COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  Impact Assessment   Accompanying the Proposal for a  DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  on conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer    {COM(2010) 378 final} {SEC(2010) 885}
Date: 2010-07-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: free movement of workers, impact study, job mobility, labour law, migrant worker, multinational enterprise, residence permit, social rights, work permit

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 13.07.2010 
SEC(2010) 884 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Impact Assessment 

Accompanying the 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals in the framework of an 
intra-corporate transfer  

{COM(2010) 378 final} 
{SEC(2010) 885} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties …………………………..4 

1.1.  Background……………………………………………………………………………4 

1.1.1.  Legal and policy context……………………………………………………………...4 

1.1.2.  Organisation and timing……………………………………………………………...5 

1.1.3.  Consultation and expertise…………………………………………………………...5 

1.2.  The Impact Assessment Board……………………………………………………….6 

2. 

Problem definition…………………………………………………………………….6 

2.1. 

Scope of the problem…………………………………………………………………6 

2.1.1.  Legal background…………………………………………………………………….7 

2.1.2.  Statistics and trends on intra-corporate transfers………………………………...10 

2.1.3.  The relevance of ICTs for EU competitiveness……………………………………14 

2.2.  What is the problem that may require action?.........................................................16 

2.3.  EU right to act and subsidiarity…………………………………………………….19 

2.3.1.  EU right to act………………………………………………………………………20 

2.3.2.  Principles of subsidiairty and proportionality……………………………………..20 

2.3.3.  EU added value………………………………………………………………………21 

3. 

Setting objectives……………………………………………………………………21 

3.1.  Main objectives……………………………………………………………………..21 

3.2. 

Specific objectives………………………………………………………………….21 

4. 

5. 

Developing policy options…………………………………………………………..22 

Analysis of impacts…………………………………………………………………26 

5.1.  Options……………………………………………………………………………...26 

5.2.  Assessment of financial and administrative costs…………………………………36 

5.3.  Comparative assessment of policy options………………………………………...37 

6. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Identification of the preferred policy option……………………………………….39 

Monitoring and evaluation………………………………………………………….47 

Identify core progress indicators for the key objectives of the possible 
intervention………......................................................................…………………....47 
Provide 
evaluation 
arrangements…………...........................................................……………………....49 

of  possible  monitoring 

a  broad 

outline 

and 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. Background 

1.1.1. Legal and policy context 

Since the Tampere European Council of 1999, the EU has sought to develop, on the basis of 
the new powers conferred to it by the Treaty of Amsterdam (Title IV EC), a comprehensive 
immigration policy that would address the phenomenon in all its main dimensions, i.e. legal 
and  illegal  immigration,  integration  and  cooperation  with  the  countries  of  origin  of 
immigrants. As concerns legal immigration, and in particular economic immigration, Article 
79  (2)(a)  (b)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  explicitly 
empowers the EU to adopt measures laying down conditions of entry and residence of third-
country nationals and defining their rights.  

The first attempt to define a common legal framework at EU level was not successful since 
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 activities1 
did  not  receive  the  necessary  support  from  the  Council.  It  has  to  be  recalled  in  this  context 
that legal immigration was subject at the time to unanimity in the Council and consultation of 
the  European  Parliament.  The  2004  Hague  Programme  recognised  the  important  role  legal 
migration will play in advancing economic development in the EU and asked the Commission 
to  present  a  Policy  Plan  on  legal  migration,  “including  admission  procedures,  capable  of 
responding  promptly  to  fluctuating  demands  for  migrant  labour  in  the  labour  market”.  That 
Policy Plan2 defines a roadmap and a set of actions and legislative initiatives for the coherent 
development  of  EU  legal  migration  policy  between  2006  and  2009.  It  suggests  establishing 
EU rules on specific channels of legal migration (highly skilled migrants, seasonal workers, 
remunerated trainees, intra-corporate transferees) and a general directive on the rights of third 
country  workers  on  the  other.  The  Policy  Plan  was  welcomed  by  the  European  Council  in 
December  2006  which  asked  for  a  rapid  examination  of  the  Commission's  legislative 
proposals, once presented. The first two proposals – on harmonised rules for the admission of 
third-country  nationals  for  highly  skilled  employment  ("Blue  Card")  and  for  a  general 
framework  Directive  -  were  tabled  by  the  Commission  in  October  20073.  The  proposals 
regarding highly qualified workers (‘EU Blue Card’) and for a general framework Directive 
were presented in October 2007. The Council adopted the first proposal on 25 May 2009; the 
second one is currently under negotiation in the European Parliament and the Council. Both 
texts exclude seasonal workers from their scope of application. 

Under  the  European  Pact  on  Immigration  and  Asylum,  endorsed  by  the  October  2008 
European Council, one of the five basic commitments is to organise legal immigration and in 
particular  to  increase  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  for  highly  qualified  workers  and  to 
encourage  temporary  migration.  This  proposal,  together  with  the  proposal  on  seasonal 
workers  presented  in  parallel,  takes  forward  the  implementation  of  the  Policy  Plan  on  legal 
migration and transposes the commitment made in the "Pact" into concrete measures. 

1
2 
3 

COM(2001)386. 
Adopted by the Commission on 21.12.2005, COM(2005)669 final. 
COM(2007) 637 and 638 of 23 October 2007. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
The Stockholm Programme, adopted by the European Council of 10 and 11 December 2010, 
recognises that labour immigration can contribute to increased competitiveness and economic 
vitality  and  that,  in  the  context  of  the  important  demographic  challenges  that  will  face  the 
Union  in  the  future  with  an  increased  demand  for  labour,  flexible  immigration  policies  will 
make an important contribution to the Union's economic development and performance in the 
longer term. It thus invites the Commission and Council to continue to implement the 2005 
Policy Plan on Legal Migration. 

1.1.2. Organisation and timing 

Lead DG: Home 

Agenda  Planning  or  Work  Programme  Reference:  Commission  Work  Programme  2010 
(31.3.2010 COM(2010) 135 final) 

The chronology of this impact assessment was as follows: 

–  December  2007  –  July  2008:  data  gathering  and  discussion  with  Member  States  in  the 
context of the Commission's Committee on Immigration and Asylum (hereinafter “CIA”); 

–  Throughout  2008:  consultation  and  exchange  of  views  with  relevant  stakeholders 
(including  businesses'  representatives,  social  partners)  in  a  number  of  meetings  and 
conferences; 

–  December 2007 – October 2008: external study ordered by the Commission in December 

2007;  

–  29  April  and  16  September  2008:  Meetings  of  the  Inter-service  Steering  Group 
accompanying  the  Impact  Assessment,  at  which  participated  representatives  of  the 
Commission's  Secretariat  General  and  Directorates-General  for  Trade,  for  Employment, 
Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities and for External Relations. 

1.1.3. Consultation and expertise  

This  report  is  based  on  consultations  with  Member  States  and  other  stakeholders  (including 
ETUC,  the  International  Organisation  for  Migration,  Business  Europe,  Work  Permit 
Foundation, FEACO-Pendo Group, American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union, 
Mission  of  Japan  to  the  EU)4.  Member  States  were  consulted  within  the  framework  of  the 
Commission's  Committee  on  Immigration  and  Asylum,  at  three  meetings  in  2008.  The  data 
was collected from these consultations as well as from case studies and literature reviews. The 
data-gathering and large parts of the consultations were undertaken through an external study 
from Ernst & Young ordered by the Commission in December 2007. That study constitutes 
the  main  support  for  this  report.  The  problem,  objectives  and  policy  options  assessed  were 
based on the final report from the contractor and on the basis of a desk analysis of appropriate 
analytical methods and applicable legal documents. 

