  Fund  to  provide  for  a  common  framework  and  to  attenuate  the 
differences between Member States approaches. 

integrating 

in  successfully 

Given  that  integration  is  a  process  which  has  to  take  place  in  Member  States  –  at  national, 
regional or local level -, most of the actions implementing the Common Basic Principles will 
have  to  be  taken  by  Member  States.  However,  the  possible  failure  of  individual  Member 
States 
third-country  nationals  can  have  severe  negative 
implications for the other Member States and the European Union as a whole. It is therefore in 
the common interest of all that, throughout the EU, effective integration strategies are being 
pursued.  For  this  reason,  the  issue  of  integration  has  gained  increasing  importance  on  the 
European  agenda,  commencing  in  2002/3  with  the  JHA  Council's  request  to  establish  National 
Contact points on Integration and the Thessaloniki European Council's invitation to the Commission to 
present  Annual  Reports  on  Migration  and  Integration. At the explicit request and/or approval of 
the European Council, a number of further actions and measures have been taken at the EU 
level,  such  as  the  elaboration  of  handbooks  for  practitioners,  the  organisation  of  annual 
Ministerial  conferences, the creation of an European Website or the setting up of a European 
Integration  Fund.  The  increased  recognition  of  the  added-value  of  EU  interventions  is  also 
reflected by the Lisbon Treaty which, in Article 79 (4) TFEU, will introduce an explicit legal 
base for all EU measures that provide incentives and support Member States in their efforts to 
promote the integration of third-country nationals residing lawfully in their territories. This is 
however limited to legislative measures that do not harmonise the laws and regulations of the 
Member  States  which  distinguishes  this  policy  area  from  other  components  of  the  EU's 
common immigration policy.  

EN 

23 

   EN 

2.4. CONTINUOUS PRESSURE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION 

2.4.1. Definition of the problem 

In  spite  of  the  important  legislative  framework  and  a  number  of  measures  taken,  at  the 
national  or  European  level,  to  combat  illegal  immigration,  this  phenomenon  is  still  a  major 
concern  across  Europe,  triggering  a  wide  array  of  adverse  consequences  that  are 
unsatisfactorily dealt with by current policies. 

Diverse impacts of the phenomenon 

Whilst  difficult  to  evaluate,  indicative  statistical  data  has  put  forward  a  total  number  of 
illegally staying migrants of several million and the number of annual inflows into the EU at 
several  hundreds  of  thousands58.  A  number  of  drivers  are  likely  to  further  increase  the 
magnitude  of  the  phenomenon:  environmental  degradation,  possible  natural  disasters, 
increasing numbers of facilitators that organize the smuggling of human beings and continued 
conflicts.  Moreover,  the  continuing  high  population  growth  in  Europe’s  neighbourhood, 
especially  in  Africa,  combined  with  poor  economic  performance  and  political  instability, 
could act as a strong push factor. 

In spite of efforts, made either individually by Member States, or in co-operation with other 
Member States at European level, illegal immigration continues to flourish in the EU, under 
its different forms: illegal entry into the European Union, often on the basis of false or forged 
documents and with the support of organised criminal networks of smugglers and traffickers; 
overstaying of third-country nationals having entered legally –e.g. at the expiry of their visa 
or their residence permit or once their asylum request has been definitively rejected; abuse of 
procedures allowing legal entitlement for residence (e.g. false marriages/family reunifications, 
false visa applications, misuse of the student status). 

Illegal immigration is a serious concern from different points of view. 

From a security perspective, illegal immigration may be linked with terrorism, trafficking in 
human  beings,  drug  smuggling,  smuggling  of  weapons,  exploitation,  slavery-like  working 
conditions and other serious crimes which therefore pose a major threat to European societies. 

Besides  these  security  issues,  illegal  immigration  is  often  associated  with  humanitarian 
tragedies,  linked  to  the  conditions  of  entry  into  the  EU  territory,  with  the  help  of  criminal 
networks. It is worth noting that a great number of detected illegal immigration by sea takes 
place  through  the  use  of  small  craft  or  dinghies  which  are  not  seaworthy  and  are  therefore 
seriously  jeopardising  the  lives  of  their  occupants.  It  needs  also  to  be  noted  that  migrants 
without  residency  status  (asylum  seekers  and  undocumented  migrants)  have  no  or  limited 
access  to  services  that  are  essential  to  guarantee  fundamental  human  rights  (e.g.  effective 
access to education for children of illegal migrants, access to health care). 

58 

The  estimates  of  the  total  number  of  illegal  migrants  in  the  EU  include  two  to  three  million  (Global 
Migration  Perspectives  2005),  4.5  million  (IOM  2000)  and  seven  to  eight  million  (United  Nations' 
Trends  in  Total  Migrant  Stock:  The  2003  Revision).  The  estimates  of  annual  increases  of  illegal 
immigrants  into  the  EU  include  500  000  (Wiener  Zeitung  2005)  and  350  000  (Global  Migration 
Perspectives 2005). However, aggregating available estimates for 21 individual Member States suggests 
that there is an annual inflow of illegal migrants to the EU of between 893 000 and 923 300. It needs to 
be noted that most estimates that are available relate to the period prior to 2004 and the accession of the 
EU-12, where nationals from those countries were considered as third country nationals. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
Moreover,  illegal  entry,  transit  and  stay  of  third-country  nationals  who  are  not  in  need  of 
international  protection,  undermines  the  credibility  of  the  common  Europeans  and  the 
Member  States’,  immigration  policy.  Effective  countermeasures  against  such  infringements 
are therefore necessary, and any regularisation programme should take into account the risk of 
creating any pull factors.  

The prevalence of this phenomenon, which does not take into account the reception capacities 
of  the  Member  States,  results  in  multiple  and  diverse  social  costs,  including  costs  of 
assistance and health care (whilst varying across individual Members States) in the absence of 
legal livelihood; loss of tax revenue, social security systems, legal employment opportunities 
and  unfair  competition  owing  to  illegal  employment;  and  added  costs  of  inspection  and 
ultimately  return  procedures.  Amnesties/regularisations,  even  when  a  work  contract  is 
required,  do  not  ensure  that  the  migrants  who  benefit  are  those  which  are  most  needed  by 
labour markets added to which their long-lasting occupational inclusion is often problematic. 

A weak number of returns  

When  efficiently  tackling  illegal  immigration,  the  return  process  is  of  crucial  concern.  The 
full  compatibility  of  measures  taken  being  compliant  with  fundamental  rights,  including 
refugee  protection  and  human  rights  obligations  derived  from  the  European  Convention  of 
Human rights, has to be ensured. In that respect, voluntary returns which ensure a dignified 
return for returnees should be given preference, and  are,  in fact, increasing. It  is also in the 
interest of the Member States as it is the most cost-effective process. Yet, forced returns are 
the most frequent, which encounter several barriers, such as: lack of reliable documentation 
which  leads  to  difficulties  identifying  the  third-country  national;  practical  difficulties  to 
organise return operations; and reluctance of third-countries to readmit their nationals, often 
linked to the absence of readmission agreements. The lack of coordination and harmonisation 
at  the  European  level,  against  contrasting  situations  in  terms  of  legislation,  practices  and 
burden-sharing  across  Member  States,  also  gives  rise  to  specific  problems.  Member  States’ 
legislation on returning illegal third-country nationals differs widely, as regards terminology, 
as well as substantive provisions applying to return, removal, use of coercive force, temporary 
custody  and  re-entry.  This  diversity  yields  a  distorting  effect  on  the  distribution  of  illegally 
staying immigrants within the EU and weakens the effects of a return decision. For example, 
when  a  MS  does  not  implement  its  decision  refusing  a  residence  permit  to  a  third-country 
national, it has a potential implication on the territory of all other Member States, owing to the 
absence of internal borders. The weak impact of the return decision on the European scale is 
another concern in this area: in the absence of mutual recognition of the return decisions taken 
by a Member State, the third-country national may comply with his/her obligation to leave by 
simply  moving  to  another  Member  State,  which  leads  to  uncontrolled  secondary  movement 
among Member States and may lead to further illegal presence in another Member State.  

Power of criminal networks: smuggling and trafficking of migrants 

The crossing of the external borders, transit through or illegal stay on the territory of Member 
States  of  the  European  Union  is  often  facilitated  by  criminal  networks.  Third-country 
nationals who are looking for a better life pay such facilitators amounts of money that often 
exceeds many times an average annual salary in their country of origin. Illegal immigrants are 
also  susceptible  to  human  trafficking,  for  the  purpose  of  sexual  or  labour  exploitation, 
domestic servitude, begging, or forced marriage. Human trafficking is a serious crime against 
persons.  Moreover,  high  profits  from  labour  and  sexual  exploitation  are  often  subject  to 
money  laundering  and  may  enable  traffickers  to  engage  in  other  criminal  activities  which 

EN 

25 

   EN 

could lead to the achievement of economic, social or even political power. This often has a 
transnational dimension, as numerous trafficked persons move, or are brought, across external 
borders.  Migrant  smuggling  and  human  trafficking  are  linked  by  the  fact  that  they  are 
frequently organised by internationally operating criminal networks, and are part of organised 
crime  phenomena  linked  with  the  demand  for  cheap  and  illegal  services.  Many  victims,  or 
potential  victims,  of  human  trafficking  are  women,  children  and  individuals  belonging  to 
ethnic and minority groups who may be subject to discrimination in their country of origin. 

Pull factor: illegal employment 

Another  factor  that  encourages  illegal  immigration  into  the  EU  is  the  possibility  of  finding 
work.  Within  the  EU,  undeclared  work  is  estimated  to  account  for  between  7-16%  of  EU 
GDP,  although  this  is  of  course  only  partly  performed  by  illegally  residing  third-country 
nationals  or  legal  third-country  nationals  working  in  breach  of  their  residence  status. 
Avoidance of tax and administrative burdens and the low awareness of sanctions constitute, 
according to a recent survey, two main drivers of undeclared work59. 

Illegally staying migrants work mostly in low-skilled sectors such as construction, agriculture, 
catering or cleaning and housekeeping services to support themselves. Often they are hired for 
the so-called “3 D”- jobs (dirty, dangerous and demanding work), which are rejected by the 
domestic labour force. Their wages are often below the official minimum and differ greatly.  

Despite progress reported in a number of Member States in these areas, there is wide scope 
for improvements in the diverse policy branches. A review of the national schemes show that 
the core problem is related to enforcement of the law rather than the absence of legal rules, as 
evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  legislation  in  most  EU  Member  States  already  provides 
penalties (ranging from public procurement contracts, to limitations on future recruitment, to 
criminal  sanctions,  and  to  the  obligation  to  bear  return  costs)  and  preventive  measures  (e.g. 
imposing  a  burden  on  employers  to  verify  the  immigration  status  of  third-country  nationals 
before offering employment; obliging employees to be able to identify themselves in the work 
place). The risk of being detected by competent authorities is currently very low, both for the 
employer and for the employee. Yet, people who consider the risk to be small are more likely 
to be involved in undeclared work. Enforcement of the sanctions is impeded by the following 
shortcomings:  lack  of  coordination  between  actors  responsible  for  combating  illegal  work 
(social security organisations, labour inspectorates and trade unions), insufficient human and 
financial resources allocated to enforcement bodies, lack of information to undertake effective 
controls and lack of data to assess the outcome of the inspections.  

The  insufficient  international  cooperation,  and  the  insufficient  cross-border  enforcement  of 
sanctions,  especially  regarding  non-criminal  fines,  are  other  main  concerns,  flowing  from  a 
growing  cross-border  business  which  is  at  the  same  time  becoming  more  complex.  This 
phenomenon also gives rise to abuses in the provision of services aimed at benefiting from a 
lower cost of work and social contributions. Often in connection with cross-border activities, 
new  developments  in  the  labour  market  (agency  work,  sub-contracting,  false  self-
employment) have not always been taken into account through a legal framework and control 
bodies.  A  continuous  updating  of  the  information  relating  to  illegal  work  is  all  the  more  a 
concern as this phenomenon tends to become less transparent and more complex, as policies 
are toughening.  

59 

Special Eurobarometer survey (N° 284) 

EN 

26 

   EN 

                                                 
As  a  result,  undeclared  work  is  not,  at  large,  in  the  decline.  It  could  even  be  on  the  rise  in 
several  Member  States  according  a  recent  study.  Furthermore,  the  growing  demand  for 
household and care services could contribute to extending the range of undeclared work. 

Pull factor: prospect of a regularisation (amnesties) 

A number of regularisation programmes have been launched recently, often of a large-scale. 
Besides a possible immediate decrease of illegal work, such decisions may trigger two effects: 
in the short term, a "spill-over" effect, namely the entry of regularised third-country nationals 
into the territory of other Member States as a consequence of the abolition of internal border 
controls  within  the  Schengen  area;  and  potentially,  a  pull  effect  on  other  third-country 
nationals in their countries of origin. 

2.4.2. Existing responses 

The  development  of  a  common  policy  to  fight  illegal  immigration  has  been  shaped  by  a 
number  of  Commission  Communications,  the  last  of  which  was  presented  in  July  2006 
(Communication on Policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third-country 
nationals).  

The EU strongly advocates a comprehensive policy in this field. This includes, among other 
policy instruments, a common return policy. In line with this, Council Directive 2001/40/EC 
of  28  May  2001,  on  the  mutual  recognition  of  decisions  on  the  expulsion  of  third  country 
nationals has been adopted, with the aim of allowing the recognition of an expulsion decision 
issued  by  one  Member  State  against  a  third-country  national  present  within  the  territory  of 
another  Member  State.  Learning  from  the  loophole  of  these  provisions,  namely  the  lack  of 
obligation on a Member State to recognise a return decision issued by another Member State 
and the lack of corresponding  IT  tools, next steps  have  been  taken.  In  September  2005,  the 
Commission  presented  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  common  standards  and  procedures  for 
returning illegally staying third-country nationals, which is due to be adopted in the course of 
2008. The objective of this proposal is to provide for clear, transparent and fair common rules 
concerning return, removal, use of coercive measures, temporary custody and re-entry, which 
comply with the fundamental freedoms of the person. Contrary to the system foreseen in the 
Directive,  on  the  mutual  recognition  of  expulsion  decisions,  the  proposed  return  Directive 
therefore  obliges  Member  States  to  systematically  enforce  return  decisions  vis-à-vis  any 
illegally staying third-country national (the illegally staying third-country national, subject to 
return  from  a  Member  State,  will  not  be  able  to  abscond  to  another  Member  State),  also 
provides the systematic issuing of an entry ban accompanying a return decision and allows for 
inclusion of this information in the Schengen Information System (SIS) in order to enhance its 
effectiveness.  The  generalisation,  at  the  European  scale,  of  the  effects  of  national  return 
measures intends to have a preventive effect and foster credibility in a truly European return 
policy. 

These  actions  are  accompanied  by  a  systematic  dialogue  with  third  countries  on  the 
management of migration, and the conclusion of Community readmission agreements, such as 
those  in  force  with  Hong  Kong,  Macau,  Sri  Lanka,  Albania,  Russia,  Ukraine,  Moldova  and 
the Western Balkans countries. The December 2006 European Council explicitly requested to 
improve  cooperation  on  return  and  readmission  with  third-countries  and  to  step  up 
negotiations on EC readmission agreements. Cooperation in other areas focus on developing 
the use of biometric technologies to make travel or identity documents more secure and the 
fighting  of  smuggling  and  trafficking  of  migrants.  In  this  latter  field,  besides  international 

EN 

27 

   EN 

instruments, a 2004 Directive defines the conditions for granting a residence permit to third-
country nationals who are victims of human trafficking, or who have been subject of an action 
to facilitate illegal immigration and who cooperate with the authorities. The EU also adopted 
a Plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing trafficking in 
human  beings,  adopted  by  the  Council  on  1  December  2005,  which  proposes  an  array  of 
measures aimed at the prevention of trafficking and protecting victims. Further to this Plan, 
the  Commission  services  presented  Recommendations  on  the  identification  and  referral  to 
services of victims of trafficking in human beings, calling for the establishment of a national 
mechanism  aimed  at  early  identification  and  assistance  to  victims.  On  18  October  2007,  an 
'Assessment Manual on Measuring responses to THB' was also presented by the Commission 
services in order to help Member States self-assess their anti-trafficking policy on the basis of 
comparable criteria.  

Other important measures concern social and economic actors more directly, for example with 
respect to combating undeclared work and carriers’ liability. A Council Recommendation was 
adopted  on  22  December  1995  with  a  view  to  harmonising  means  of  combating  illegal 
immigration and illegal employment. Illegal work is also a part of a comprehensive policy led 
through  the  framework  of  the  European  Employment  Strategy  and  the  employment 
guidelines. The objective is to transform undeclared work into formal work, as announced in 
the Council Resolution of 20 October 2003, and to mix preventative measures and sanctions. 
A  communication  was  presented  on  20  October  2007  in  order  to  step  up  the  fight  against 
undeclared  work.  In  May  2007,  the  Commission  presented  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  on 
sanctions for employers of illegal immigrants. The European Council, in June 2007, explicitly 
stated  to  be  convinced  that  illegal  employment  is  one  main  pull  factor  driving  illegal 
immigration. 

Other  important  initiatives  include  the  establishment  of  the  Rapid  Border  Intervention  team 
(RABITs), further strengthening of the Borders Agency (FRONTEX) and examining the set-
up of a European Patrols Network and European Surveillance system for external borders. To 
support the EU's return policy, a European return fund started operating in 2008, on the basis 
of  the  principle  of  integrated  return  management,  and  with  a  view  to  supporting  a  fair  and 
effective  implementation  of  common  standards  on  return,  as  established  under  Community 
legislation on returns. Its total budget reaches €676M. 

Addressing regularisation is also a priority, in order to both remove a pull factor and to avoid 
secondary  movement  of  migrants  within 
the  EU.  Following  several  regularisation 
programmes,  many  Member  States  have  voiced  their  concern  regarding  the  absence  of 
coordination  of  such  measures,  whose  action  is  discretionary  and  taken  by  the  concerned 
governments.  In  response  to  these  concerns,  a  mutual  information  system  on  national 
measures in the area of migration and asylum was set up in 2007, pursuant to which, Member 
States  must  communicate  information  on  measures  considered  likely  to  have  a  significant 
impact on other Member States or on the European Union as a whole. A web-based network 
is  a  central  element  of  the  information  mechanism.  However,  this  tool  is  not  satisfactory. 
Although  the  Council  Decision  provides  that  the  communication  of  relevant  information 
should take place at the latest when the measures concerned become publicly available, and 
encourages  Member  States  to  transmit  it  as  soon  as  possible,  Member  States  neglect  to  use 
this tool and the objective of mutual cooperation is therefore not met. In addition, it should be 
noted  that  the  Commission  is  conducting  a  study  on  regularisation  programmes  in  Member 
States which shall serve as a basis for future discussions on this issue with the Member States, 
and which may lead to further initiatives in the coming years. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

2.4.3 Objectives 

The overarching objective is to pursue current policy aimed at tackling both push factors and 
pull  factors  of  illegal  immigration,  which  can  be  further  broken  down  into  the  following 
specific objectives: 

–  stepping up the fight against the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings, 
pursuing  a  human  rights  centred  approach  (which  requires:  amendments  to  the  legal 
framework  in  order  to  improve  the  status  of  trafficked  persons  once  they  escape  the 
traffickers and to adapt to new kinds of crimes; prevention strategies specific to vulnerable 
groups  such  as  women  and  children;  improvement  of  the  investigation  of  human 
trafficking,  notably  through  better  national  and  international  cooperation;  more  effective 
implementation of international instruments through reinforced EU action at regional and 
international level) 

–  continuing to combat illegal work (through: the adaptation of Community legal framework 
to foresee common sanctions; a better enforcement of sanctions, through adapted national 
human and financial resources and more effective national and trans-national coordination; 
a more thorough knowledge of the phenomenon across Member States, thanks to diverse 
instruments  ranging  from  statistics,  risk  analysis  tools,  new  kinds  of  fraud,  comparative 
learning; development of incentives toward declared work) 

–  establishment of an effective return policy (through: conclusion of further EC readmission 
agreements  and  the  creation  of  common  standards  reinforcing  the  effect  of  a  national 
return decision (Directive); improved cooperation and coordination among Member States, 
including joint return operations; an intensified partnership with third countries). 

These objectives are detailed in principles 9, 10 and 11. 

2.4.4. Subsidiarity principle 

Legal basis 

The  legal  basis  for  EU  action  is  to  be  found  in  Articles  62  and  63  of  the  EC  Treaty  and  in 
Articles 77 and 79 of the Lisbon Treaty. 

Necessity for an EU intervention 

–  illegally staying third-country nationals can move (including secondary movements) to the 
Member  States  that  treat  them  most  favourably,  whatever  efficient  their  external  border 
control may be; this situation may among other negative consequences entail distortions of 
competition within the single market;  

–  coordinated  operational  actions  are  also  needed  to  fight  efficiently  against  illegal 

immigration (e.g. networks of information); 

–  trafficking  in  human  being  is  often  an  transnational  crime  and  requires  even  more 
coordinated  policies  and  measures.  A  stronger  common  EU  approach  in  respect  of  the 
different responses to be put in place so better combat this crime and ensure protection of 
victims is also needed in order to traffickers not to take advantages of the different legal 
frameworks and to ensure that victims are equally protected throughout the EU. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

–  the actions of individual Member States with regard to cooperation with third countries are 

not sufficient and may be contradictory; 

–  burdens lie unevenly with Member States while fight against illegal immigration requires 

an homogenous reaction. 

EU added-value 

–  EU  as  a  block  of  27  Member  States  is  in  a  stronger  position  to  negotiate  with  third 

countries than individual Member States, e.g. readmission agreements;  

–  Coordinated operational actions (e.g. networks of information; organisation of joint return 

flights) can be better achieved through actions at EU level;  

–  An  EU  intervention  allows  reallocating  resources  according  to  the  need  of  the  Member 
State  through  the  Return  and  Border  Fund  and  to  provide  for  a  common  framework 
preventing secondary movements and distortion of competition; 

–  In a view to tackling the problem at the root, an EU action enables to send a clear message 
to  third-country  nationals  designed  to  reduce  the  impetus  for  them  to  leave  their  home 
countries for an illegal job in the EU. A similar message can be sent to criminal networks 
engaged in trafficking of human beings. 

2.5. AN INSUFFICIENT PARTNERSHIP WITH THIRD COUNTRIES 

2.5.2. Definition of the problem 

In the last decades of the 20th century European Union has become a destination continent for 
immigrants  from  various  parts  of  the  world,  but  especially  from  Africa,  Asia  and  Eastern 
Europe. As presented by subsequent UN calculations, the volume of this migration has been 
growing and until early 2000s. Since the legal gateways to Europe have been limited, illegal 
immigration grew in volume, reaching over 1% of the total European population according to 
the OECD estimates. In 2006 alone Spain intercepted 45,000 undocumented immigrants at its 
sea borders (mostly coming from Africa). Even though migrants come to Europe from various 
parts of the world, the push factors driving their mobility are very similar. 

As  is  broadly  acknowledged  in  literature60,  economic  reasoning  underpins  all  decisions  to 
migrate,  however  the  process  is  complex  and  susceptible  to  a  number  of  additional  factors. 
Three  broad  categories  of  push  factors  can  be  identified:  economic,  cultural,  and  migration 
policy-related. 

People  migrate  to  Europe  in  search  of  better  livelihoods  than  those  available  at  home.  This 
concerns  mainly  people  from  the  middle  strata  of  the  society,  who  have  enough  financial 
capital  and/or  skills  to  undertake  the  migration  project.  61  Very  often  it  is  a  family  project, 
where one person goes abroad on the collective funds. Later the migrant is expected to remit 
enough  financial  means  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  whole  family.  These  migrants  cannot  find 

60 

61 

See  e.g.  the  groundbreaking  article  by  Douglas  S.  Massey  et  al.  (1993).  "Theories  of  International 
Migration: A Review and Appraisal." Population and Development Review 19: 431-466. 
This  group  of migrants  constitute  the  highest  share of  illegal  flows  to  Europe.  The  main  countries of 
origin  are  Morocco,  Ukraine,  Vietnam,  Moldova,  China,  and  Russian  Federation,  Serbia  and 
Montenegro. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

                                                 
enough  possibilities  to  develop  a  sustainable  livelihood  at  home  (as  stable  employment 
perspectives,  investment  in  SMEs),  for  a  whole  array  of  reasons.  The  most  important  push 
factors include weak and underperforming governance, bad business climate due to corruption 
and  instability,  disrupted  labour  markets.  The  inability  of  many  governments  to  meet  the 
Millennium Development Goals leaves little hope for an immediate change in many countries, 
especially of sub-Saharan Africa.  

Another push factor of economic migration is related to the development of individual human 
capital. In the situation where the acquired skills are not used, or cannot be used, in the home 
country, people will seek opportunities to apply and even improve them elsewhere. This is the 
case  with  researchers,  physicians  and  other  highly-skilled  migrants,  who  often  respond  to 
legal offers of employment abroad as they are unable to perform their profession at home – 
mostly due to the lack of facilities and limited funds. Underdevelopment  of  specific  sectors 
requiring highly-skilled employees is a persistent problem in sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern 
Europe, but also in other regions of the world. 

The  most  extreme  push  factor  for  migration  is  the  loss  of  livelihood.  It  can  occur  due  to 
natural  disasters  and  conflicts.  In  these  cases,  the  person  faces  an  imminent  life-threatening 
danger.  Draughts,  floods,  aridity  due  to  overuse  of  fertilizers  can  drive  people  from  their 
homes in hope of survival. These factors concern all strata of society and usually do not result 
in  immediate  international  migration,  but  could  indirectly  influence  propensity  to  migrate. 
With  climate  change,  the  world  will  see  more  environment-induced  migration.  It  must  be 
stressed  that  the  relation  between  climate  change  and  migration  has  not  been  thoroughly 
studied  yet,  however,  according  to  available  studies,  for  many  people,  especially  in  the 
poorest  countries  of  the  world,  climate  change  could  significantly  change  their  living 
conditions and eventually push them to migrate. With the temperature rising by two degrees 
centigrade in the next few decades we could witness up to additional ten million people being 
affected  each  year  by  the  coastal  floods.  With  the  rising  sea  levels,  we  might  witness  the 
disappearance  of  some  island  nations  -  extreme  examples  are  the  Maldives  and  Tuvalu, 
which,  according  to  the  studies,  could  disappear  in  the  next  40  years.  Also  the  impact  on 
agriculture  might  be  especially  significant  –  in  Africa,  the  food  production  per  capita  has 
already decreased by 12% since 1981 for a variety of environment-related reasons.  

There  are  several  ongoing  conflicts  in  the  world  today,  such  as  the  Iraq  war,  62  conflict  in 
Darfur,  sudden  upsurges  of  violence  in  Kenya  or  Zimbabwe,  which  happen  on  various 
grounds, and each of them is a major push factor for migration. They can produce hundreds of 
thousands  of  displaced  persons.  These  temporary  refugees  do  not  become  long-term 
international migrants and tend to go back home when the conflict is resolved. Long-lasting 
conflicts, as the ones in Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya, or Sri-Lanka also serve as a strong 
push factor. Internal political struggle, especially under authoritarian and totalitarian regimes 
such as in Myanmar, Tibet, and North Korea leads to persecution of individuals and groups, 
which  then  seek  refuge  from  the  imminent  danger.  Failure  to  introduce  democratic  rules 
creates a push factor persistent in almost all regions of the world. 

The culture of migration, which can develop in the localities of the long history of economic 
migration, is the social construction independent of the actual economic factors. The studies 

62 

Currently the Iraqis constitute the largest group of asylum seekers in Europe – in 2007 over 18% of all 
applications  were  lodged  by  Iraqis.  Other  top  countries  include  Russian  Federation,  Serbia  and 
Montenegro, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, China, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of 
the Congo, and Bangladesh. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

                                                 
of some regions in Eastern Europe (especially Moldova and Ukraine), North Africa (Egypt), 
Sub-Saharan  Africa  (Ghana),  Asia  (provinces  of  China),  and  Latin  America  (Mexico)  often 
enumerate  culture  as  one  reason  to  migrate.  For  many  localities  international  migration  has 
become  the  easiest  and  the  most  natural  way  to  earn  livelihood.  This  is  the  direct  result  of 
strong  migration  networks  linking  distant  localities  and  facilitating  exchanges.  People  can 
acculturate to migration patterns as an economic strategy and tend to replicate it with the help 
of the international network – often the only network they have. Moreover, the social pressure 
to migrate and prove oneself (especially for men) is sometimes stronger than actual economic 
need.  In  some  cases,  especially  in  Eastern  Europe,  migration  can  be  seen  as  a  method  for 
emancipation of women.  

Push factors can also be produced by a conscious migration policy of the source country. The 
examples of India and Philippines provide strong evidence that a source country can induce 
emigration  by  providing  a  range  of  incentives  for  emigrants.  When  emigration  is  a  stable 
element of development policy, push factors will persist. Of course, these policy-encouraged 
flows  are  usually  limited  to  a  given  sector  (nurses,  doctors,  IT  specialists)  and  are 
predominantly legal, thus their pressure on the EU is not uncontrollable. 

The above factors build up to a significant migratory pressure on Europe, which is unlikely to 
cease  in  the  foreseeable  future.  Emigration  pressures  will  remain  high  in  countries  which 
continue to suffer from political instability, lack of good governance and the rule of law, lack 
of employment and income opportunities, and high levels of corruption and crime as well as 
human  rights  violations.  Political,  social  and  economic  aspects  are  often  overlapping  and 
intertwined, which requires a process of dialogue and awareness raising in close cooperation 
with the governments in some third countries. The attenuation of the root-causes of migration 
is thus an important element of the Global Approach, which should be developed. The partner 
countries should thus be supported in their efforts to limit emigration and strengthen capacity 
to  reap  benefits  from  migration  and  development  agenda.  The  added  value  of  closer 
cooperation  through  partnership  lies  in  the  increased  joint  abilities  to  monitor,  assess,  steer 
and manage migration flows in the interest of the European Union, as well as in the interest of 
the partner countries.  