Moreover, a public consultation was carried out with the Green Paper on an EU approach to 
managing economic migration5. The Commission received more than 130 contributions from 

4 
5 

The summary of the answers by the Stakeholders are presented in Annex  4. 
COM(2004) 811 final. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member  States,  the  other  EU  institutions,  social  partners,  NGOs,  third  countries,  academia, 
etc.6 and a public hearing was held on 14 June 2005. 

1.2. The Impact Assessment Board 

The IAB was first consulted in January 2009 and gave its first opinion on 3 February 2009, in 
which, in summary, it requested more information on why EU regulation was an appropriate 
response to the problem identified. The Board also asked for:  

(1) 
less  emphasis  be  put  on  the  functioning  of  the  labour  market,  given  the  rather  low 
numbers of third-country workers involved, and to demonstrate that EU regulation would be a 
proportionate response. 

better justification of why Article 63 (now 79) of the Treaty was chosen as legal basis 

(2) 
(and not Article 137 (now 153) on "working conditions for third-country nationals) 

(3) 
clarification  of  the  key  aspects  of  the  proposed  approach,  including  objectives, 
options,  criteria,  taxation  status,  right  to  access  to  work  for  family  members,  linkages  with 
existing legislation, whether EU national migrants could be treated less favourably than third-
country national migrants and the chosen reference points for the equal treatment; 

(4) 

an analysis of the impact on the number of migrants; 

The  Impact  Assessment  Report  was  re-submitted  to  the  IAB  in  April  2009,  which  gave  its 
second  opinion  on  12  May  2009.  The  present  version  of  the  Impact  Assessment  report  has 
been redrafted, with a view to taking these recommendations into account. In particular, the 
arguments  about  risks  of  distortions  in  the  EU  labour  market  and  unfair  competition  have 
been  attenuated  and  nuanced,  further  clarifications  have  been  provided  as  regards  the  legal 
basis, options, rights granted, links with existing directives, application of Union preference, 
and the justification for EU legal action. 

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Companies  outside  the  EU  often  need  to  send  key  members  of  staff,  who  are  not  EU 
nationals, to their subsidiary companies located within the EU. Businesses need to be able to 
react rapidly to new challenges, to provide specialist knowledge or skills that are not available 
locally  and/or  to  transfer  know-how  to  their  future  managers.  Developments  in  the 
organisation of work and allocation within businesses also necessitate increasing mobility. 

Companies  outside  the  EU  are  faced  with  a  lack  of  clear  specific  schemes  in  most  EU 
Member  States,  complex  requirements,  costs,  delays  in  granting  visas  or  work  permits  and 
uncertainty  about  the  rules  and  procedures.  Further  complications  arise  if  the  ICT  needs  to 
move  from  one  Member  State  to  another  and  in  addition  there  are  differences  between 
Member States in terms of conditions of admission and restrictions on family members. 

2.1. Scope of the problem  

2.1.1. Legal background 

6 

See 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/economic_migration/news_contributions_economic_migration_en.htm 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Some specific features account for the fact that ICTs are, partly or entirely, covered by many 
specific  regulations  which  differ  from  the  ones  regulating  'typical'  immigrants.  First,  ICTs 
only cover a small number of skilled employees of a corporation: they are typically specialist 
and  managers,  possessing  uncommon  knowledge  specific  to  the  company,  for  whom  no 
substitute could be found. Second, the decision to post an ICT is not the result of a personal 
decision  from  the  migrant  but  is  purely  demand-driven  and  depends  on  business  needs 
expressed by the enterprise of origin or destination. Third, ICTs are still employees of their 
company of origin. They are carrying out their assignment for a defined period and are due to 
come back to their company of origin at the end of their assignment. Finally, ICTs are also 
closely  linked  to  Trade:  considered  as  a  way  of  providing  a  service  and  hence  fostering 
investments  from  corporations,  they  are  included  in  Mode  47  of  the  World  Trade 
Organization's  General  Agreement  on  Trade  in  Services  (GATS)  annexed  to  the  WTO 
Agreement.  

EU legal framework 

The transitional arrangements contained in the Acts of Accession of 16 April 2003 and 25 
April  2005  provide  that  Member  States  shall  give  preference  to  workers  from  the  Member 
States  subject  to  the  transitional  arrangements  over  workers  who  are  nationals  of  third 
countries as regards access to their labour market, to mitigate the fact that these transitional 
arrangements limit the freedom of workers from the Member States concerned to freely move 
to  other  EU  Member  States  to  work.  This  preferential  treatment  clause  in  the  transitional 
arrangements  is  primary  EU  law  and,  as  such,  prevails  over  secondary  EU  legislation. 
However,  the  2003  and  2005  Accession  Treaties  are  of  temporary  importance  as  they  will 
irrevocably come to an end in April 2011 and December 2013 at the very latest. 

The  2001  proposal  on  economic  migration  referred  to  above  under  1.1.1  contained  some 
specific  rules  on  admission  of  intra-corporate  transferees.  Given  that  this  proposal  was 
withdrawn,  the  only  existing  EU  level  instrument  that  also  addresses  conditions  for  the 
admission  of  intra-corporate  transferees  is  a  1994  Council  resolution  "on  limitations  on 
admission of third-country nationals on the territory of the Member States for employment"8, 
adopted under Article K.1 of the Treaty which set out definition and principles with respect to 
the  admission  of  third-country  intra-corporate  transferees  to  the  EU.  It  is  worth  noting  that 
even  at  a  time  when  restrictive  policies  prevailed9,  intra-corporate  transferees  belonging  to 
key personnel were allowed to enter into EU as a departure from the general rule set up by the 
resolution. 

Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 
concerning  the  posting  of  workers  in  the  framework  of  the  provision  of  services  is  of 
relevance.  This  directive  applies  to  undertakings  established  in  a  Member  State  posting 
workers, in the framework of the transnational provision of services, to an establishment or to 
an undertaking owned by the group in the territory of a Member State, provided there is an 
employment relationship between the undertaking making the posting and the worker during 
the  period  of  posting  (Article  1,  point  3).  This  directive  stipulates  that  posted  workers, 
whatever the law applicable to the employment relationship, should be guaranteed the terms 
and  conditions  of  employment  in  a  listed  number  of  areas  applicable  in  the  Member  State 

7  

8 
9 

Mode 4 is defined in Article  I.2 (d)  of the GATS  as: “the supply of a service….by a service supplier of one  member, through 
presence of natural persons of a member in the territory of another member”. 
OJ No C 274, p. 3-6. 
See in particular considerations under A (i) and (ii). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
where  they  are  posted.  These  are:  maximum  work  periods  and  minimum  rest  periods, 
minimum  paid  annual  holidays,  minimum  rates  of  pay,  including  overtime  rates,  the 
conditions  of  hiring  out  of  workers,  in  particular  the  protection  of  workers  hired  out  by 
temporary employment undertakings, health, safety and hygiene at work, protective measures 
with  regard  to  the  terms  and  conditions  of  employment  of  pregnant  women  or  women  who 
have recently given birth and of children and young people and equality of treatment between 
men and women and other provisions on non-discrimination.  

As Directive 96/71 applies to undertakings established in a Member State, it does not apply in 
principle  to  intra-corporate  transfers  which  concern  secondments  from  an  undertaking 
established  in  a  third  country  to  one  or  several  EU  companies.  Consequently,  as  far  as  no 
employment relationship happens to be created between the ICT and the EU undertaking, the 
Directive 96/71 would not apply. 

In addition, except from this intra-EU mobility, Directive 96/71 has an impact on the design 
of the future instrument on ICTs, since according to its Article 1.4: "Undertakings established 
in  a  non-Member  State  must  not  be  given  more  favourable  treatment  than  undertakings 
established  in  a  Member  State."  As  a  result,  with  a  view  to  preventing  any  competitive 
advantage  for  companies  established  in  third  countries  transferring  employees,  the  latter 
should grant to ICTs at least the level of rights provided in the Directive 96/71 in the areas 
concerned.  