2.5.2 Current responses 

In the late 1990s, the EU response focused on border management and the fight against illegal 
immigration, thereby addressing only the end-product of the complex migratory process. The 
Global  Approach  went  beyond  this  to  address  the  root  causes  of  migration.  The  Global 
Approach  to  Migration,  launched  in  2005,  and  refined  in  2006,  aims  to  formulate 
comprehensive  and  coherent  policies  that  address  a  broad  range  of  migration-related  issues, 
bringing together justice and home affairs, development and external relations in an effort to 
enhance  dialogue  and  cooperation  on  migration  in  partnership.  This  broader  strategy  draws 
together  all  relevant  aspects,  including  asylum,  border  control,  visa  policy,  readmission  and 
return, migration and development, and measures against trafficking and smuggling of human 
beings.  In  addition,  streamlined  financial  instruments  such  as  the  Thematic  Programme  on 
Migration  and  Asylum  (successor of  AENEAS  programme),  have  been  reserved  in  order  to 
put  the  objectives  into  practice  and  operational  results.  Much  of  this  support  has  been 
focusing  on  institutional  capacity  building  in  partner  countries,  as  well  as  adding  a 
Community dimension to Member State financing of migration management of relevance to 
the external relations.  

EN 

32 

   EN 

In the first phase, the Global Approach was mainly focusing on cooperation with countries in 
the  Southern  Mediterranean  and  sub-Saharan  Africa.  Subsequently,  it  was  also  extended  to 
cover the regions to the East and South East of the Union as well as parts of Asia63.  

A  broad  tool  box  has  been  developed  within  the  framework  of  the  Global  Approach  to 
Migration,  including  the  concepts  of  mobility  partnerships,  circular  migration,  migration 
profiles,  migratory  routes  and  cooperation  platforms64.  In  the  particular  context  of  the 
migration  and  development  nexus,  measures  and  financing  have  focused  on  making 
remittances  more  efficient  for  development;  facilitating  the  voluntary  contribution  of 
members of the diaspora to development of their former home countries; and mitigating brain 
drain and brain waste. 

Specific  political  progress  has  been  achieved  in  placing  the  Global  Approach  on  the 
international policy agenda. Two main examples are the ministerial conferences during 2006 
in Rabat, focusing on regional migration, and in Tripoli, which was the first all-African and 
all  EU  ministerial  dedicated  to  migration.  Follow-up  work  of  these  ministerials,  including 
through their related Action Plans, have translated into an  ambitious range of  measures and 
initiatives.  Related  work  includes  migration  information  centres  and  the  establishment  of  a 
remittance institute as well as migration observatories in migrant source countries.65  

2.5.3. Objectives 

In  line  with  the  Global  Approach,  the  overall  objective  consists  of  consolidating  and 
deepening  partnerships  with  third  countries  in  order  to  improve  positive  consequences  of 
migration  for  both  countries  of  origin  and  countries  of  destination,  including:  fostering 
circular  migration  and  brain  circulation  (through  broad  strategies  addressing  the  general 
conditions in source countries; recognition of a priority for the migrant's further residences in 
Europe;  ethical  recruitments;  social  security  agreements  allowing  exports  of  pensions;  fight 
against  brain  waste);  improving  the  management  of  remittances;  enhancing  the  voluntary 
contribution  of  diasporas;  better  supporting  voluntary  returns  and  economic  reintegration  of 
migrants;  focussing  on  the  matching  between  labour  supply  and  demand;  addressing 
employment  and  decent  work  in  developing  countries;  further  developing  policies  to  fight 
illegal immigration 

These objectives will be met through: 

–  a  better  implementation  of  current  instruments  (which  requires  in  turn:  a  better 
coordination; increased or more efficient use of human and financial resources; more joint 
activities); 

63 

64 

65 

See  COM(2007)247  final  "Applying  the  Global  Approach  to  Migration  to  the  Eastern  and  South-
Eastern Regions Neighbouring the European Union" 
In  particular,  see  COM(2007)248  final  "On  circular  migration  and  mobility  partnerships  between  the 
European Union and third countries" 
By the end of 2007, the first Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial meeting on Migration in November, and 
the Partnership on migration, mobility and employment, in the framework of the First Action Plan of 
the  Joint  Africa/EU  Strategy,  adopted  at  the  Africa-EU  Summit  in  December,  marked  other  major 
policy developments that will need to be continued in terms of operational measures with some funding 
implications. A second EU-African Ministerial Conference on Migration and Development is scheduled 
to be held in Paris in October 2008 and will lead to further implementation requirements. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

                                                 
–  a  further  integration  of  migration  policy  into  the  Union's  development  cooperation  and 

other external policies; 

–  a  transformation  of  the  geographic  meaning  of  the  approach,  gradually  shifting  from  a 

region-based perspective to a country-by-country perspective. 

These objectives are mainly reflected in principle 6. 

2.5.4. Subsidiarity principle 

Legal basis 

The legal basis for EU action is to be found in Article 63 of the EC Treaty and in Article 79 of 
the Lisbon Treaty. 

Necessity for an EU intervention 

–  the actions of individual Member States with regard to cooperation with third countries are 

not sufficient and may be contradictory; 

–  individual  Member  States  are  not  empowered  to  negotiate  the  clause  covering  the 
readmission of third country nationals (i.e. nationals of other countries than the EC and the 
country signing the Agreement) and stateless persons; 

–  individual  Member  States  will  face  difficulties  to  expel  third  country  nationals  illegally 
residing in their territories if these persons have not entered the EU through these Member 
States, which occur frequently given the absence of internal frontiers and easy circulation 
of third country nationals between the Member States; 

–  the process of monitoring the application of a readmission agreement is difficult in absence 

of coordinated action at EU level; 

EU added-value 

The  Community  as  a  whole  has  more  weight  when  dealing  with  particular  third  countries, 
which  normally  results  in  a  better  negotiated  outcome.  The  process  of  monitoring  the 
application of a readmission agreement is also more efficient due to the fact that all (24-26 – 
depending  on  the  position  of  the  UK  and  Ireland)  Member  States  are  represented  by  the 
Commission in the contacts with particular third country. Thanks to this, the EC provides the 
third country with a clear and coherent line on particular problems, which facilitates often the 
process of their solution. 

2.6.  INSUFFICIENT  ADAPTATION  OF  BORDER  MANAGEMENT  AND  VISA 

POLICY TO THE NEEDS OF A GLOBALIZED WORLD  

2.6.1. Definition of the problem 

The  passenger  flows  at  the  external  borders  of  the  European  Union  have  been  growing  and 
will  continue  to  increase  in  the  future.  There  are  around  300  million  EU27  annual  external 

EN 

34 

   EN 

border  crossings66  at  designated  border  crossing  points.  It  is  estimated  that  160  million  of 
these  border  crossings  are  made  by  EU  citizens,  60  million67  by  third-country  nationals  not 
requiring a visa and 80 million by third-country nationals requiring visas. Taking into account 
the  forecasts  for  international  travel  and  its  development  in  the  mid-term68,  the  current 
infrastructure  at  border  crossing  points,  in  particular  at  the  airports,  will  face  even  greater 
challenges when dealing with the growing numbers than they do today.  

Given that border controls are a key component in the fight against illegal immigration and in 
countering cross-border crime such as terrorism, trafficking in human beings, drug smuggling, 
smuggling of weapons, etc., it is indispensable to the EU to ensure an efficient and extensive 
border  control.  At  the  same  time,  most  of  the  passengers  do  not  pose  any  threat  to  security 
and  should  be  able  to  cross  borders  in  a  streamlined  manner,  whilst  ensuring  the  external 
border crossing is not too burdensome for them. 

An insufficient contribution to the fight against illegal immigration 

Efficient, extensive and effective border control makes a significant contribution to the level 
of security in the Member States.  

In  the  light  of  the  current  situation,  two  areas  are  of  particular  importance  to  ensure  the 
efficiency of borders controls: identification of overstayers and strengthening of surveillance 
at borders. 

Border  controls  do  not  cope  efficiently  at  the  present  time  with  the  phenomenon  of 
"overstaying". According recent data there were up to eight million illegal immigrants within 
the EU in 2006, over half of which entered the EU legally but became illegal or irregular due 
to  exceeding  their  right  to  stay.  This  finding  underlines  the  importance  of  the  border  check 
and  suggests  that  entry  and  exit  dates  be  recorded  and  related  to  an  alert  system  when  the 
third-country  nationals  overstays.  Indeed,  it  is  today  very  difficult  to  identify  those  third-
country nationals who have overstayed their visa or visa free period. In theory, it should be 
possible  to  calculate  the  time  a  third-country  national  has  spent  in  the  area  of  the  Member 
States upon reading the stamps on the passport. However, they may be illegible or the target 
of  counterfeiting.  In  addition,  there  is  no  record  of  the  time  spent  in  the  Schengen  area  for 
third-country  nationals.  Due  to  these  reasons,  at  the  moment  there  is  at  the  border  crossing 
point no easy, manageable and reliable means of determining if a third-country national has 
overstayed their right to stay, no consistent record of entries and exits of travellers from the 
Schengen area, (which could help to improve border management) security and planning and 
no possibility to gather information on overstayers. 

Another shortcoming in the border controls are the few parts of the borders that are subject to 
surveillance. For the time being, owing to technical and financial limitations, national border 

66 

67 
68 

IA  SEC(2008)153.  The  figure  was  calculated  by  adding  the  number  of  trips  of  EU  residents  outside 
EU27 with the number of third-country nationals travelling to EU27.  
The figure was calculated on the numbers of trips made into Europe by the most important countries. 
http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2000-99-001/index.html.  In  2006,  the  United  States  hosted  51  million 
international visitors, a 4 percent increase from 2005. The arrivals forecast for 2007-2011 predicts that 
by 2011, international arrivals will reach 61 million, an increase of 20 percent between 2006 and 2011. 
Forecasts are derived from Global Insight, Inc. econometric travel forecasting model and are based on 
key economic and demographic variables as well as DOC consultation on non-economic travel factors. 
The rates of the United States are used, because there does not exist comprehensive estimations from 
Europe. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

                                                 
surveillance systems are covering (with permanent and mobile surveillance means) only a few 
selected parts of the EU external borders. This situation is not satisfactory, since as soon as 
border  controls  in  one  area  have  been  reinforced,  or  one  illegal  immigration  route  has  been 
closed  down,  the  smuggling  networks  use  other  methods  and  techniques  or  re-route  their 
operations,  and  so  the  transfer  of  the  migratory  pressure  to  other  Member  States  or  third 
country not prepared to face them69.  

Consequently, the surveying of the entire length of the Union's external borders is not ensured 
so far, especially concerning the southern maritime and eastern land external borders.  

Too cumbersome procedures for bona fide travellers 

Most of the passengers are so called bona fide travellers and are granted entry in compliance 
with the existing Regulations and rules. Yet, current integrated border management does not 
allow  the  distinguishing  of  them  from  other  passengers, and to decrease  the intensity  of  the 
check.  Crossing  the  external  border  is  thereby  not  enough  simple  for  bona  fide  travellers, 
which  are  subject  to  time-consuming,  burdensome  and  costly  checks  at  borders  (entry  and 
exit).  

Several  Member  States  have  developed  pilot  programmes  and  projects  at  various  airports 
throughout  the  EU70,  however,  the  different  national  Registered  Traveller  schemes  are  not 
interoperable across EU Member States, in absence of common standards and guidelines.  

The  concept  of  an  integrated  border  management  refers  to  an  array  of  measures  regarding 
third  country  nationals.  While  the  Commission  has  taken  forward  important  initiatives 
towards a greater degree of harmonisation of the common visa policy through the proposal for 
a visa code, the approach of national visas giving access to the entire Schengen territory do 
not allow for fully equal treatment of all applicants, nor a fully harmonised application of the 
criteria for security checks. National visas continue also to pose problems in individual cases, 
in regard to which Member State is competent for dealing with the application, depending on 
the main Member State of destination or entry into the Schengen territory. 

Moreover, in a number of countries applicants may have to travel long distances in order to 
reach a consulate of a Member State. Not all Member States are represented in all countries 
meaning that sometimes applicants may have to travel to another third country just to be able 
to submit their application.  

2.6.2. Existing responses 

Since 1999, a number of common measures have been adopted to manage the external borders 
of  the  European  Union  in  accordance  with  Article  62  (1)  and  (2)  of  the  EC  Treaty.  In 
particular, four Regulations have been adopted: 

69 

70 

For  instance,  in  2006,  after  tightened  border  control  measures  in  Ceuta  and  Melilla  as  well  as  in 
Morocco,  migration  flows  have  partly  shifted  to  Italy,  mainly  to  Lampedusa,  but  also  to  Malta.  In 
parallel, Sub-Saharan nationals and traffickers have found a new route leading to the Canary Islands. 
For example, in the UK at Heathrow, Gatwick, and Birmingham airports; in the Netherlands at Schiphol 
airport; in France at Charles De Gaulle airport; in Germany at Frankfurt airport; in Portugal at Lisbon 
airport. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

                                                 
–  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2007/2004  establishing  a  European  Agency  for  the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of 
the European Union (Frontex). 

–  The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  562/2006  establishing  a 
Community  Code  on  the  rules  governing  the  movement  of  persons  across  borders 
(Schengen Borders Code). 

–  The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1931/2006  laying  down 
rules on local border traffic at the external borders of the Member States and amending the 
provisions of the Schengen Convention. 

–  The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  863/2007  establishing  a 
mechanism  for  the  creation  of  Rapid  Border  Intervention  Teams  and  amending  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2007/2004  as  regards  that  mechanism  and  regulating  the  tasks  and 
powers of guest officers. 

There are also several other Regulations that are particularly relevant in this field, notably the 
European Parliament and the Council Regulation (EC) on the Visa Information System (VIS) 
and the exchange of data between Member States on short stay-visas.  

In addition, the Commission Recommendation establishing a common Practical Handbook for 
Border  Guards  was  adopted  on  6  November  2006.  As  regards  visas  facilitations,  the 
Commission has presented a proposal to provide a legal framework for common application 
centres allowing Member States to cooperate more closely, with a view to ensuring presence 
in all third countries. It has also sought to support pilot projects to this effect, the take up of 
which has however been limited so far.  

The external borders fund (EBF) was set in place on 23 May 2007, which, on the basis of the 
principle  of  solidarity,  supports  Member  States  with  specific  requirements  for  checks  and 
surveillance of long or difficult stretches of external borders, and Member States confronted 
with  special  and  unforeseen  circumstances  due  to  exceptional  migratory  pressures  on  their 
external  borders.  The  EBF  is  operational  already  2007  and  it  will  apply  for  the  financial 
period 2007-2013 with €1.82 billions. 

Addressing  at  the  first  the  outcomes  with  respect  to  operational  cooperation  at  the  external 
borders, it should be noted that FRONTEX has faced high expectations from EU institutions, 
Member  States  and  the  public  at  large  to  take  forward  operational  coordination  to  counter 
illegal immigration, in particular for the coordination of operations at the southern maritime 
borders. During the years 2006 and 2007 FRONTEX has conducted 33 joint operations and 
10  pilot  projects.  However,  this  increase  in  FRONTEX  powers  is  not  sufficient  to  meet  the 
challenges  posed.  Because  of  their  short  term  duration,  operations  conducted  in  high  risk 
areas  in  2006  and  2007  were  not  able  to  ensure  effective  border  controls  and  surveillance 
which implies a permanent nature of the joint operations at specific high-risk areas. Moreover, 
whereas one of the tasks of FRONTEX is to provide the necessary assistance for organising 
joint  return  operations  of  Member  States,  the  Agency  has  only  been  involved  in  the 
organisation  of  nine  joint  return  operations,  concerning  361  returnees.  With  respect  to  risk 
analysis, which is central in the fighting against illegal immigration, the level of cooperation 
with  other  law  enforcement  agencies  such  as  Europol,  Interpol  and  relevant  counterparts  in 
third countries is lagging behind. So far only a single joint risk analysis has been carried out 
with Europol. Finally, cooperation with third countries, which constitutes a key component of 

EN 

37 

   EN 

the  integrated  border  management  model  contributing  to  the  successful  implementation  of 
joint operations, enhancing the added value of risk analysis, and supporting capacity building 
in  third  countries,  yielded  modest  results.  To  date,  this  cooperation  has  translated  into  only 
three working arrangements. 

Drawing  on  these  shortcomings,  and  in  a  broader  response  to  the  challenges  posed  by  21st 
Century travel and movement of people, three Communications have been put forward by the 
Commission  the  13  February  200871,  aiming  at  the  reinforcement  of  all  dimensions  of 
efficient and managed entry into the territory of the European Union. They include facilitating 
border surveillance, reinforcing the operational coordination between Member States through 
FRONTEX,  launching  a  discussion  on  an  entry-exit  system  to  facilitate  better  oversight  of 
persons  entering/exiting  the  Schengen  space,  and  on  a  Registered  Traveller  Programme  for 
quick and easy travel for frequent travellers from third countries who satisfy a pre-screening 
assessment. 

2.6.3. Objectives  

The overall objectives are to reinforce all dimensions of border controls and at the same time 
to  facilitate  and  harmonize  control  checks  and  visa  procedures  for  certain  categories  of 
travellers, as described in the border package of 13 February 2008. 

These general objectives translate into the following specific objectives: 

–  establishing a European border surveillance system (through improvement in cooperation 

between Member States and use of new technologies); 

–  reinforcing the Frontex Agency; 

–  analysing  the  feasibility  of  an  entry-exit  system  allowing  for  the  identification  of 

overstayers; 

–  enhancing cooperation with third countries, in particular located on the southern shores of 
the  Mediterranean  Sea,  in  terms  of  detection,  apprehension,  reception  and  further 
processing and readmission of migrants; 

–  preparing the setting up of common application visa centres and issuing of truly European 

short-stay visas, guaranteeing equal treatment of all visa applicants and easier access; 

–  analysing the feasibility of a registered traveller programme to facilitate border checks for 

certain frequent travellers (pre-screening; automated checks); 

These objectives correspond to principles 7 and 8. 

2.6.4. Subsidiarity principle 

Legal basis 

The legal basis for EU action is to be found in Article 62 of the EC Treaty and in Article 77 of 
the Lisbon Treaty. 

71 

COM(2008)67  final  Report  on  the  evaluation  and  future  development  of  the  Frontex  Agency; 
COM(2008)68 final Examining the creation for a European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR); 
COM(2008)69 final Preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union 

EN 

38 

   EN 

                                                 
Necessity for an EU intervention 

–  Isolated Member States are not able to fight against overstaying; 

–  As  it  is  not  tolerable  that  some  Member  States  do  not  comply  with  their  obligations  and 
given that the control of the 6.000 km of land border and about 85.000 km of coastline lie 
unevenly  with  Member  States,  financial  solidarity  mechanisms,  resources  and  human 
pooling are necessary; 

–  National  visas  approach  does  not  allow  for  fully  equal  treatment  of  all  applicants  nor  a 
fully harmonised application of the criteria for security checks; national consulates are not 
regularly established across third countries;  

EU added value 

Effective border control can be better achieved through a coordinated action at EU level. The 
EU  is  also  in  a  better  position  to  initiate  the  establishment  of  common  centres  allowing 
economies for Member States and improving the quality of service provided to third-country 
nationals, as well as to establish common rules with respect to visas giving access to the entire 
Schengen territory. 

2.7. UNSATISFACTORY GOVERNANCE OF MIGRATION 

Asylum and immigration measures taken by one Member State are more than likely to have 
an  impact  (both  direct  and  indirect  on  other  Member  States,  this  is  a  consequence  of  the 
absence of border checks in the Schengen area, the common visa policy, the tight economic 
and social relations between EU Member States and the development of common immigration 
and  asylum  policies  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Treaty  of  Amsterdam.  For  instance,  a 
very  restrictive  migratory  policy  in  one  Member  State  may  redirect  migration  flows  into  a 
neighbouring  Member  State,  whereas  a  regularisation  procedure  may  attract  illegal 
immigration  into  one  Member  State,  from  which  regularised  (=  legally  staying)  migrants 
could  afterwards  more  easily  move  to  other  Member  States.  Other  national  asylum  and 
immigration  measures,  including,  among  others,  changes  in  procedures  for  granting 
international protection, determination of safe countries of origin, admission programmes for 
third-country nationals (including quotas), and integration measures may also have an impact 
on other Member States or on the Community as a whole. 

A parallel and harmonious development of national and Community asylum and immigration 
policies is therefore needed. This conclusion happens to converge with the will expressed by 
EU  citizens:  according  to  a  recent  Eurobarometer  poll  of  November  2007,  one  third  of 
European citizens want immigration-related issues to be emphasized at EU level. 

Yet, a number of constraints have hindered such a development, relating to the policy-making 
process, lack of coordination, insufficient solidarity and mainstreaming.  

Difficulty in decision-making and lack of public debate 

Regarding  legal  migration,  the  unanimity  rule  in  the  Council  has  slowed  down,  or  even 
blocked, the adoption of some proposals. This is the case for the 2001 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  which  did  not  receive  the 
necessary  support  from  the  Council.  With  respect  to  integration,  the  absence  of  clear  legal 

EN 

39 

   EN 

basis  was  a  significant  handicap  for  the  Community  which  can  only  act  as  a  driver  for  the 
exchange  of  information  and  good  practice  in  order  to  be  acceptable  to  all  Member  States. 
This  is,  for  instance,  the  case  regarding  the  Directive  on  family  reunification,  which  leaves 
much  room  for  national  discretionary  power  regarding  the  conditions  of  admission  or  the 
rights granted to family members. 

Moreover, the European Parliament's limited role has confined the range of public debate and 
this tendency has been worsened by the insufficient involvement of social partners in Title IV 
TEC  policies,  although  they  are  recognised  by  the  Treaty  in  a  specific  role,  based  on  their 
capacity to provide input to policy-making in the social field, and to take own action in the 
areas of employment and working conditions, which may have an impact on migrant workers 
and their families. 

Insufficient coordination between Member States 

Due to the interplays between Member States migration situations, exchange of information 
between  Member  States  and  the  Commission  on  important  new  measures  taken  by  all 
Member States is necessary, to prevent the development of divergent, and even contradictory, 
national  policies.  Yet,  the  mutual  information  mechanism72  set  out  in  2006  and  aimed  at 
facilitating  the  exchange  of  different  types  of  information  between  Member  States,  in  the 
areas  of  asylum  and  immigration,  has  not  met  expectations,  owing  to  a  lack  of  political 
support and practical use by Member States.  

Establishment of common definitions, statistical standards and guidelines are also needed to 
allow  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  and  to  improve  practical 
cooperation.  However,  harmonised  and  comparable  Community  statistics  on  migration  and 
asylum on the basis of the new 2007 statistics regulation will not be available before 2010.73 

Need for an increased solidarity 

The  financial  burden  arising  from  the  introduction  of  an  integrated  management  of  the 
Union’s  external  borders  and  from  the  implementation  of  common  policies  on  asylum  and 
immigration  is  uneven  from  one  Member  State  to  another,  according  to  their  geographical, 
historical  and  economic  position.  A  fair  share  of  responsibilities  between  Member  States  is 
therefore  needed  to  achieve  an  even  implementation  across  Europe  and  to  avoid 
inconsistencies. 

In  summer  2007,  the  Framework  Programme  on  Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration 
Flows has been adopted. The main objective of this new financial instrument is to address the 
issue  of  a  fair  share  of  responsibilities  between  Member  States  in  the  introduction  of 
integrated management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union 
and  from  the  implementation  of  common  policies  on  asylum  and  immigration.  It  provides 
financial support to Member States in proportion to the efforts they undertake for the benefit 
of  the  Community  as  a  whole.  The  Framework  Programme  consists  of  four  specific 
instruments,  namely: the European Refugee Fund, the External Borders Fund, the European 

72 
73 

Council Decision of 5 October 2006 (2006/688/EC) 
Following  a  series  of  "gentlemen's  agreements",  Regulation  (EC)  No  862/2007  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international 
protection  has  been  adopted  with  a  view  to  ensure,  in  a  uniform  manner,  regular,  timely  and  rapid 
delivery and dissemination of harmonised data. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

                                                 
Fund  for  the  Integration  of  Third-country  nationals  and  the  European  Return  Fund.  The 
overall  amount  foreseen  for  the  Framework  Programme  on  solidarity  and  management  of 
migration flows is €4,020.37 million for the period 2007-2013. 

The allocation of financial resources to Member States within each Fund is based on specific 
and  objective  criteria,  which  reflect  the  current  and  forthcoming  situation  of  the  Member 
State, with regard to the obligations undertaken on behalf of, or for, the overall benefit of the 
Community for the policy area concerned. For this purpose, the instruments foresee the use of 
Community  statistics,  and  where  these  are  not  available,  national  statistics,  in  compliance 
with the new regulation on migration statistics. Provisions have been made, not only to avoid 
any  kind  of  duplication  between  Funds,  but  also  to  ensure  the  development  of  synergies 
wherever  possible74.  The  same  provisions  have  been  defined  for  the  operation  of  the  four 
instruments:  multiannual  strategic  programming  cycles  (with  two  periods  defined  as  2007-
2010  and  2011-2013)  on  the  basis  of  guidelines  communicated  by  the  Commission,  annual 
allocation of resources and operational programming, multiannual evaluations. 

In  light  of  this  first  period  of  implementation,  and  considering  previous  comments  on  the 
difficulty  to  obtain  reliable  and  homogenized  statistical  data,  the  relevance  of  the  total 
appropriations of this recent Programme, as well as the distribution key to the Member States, 
will have to be assessed and possibly be subject to modifications. 

Need for an enhanced mainstreaming  

Since it is a cross-cutting policy, migration should aim to become an integral part of policy 
making  and  implementation  across  a  wide  range  of  EU  policies.  In  fact,  mainstreaming 
migration into other policies is indeed already a concern and a reality in EU policy75. 

This comprehensive approach of migration issues must be pursued and further explored. An 
example  can  be  made  with  respect  to  links  between  employment  and  migration  policies. 
Indeed, synergies have been insufficiently developed (both at EU and national level) to date, 
this must change in order  to ensure, as  far as possible, complementarities between migrants 
and labour markets, and accordingly reap full gains of migration. Due to this lack of linkage 
between employment and migration policies, the employment potential of new-comers, when 
admitted on family or asylum grounds, is in many cases not used and valorised as it could.  

Need for a better evaluation 

As recognized by The Hague Programme (2004)1, “evaluation of the implementation as well 
as  of  the  effects  of  all  measures  is,  in  the  European  Council's  opinion,  essential  to  the 
effectiveness of Union action”76.  

Existing  monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanisms  are  indeed  too  fragmented  and  need  to  be 
merged  into  one  coherent  and  comprehensive  mechanism  for  evaluation  of  EU  policies  on 
freedom, security and justice. For instance, unlike the legal migration instruments, none of the 
existing  directives  in  the  area  of  illegal  immigration  provides  for  systematic  reporting  with 

74 

75 

76 

Particular  attention  has  thereby  been  given  to  the  issue  of  complementarity  and  synergy  of  actions 
between  the  Integration  Fund  and  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  both  in  the  definition  of  the 
objectives of the Integration Fund and in its implementation 
See, regarding the specific area of integration, the Third Annual Report on Migration and Integration, 
COM(2007)512 final 
Annex 1 to the Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council, November 2004 

EN 

41 

   EN 

                                                 
regard to its application in practice. According to the Action Plan, implementing The Hague 
Programme,  a  Communication  was  presented  with  a  view  to  developing  an  evaluation 
mechanism  at  EU  level77.  This  mechanism  encompasses  both  monitoring  implementation, 
which consists of reviewing progress on carrying out policies, and evaluation of the results, 
defined as “judgement of interventions (public actions) according to their results, impacts and 
the needs they aim to satisfy”78. This proposal seeks to remedy the current lack of evaluation 
culture  and  overall  evaluation  mechanisms,  which  notably  translate  into  insufficient 
consultation of the diverse stakeholders, insufficient availability of statistics, analysis ability 
as well as absence of indicators, and is intended to allow a comprehensive assessment of the 
results  achieved  on  freedom,  security  and  justice,  from  a  quantitative  and  qualitative 
perspective,  while  contributing  to  the  general  EU  objectives  of  transparency  and  better 
regulation.  A  three-step  progressive  mechanism  is  proposed  in  the  aforementioned 
Communication,  building  on  information  and  subject  to  consultation,  then  to  a  reporting 
mechanism  and  an  in-depth  evaluation.  This  information  is  underpinned  by  overall  policy 
objectives  and  a  set  of  indicators.  It  should  also  be  specified  that  the  Open  Method  of 
Coordination  provides  a  framework  for  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  social  inclusion 
policies.  In  the  context  of  the  2008-2010  policy  cycle  Member  States  have  agreed  to 
mainstream the social aspects of migration in all their activities, including specific monitoring 
on the social situation of migrants. This monitoring and evaluation framework is going to be 
reinforced in the context of the forthcoming communication on strengthening the OMC.  

Finally,  it  is  worth  noting  that,  with  more  and  more  legal  instruments  in  the  area  of 
immigration being adopted  and  entering into force, monitoring their  transposition  by the  27 
Member  States  is  becoming  more  and  more  challenging,  especially  for  the  European 
Commission. Reinforcing the human resources allocated to this task is a necessity, in order to 
ensure that, also in this policy area, the Commission will continue to live up to its institutional 
role  as  the  “Guardian  of  the  Treaty”.  However,  outsourcing  of  at  least  the  factual  data 
collection  parts  may  prove  to  be  a  resource  saving  complementary  action,  while  bearing  in 
mind  that  the  legal  and  political  assessment  of  the  transposition  situation  in  Member  States 
will  always  remain  the  exclusive  responsibility  of  the  Commission,  which  cannot  be 
transferred  to  any  other  body  or  entity79.  Moreover  it  is  important  to  recall  that  also 
"outsourcing" is not for free and would require at least some additional resources in order to 
follow the external work and to manage the contractual procedures underlying this work. 