Directive 2009/52/EC providing for minimum standards on sanctions against employers 
of illegally staying third-country nationals, adopted in May 2009, prohibits the employment 
of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals.  "Employment"  is  defined  as  the  exercise  of 
activities  covering  whatever  form  of  labour  or  work  regulated  under  national  law  or 
established  practice  for  or  under  the  direction  and/or  supervision  of  an  employer.  For  the 
purposes  of  this  Directive,  an  "employer"  means  any  natural  person  or  any  legal  entity, 
including temporary work agencies, for or under the direction and/or supervision of whom the 
employment  is  undertaken.  Accordingly,  employers  located  both  in  the  EU  and  in  third 
countries are subject to the provisions of the said Directive.  

The  "Blue  Card"  Directive  covers  the  conditions  of  admission  of  third  country  nationals 
holding higher professional qualifications and presenting a work contract for highly qualified 
employment of at least one year. Moreover, it excludes people entering a Member State under 
commitments made in an international agreement facilitating the entry and temporary stay of 
certain categories of trade- and investment-related natural persons. Intra-corporate transferees, 
who are temporarily seconded on the basis of a work contract with a third country undertaking 
and encompass people entering a Member State under commitments such as those referred to 
above, are therefore excluded from this scope and are accordingly provided relevant specific 
provisions on these aspects. 

The proposal for a Framework Directive (COM(2007)638) provides for the same exclusion 
as  the  Blue  Card  Directive  as  regards  the  people  covered  by  trade  agreements  and  also 
excludes  third-country  nationals  who  are  posted.  Intra-corporate  transferees  are  thus  not 
included in the scope of this directive. 

International agreements 

The temporary presence of natural persons, otherwise referred to as Mode 4, is one of the four 
possible forms of providing a service, as defined by the GATS. As regards ICTs falling under 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
the  definition  applying  to  the  sub-categories  of  managers  and  specialists,  the  EU 
commitments  under  the  GATS  and  bilateral  Free  trade  Agreements  (FTAs)  commits  the 
possibility  to  have  recourse  to  intra-corporate  transferees  in  the  services  and  non-services 
sectors, as applicable, and in the context of provision of services, typically for a maximum of 
three years  (for  managers and specialists) or one year (for graduate trainees), provided they 
meet the requirements specified in the relevant commitments, such as prior employment for 
one year. The sub-category of graduate trainees, which was introduced for the first time in the 
context  of  the  Doha  Development  Agenda  negotiations,  will  allow  the  natural  persons 
belonging to this category to reside in the EU for a period of 1 year. 

10

According  to  the  EU  schedule  of  specific  commitments  under  the  GATS
,  an  ICT  is  a 
natural  person  who  works  within  a  legal  person  other  than  a  non-profit  organization 
established in the territory of a WTO Member and who has been employed by it for at least 
the  year  immediately  preceding  the  date  of  admission.  The  natural  person  is  temporarily 
transferred  in  the  context  of  the  provision  of  a  service  through  commercial  presence  in  the 
territory of the EU Member State concerned. The transfer must be to a commercial presence 
of  the  aforementioned  legal  person,  constituted  in  and  effectively  providing  like  services  in 
the territory of the EU Member State concerned. The natural person concerned must belong to 
one of the following categories: managers (persons working in a senior position)11, specialists 
(who  possess  uncommon  knowledge  essential  to  the  establishment's  service,  research 
equipment,  techniques  or  management)12  or  graduate  trainees13  (persons  with  a  university 
degree who are transferring for career development purposes or to obtain training in business 
techniques or methods). 

In  addition  to  ICTs,  three  other  categories  of  natural  persons  are  covered  under  mode  4, 
namely business visitors (who are seeking for temporary entry for the purpose of negotiating 
for the sale of services or are responsible for the setting up of a commercial presence and are 
allowed  to  stay  for  a  maximum  of  90  days),  contract  service  suppliers  (qualified  workers 
engaged  in  the  supply  of  a  service  on  a  temporary  basis  as  employee  of  a  juridical  person 
which has no commercial presence in any Member State) or independent professionals (self-
employed people who have obtained a service contract for a period not exceeding 12 months). 

It is to be added that the commitments undertaken under the GATS do not cover conditions of 
entry, stay and work, as stated in the EU schedule.14  

In  2002  an  EU-Chile  Association  Agreement15,  in  2008  an  Economic  Partnership 
Agreement (EPA) with the CARIFORUM countries16 and in 2010 bilateral Agreements with 

10 
11 

12 

13 

14 

See WTO Doc. S/L/286 and S/C/W/273 Suppl. 1 of 18 December 2006 and TN/S/O/EEC/Rev.1 of 29 June 2005. 
"Who primarily direct the management of the establishment, receiving general supervision or direction principally from the board 
of  directors  or  stockholders  of  the  business  or  their  equivalent,  including:  directing  the  establishment  or  a  department  or  sub-
division of the establishment; supervising and controlling the work of other supervisory, professional or managerial employees; 
having the authority personally to hire and fire or recommend hiring, firing or other personnel actions". 
"Persons working within a juridical person who possess uncommon knowledge essential to the establishment's service, research 
equipment, techniques or management In assessing such knowledge, account will be taken not only of knowledge specific to the 
establishment,  but  also  of  whether  the  person  has  a  high  level  of  qualification  referring  to  a  type  of  work  or  trade  requiring 
specific technical knowledge, including membership of an accredited profession". 
This category is not currently included in the EU annex to the GATS Agreement but is part of the revised offer submitted by the 
EU on 29 June 2005 within the framework of the Doha Development Agenda negotiations in World Trade Organization (WTO 
Doc. TN/O/EEC/Rev.1 of 29 June 2005). 
See footnote 15 of the EC schedule: " All other requirements of Community and Member States' laws and regulations regarding 
entry, stay, work and social security measures shall continue to apply, including regulations concerning period of stay, minimum 
wages as well as collective wage agreements. Commitments on movement of persons do not apply in cases where the intent or 
effect of such movement is to interfere with or otherwise affect the outcome of any labour/management dispute or negotiation." 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Colombia  and  Peru  on  the  one  hand,  Central  America  on  the  other,  were  also  concluded, 
including provisions on intra-corporate transfers which are similar to those laid down in the 
GATS17. 

National legislation 

Following the investigation carried out on the basis of the responses provided by 24 Member 
States to the questionnaire Migrapol 20718, the main conclusions that can be drawn from the 
Member States survey are as follows: 

-  There  is  a  general  concordance  among  Member  State  on  categories  admitted  as  ICTs, 
generally identified as “key personnel” or “highly skilled personnel”, but admission criteria 
and  work  permit  durations  range  widely  across  EU  Member  State,  and  in  some  cases  the 
procedures for admission can be particularly long or difficult.  

-  Many  Member  State  grant  equal  treatment  with  EU  nationals  and  right  to  family 
reunification but at the same time, conditions and limitations to such rights exist and they 
are  highly  variable  between  Member  States.  Moreover,  the  possibility  for  spouses  to  seek 
employment  in  the  host  country  regardless  of  the  duration  of  the  transferee's  stay  is  rarely 
granted19.  

2.1.2. Statistics and trends on intra-corporate transfers 

The  analysis  presented  here  has  been  considerably  constrained  by  limitations  in  data 
availability  and  significant  lack  of  comparability  of  migration  statistics  at  EU  and 
international level. Moreover, given the very specific nature of the migrant category analyzed, 
there were particular barriers in retrieving relevant literature.  

Several gaps in data collection should be highlighted: 

–  At  EU  level,  Eurostat  does  not  provide  data  on  migration  flows  into  the  Member  States 
including  ICTs,  as  Regulation  862/200720  does  not  currently  provide  for  such  a 
disaggregation of data. The Labour Force Survey (LSF) provides all the available statistics 
on work force at EU level but does not cover foreigners residing for less than one year. 

–  At national level, data is scarce due to the fact that ICTs do not typically receive specific 
residence permits and that according to their length of stay they can enter a Member State 
only with a visa, thereby escaping from the figures. Moreover, even if data is available, the 
statistics are not readily comparable due to significant differences between Member States 
in  the  definitions,  as  demonstrated  by  the  responses  of  EU  Member  States  to  the 
abovementioned  questionnaire.  In  some  Member  States,  there  is  no  concept  of  ICT  as 
such;  others  use  specific  criteria  (e.g.  salary  threshold),  preventing  the  comparability  of 

15

16

17

18

19

20 

Entered into force on 1 February 2003. 
Including  Antigua  and  Barbuda,  Bahamas,  Barbados,  Belize,  Dominica,  The  Dominican  Republic,  Grenada,  ,  Guyana,  Haiti, 
Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Surinam and Trinidad and Tobago. 
However, it should be noted that the category of ICTs as defined in this latter agreement includes the business visitors. 
See Annex 2 for a detailed analysis. 
IE allows ICTs's partner to seek employment without requiring a minimum duration of stay, as is the case e.g. for FR (6 months 
of continuous residence). 
OJ L 199 of 31 July 2007, p. 23. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
 
 
 
 
data.  Most  of  the  time,  ICTs  are  categorized  either  as  highly  qualified  migrants  or  as 
posted workers.  

As a result, despite in-depth research, only patchy data was found regarding numbers of third 
country ICTs in the EU, countries of origin of foreign ICTs and number, size and sectors of 
EU enterprises/host organizations usually hosting ICTs.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Table 1 ICTs in selected Member States – Absolute numbers  

Country 

EU 

Austria21 

France22 

Germany23 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Poland24 

Slovakia 

Slovenia25 

Spain 

Non EU 

Canada* 

Japan* 

United States* 

Switzerland* 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

169 

140 

1510 

1960 

5655 

4429 

398 

459 

1414 

1433 

1709 

1109 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

981 

1,095 

2,784 

3,012 

2,632 

377 

355 

3,800 

4,200 

4,500 

7,400 

8,200 

3,400 

3,600 

4,200 

5,600 

7,200 

57,200 

62,700 

65,500 

72,600 

84,500 

7,514 

4,000 

6,200 

Source: Statistics provided by Member State in their replies to Migrapol 207 and ad-hoc query requested by the Commission on 17th March 
2010 

* Alternative source: International Migration Outlook 2008-2009 (SOPEMI – OECD) 

However,  converging  anecdotal  evidence  shows  the  importance  of  intra-corporate  transfers. 
According  to  statistics  provided  by  International  Migration  Outlook  SOPEMI  (2008),  based 
on selected OECD countries, intra-corporate transfers (including intra-EU transfers) represent 
around  4%  of  temporary  labour  migrants  (working  holidays  makers:  21%;  trainees:  7%; 
seasonal workers: 23%; other temporary workers: 44%).26 Moreover, according to SOPEMI 
2009,  from  one  fourth  to  one  third  of  United  Kingdom  labour  migrants  are  intra-corporate 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
26

Rotationsarbeitskräfte, Art. 58 Settlement and Residence Act. Main economic sectors: Manufacturing (52); wholesale and retail 
trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles (44); professional, scientific and technical activities (18); transporting and storage 
(13); financial and insurance activities (12). Countries of origin: India (19); China (17); US (15); Japan (12); Korea (11); Russia 
(10); Bosnia (10). 
Residence permit 'employee on mission' covering ICTs (either employees of a FR or a third-country company) earning more than 
1,5 time the minimal wage. Main countries of origin (2009): US (685); India (545); Japan (380); Chinese (355); Canadian (320); 
Australia (80); Russia (75); Turkey (70); South Korea (70). Main occupation: 'engineer senior officer' (1325 in 2009). 
International exchange of personnel according to par.31 no. A of the Ordinance on the admission of foreigners for the purpose of 
taking up employment. Main countries of origin (2009): India (2195); US (560); China (472); Brazil (157); Mexico (153); Japan 
(150); Turkey (137). 
Workers posted by a third-country company. Countries of origin (2009): mainly Japan and China; South Korea; Ukraine; Turkey; 
India. 
Expatriate employees from third-countries. Countries of origin (2009): Croatia (925); Bosnia and H. (366); Serbia (87). 

The report emphasises that ICTs are particularly difficult to count since they may be considered as temporary- or permanent-type 
migrants depending on the countries. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
transferees. Looking at the numbers of ICTs coming from Japan27, more than 4500 would be 
working in the EU in 2008. 

Considering the limits of the above figures in terms of availability (given the reduced number 
of Member States and the short trends), reliability (given that some countries’ data are taken 
from  different  sources)  and  comparability  (given  that  countries  may  include  different  skills 
and  categories  of  transferees  within  these  data),  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  draw 
reliable  conclusions  from  such  data.  Nevertheless,  a  tentative  analysis  can  be  performed  to 
give a rough picture of the dimension of this phenomenon in and out of the EU. In fact, these 
figures, however limited they may be, show a relevant presence of ICTs in the Netherlands, 
Germany, Italy, France, Spain and Slovenia and, coupled with the trends at the global level, 
tend  to  confirm  the  longstanding  relevance  of  ICTs  movements  in  the  developed  countries. 
However,  proceeding  in  a  one-to-one  comparison  between  EU  and  non-EU  countries,  it 
appears that the level of ICTs in individual EU Member State is much lower than that in non-
EU  countries  such  as  Canada,  Japan  and  United  States  which  tend  to  attract  such  kind  of 
movements.  

A growing need for intra-corporate transfers into EU 

In recent years, needs for intra-corporate transfers across national borders have increased as a 
result  of  the  globalisation  of  business  and  skill  shortages  with  respect  to  highly  skilled. 
Increases  in  trade  flows,  in  particular  on  trade  related  services,  computer  and  information 
services and the business service activities28 (see Table 1 in Annex 1), the growth and spread 
of  multinationals29,  the  ongoing  re-structuring  and  consolidation  of  many  business  sectors 
have prompted growing movements of managerial and technical employees of branches and 
subsidiaries  of  multinational  corporations,  temporarily  relocated  for  short  assignments  to 
other units of the company

.  

30

In  today’s  global  economy,  production  will  increasingly  be  organised  along  global  supply 
chains.  They  have  become  an  important  factor  in  ensuring  competitiveness  on  domestic  as 
well as global markets. Around two thirds of the EU’s imports are inputs to other products. As 
a  result,  open  trade  helps  embed  local  companies  in  global  production  chains,  makes 
them  more  competitive  and  creates  more  jobs.  Trade  and  investment  flows  are 
complementary, create jobs and promote transfer of technology. 