3. 

WHAT ARE THE MAIN POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS AND OBJECTIVES? 
(EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM) 

Based  on  the  needs  and  problems  analysis  outlined  in  Section  II,  and  on  the  EC  legal  and 
political framework in the immigration and borders policy area, a series of objectives for the 
further development of the common policy shall be set out. Such objectives must respond to 
the  overarching  global  objective  of  further  developing  a  comprehensive  European 

77 

78 
79 

Communication  form  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament,  28  June  2006, 
(2006)332 final, Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and Justice  
SEC(2000) 1051 
The possibilities offered by outsourcing were first tested in 2007 when a contract was signed with an 
external  contractor  to  do  a  first  substantive  conformity  checking  of  measures  of  transposition  with 
respect to 10 directives from the immigration and asylum field. This study, which was released at the 
beginning of 2008, will allow an in-depth monitoring of the current immigration and asylum legislation 
adopted  in  Member  States,  facilitate  the  drafting  of  application  reports  and  possible  infringement 
procedures. Further studies of this kind will have to follow in the future. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

                                                 
immigration  policy,  as  clearly  requested  by  the  European  Council  on  several  occasions, 
notably  in  its  conclusions  of  December  2007.  In  the  latter,  it  was  stated  that  "Further 
developing  a  comprehensive  European  migration  policy  complementing  Member  States' 
policies  remains  a  fundamental  priority  in  order  to  meet  the  challenges  and  harness  the 
opportunities  which  migration  represents  in  a  new  era  of  globalisation.  The  European 
Council  accordingly  underlines  the  need  for  a  renewed  political  commitment"80.  They  must 
be funded on the clearly recognised fact that  "The European migration  policy  builds on  the 
conclusions of the Tampere European Council in 1999, The Hague Programme of 2004 and 
the Global Approach to Migration adopted in 2005. It is based on the solidarity, mutual trust 
and shared responsibility of the European Union and its Member States. It is also based on 
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants, the Geneva Convention and 
due access to asylum procedures. It requires a genuine partnership with third countries and 
must be fully integrated into the Union's external policies"81. 

Against  this  background,  it  is  clear  that  European  Council  already  decided  on  a  number  of 
objectives  and  policy  options  with  regard  to  the  further  development  of  the  Common  EU 
immigration policy. Indeed, with two exceptions, all of the objectives – or principles – of this 
policy  have  already  been  fixed  at  the  highest  political  level,  starting  from  the  Tampere 
Conclusions  of  1999.  The  only  objectives  not  yet  considered  by  the  Council  or  European 
Council relate to the issue of regularization, and the active involvement of social partners and 
regional and local authorities. These two objectives have also been translated into principles 
in order to address all problems described in section 2.  

These objectives have been compiled and summarised below in eleven principles which aim 
at  covering  all  aspects  of  Immigration  (as  demonstrated  in  annex  I)82  .  Each  of  these 
principles  shall  be  translated  in  concrete  policy  options  and  operational  measures,  which 
should  constitute  the  contribution  from  the  Commission's  side  to  the  major  policy  debate 
which  shall  take  place  in  2009  in  order  to  define  what  shall  be  the  specific  contents  of  the 
successor of The Hague Programme (2009-2014) in the field of immigration. These concrete 
policy  options  and  measures  shall  therefore  be  assessed  more  in  detail  in  the  coming  years, 
including by analysing their concrete impact on human and financial recourses and whether 
they  can  and  should  be  put  in  place  by  means  of  EU  action,  or  whether  they  fall  under 
Member States' competence.  

Principle 1 – Clear rules 

Owing  notably  to  demographic,  economic  and  political  factors,  migration  flows  are  not 
expected  to  decline  over  the  coming  years.  Building  on  that  certainty,  migration  should  be 
managed  in  the  interest  of  all  interested  parties,  host  societies,  sending  countries  and  third-
country nationals.  

Drawing up clear and transparent rules is a pre-requisite for the definition of an efficient and 
effective  migration  policy.  This  could  be  done  in  several  ways.  Firstly,  migrants  should 
decide to head for Europe on the basis of realistic prospects and securely-founded hopes. As 
already  called  for  in  the  Tampere  conclusions,  they  should  be  provided  with  objective  and 
clear information on the diverse existing legal channels to be admitted in Europe, however, to 

80 
81 
82 

Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of 14 December 2007, paragraph 16.  
Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of 14-15 December 2006, paragraph 22. 
These  11  principles  have  been  merged  into  10  principles  in  the  Communication  on  a  Common 
Immigration Policy for Europe 

EN 

43 

   EN 

                                                 
date, existing channels of information (family network, smugglers) are biased towards more 
rosy  and  unrealistic  interpretations.  Moreover,  they  should  be  aware  that  these  legal 
possibilities  are  all-comprehensive  and  that  illegal  immigration  is  not  an  alternative  to  the 
legal pathway. Setting up clear and transparent rules for entry and residence also means that 
(potential)  immigrants  and  applicants  for  legal  immigration  should  be  made  fully  aware  of 
their rights when they will become legal residents, and which rules they have to comply with 
if  they  intend  to  remain  in  the  EU.  The  latter  information  should  not  only  cover  residence 
conditions, rules under which the residence permit may be withdrawn or not renewed, appeal 
rights and procedures, but also explain the realities of life in the EU, the need to respect the 
basic  values  of  the  European  Union,  such  as  rule  of  law,  equality,  antidiscrimination, 
solidarity, openness, participation and tolerance. 

Information is a necessary, but not a sufficient, measure. As much as possible, migrants shall 
also  be  provided  with  concrete  and  realistic  possibilities  to  fulfil  the  requirements  enabling 
them to be issued with a visa and a residence permit, for instance through linguistic courses 
when  linguistic  skills  are  required  as  pre-requisite  for  entry.  This  is  particularly  important 
when it comes to exercising the right to family reunification. 

The  objective  of  better  integration  will  also  follow  from  an  enlarged  set  of  rights.  To  the 
extent possible, third-country nationals should benefit from the same rights as an EU citizens, 
as called for in the Tampere European Council conclusions of 15-16 October 1999. Besides 
the direct impact on the economic ability of migrants, these measures would be an important 
signal that the host society recognises the positive contribution of third-country nationals to 
the  European  economy  and  its  societies.  From  the  host  societies'  perspective,  a  pedagogical 
exercise  is  also  crucial.  Rejection  of  migrants  is  often  fuelled  by  ignorance  and  phantasms. 
Raising awareness of the diverse contributions from migrants to European societies will pave 
the  way  to  a  better  acceptance  by  the  receiving  societies  and  consequently  to  a  better 
integration of the foreign nationals. 

Principle 2 – Economic migration  

Against the background of a decreasing working age population in Europe and forthcoming 
growing  labour  shortages,  migration  is  one  of the possible solutions aimed at compensating 
adverse  demographic  tendencies.  Beyond  the  demographic  and  economic  challenges, 
migration  policy,  actively  involving  social  partners,  must  strike  the  balance  between  the 
interests  of  third-country  nationals,  sending  countries  and  host  societies  and  endeavours  to 
meet short-term needs, while anticipating long-term impacts.  

This  policy  therefore  accompanies  employment  and  educational  policies  seeking  to  reduce 
unemployment of national citizens and third-country nationals already legally residing in the 
EU, notably through raising of the level of educational attainment, granting further economic 
rights, including training and education, as soon as possible, as suggested in the proposal for a 
framework Directive, making best use of the attainment of third-country nationals thanks to a 
better  recognition  of  qualifications  and  reducing  the  attractiveness  of  illegal  work.  The 
contributions  of  the  foreign-born  entrepreneurs  to  the  European  economy  should  be  better 
assessed,  and  encouraged  through  a  removal  of  the  obstacles  they  may  encounter.  Fighting 
against discrimination at the work place remains also a priority. Within the framework of this 
policy, consisting of the harnessing of existing potential, efforts should focus on the female 
immigrants who display low employment rates and suffer the most from "over-qualification". 

EN 

44 

   EN 

In this context, Member States will also be encouraged to further enhance their action towards 
improving the labour market situation of migrants in the context of the Structural Funds83 and 
to strengthen their labour market infrastructures, above all public employment services (PES), 
in  a  way  that  takes  account  of  the  opening  of  legal  pathways  to  economic  migration. 
Furthermore,  within  the  European  Employment  Strategy,  comprehensive  lifelong  learning 
strategies will be promoted to ensure the continual adaptability and employability of workers, 
particularly the most vulnerable; effective active labour market policies that help people cope 
with rapid change, reduce unemployment spells and ease transitions to new jobs, as well as 
modern social security systems that provide adequate income support, encourage employment 
and facilitate labour market, will be encouraged. 

This  policy  must  however  be  carried  out  in  full  respect  of  the  principle  of  community 
preference,  which  should  translate  consequently  and  first  of  all  into  the  removal  of  the 
transitional barriers to access the labour market as soon as possible. 

This policy should also be carried out in parallel with other complementary actions in order to 
avoid negative side-effects. As regard to the negative consequences for the sending countries, 
the effect of brain drain should be reduced thanks to measures aimed at encouraging training, 
harnessing  the  educational  potential  of  third-country  nationals  and  fostering  temporary  or 
permanent return.  

Additionally, it is crucial to take advantage of the enhanced mobility of migrants, and to allow 
an intra-EU mobility where appropriate, in order to maximise the benefits of migration. It is 
fundamental for the EU labour markets to be able to fulfil relatively quickly changing needs 
in the labour markets of Member States: to make this happen, mobile third-country workers 
should  not  only  be  granted  enhanced  mobility,  but  also,  they  should  not  be  penalised  in 
comparison to non-mobile third-country workers in respect of family life or the acquisition of 
permanent  residence.  A  first  step  in  this  direction  has  already  been  taken  with  the 
Commission proposal on entry and residence conditions for highly qualified workers. 

The  largest  benefits  of  migration  will  be  reaped  on  the  condition  that  migrants  and  host 
society  be  complementary.  The  issue  of  migration  cannot  be  limited  to  a  quantitative 
problematic: increased prosperity, rather than an increased size of the economy, should be the 
end result. 

Benefits of migration are maximized when the economic needs of the host society are taken 
into  consideration,  without,  of  course,  prejudice  to  forms  of  migration  other  than  labour 
migration,  such  as  family  reunification,  students,  etc.  As  regards  economic  migration, 
conditions  of  admission  should,  as  far  as  possible,  build  on  a  needs  assessment  and  labour 
matching  policies,  which  require  enhanced  information  directed  towards  third-country 
nationals and possible training in countries of origin. This more effective matching between 
labour  needs  and  necessary  skills  will  provide  a  crucial  contribution  to  the  promotion  of 
labour utilisation and labour productivity, and therefore also growth and jobs. At Community 
level, the EU will encourage the coordination of forecasting instruments at both national and 
European levels, to ensure a closer adequacy between labour demand and supply. Given the 
high  demand  for  highly  skilled  workers  across  Europe,  simplified  and  non-bureaucratic 
procedures, such as the scheme proposed in the EU Blue Card Proposal for a directive, should 

83 

Over the last years, the ESF has financed many actions in favour of immigrants and ethnic minorities. 
Present  estimates  suggest  that  the  ESF  trains  or  supports  more  than  600.000  immigrants  and  ethnic 
minorities per year. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

                                                 
be put in place to facilitate their entry. Low skilled workers are also indispensable, notably to 
meet the growing needs for childcare and elderly care. An efficient management of migration 
requires,  in  any  event,  a  strengthened  coordination  between  EU  and  national  levels,  with  a 
view to preventing inconsistencies. 

Systems  for  admission  should  be  able  to  satisfy  shifting  labour  needs,  and  to  provide 
accordingly a swift reaction in response to this demand, as clearly underlined in The Hague 
Programme. In order to take efficient and informed decisions regarding policy and legislation, 
it is therefore crucial that policy makers in the EU become fully aware of the real needs and 
gaps  in  the  national  labour  markets,  of  course,  to  the  extent  possible,  as  these  needs  may 
change  –  also  quickly  –  over  time.  The  first  comprehensive  assessment  of  the  future  skills 
requirement  in  Europe  until  2020  called  by  the  European  Council  of  Spring  2008  will 
underpin  future  immigration  policy.  On  the  basis  of  this  assessment,  immigration  profiles 
could be set up, providing a clear picture of needs at a European level. Symmetrically, an in-
depth  knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  skills  composition  of  the  migratory  flow  will 
underlie  the  reviewed  management  of  migration.  Beyond  the  direct  matching  of  demand  in 
the  labour  markets,  the  guiding  principle  of  the  policy  should  be  the  promotion  of  labour 
adaptability  and  mobility,  in  order  to  prevent  any  ulterior  mismatch  and  to  improve  labour 
market efficiency. 

Principle 3 – Integration  

Integration of third-country nationals is a process of mutual accommodation by both the host 
societies  and  the  immigrants,  and  an  essential  factor  in  realising  the  full  benefits  of 
immigration. There can be no immigration without integration. 

Integration policies should allow migrants to fully participate in society, to acquire knowledge 
and  skills  and  to  integrate  on  the  labour  market.  This  requires  a  multi-faceted  approach 
(access to the labour market, access to housing, social protection, education, training, etc) also 
based on non-discrimination, equal opportunities and diversity management.  

The  EU  policy  framework  is  the  'Common  Agenda  for  Integration',  implementing  the 
'Common  Basic  Principles  for  Immigrant  Integration  Policy  in  the  EU'  established  by  the 
Council.  The  implementation  of  the  EU  framework  for  integration  needs  to  be  further 
consolidated.  A  strong  political  commitment  is  needed  to  achieve  further  progress.  In  the 
future, EU co-operation should go beyond the exchange of information and practice. 

There is a common understanding that the Commission has to pursue its integration agenda 
with determination, focus and coherence. The mainstreaming approach based on the Common 
Agenda  for  Integration  has  already  been  followed  and  should  be  further  strengthened.  In 
accordance with one of the most important elements of good governance, both mainstreaming 
and  targets  are  necessary  to  achieve  progress.  That  is  why,  at  the  same  time,  strengthening 
migration/integration  in  other  relevant  policies  is  needed,  as  well  as  targeting  this  area  and 
target group of immigrants in a specific instrument.  

The  integration  of  legal  immigrants  shall  be  improved  by  strengthened  efforts  from  host 
Member States and contributions from immigrants themselves (“two-way-process”). At each 
step of the migrant journey, and of the integration process, different provisions must be taken 
for backing the efforts of the migrants towards integration and providing for the condition of 
equal  opportunities.  The  Member  States  already  recognised  such  need  when,  in  The  Hague 
Programme,  they  stated  that  "the  European  Council  calls  for  the  creation  of  equal 

EN 

46 

   EN 

opportunities  to  participate  fully  in  society.  Obstacles  to  integration  need  to  be  actively 
eliminated". 

The  implication  for  the  host  society  should  be  recognised,  with  the  formation  of  specific 
integration programs for newcomers, who should not only be directed the correct way to go, 
but also granted the means to follow it, possibly varying according to their length of stay. In 
this connection, implications of new forms of migration such as circular migration with regard 
to  integration  policies  should  be  further  explored.  Language  tuition  and  an  efficient 
orientation  programme,  also  from  the  employment  services,  could  be  provided  by  the 
receiving country. Adaptation of public services to migrants particularities, in order to enable 
them  to  make  the  best  use  of  these  provisions,  fight  against  discrimination,  promotion  of 
diversity management at the work place and awareness raising amongst all actors concerned, 
fall under the obligations of the host society. Gender issues should be paid specific attention, 
given on the one hand, the disadvantages that can be faced with respect to unemployment and 
over-qualification, and on the other hand, the central role of migrants mothers regarding the 
socialisation of the children. 

Development  of  indicators  and  regular  evaluation  is  an  indispensable  prerequisite  for 
improving the situation, as illustrated by many studies. Community action will thus continue 
supporting,  notably  through  The  European  Integration  Fund,  national  actions  dedicated  to 
measures of performance. 

A crucial element for the successful integration of immigrants is the exercise of the right to 
family reunification. Family reunification is a necessary way of making family life possible. It 
helps to create socio-cultural stability, facilitating the integration of third country nationals in 
the Member State, which also serves to promote economic and social cohesion, a fundamental 
Community objective stated in the Treaty. The basic conditions under which such right can be 
exercised  by  third-country  nationals  legally  residing  in  the  Member  States  are  set  out  in 
Council Directive 2003/86/EC, which in its Article 19 also foresees that the Commission shall 
report on its application and, if necessary, propose amendments (clause of rendez-vous). Such 
a report is due to be presented in the course of 2008. 

Principle  4  –  Political  solidarity,  mutual  trust,  transparency,  shared  responsibility  and 

information  

In order to achieve efficiency and coherence in migration policies at national and EU level, it 
is necessary to further strengthen coordination between the different competent tiers.  

Coordination requires that, at Member State level, as well as at the EU level, migration policy 
is  designed  and  implemented  in  a  transparent  manner,  and  in  full  compliance  with  the 
competencies  of  each  level.  To  that  end,  best  use  must  be  made  of  the  Mutual  Information 
System mechanism, created in 2006. The utilisation of this tool must be both more frequent, 
and earlier in the process, of policy-making in order to enhance its efficiency. 

Exchange of information, as well as exchange of best practices, should be further promoted, 
through  working  groups  including  representatives  of  EU  and  of  Member  States,  as  well  as 
wider fora, allowing for the participation of civil society in the debate. This continuous debate 
is  a  pre-requisite  for  the  establishment  of  mutual  trust,  and  an  indispensable  condition  for 
releasing  a  clear  and  univocal  message  at  a  world  level,  by  means  of  taking  a  concerted 
approach in all aspects of immigration policy. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

Coordination necessitates appropriate and adequate resources within all relevant national and 
Community  financial  instruments,  constant  review,  aiming  at  prevention  of  any  overlaps, 
pooling of technical means and human resources and interoperable systems. 

Principle 5 – Solidarity  

The  development  of  the  area  of  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice  requires  adequate  financial 
resources  and  appropriate  burden-sharing,  which  translated  into  the  framework  programme 
“Solidarity and management of migration flows” for 2007-2013. 

Financial  solidarity  is  a  valuable  tool  ensuring  a  similar  application  of  the  community 
legislation,  and  policies,  without  imposing  a  disproportionate  task  on  individual  Member 
States.  Furthermore,  financial  solidarity  promotes  mutual  trust  through  cooperation, 
dissemination  of  best  practice  and  enhancement  of  knowledge  on  border  management  and 
migration  policy.  When  implementing,  it  is  necessary  to  ensure  that  EU  funds  are  used  for 
mutual benefit, to face common challenges, and achieve results in the interest of all Member 
States. This is particularly true in respect of the External Borders' Fund, where a high degree 
of coordination and interoperability is a necessary prerequisite to achieve efficient control of 
the external borders of the EU. 

With a view to ensuring the effectiveness of action, a first evaluation on the operation of the 
framework  programme  will  be  carried  out  in  2010,  at  the  time  of  the  review  of  the  Hague 
Programme;  the  results  of  this  evaluation  will  also  feed  back  into  the  management  and 
operation of the programme. Evaluation of the results of the multiannual programmes under 
the Funds will be made available in 2012. 

As the programme is a flexible tool which is likely to adapt to evolving needs and priorities, 
the financial distribution keys in the areas of integration and external borders will possibly be 
reviewed, notably, in the case of integration, in light of the results of the final evaluation of 
preparatory actions initiated in 2005. 

Designed as a flexible instrument, implementation of the Programme needs to be carried out 
at  regular  intervals.  Total  appropriations  of  the  Programme,  in  the  context  of  the  budget 
review 2009, as well as the distribution key for the allocation of the resources to the Member 
States,  could  be  reassessed    following  an  evaluation  of  the  implementation,  with  a  view  to 
adapt to new national situations. 

Principle 6 – Need for a genuine partnership with third countries  

An  effective  management  of  migration  flows  requires  a  genuine  partnership  with  third 
countries.  This  implies  that  the  EU  needs  to  further  develop  and  deepen  its  relations  with 
selected third countries84. The EU needs to work much closer during the coming years with 

84 

"The  European  Council  underlines  the  importance  of  closer  cooperation  with  third  countries  in 
managing migration flows. Specific partnerships on migration with third countries could contribute to a 
coherent migration policy which combines measures aimed at facilitating well managed legal migration 
opportunities and their benefits – while respecting Member States' competences and the specific needs 
of their labour markets – with those fighting illegal migration, protecting refugees and tackling the root 
causes of migration while at the same time impacting positively on development in countries of origin. 
The possibility of mobility partnerships should be further explored as well as possibilities for circular 
migration in the light of the Commission's communication of 16 May 2007; in this context the European 

EN 

48 

   EN 

                                                 
partner  countries  on  opportunities  for  legal  mobility,  building  capacities  for  migration 
management,  protecting  fundamental  rights  and  fighting  irregular  flows.  The  EU  and  its 
Member  States  will  need  to  invest  more  human  and  financial  resources  into  developing 
mutual  trust  and  a  sense  of  ownership  in  the  partner  countries  with  a  view  to  helping  them 
develop  policies  for  well-managed  migration,  as  requested  by  the  European  Council85.  This 
work  will  also  include  a  focus  on  employment  and  labour  market  policies  for  improved 
assessment  of  the  match  between  national  labour  market  trends  and  human  capital 
development, bringing education and vocational training systems more in line with national, 
regional and global labour market needs.  

Moreover, more resources will be focused on compliance with good standards work, and in 
line  with  2007  Council  Conclusions,  the  EU  will  further  develop  policies  on  ethical 
recruitment  and  how  to  prevent,  avoid  and  mitigate  brain  drain  and  brain  waste.  Other 
initiatives will continue to focus on how to harness the development potential of remittances, 
supplementing  the  involvement  of  the  diasporas  in  promoting  the  development  of  their 
countries of origin, and facilitate returnee entrepreneur businesses. Attention will also focus 
on facilitating real possibilities for circular migration, by setting up or strengthening legal and 
operational  measures,  granting  legal  immigrants  the  right,  or  a  priority,  for  further  legal 
residence  in  the  EU,  and  by  ensuring  that  brain  circulation  becomes  a  viable  alternative  to 
brain drain, in identified key shortage sectors. Furthermore, sustainable voluntary return and 
social  as  well  as  economic  reintegration  in  migrants'  source  countries  will  require  more 
focused work in the border-area between migration and development policies. 

Exploratory  work  is  taking  place  through  the  concept  of  mobility  partnerships.  The 
establishment  of  a  growing  number  of  such  partnerships  in  the  coming  years  may  require 
additional  resources86.  Some  of  these  partnerships  should  be  paving  the  way  towards  firm 
arrangements  for  the  management  of  labour  immigration,  with  selected  long-term  strategic 
allies, geared towards mutual benefit. 

The  European  Union  will  also  further  develop  its  leading  role  in  the  global  governance  of 
migration, and fully engage in existing and future mechanisms for dialogue and cooperation, 
in order to ensure full implementation of existing commitments in multinational forums. This 
will also include further integration of EU activities, and presence, into regional cooperative 
processes of relevance for migration.  

In  sum,  the  further  deepening  and  strengthening  of  external  cooperation  on  migration  with 
third  countries  will  have  to  focus,  to  a  large  extent,  on  the  concept  of  partnerships.  Further 
policy developments will require a consolidation of what has already been embarked upon in 
terms  of  a  policy  framework,  mainly  through  the Global  Approach,  but  also  with  a  view  to 
further  integrate  and  mainstream  migration  into  other  external  policy  areas,  such  as  foreign 
and development policies, but also relatively unexplored areas, such as trade, agriculture and 
fisheries and finance policies. This will also be in line with the next generation of the Global 
Approach,  and  the  further  refinement  of  its  toolbox  of  instruments,  so  that  Community  and 

Council endorses the Council conclusions of 18 June 2007.", Presidency Conclusions of the European 
Council of 21-22 June 2007, paragraph 17. 
"The European Council calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure that adequate human 
and financial resources are allocated, within the existing financial framework, in order to enable the 
timely implementation of the comprehensive migration policy", Presidency Conclusions of the European 
Council of 21-22 June 2007, paragraph 16. 
Idem. 

85 

86 

EN 

49 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
Member  States  resources  are  used  efficiently,  in  solidarity  and  pooled  in  a  coherent  and 
consistent manner. 

Principle 7 – Enhance security and facilitate the entry of bona fide travellers 

The  development  of  the  integrated  four-tier  access  model,  such  as  was  described  in  the 
Communications and impact assessment forming part of the border package  of  13  February 
2008.  

In  relation  to  visa  policy,  in  the  long-term,  it  is  necessary  to  build  on  the  achievements 
currently under way with a greater degree of harmonisation, through the proposed visa code 
and  increased  cooperation  between  Member  States,  through  common  application  centres. 
From this perspective, only development towards truly European short-stay visas will ensure 
an  equal  treatment  of  all  visa  applicants.  This  goal  was  already  included  in  the  Tampere 
Programme, and would entail a full harmonisation of the criteria for the issuing of a visa, as 
well as of the practical implementation of those criteria. A logical and necessary development 
towards managing the visa applications at common European visa centres should accompany 
the  move  toward  European  visas,  gradually  replacing  the  issuing  of  visas  at  national 
consulates. The pooling of resources, and economies of scale that would be achieved, would 
also  ensure  easy  access  of  applicants  to  the  premises  where  such  visas  would  be  issued,  as 
such European centres could be set up in all third countries. The further development of these 
centres  will  need  to  be  coordinated  with  the  developments  of  the  Common  External  Action 
Service.. 

Principle 8 – Integrity of Schengen territory 

The Community policy in the field of EU external borders aims at an integrated management, 
ensuring a uniform and high level  of control, which  is a necessary pre-condition to the  free 
movement of persons within the European Union and a fundamental component of an area of 
freedom, security and justice. 

The measures needed to take forward border checks and new systems, the establishment of a 
European border surveillance system and the reinforcement of the FRONTEX Agency were 
analysed in the impact assessments accompanying the border package of 13 February 2008. 
This package included measures to reinforce all dimensions of border controls, that is, border 
checks, border surveillance and operational coordination: 

–  measures  to  develop  border  surveillance,  by  improving  cooperation  between 

Member States and by using new technology; 

–  reinforcement  of  operational  coordination  between  Member  States  through 
FRONTEX by fully exploiting the current mandate of the Agency, in particular by 
further intensifying joint operations between Member States including sea border 
patrols; 

–  the  introduction  of  an  entry-exit  system  to  record  the  dates  of  entry  and  exit  of 
each  third-country  national  admitted  to  the  Schengen  area  using  biometric 
identifiers. This will verify that a person is not overstaying;  

–  a registered traveller programme to facilitate border checks for certain categories 
of frequent travellers from third countries, by pre-screening travellers wishing to 

EN 

50 

   EN 

be  part  of  such  a  programme  and  by  introducing  automated  checks  to  speed  up 
their border crossing; 

–  launching a discussion on whether a system requiring an electronic authorisation 
to  travel  before  arriving  at  the  border  itself  could  be  introduced  for  people  not 
requiring a visa. 

It  is,  however,  also  necessary  to  ensure  coherence  between  internal  and  external  policies  in 
the  field  of  border  management.  Properly  managed  borders  in  neighbouring  regions  can 
enhance  European  security,  as  well  as  facilitate  travel  for  third-country  nationals,  while 
improving access to international protection for those in need. A more strategic approach in 
selecting key partners for this purpose is needed, with a clearer definition of comprehensive 
long-term  objectives  that  go  beyond  mere  technical  assistance.  The  setting  of  objectives 
should take into account the role of effective border management in improving the stability of 
certain  regions,  as  well  as  crisis  management.  A  coherent  approach  to  search  and  rescue 
activities in the maritime domain must involve closer cooperation with third countries, taking 
into  account  migratory  pressure.  Moreover,  better  coordination  between  measures  taken  at 
national, European and international level must be put in place. 

The  financial  dimension  is  not  only  relevant  for  supporting  the  cooperation  with  third 
countries described above. The mechanisms for ensuring burden-sharing and mutual solidarity 
between  Member  States  in  managing  the  EU's  external  borders  must  also  be  continuously 
refined.  These  mechanisms  must  take  into  account  the  need  to  support  investments  and 
capacity-building, as well as a burden-sharing component for the operational costs incurred in 
the daily management of the borders, costs which due to the functioning of the Schengen area, 
are not evenly distributed. 

Principle 9 – Enhancing the fight against illegal employment and undeclared work 

Illegal  immigration  is  driven  by  a  range  of  push  and  pull  factors,  among  which  the 
presumption  that  the  work  will  reap  higher  wage  levels  (including  informal  employment). 
These  phenomena  are  fairly  spread,  and  they  have  negative  implications  affecting  the 
objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, particularly with regard to employment, social cohesion and 
credibility of legal migration policies. Combating illegal employment of illegal third country 
nationals,  and  undeclared  work  of  lawful  residents,  is  therefore  as  important  as  integration 
efforts and should complement them.  

Initiatives  in  this  area  should  focus  on  prevention,  sanctions  and  enforcement  and  must 
involve European institutions and Member States, as well as key stakeholders, such as social 
partners, at all relevant levels. In relation to the employment of third-country nationals in an 
irregular position, an important step forward will be made with the adoption of the proposal 
for  a  Directive  providing  for  sanctions  against  employers  of  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals87, currently under negotiation in the European Parliament and in the Council. This 
will  bring  about  positive  effects  in  the  form  of  reduced  losses  to  Member  States  public 
finances, less pressure on working conditions and less distortion of competition between EU 
businesses. 

As  confirmed  recently  by  a  Eurobarometer  survey,  high  levels  of  taxation,  social  security 
contributions  and  administrative  red-tape  are  the  main  drivers  of  undeclared  work,  in 

87 

COM(2007) 249 final of 16.05.2007 

EN 

51 

   EN 

                                                 
particular for atypical and seasonal work. Thus, it should be further discussed with Member 
States  how  they  could  bolster  incentives  towards  declared  work,  including,  for  example, 
further improvements of the tax and social security system. Exchange of experiences and best 
practices in this respect should be enhanced by EU.  