According to World Bank and OECD, intra-corporate transfers make up 42% of the mode 4 
trade in services which itself represents 2% of the overall trade related services.31 

27 

28 

29 
30

31 

Extract  from  the  report  'Comprehensive  data  of  companies  overseas  2009'  based  on  a  questionnaire  completed  by  Japanese 
companies, Mission of Japan to the European Union, July 2009. 
In  this  connection,  Nasscom's  contribution  is  particularly  relevant  since  it  highlights  this  linkage  between  trade  and  intra-
corporate  transfers.  Nasscom  is  a  global  trade  body  with  over  1200  members  focusing  on  software  products  and  services 
headquartered  in  India.  As  a  backdrop,  it  recalls  that  in  2007,  EU  services  exports  to  India  amounted  to  6.6  billion  and  EU 
services  imports  from  India  included  5.5  billion.  Approximately  30%  of  Nasscom  business  in  2007  was  related  to  Europe,  an 
increase  of  55%  in  comparison  to  2004.  Further  substantial  growth  is  expected  in  2009,  despite  global  uncertainties,  with  an 
expected  growth  in  Europe  by  13%.  Nasscom  observes  that  as  a  result  of  the  intensifying  trade  relations  between  the  EU  and 
India, Europe has become a particular destination for intra-corporate transferees from India especially in the technology sector. 
See Annex 1. 

M. Abella, Policies and Best Practices for Management of Temporary Migration, UN/POP/MIG/SYMP/2006/03, 2006.  

Cité par A. Math (IRES) et Alexis Spire (CNRS, CERAPS-Lille), vers une immigration permanente de travailleurs temporaires, 
juin 2004. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Europe is the largest FDI market and the leading region and it should be stressed that high-
growth economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are increasingly active in the global FDI 
market32.  

33

Available  data  for  selected  EU  Member  States  shows  a  growing  number  of  foreign 
controlled  enterprises  in  recent  years
  Data  reveal  that  the  number  of  foreign  controlled 
enterprises (whose ownership is extra-EU 25) appeared to be witnessing an upward trend in 
. In fact, while most Member States report growing trends 
the business economy since 1996
with  different  percentages  over  the  years  2003-2005,  Member  States  like  NL  (50.5%),  ES 
(43,5%)  and  especially  PT  (272.3%)  witnessed  a  considerable  increase  of  extra-EU  25-
controlled enterprises. Only a few Member States (i.e. BG, CZ35) reported decreasing trends. 

34

In  2005,  foreign  affiliates  whose  ultimate  control  resided  in  extra-EU  countries  generated 
approximately 6.5% of the total value added by enterprises in Europe
. Compared to the total 
number  of  foreign  controlled  enterprises  throughout  the  EU  (EU  and  extra-EU  enterprises), 
extra-EU controlled enterprises constituted around 36% of the value added by the total of EU 
and extra-EU foreign-controlled enterprises
. NL seems to host the highest share of extra-EU 
foreign  affiliates  compared  to  intra-EU  foreign  affiliates,  followed  by  LT,  CY  and  FR. 
According to available data, only six Member States
 report the presence of extra-EU foreign 
affiliates whose percentage is below 25%. 

38

36

37

OECD  data  also  highlights  the  importance  and  the  growth  of  the  main  extra-EU  foreign 
. Their annual average increase between 
affiliates, in particular in the manufacturing sector
1998 and 2004 has nearly always been positive, especially for DK, DE and SE

.  

39

40

2.1.3. The relevance of ICTs for EU competitiveness 

ICTs  are  typically  needed  as  qualified  workers  whom  the  EU  economy  crucially  needs. 
Indeed  transfers  usually  concern  senior  executives  needed  to  supplement  resources  in  a 
context of skills shortages, to establish operations in emerging markets and to create a highly 
mobile senior management staff able to reproduce culture in diverse locations. A qualitative 
survey  carried  out  in  2008  by  Ernst  and  Young/OECD41  on  the  opinions  of  employers 

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

An open world, Ernst and Young's 2008 European attractiveness survey. 
According to EUROSTAT data, foreign control means “the controlling institutional unit is resident in a different country from the 
one  where  the  institutional  unit  on  which  it  has  control  is  resident”.  An  enterprise  is  deemed  to  be  controlled  by  another 
institutional unit that controls, whether directly or indirectly, more than half of the shareholders’ voting power or more than half 
of the shares. It has to be added that the number of foreign-controlled companies cannot be an true "proxy" of ICT's immigration, 
since on one side, ICTs’ movements may occur from the main place of business to a subsidiary and vice versa (underestimation of 
the  inflows  of  ICTs);  on  the  other  hand,  ICTs  only  refer  to  some  categories  of  workers  (e.g.  managers,  key  personnel) 
(overestimation of ICTs movements). 
See tables 7  and 8 in Statistical Appendix (Data on foreign-controlled enterprises (inward  FATS) collected by Eurostat for the 
period 1996-2002). 
However, in the previous years (2003-2004), foreign-controlled enterprises had visibly increased in CZ (67.8%). 
M. Grell, Foreign-controlled enterprises in the EU, Eurostat Statistics in Focus, 30/2008. 
Data for 2005 show that EU and extra-EU foreign-controlled enterprises contributed to around 18.1% of the total value added in 
the EU business economy. 
PT, CZ, SK, BG, EE, RO. 
See Annex 1. 
Slightly negative trends, however, have been witnessed in IE, PL and PT. 
DELSA/ELSA/MI(2008)2. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
regarding  highly  qualified  workforce  shows  that  the  needs  for  highly  qualified  workers  are 
met equally by overseas recruitments and intra-corporate transfers.42 

Human  capital  is  the  key  to  sustaining  growth  and  securing  lasting  economic  success,  as 
talent is becoming the competitive differentiator. A skilled workforce benefits the economy as 
a whole as it makes it easier for enterprises to adopt new technologies, innovate in products 
and  services,  processes  or  work  organisation.  The  combination  of  globalisation,  increased 
competition,  information  and  communication  technologies  and  organisational  change  will 
also  lead  to  less  routine  manufacturing  and  office  jobs.  As  the  'skill  intensity'  of  jobs  will 
continue to increase, in line with increased consumers expectations, the global competition for 
talent  will  grow  in  the  future.  In  that  respect,  it  is  worth  noting  that  Indian  and  Chinese 
companies  are  now  reporting  a  lack  of  high  level  skills.  Future  demographic  trends  add 
further  pressure  to  tackle  this  challenge.  Fewer  and  fewer  young  people  will  graduate  from 
schools  and  universities  and  the  working  age  population  will  start  to  decline  from  2013 
onwards.  Therefore,  EU  will  need  to  open  up  to  global  talent.  In  that  context,  proactive 
immigration policies 'reaching out' to talents and skills will need to be another component of a 
long-term solution to the threat of labour shortages in Europe.43 

However, ICTs are not only qualified workers. One of their main characteristics is that they 
meet  a  demand  in  situations  where  there  are  no  alternatives:  they  fill  the  posts  that  would 
otherwise be left vacant, since no substitute could be found to occupy a post requiring such a 
specific knowledge. ICTs bring with them a methodology and particular skills set which are 
specific  to  the  company's  business  needs  and  culture.  Since  the  cost  of  an  ICT  is  usually 
higher  to  the  cost  of  a  local  employee,  as  a  result  from  assignment  allowances  (per  diem, 
accommodation  costs,  cultural  and  language  training,  education  fees  for  the  ICTs'  children, 
etc.),  the  ICT  would  not  be  brought  in  if  the  skills  were  readily  available  locally.  It 
follows that business only resort to transfer the foreign resource if there is a strong business 
case, in the form of needed skills, to justify the expenses. 

In  contrast  with  EU  Blue  Card  holders,  ICTs  are  also  temporary  workers.  Intra-corporate 
transfers  thus  meet  specific  short-term  needs.  Given  that  intra-corporate  transferees  carry 
out  time-limited  assignments  usually  followed  by  a  return  to  the  country  where  their 
permanent  employer  is  based44  and  that  according  to  available  data,  they  are  more  likely  to 
come from developed countries than from developing countries45, brain drain does not appear 
to be an issue. Even though some of the ICTs originated in the latter countries, the temporary 
nature of this kind of migration would indeed rather result in fostering the transfer of skills 
and knowledge to these countries.  

Since  the  secondment  of  ICTs  goes  along  with  a  strategy  of  expansion  and  investments  of 
non-EU companies, they have also the capacity to attract investments. 

Therefore, the transfer of qualified employees to the EU has the potential to bring skills and 
reinforce  centres  of  excellence  in  the  EU.  It  increases  investment  flows,  strengthens 

42

43 
44 

45 

For a in-depth analysis of the EU state of play as regards highly skilled employment, we refer to the impact assessment carried out 
in the framework of the proposal for a Blue Card Directive (Sec (2007)1382). 
Excerpts from New Sills for New Jobs: Action Now. Report by the Expert Group. February 2010. 
See extract from the report 'Comprehensive data of companies overseas 2009' based on a questionnaire completed by Japanese 
companies,  Mission  of  Japan  to  the  European  Union,  July  2009:  the  rate  of  return  to  Japan  after  the  end  of  services  in  EU  is 
evaluated at 94%. 
See Table 1 ICTs in selected Member States and footnotes. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
management effectiveness, expands EU exports, enhance the competitiveness of EU entities 
in overseas markets46. Such a contribution is even more relevant in time of economic crisis. 

Examples of occurrences of intra-corporate transfers 

-a multinational IT-company with large development operations outside the EU has developed a new software 
programme. Due to great demand for this programme in the EU, the company decides to temporarily assign one 
of its workers to one of its affiliate branches in Europe to introduce the software and train EU employees on this 
system (transfer of know how)  

-newly-recruited staff with management potential are assigned to different branch of the group of undertakings 
in order to gain the same level of experience and knowledge as their counterparts within the group 

2.2. What is the problem that may require action? 

Obstacles  to  intra-corporate  transfers  to  Europe:  the  growing  needs  of  EU  business 
regarding this kind of mobility are not satisfactorily met 

As reported by literature and demonstrated by the consultation of relevant stakeholders, some 
factors  currently  limit  the  possibility  of  international  firms  to  rely  on  mobility  of  ICTs. 
Many  multinationals  wishing  to  transfer  their  personnel  claimed  some  rigidities  and 
limitations, including: 

–  lack of clear specific schemes in some EU Member States, although migrants covered by 

the international trade commitments benefit from a specific legal framework; 

–  complexity  of  visa  or  work  permit  requirements  and  uncertainty  of  the  rule;  the 

labour market test constitutes one significant hindrance in that respect;  

–  wide differentiation between EU Member States with respect to conditions of admission 

and supporting documents;  

–  rigidities  and  costs  in  transferring  foreign  ICTs  from  one  European  corporate 
headquarter  to  another  (absence  of  intra-EU  mobility):  progress  in  EU  integration  and 
globalisation has boosted the number of ICTs who move across Member States, resulting 
in  a  growing  need  for  intra-EU  mobility.  Indeed,  intra-EU  mobility  is  considered  very 
relevant  to  stakeholders  and  a  majority  of  Member  States.  According  to  some  rough 
estimates,  the  share  of  ICTs  having  recourse  to  intra-EU  mobility  amounts  to  about  10-
25% of the total number of ICTs. Intra-EU mobility can take two different forms: firstly, 
during the foreseen duration of the assignment, the third country national transferred into 
the EU Member States' territory may be assigned to different entities located in different 
Member  States,  for  example  on  a  part-time  basis  or  to  take  part  in  different  projects 
(development  of  work  in  "project  mode");  this  may  be  the  case  for  both  managers  and 
specialists;  secondly,  at  the  end  of  the  first  assignment,  the  ICT  could  be  called  on  in  a 
second  entity  located  in  another  Member  State.  In  particular,  rotations  across  multiple 
countries within the EU are often organised in the framework of a training programme for 
high level new employees. Part of this intra-EU mobility is already covered by Directive 
96/71 and the relevant case-law relating to freedom of provision of services. However, this 

46

International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, OECD Policy Brief, July 2002. GATS Mode 4 also points to a relation between FDI 
and ICT.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
mobility only concerns posting by EU companies and does not include posting from third-
country companies. 

As regards costs, they include costs with respect to becoming familiar with diverse national 
regulations,  obtaining,  translating,  transmitting  the  documents  and  managing  this  process. 
These procedures are often dealt with by several consultants in each individual Member State. 
Other costs such as travel, accommodation, training, coordination, are to be added if several 
ICTs  have  to  be  transferred  as  opposed  to  one  ICT  being  transferred.  Indirect  costs  cover 
possible delay in implementing the project. 

–  delays  in  completing  permit  procedures  needed  to  transfer  employees  in  an  efficient  and 
timely  manner,  though  fast  access  to  international  teams  and  expertise  is  essential  for 
companies to remain competitive and being able to respond to changing customer needs47; 
the time required by Member States to process applications vary greatly from a few days or 
weeks  to  several  months  (up  to  6  months),  3  months  being  apparently  an  average  time 
according to Member States' responses;  

–  uncertainty regarding the time needed to process an application; 

–  work  permits  with  too  limited  a  duration  and  consequent  burdensome  renewal 

procedures; 

–  difficulty to obtain family reunification and impossibility for the partner to have access 
to  the  labour  market,  although  concerns  about  partner's  employment  are  one  of  the  main 
reasons why staff turn down international assignments48; 

–  lack of transferability of pensions schemes. 

Evidence  actually  exists  of  the  difficulties  faced  in  order  to  obtain  a  permit  for  ICTs.  An 
example  is  the  case  of  a  Japanese  manager  who  waited  12  months  to  be  transferred  to  a 
branch of his multinational company located in Italy. Moreover, after 12 months, he still had 
not  received  the  definitive  documents  (i.e.  the  work  permit)  but  only  a  temporary 
documentation,  with  additional  problems  related  to  family  reunification  and  access  of  his 
children to the Italian educational system49. 

The complexity and length of the procedures for obtaining the permits could discourage, or at 
least influence, the inflows of ICTs in the EU Member States, with a loss of the potential 
benefit that they could bring (innovation, competition, expansion of activities, facilitation of 
ICTs from EU/reinforcement of EU position in its relationship with international partners, and 
ultimately creation of wealth and growth). It should indeed be kept in mind that these highly 
skilled  workers  are  increasingly  exercising  more  choice  when  it  comes  to  pursuing 
employment  that  meets  their  expectations.  In  that  connection,  more  than  40%  of  the 
companies surveyed by EY/OECD in 2008 indicated that administrative burden has directly 
affected the implementation of some projects. 

47

48 
49

According to the qualitative survey carried out in 2008 by Ernst and Young/OECD, 80% of companies surveyed view that point 
as a main obstacle. 
See Work Permit's reply to questionnaire Migrapol 207. 
Source: Sole-24 Ore, 11 of March 2007, n. 69.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
In addition, the ease in which companies can move their key personnel around plays an 
important role in determining whether to set up business in a particular country -and, by 
extension, in a definite area such as Europe. According to a survey undertaken in 2007 on the 
attractiveness of Europe to foreign investors, almost 70% of the businesses which participated 
affirmed that the treatment of expatriate executives is an important criterion for selecting an 
investment  location  and  required  greater  flexibility  and  simpler  administrative  procedures 
within Europe50. In the same line, additional key areas of reforms cited to encourage business 
investment  in  the  already  mentioned  Ernst  and  Young  Attractiveness  Survey  include 
simplification  of  the  regulatory  environment  on  a  European  level.  Knowing  that  a  new  FDI 
project  in  Europe  creates  in  average  87  jobs51,  the  design  of  attractive  rules  regarding 
expatriate executives may translate into large benefits for the EU labour markets. 