Further efforts to enforce sanctions should be undertaken, materialising in additional national 
financial and human resources, including the establishment of specialised control bodies, risk 
tolls  analysis,  enhanced  coordination 
international  cooperation 
agreements88 and possibly under the form of a European platform) and a better evaluation of 
controls. Moreover, legislation, monitoring and sanctions schemes must adapt to new kinds of 
fraud  such  as  sub-contracting  and  false  self  employment  and  encourage,  with  a  view  to 
curbing efficiently the phenomena. In full compliance with their respective competencies, the 
EU has a role to play in fostering exchange of good practices and organising the trans-national 
cooperation. 

(if  needed 

though 

Principle 10 – Fighting smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings  

Combating  migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings is a central part of the fight 
against illegal immigration and reinforces the protection of human rights. 

It  requires  appropriate  legislation  adapted  to  new  forms  of  criminality,  actual  law 
enforcement, enhanced international cooperation and central attention paid to victims. 

National and community legislation must be reviewed in order to better reflect new criminal 
phenomena  and  to  offer  a  enhanced  protection  to  victims.  Accordingly,  existing  legal 
framework  on  the  facilitation  of  illegal  entry  and  stay  as  well  as  the  sexual  exploitation  of 
children should be strengthened and adapted to today's realities. In the light of the twin aim to 
allow  the  trafficked  person  to  complete  his/her  recovery  and  to  achieve  a  long-term  social 
inclusion (either in the country of origin or in the host Member State), and in full respect of 
the  existing  Community  legislation,  the  additional  cases  where  the  Member  States  should 
grant  a  temporary  or  a  permanent  residence  permit  to  the  victim  should  be  also  assessed, 
taking  into  account  the  personal  situation  of  the  victim  concerned.  In  this  respect,  the 
Commission  intends  to  report  on  the  application  of  Council  Directive  2004/81/EC  and,  if 
necessary,  propose  amendments  (clause  de  rendez-vous  included  in  Article  16  of  the 
Directive). 

Design of comprehensive regulations is the first step to combat smuggling and trafficking, but 
the practical implementation of the legal material requires most attention. Firstly, it should be 
ensured that investigative techniques, civil society organisations funding, more generally all 
prosecution  and  protection  measures  are  endowed  sufficient  resources  by  Member  States. 
Secondly,  owing  to  the  cross  border  nature  of  the  phenomenon,  regional  and  international 
level  of  EU  action  should  be  increased,  especially  making  use  of  international  instruments 
against human trafficking that are in place at regional and international level. The EU should 
take a stronger role in assisting countries of origin of trafficked people, especially those where 
the financial and administrative capacity is not sufficient to the task. 

Building  on  minimum  standards  of  assistance  measures  provided  by  Community  and 
international  instruments,  unconditional  assistance  should  be  provided  to  all  victims  of 

88 

Commission recommendation of 31 March 2008 on enhanced administrative cooperation in the context 
of the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services 

EN 

52 

   EN 

                                                 
trafficking, regardless of their interest in the criminal justice process, in a non-discriminatory 
manner  and  in  compliance  with  basic  principles  derived  from  international  human  rights 
norms, in particular the respect for privacy, confidentiality, self-determination and freedom of 
movement.  The  safety  and  protection  needs  of  the  victims  must  be  ensured.  Following  an 
individual  needs  assessment,  tailored  assistance  should  be  offered  and  be  based  on  a  cross- 
cultural  and  gender-sensitive  approach,  including  insights  about  the  effects  of  physical  and 
sexual abuse. Given the particular vulnerability of children, special additional rights must be 
also granted to them, including the representation by a legal guardian or equivalent authority 
as soon as a child victim is identified and the assistance by specialised personnel, in the best 
interest of the child. Service providers for trafficked persons should develop standards based 
on  clear  and  measurable  indicators,  to  regularly  monitor  and  assess  the  quality  of  their 
services. 

Principle 11 – Sustainable and effective return policy – regularisations 

Along with the consolidation of legal channels and the long-term work on the root causes, and 
besides improvement of border management, fight against criminal networks and undeclared 
work,  return  policy  is  a  crucial  component  of  the  fight  against  illegal  immigration.  These 
measures contribute also to the acceptance by the EU citizens of a more open legal migration 
policy. 

An  effective  readmission  and  return  policy,  whilst  respecting  the  human  rights  and 
fundamental  freedoms  of  the  person  concerned,  requires  an  improved  operational  co-
operation among Member States, intensified cooperation and partnership with third countries 
and the setting up of common standards. 

Community  rules  are  in  particular  indispensable  for  addressing  cases  where  a  third-country 
national  who  is  already  the  subject  of  a  return  decision,  removal  order  and/or  re-entry  ban 
issued by one Member State, is apprehended in another Member State or tries to enter another 
Member  State.  The  mechanism  of  a  "re-entry  ban",  as  foreseen  in  the  proposal  on  common 
standards  and  procedures  in  Member  States  for  returning  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals, has a dissuasive impact and would in principle accompany removal orders.  

As  a  number  of  return  decisions  cannot  be  implemented  because  the  returnee  has  no 
documentation,  emphasis  will  be  put  on  measures  aiming  at  facilitating  identification  of 
undocumented returnees and preventing identity theft. 

With  respect  to  joint  returns,  the  implementation  of  the  legislative  framework89  must  be 
improved  and  the  role  of  FRONTEX  in  supporting  joint  return  operations  must  be 
strengthened, in line with the request from the conclusions of the Council of June 2007. 

Furthermore, experience has shown that is indispensable to go beyond the Council Decision 
of  5  October  2006  on  the  establishment  of  a  mutual  information  mechanism  concerning 
Member  States'  measures  in  the  areas  of  asylum  and  immigration.  Improving  the  mutual 
exchange of information through a more timely communication of all relevant information is 
a minimum requirement. This is in particular very important when it comes to regularisation 

89 

Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes 
of  removal  by  air  and  Council  Decision  2004/573/EC  of  29  April  2004  on  the  organisation  of  joint 
flights for removals 

EN 

53 

   EN 

                                                 
measures  enacted  by  Member  States,  which  could  have  spill-over  effects  on  other  Member 
States. In this respect, early information sharing should be improved as a first step. 

4. 

FUTURE METHODOLOGY: BETTER GOVERNANCE OF IMMIGRATION 

4.1. Coordinated and coherent action 

Immigration,  being  a  complex  and  multifaceted  phenomenon,  requires  a  mixture  of  policy 
actions  which  covers  a  wide  range  of  issues  and  fields:  demographic  constraints,  economic 
needs, social expectations, health impacts, trade commitments, development musts, education 
opportunities, security dimension, etc. Any further development of the common Immigration 
Policy,  in  order  to  be  effective,  will  have  to  ensure  that  migration  issues  are  factored 
(“mainstreamed”)  into  all  related  policies.  Moreover,  as  a  consequence  of  a  shared 
competence policy area and taking into account this variety of issues, coordination between 
the  EU  and  the  national  level,  especially  in  the  area  of  economic,  social  and  development 
policies, must be significantly fostered.  

Timely, transparent and systematic consultation of all relevant stakeholders on further policy 
developments  has  to  be  ensured.  In  the  immigration  area,  stakeholder  consultation  between 
each others Member States’ experts, third countries, international organizations, but also civil 
society with the non-profit sector, the industry (namely through public-private partnerships), 
academia, relevant EU agencies such as the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 
or  the  European  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Operational  Cooperation  at  the  External 
Borders  (FRONTEX)  is  essential.  These  stakeholder  consultations  should  also  be  used  to 
gather and cross-check relevant information. 

4.2. Common methodology 

Any  further  policy  development  will  have  to  take  into  account  the  immigration  situation  in 
each  Member  State  with  regard  to  stock  and  flow  data.  To  this  end,  specific  immigration 
profiles should be developed for each individual Member State, in order to establish the skills 
composition  of  the  existing  immigrant  population,  and  possible  future  labour  needs.  The 
comprehensive overview needed for drawing up such profiles would have to be fuelled by a 
multitude  of  sources,  including  state  agencies,  social  partners,  academic  expertise, 
international organisations, immigrant associations and civil society. 

On the basis of individual immigration profiles, multiannual guidelines and objectives should 
be defined in order to ensure that, in future, the skills available within the existing immigrant 
population  and  the  concrete  labour  market  needs  of  the  host  Member  State  better  match. 
Setting up clear guidelines and objectives covering a multiannual period constitute important 
steps towards further common action as they give a meaning to the day-by-day policy. 

Once  the  multiannual  guidelines  and  objectives  are  set,  it  is  also  necessary  to  devise 
evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanisms  providing  regular  feedback  to  policy  makers.  To 
allow  for  policy  improvements,  quantifiable  performance  indicators  and  benchmarks  should 
be  developed,  ideally  per  Member  State.  Availability  of  statistics  and  of  the  necessary 
analytical capacity is a key component in the development of any evaluation system. Indeed, 
statistics  will  be  required  as  baseline  data  to  assess  whether  existing  needs  are  being 
addressed  and,  ultimately,  to  be  able  to  draw  conclusions  about  the  impact  of  policies. 
Improvements  should  be  made  in  three  areas:  quality,  availability  and  analysis.  The  overall 

EN 

54 

   EN 

aim of better evaluation and monitoring should be to ensure a more determined enforcement 
of political commitments and legislative obligations. 

Annual  immigration  reports  by  the  European  Commission  should  be  presented  to  provide  a 
comprehensive  overview,  analyse  possible  labour  market  needs  and  allow  the  Council  to 
make a political assessment and issue policy recommendations. Submission of these reports to 
the  European  Council  should  be  envisaged,  preferably  to  the  Spring  European  Council  to 
strengthen the link with the Lisbon Agenda. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

ANNEX 1 – OVERVIEW TABLE 

Problem 

Existing 

measures 

Objective 

Corresponding  principl
and solutions 

a 

decline of the working 
age  population  and 
increasing  number  of 
old  people,  translating 
growing 
into 
pressure on the health-
care  and 
long-term 
care  system,  pensions 
expenditures  and  a 
decline of growth rate 

Labour 
shortages 

and 

skills 

Challenge: shrinking EU population and demographic ageing 

-2005 Green Paper 

-2006 
Communication  on 
demographic 
the 
future of Europe 

Designing a common policy on 
legal  immigration,  organising 
both  legal  immigration  and  the 
integration 
immigrants, 
of 
while  taking  into  account  the 
interests  of  the  countries  of 
origin 

- mainly principles 2 and
but also partly principles 
6 and 9  

-mainly  principles  2  and 
but also partly principles 
6, 7, 9, 10 and 11  

Challenge: labour and skill shortages 

- directives on family 
reunification,  on  the 
of 
admission 
students 
and 
researchers,  and  on 
long 
the  status  of 
term residents 

-2005 Policy Plan on 
Legal Migration 

-2007  Proposals  for 
the 
general 
Framework Directive 
and  the  Directive  on 
of 
the 
admission 
qualified 
highly 
migrants 

To  manage  migration  in  order 
and 
to 
alleviate 
of 
occupational 
labour:  

sectoral 
shortages 

- assessment of present and 
future labour market needs  

- enhancing the employment 
potential of third-country 
nationals  

- legal framework defining 
clear rules of admission and 
residence for third-country 
nationals 

- intensified partnership with 
third countries  

- awareness-raising measures 
targeting both the host societies 
and the prospective migrants 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Challenge: a better integration of legal immigrants 

insufficient integration 
of 
foreign-born 
nationals 

-2004: 
basic principles 

Common 

Common 

-2005 
Agenda 
Communication 

-2007 
Fund 

Integration 

-anti-discrimination 
legislation 

-  Annual  reports  on 
and 
migration 
integration 

-  Handbooks 
practitioners 
editions) 

for 
(2 

– 

2006 

2008 
- 
Development  of  an 
Integration website 

Regular  NCP 

- 
meetings  

Ministerial 
on 

- 
Conferences 
Integration 
(Groningen 
Potsdam 2007)  

2004, 

Mainly principle 3 

To  improve  the  dynamic,  two-
of  mutual 
way 
process 
all 
accommodation 
immigrants  and  residents  of 
Member States 

by 

- to develop a more coherent 
approach to integration 
to reinforce the sharing of 
information and the 
coordination between all 
stakeholders 

- to better monitor and evaluate 
integration policies 
- to set up targeted language 
classes and tuition to facilitate 
integration at school 

- to focus on introduction 
programmes, including 
language and civic orientation 
courses for newly-arrived 

- to prevent unemployment 
through education and training, 
a better recognition of 
qualifications, fight against 
discrimination and illegal work 
and promotion of employment 
for immigrant women 

- to foster anti-discrimination 
and information measures and 
cooperation between 
governmental stakeholders and 
engagement of companies in 
debates on integration 

- to provide specific help and 
information to allow migrants’ 
access to services, especially 
health services 

- to reflect on active citizenship 
and naturalisation processes as 
elements to strengthen 
opportunities for involvement 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mainly principles 9, 10 an
part
11 
principles 1, 2 and 6 

also 

but 

High  level  of  illegal 
posing 
immigration, 
security,  humanitarian 
problems, 
undermining 
the 
credibility 
immigration 
policy 
and generating diverse 
social costs 

of 

in the host society 

Challenge: continuous pressure of illegal immigration 

on 
-regulations 
recognition 
mutual 
expulsion 
of 
the 
decisions,  on 
the 
prevention  of 
of 
facilitation 
unauthorised 
entry, 
transit and residence, 
on  residence  permits 
granted  to  victims  of 
trafficking 
or 
smuggling,  on  joint 
flights,  creation  of 
Frontex,  

-2005  Proposal  for  a 
Directive on return 

-2007  proposal  for  a 
on 
Directive 
sanctions 
against 
employers 

-2006 
Communication  on 
illegal immigration 

-2007 
Communication  on 
undeclared work  

-creation  of  a  web-
based 
information 
network,  MIM  and 
ICONet 

- 
agreements 

readmission 

-2007  Border  Fund, 
Return Fund 

to  pursue  current  policy  aimed 
at  tackling  both  push  factors 
and  pull 
illegal 
immigration 

factors  of 

- stepping up the fight against 
the smuggling of migrants and 
trafficking in human beings, 
(amendments to the legal 
framework to improve the 
status of trafficked persons and 
to adapt to new kinds of fraud; 
prevention strategies specific to 
vulnerable groups; 
improvement of the 
investigation of human 
trafficking, notably through 
better national and international 
cooperation; more effective 
implementation of international 
instruments) 

- continuing to combat illegal 
work (adaptation of Community 
legal framework to foresee 
common sanctions; better 
enforcement of sanctions, 
through adapted national human 
and financial resources and 
more effective national and 
trans-national coordination; 
more thorough knowledge of 
the phenomenon across 
Member States; development of 
incentives toward declared 
work) 

- establishment of an effective 
return policy (creation of 
common standards reinforcing 
the effect of a national return 
decision; improved cooperation 
and coordination among 
Member States, including joint 
return operations and 
regularisation; intensified 
partnership with third 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
countries). 