In  addition,  these  rigidities  hamper  the  effective  implementation  of  GATS  commitments. 
They also result in limiting the ability of companies to exploit their internal human resources. 

The need for EU action has been particularly stressed by some stakeholders such as Business 
Europe,  AmCham  EU  (companies  of  American  parentage),  Pendo  Group  (business  and 
technology consulting and outsourcing firms), Indian companies represented by Nasscom and 
the Japanese Government. 

Guaranteeing fair competition 

At the same time, intra-corporate transfers raise the question of possible unfair competition. 
Trade  Unions  are  typically  concerned  that  mode  4  will  lead  to  more  EU  unemployment,  a 
dismantling of the EU's social model and downward pressure on wages. In the framework of 
the consultation for the purposes of a proposal on ICTs, the ETUC stated the view that "the 
directive must be drafted in such a way that it cannot be used to avoid the protection of wages 
and working conditions (…) and EU law regarding equal treatment and non-discrimination in 
the  workplace  (…).  Such  a  directive  can  be  welcome  if  its  scope  only  covers  executives, 
managers or specialized workforce (…). A European directive must ensure that ICTs are not 
used for social dumping (…)".  

Since ICTs can be posted from companies located in third countries with possible low social 
standards, there is indeed a danger that foreign companies might pay the minimum salary of a 
low-income country while having the ICT deployed in a high-income country, which would 
undercut the national workforce and create an uneven playing field for business. 

The risks of social dumping are to be linked to a series of factors, some of them depending on 
the country of origin (low labour costs), integral to the temporary nature of this category of 
migration  (difficulties  to  inspect  the  working  conditions  for  labour  inspections  due  to  the 
short  period  of  work)  or  relating  to  international  agreements  in  the  area  of  social  security 
(allowing  the  third  country  national  to  remain  subject  to  the  home  country  social  security 
regime and resulting in varying levels of social insurance contributions). 

This  concern  is  based  on  anecdotal  evidence  from  Trade  Unions  and  mainly  fuelled  by  the 
experience drawn from the EU posting of workers legislation. However, as ICTs are typically 
qualified and well-paid workers, exploitation is usually not a concern for social partners.  

50

51

Wanted: A renewable Europe, European Attractiveness Survey 2007, Ernst & Young. 
An open world, Ernst and Young's 2008 European attractiveness survey. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
Possible evolution of the problem all things being equal 

According  to  convergent  sources,  the  need  for  highly  qualified  resources  will  increase  in 
the future. As shown in a medium-term forecast carried out by CEDEFOP52, a shift towards 
services and knowledge-intensive jobs is underway and accompanied by a continuing growth 
in demand for many high-skilled non-manual jobs such as management, professional work or 
technical  support  of  those  activities.  53  In  EU25,  between  2006  and  2020,  the  proportion  of 
jobs  requiring  high  levels  of  education  attainment  should  rise  from  25.1%  to  31.3%.  In 
addition,  up  to  2020,  in  EU25  17.7  million  additional  jobs  could  be  created  in  high-skilled 
non-manual occupations. The 2008 Ernst and Young/OECD survey54 also points out that 70% 
of companies surveyed anticipate an increase in the hiring of highly skilled workers55 in the 3-
5  next  years  and  more  than  80%  plan  to  recruit  highly  qualified  immigrants  to  meet  their 
needs. These projections may be impacted by the economic turndown; however, the growing 
demand  for  a  more  qualified  workforce  will  remain,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  according  to 
converging studies, companies rely heavily on their internal labour markets for skills.  

Another factor that will have a crucial influence in the evolution of the problem: employers 
are increasingly relying on temporary workers56. 

In  absence  of  any  common  regulation,  companies  face  difficulties  to  allocate  at  best  their 
personnel and to bring in highly-qualified workers from an extra-EU subsidiary: attractiveness 
of  EU  for  foreign  investments  and  EU  competitiveness  are  therefore  affected.  At  the  same 
time,  in  the  absence  of  common  rules  regarding  the  working  conditions,  intra-corporate 
transferees  could  undercut  nationals  and  EU  citizens  and  bring  about  unfair  competition. 
Absence  of  a  clear  legal  framework  and  wide  differentiations  between  national  regulations 
can  also  affect  the  efficient  functioning  of  the  EU  internal  market:  ICTs  may  be  officially 
transferred  to  Member  States  where  the  regulations  are  the  most  attractive  in  terms  of 
administrative procedure or family rights, then temporarily transferred to other Member States 
without any work permit, taking advantage of the freedom of movement across the Schengen 
area. 

2.3. EU right to act and subsidiarity 

2.3.1. EU right to act  

The legal basis for EU action in the area is established in Article 79 (2) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning the European Union. This Article states that "the Union shall develop a common 
immigration  policy  aimed  at  ensuring,  at  all  stages,  the  efficient  management  of  migration 
flows,  fair  treatment  of  third-country  nationals  residing  legally  in  Member  States,  and  the 
prevention  of,  and  enhanced  measures  to  combat,  illegal  immigration  and  trafficking  in 
human  beings.  For  the  purposes  of  paragraph  1,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council, 
acting  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure,  shall  adopt  measures  in  the 
following  areas:  (a)  the  conditions  of  entry  and  residence,  and  standards  on  the  issue  by 
Member  States  of  long-term  visas  and  residence  permits;  (b)  the  definition  of  the  rights  of 

52
53 

54
55 
56

CEDEFOP: Future skill needs in Europe – Medium-term forecast, Synthesis report, 2008. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  "New  skills  for  new  jobs.  Anticipating  and  matching  labour  market  and  skills 
needs"COM(2008)868 final. 
See footnote 41. 
Among these workers, a significant number of companies anticipate an increase in the hiring of immigrants from China and India. 
SOPEMI 2008, OECD. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
third-country nationals residing legally in a Member State, including the conditions governing 
freedom of movement and of residence in other Member States". 

The main purpose of EU action is to design an admission instrument for ICTs, thus, to define 
conditions of entry and rights according to Art 79 of the Treaty. The previous Article 63 TCE 
did  not  mention  explicitly  the  definition  of  rights  but  the  conditions  of  residence  were 
considered  to  include  the  working  conditions,  which  were  regulated  as  ancillary  matters  to 
entry  and  residence.  The  same  approach  had  been  already  adopted  for  existing  migration 
acquis,  such  as  Directives  2003/109  (long-term  residents)  and  2005/71  (researchers),  or  the 
"EU Blue Card" Directive.  

2.3.2. Principles of subsidiarity and proportionality 

It  must  be  noted  that  the  problems  fall  under  a  competence  shared  by  the  Union  and  the 
Member States. The principle of subsidiarity therefore applies, requiring that the Union does 
not take action unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. 

The reasons for a common intervention at EU level derive from the following issues:  

Facilitating  intra-EU  mobility:  rigidities  in  transferring  foreign  ICTs  from  a  European 
corporate headquarter to another are important for multinational companies. The removal of 
these rigidities can only be achieved through action at the EU level, by facilitating intra-EU 
mobility, which requires a common system to admit these workers.  

Enhancing the attractiveness of the EU as a whole: the way ICTs are treated, as well as the 
conditions  and  procedures  regulating  these  movements  influence  the  extent  to  which 
multinational companies decide to do business or invest in a certain area. Therefore, action at 
the EU level would contribute to enhance the attractiveness of the EU as a whole for foreign 
investments and send a clear message to third country national ICTs.  

There is a need to provide for common conditions of admission for ICTs (principle of equal 
treatment)  in  order  to  ensure  a  fair  competition  and  prevent  risks  of  unfair  competition 
posed by companies who would employ ICTs under sub-standard conditions. 