Challenge: An insufficient partnership with third countries 

significant  migratory 
pressure  on  Europe, 
flowing  from  an  array 
of factors 

Global 
The 
to 
Approach 
Migration 
launched 
in  2005  and  refined 
in  2006  aims 
to 
formulate 
comprehensive  and 
coherent policies that 
broad 
a 
address 
range  of  migration-
related issues 

Mainly principle 6 

in  order 

improving 

line  with 

In 
the  Global 
Approach,  the  overall  objective 
consists  of  consolidating  and 
deepening  partnerships  with 
third  countries 
to 
improve  positive  consequences 
of  migration  for  both  countries 
of  origin  and  countries  of 
destination, including: fostering 
circular  migration  and  brain 
the 
circulation; 
remittances; 
management  of 
voluntary 
the 
enhancing 
contribution of diasporas; better 
supporting  voluntary 
returns 
and  economic  reintegration  of 
the 
migrants; 
matching 
labour 
supply  and  demand;  addressing 
employment and decent work in 
developing  countries;  further 
developing  policies 
to  fight 
illegal immigration 

focussing  on 

between 

These  objectives  will  be  met 
through: 

- a better implementation of 
current instruments (which 
requires in turn: a better 
coordination; increased human 
and financial resources; more 
joint activities); 

- a further integration of 
migration policy into the 
Union's development 
cooperation and other external 
policies; 

- a transformation of the 
geographic meaning of the 
approach, gradually shifting 
from a region-based perspective 
to a country-by-country 
perspective. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
Challenge: insufficient adaptation of border management and visa policy to a streamlined management of 
migration 

principles 7 and 8 

Insufficient 
contribution  of  border 
controls  to  the  fight 
illegal 
against 
immigration  and  too 
border 
burdensome 
the 
crossing 
passengers do not pose 
any threat to security  

for 

-regulations 
establishing  Frontex, 
a  Schengen  Borders 
the 
Code,  creating 
Rapid 
Border 
Intervention  Teams, 
the 
regulation  on 
Information 
Visa 
System 
(VIS)  and 
the  exchange  of  data 
between  Member 
States  on  short  stay-
visas, 
Schengen 
convention  

-2006  Commission 
Recommendation 
a 
establishing 
common 
Practical 
Handbook for Border 
Guards 

-The external borders 
fund  (EBF)  was  set 
in  place  on  23  May 
2007 

To  reinforce  all  dimensions  of 
border controls and at the same 
time to facilitate and harmonize 
visa 
control 
procedures 
certain 
categories of travellers 

checks 

and 

for 

- establishing a European 
border surveillance system 
(through improvement in 
cooperation between Member 
States and use of new 
technologies); 

- reinforcing the Frontex 
Agency; 

- analysing the feasibility of an 
entry-exit system allowing for 
the identification of 
overstayers; 

- enhancing cooperation with 
third countries, 

- preparing the setting up of 
common application visa 
centres and issuing of truly 
European short-stay visas, 
guaranteeing equal treatment of 
all visa applicants and easier 
access; 

- analysing the feasibility of a 
registered traveller programme 
to facilitate border checks for 
certain frequent travellers  

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 – STATISTICAL DATA 

Figure 1 - Projected working-age population and total employment, EU25 

total employment

w orking-age population

employment rate (right scale)

p erio d  2 0 0 3 -2 0 11:
rising   emp lo yment  
b ut  slo w g ro wt h in 
wo rking -ag e 

p o p ulat io n

p erio d  2 0 12 -
2 0 17:
rising   
emp lo yment   
d esp it e t he 
d ecline in 
wo rking -ag e 

320

300

280

260

240

220

200

180

f ro m 2 0 18  o nward :

 emp lo yment   and  wo rking -ag e p o p ulat io n b o t h d eclining

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

2003

2008

2013

2018

2023

2028

2033

2038

2043

2048

Figure 2 - Projected working age population (aged 15-64) in the EU-25, 2005 to 2050 

Projected working age population (aged 15-64) 2005 to 2050

Baseline

No migration

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

350

300

250

200

150

100

5
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

1
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

1
2
0
2

3
2
0
2

5
2
0
2

7
2
0
2

9
2
0
2

1
3
0
2

3
3
0
2

5
3
0
2

7
3
0
2

9
3
0
2

1
4
0
2

3
4
0
2

5
4
0
2

7
4
0
2

9
4
0
2

Source : Eurostat, Population projections, baseline and no migration variants

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 3 - Net migration to the EU-25, 1980-2007  

Chart: Net migration to the EU25, 1980 to 2007 (in millions)

)
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(

n
o

i
t
a
r
g
m

i

t
e
N

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

0
8
9
1

1
8
9
1

2
8
9
1

3
8
9
1

4
8
9
1

5
8
9
1

6
8
9
1

7
8
9
1

8
8
9
1

9
8
9
1

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

Source: Eurostat, demographic statistics

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 4 - Populations by groups of citizenship, 1.01.2006 
Annual Data collection 
Source: Eurostat 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
Table 5 - Indicators of the recent feminisation of migration flows 

% of women among 
immigrants 
arrived for 10 years or less 
2004 
56  
54  
54  
53  
48  
51  
53  
54  
52 
54 
50 
55 
51 
53 
56 
61 
57 
53 
50 

Austria  
Belgium  
Czech republic  
Germany  
Denmark  
Spain  
Finland  
France  
Greece  
Hungary  
Ireland  
Italy  
Luxembourg  
Netherlands  
Norway  
Poland  
Portugal  
Sweden  
United Kingdom  
Notes: Data for Germany are for 1992 and for Austria and Sweden for 1995 

1994 
48 
52 
.. 
48 
42 
.. 
.. 
54 
54 
... 
51 
49 
46 
48 
.. 
.. 
57 
50 
54 

Source: Oso and Garson (2005) 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6- Percentage of Non-EU citizens in EU Member States 

source: Eurostat 

Figure 7- Most numerous groups of non-EU citizens in EU, 1.01.2006 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
Source: Eurostat 

Figure 8- Immigration to EU25 in 2005 by previous country of residence 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
Figure 9 - International migration by category of entry, 2005 

International m igration by category of entry, 2005, standardised data

Employment

Accompanying family of  w orkers

Family Humanitarian Other

UK

DK

PT

BE

IT

DE

AT

SE

NL

FR

0

20

40

60

80

100

Source: OECD, SOPEMI 2007. 

% of total inflow s

Figure 10 - Share of foreign nationals in resident working-age population, 2005 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 11 – Sectors of employment non-EU born and native-born in the EU, 2006 

Sectors of em ploym ent non-EU born and native-born in the EU, 2006

Resident >5 Resident <= 5 yrs Native-born

p
u
o
r
g
e
v
i
t
c
e
p
s
e
r
n

i

r
o
t
c
e
s

f
o
%

20

15

10

5

0

Agriculture and fishing
Industry (except construction)

Education

Financial intermediation
Public administration
Transport storage and communication
Wholesale and retail trade
Real estate renting and business activities
Hotels and restaurants
Construction

Other community social and personal service
Health and social work

Private households

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS annual data. Note: BG, DE and IE excluded.

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figures12 – Employment rates of non-EU migrants relative to native-born, 2006 

Non-EU born vs. EU born

Non-EU born resident <= 6 yrs vs. Non-
EU born resident > 6 yrs

LV PT

CY

EE

CZ SI

LT

EL

ES

IT

UK

AT

FI

SE

DK

NL

LU

FR

BE

80

70

60

50

40

30

HU

MT

PL

50

60

70

80

80

60

40

s
r
y

6
>

t
n
e
d
s
e
r

i

n
r
o
b
U
E
-
n
o
N

20

20

CZ

ES

EE

EL

UK

HU

SI

AT

IT

DK

LU

PT

CY

FI

SE
NLFR

BE

PL

40

60

80

EU born

Non-EU born resident <= 6 yrs

Non-EU born resident > 6 yrs vs. EU born

Non-EU born resident <= 6 yrs vs. EU 
born

ES

LV PT

EE

LTCZ

SI

IT
EL

LUFR

BE

CY

AT

UK

FI

DK
SE

NL

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

MT

HU

PL

s
r
y

6
=
<

t
n
e
d
s
e
r

i

n
r
o
b
U
E
-
n
o
N

80

70

60

50

40

30

CY

PT

ES

CZ

EE

UK

DK

SI

LU

AT

EL

ITHU

PL

FR

BE

FI

SE
NL

50

60

70

80

50

60

70

80

EU born

EU born

n
r
o
b
U
E
-
n
o
N

s
r
y

6
>

t
n
e
d
s
e
r

i

n
r
o
b
U
E
-
n
o
N

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS, annual data.

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Employment rate of non-EU born vs. EU-born, 2006

Non-EU born resident <= 6 yrs Non-EU born resident > 6 yrs

EU born

Gap in employment rates to EU born, 2006

P
A
W

f
o
%

80

60

40

20

0

.
f
f
i
d

p
p

20

0

-20

-40

Y
C

T
P

I

E S
E

V
L

Z
C

S
E

T
L

L
E

T

I

U
H

T
M

K
D

L
N

E
S

K
U

I

T F
A

R
F

U
L

E
B

L
P

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS, annual 

Table 13 

 Shares of employment, employment, unemployment and activity rates, 2006

Total

Native-
born

Total

Native-
born

Total

Native-
born

Total

Employment rates

Unemployment rates

Activity rates

Share of employment
Non-EU born
Resident 
<= 5 yrs
0.8
0.1
0.8
:
1.1
4.1
0.8
1.2
6.4
:
:
0.9
0.1
:
0.4
1.5
(0.1)
1.5
(0.1)
0.0
(0.2)
0.9
2.2

Resident 
> 5 yrs
4.6
0.5
2.1
14.0
5.5
4.9
5.9
5.0
4.7
10.3
3.9
4.1
0.4
2.8
7.5
8.5
0.1
4.5
6.8
:
1.3
6.9
5.4

5.3
0.6
3.9
14.4
6.5
10.3
6.7
6.2
11.1
10.5
4.1
5.0
0.5
3.0
7.9
10.0
0.2
6.0
6.9
:
1.4
7.8
7.6

BE
CZ
DK
EE
EL
ES
FR
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
Source: Eurostat, EU LFS annual data. Note: ":" Data not available. Data in brackets uncertain due to small sample size. The total shares may differ from the sum of shares 
by groups due to 'No answers' regarding the length of stay in the country.

58.7
75.0
66.9
79.0
74.8
79.3
66.1
71.8
79.2
77.1
75.4
65.3
63.8
59.7
64.2
69.8
37.4
80.6
73.7
(67.6)
70.7
68.1
68.8

23.5
9.0
8.3
7.8
9.2
12.7
18.2
8.4
5.2
5.9
(7.6)
15.7
:
:
11.8
11.5
:
9.5
7.1
:
23.4
16.8
8.6

67.4
70.4
81.4
71.5
66.5
69.6
70.6
62.0
72.6
70.7
67.1
62.0
61.9
59.1
78.7
74.4
63.5
73.4
70.8
68.7
77.0
80.1
75.9

44.9
68.1
61.3
72.6
67.9
69.2
54.0
65.8
75.1
72.6
69.7
55.0
59.1
54.9
56.7
61.8
34.2
72.9
68.5
:
54.1
56.6
62.8

62.7
65.4
78.4
67.4
60.5
63.9
64.4
57.9
69.3
65.7
63.3
60.0
57.3
54.8
75.8
71.6
54.6
67.6
66.6
59.5
70.2
75.1
72.0

7.0
7.1
3.7
5.6
8.8
8.0
8.7
6.6
4.3
7.0
5.5
3.3
7.5
7.2
3.7
3.8
13.9
7.5
5.9
13.4
8.6
6.1
5.0

Non-EU born
Resident 
<= 5 yrs
31.1
:
(10.1)
:
11.5
(14.1)
30.0
13.1
(5.1)
:
:
:
:
:
18.7
19.7
:
7.5
:
:
(43.3)
25.9
10.3

Non-EU born
Resident 
<= 5 yrs
35.1
63.2
(59.7)
:
61.7
(66.7)
35.9
52.5
77.5
:
:
48.7
57.8
:
37.2
45.6
(52.2)
75.3
(53.3)
:
(33.1)
39.4
60.7

Non-EU born
Resident 
<= 5 yrs
51.0
67.9
(66.3)
:
69.7
(77.6)
51.2
60.4
81.7
:
:
61.1
59.1
:
45.7
56.7
(54.7)
81.5
(56.4)
:
58.4
53.1
67.6

Resident 
> 5 yrs
22.0
8.8
(8.1)
7.9
8.8
(12.3)
16.3
7.1
(5.3)
6.0
(7.9)
(12.8)
:
:
11.4
9.9
:
10.1
7.1
:
20.0
15.5
8.0

Resident 
> 5 yrs
47.1
70.0
(63.3)
72.5
69.3
(71.4)
57.8
70.1
72.0
72.4
69.7
58.3
59.5
57.0
58.3
65.9
30.1
72.1
68.7
:
59.6
60.0
63.8

Resident 
> 5 yrs
60.4
77.0
(68.9)
79.0
75.9
(81.4)
69.2
75.5
76.1
76.9
75.8
66.9
65.0
61.9
65.8
73.1
33.3
80.4
74.0
(70.0)
74.4
71.1
69.5

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Figure 14– Participation rates by gender, 2004 

Note: 2003 data for Belgium, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Portugal 
Source: OECD 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
Figure 15-: Education of EU born and non-EU born, 2006 

Education level of native and foreign-born population aged 15-64 in the EU, 2006

Low Medium High

Native-born 

Other EU born
Total

 Resident > 6 yrs

 Resident <= 6 yrs

Non-EU born Total

 Resident > 6 yrs

 Resident <= 6 yrs

0

20

40

60

80

100

-10

-5

%

0
pp diff.

5

10

-10

-5

0
pp diff.

5

10

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS annual data. Note: BG, DE and IE excluded.

overrepresantation at low and high education levels compared to native-born

Figure 16- Shares of tertiary education among EU-born and non-EU born, 2006 

Share of population w ith tertiary education for EU born and non-EU born, 2006

Non-EU born

EU born

4
6
-
5
1
d
e
g
a
n
o
i
t
a
u
p
o
p
f
p
e
r
a
h
s

l

40

30

20

10

0

EE HU CY UK CZ SE LU LV FR PL EU* MT PT

DK BE ES FI LT NL EL SI AT IT

Source: Eurostat, EU LFS annual data. Note: EU* excludes BG, DE and IE.

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 17– Occupational structure in EI by main occupational grouping (as % share of 
total employment) 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
Table 18– Highly Skilled Workers non-EU national as percentage of total HSW, 1995-
2004 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
Table  19  –  Employment  rates  of  non-EU  nationals  population  with  high  education,  as 
percentage of relative population, 1995-2004 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
Table 20 – Highly Skilled Workers non-EU nationals as a percentage of total employed 
non-EU nationals, 1995-2004 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
Figure 21 – Composition of Highly Skilled Workers non-EU nationals by gender, 1999-
2004. 

EN 

77 

   EN