Fulfillment  of  EU  international  commitments  in  the  context  of  the  WTO:  the  high 
differentiation between Member States in terms of entry procedures and temporary residency 
rights may hamper the uniform application of the international commitments which EU and 
its Member States has undertaken in the framework of the WTO negotiations (with particular 
reference to GATS Mode 4).  

In  this  concern,  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  conditions  under  which  ICTs  can  perform  their 
economic activity fall under the Common Commercial Policy (which is an area of exclusive 
EU  responsibility),  whereas  entry  and  (temporary)  residence  conditions  fall  under  the 
immigration  policy  (an  area  of  shared  competence  between  Member  States  and  the  Union). 
From  this  perspective,  action  at  EU  level  (rather  than  at  Member  State  level)  on  entry  and 
residence  conditions  of  ICTs  would  better  ensure  full  consistency  and  complementarity 
between immigration policy and Common Commercial Policy.  

2.3.3. EU added value 

Added value lies in the following aspects in particular: 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
–  ICTs  and  multinational  companies  would  benefit  from  a  common,  transparent  and 
attractive European framework for key personnel, reinforcing the EU knowledge economy 
and fostering investments; 

–  A  common  legal  framework  laying  down  common  conditions  of  admission  for  ICTs 

contribute to ensuring fair competition.  

3. 

SETTING OBJECTIVES 

3.1. Main objective 

The  global  objective  is  to  support  economic  development  of  EU  businesses  by  better 
responding  to  their  needs  for  intra-corporate  transfers  of  skills,  while  guaranteeing  fair 
competition. 

This  objective  is  consistent  with  the  EU  2020  strategy  which  sets  the  EU  the  objective  of 
becoming  an  economy  based  on  knowledge  and  innovation,  reducing  administrative  burden 
on companies and better matching labour supply with demand.  

3.2. Specific Objectives 

The  specific  objectives,  i.e.  the  immediate  objectives  of  a  possible  EU  intervention,  are  the 
following:  

1.  To  provide  for  a  transparent  legal  framework  including  a  set  of  common  conditions  of 
admission for third country national ICTs entering into EU.  

2.  To  create  more  attractive  conditions  of  stay  for  third  country  national  ICTs  and  their 
families. 

3. To facilitate (intra-EU) mobility

of third country national ICTs  

4.  To  guarantee  fair  competition,  including  a  secure  legal  status  for  third  country  national 
ICTs. 

5. To facilitate the fulfillment of EU international commitments in the context of the GATS. 

4. 

Developing policy options 

Identification of the list of policy options: 

Option 1: Status quo 

Current developments in Member States would continue within the existing legal framework. 
However, this would mean that the EU as a whole would not be attractive for enterprises and 
companies, which would still face difficulties in making best use of their staff, although the 
need for highly qualified resources would be increasing.  

Option 2) Directive dealing with the conditions of entry and residence of ICTs 

The  EU  would  provide  a  common  definition  of  an  intra-corporate  originating  from  an 
undertaking established outside the territory of a Member State.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
Sub-option 2A: The schedules annexed to the GATS57 would be used to provide a definition 
of an inter-corporate transfer. In order to ensure that immigration policy is in line with trade 
policy and to make use of already known concepts, the definitions included in the schedules 
could  therefore  used  as  a  basis,  which  would  be  adapted  when  needed.  However,  the 
schedules  cannot  be  taken  up  as  such,  since  they  do  not  provide  a  homogeneous  set  of 
conditions  for  the  27  Member  States:  commitments  may  vary  from  one  Member  State  to 
another, including on the specifications of the service sectors covered. Finally, by definition, 
they only concern the sector of services (the transfer must be to a commercial presence of the 
legal person providing like services), whereas an intra-corporate transfer can also take place 
outside  the  sector  of  service.  As  a  result,  the  scope  of  the  intra-corporate  transferees  as 
defined  by  the  Trade  agreements  could  be  slightly  different  from  that  of  the  future  scheme. 
Nevertheless, Member States would not  be exempted from respecting their commitments as 
regards the categories of ICTs who would not be covered by the scheme. 

Accordingly, the definitions target managers, specialists and graduate trainee, defined in the 
schedules annexed to the GATS as follows: ‘manager’ means any person working in a senior 
position,  who  primarily  directs  the  management  of  the  host  entity,  receiving  general 
supervision or direction principally from the board of directors or shareholders of the business 
or equivalent; ‘specialist’ means any person possessing uncommon knowledge essential and 
specific  to  the  host  entity;  ‘graduate  trainee’  means  any  person  with  a  higher  education 
qualification  who  is  transferring  for  career  development  purposes  or  to  obtain  training  in 
business  techniques  or  methods.  As  regard  this  latter  category,  flowing  from  the  Doha 
negotiations,  it  was  considered  more  consistent  to  include  them  into  the  attractive  scheme 
dedicated to ICTs rather than the future proposal for a Directive on remunerated trainees, as 
training is one of the most common objectives of the intra-corporate transfers mentioned by 
stakeholders. 

Sub-option  2B:  Instead  of  being  defined  along  their  types  of  responsibility  in  the  company, 
key personnel would be indentified through salary and qualifications criteria, as in the Blue 
Card Directive. This option would thus consist of amending that Directive by including intra-
corporate transferees in its scope. Specific provisions could be provided, where relevant, for 
example  as  regards  the  requirement  of  a  work  contract  with  a  EU  company  (irrelevant  for 
ICTs),  duration  of  stay  (whereas  the  schedules  under  the  GATS  foresee  that  the  maximum 
duration  of  stay  is  as  a  rule  limited  to  3  years  for  managers  and  specialists,  the  Blue  Card 
scheme  lays  down  provisions  aiming  at  facilitating  the  issuing  of  the  long-term  residence 
permit (Art 17, 13, 14, 15), labour market test (typically excluded by EU commitments under 
GATS), mobility between the entities of the transnational corporation (not provided for Blue 
Card holders). 

Criteria of entry (i.e. admission criteria) would be laid down in accordance with the definition 
chosen.  

Evidence must be provided that the transfer indeed took place within a group of undertakings: 
institutional links between host entity and entity of origin must therefore be proved.  

As the system is demand-driven, a document describing the tasks assigned would have to be 
produced.  This  supporting  document  would  also  specify 
the  remuneration  (salary 
arrangements  and  other  related  remuneration  elements)  which  must  be,  whether  it  is  an 

57 

See WTO Doc. S/L/286 and S/C/W/273 Suppl. 1 of 18 December 2006 and TN/S/O/EEC/Rev.1 of 29 June 2005. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
intrinsic  element  of  the  definition  or  not,  at  least  equivalent  to  that  granted  to  EU  posted 
workers (see above on rights).  

With a view to ensuring that the skills of the intra-corporate transferee are specific to the host 
entity  and  in  accordance  with  EU  commitments  in  the  trade  area,  a  period  of  12  months  of 
prior employment within the single legal person could be required58.  

In  addition,  a  third-country  national  who  applies  to  be  admitted  as  graduate  trainee  would 
have to present documents proving that he will be doing genuine training and not be used as 
regular  worker.  Therefore,  a  training  agreement  including  a  description  of  the  training 
programme, its duration and the conditions in which he/she is supervised in the performance 
of  this  programme  would  be  required.  The  trainee  would  also  have  to  present  documents 
showing  his/her  the  higher  education  qualification,  in  line  with  the  requirements  provided 
under EU commitments in the trade area.  

No labour market test would be necessary: indeed, the latest EU commitments under GATS 
exclude any labour market test ('economic needs test') and an alignment of these conditions 
should  be  sought  for  the  sake  of  consistency  between  Trade  and  Immigration  policies.  In 
addition, such a test would be in contradiction with the purpose of setting up a transparent and 
simplified  scheme  for  admission  of  skilled  intra-corporate  transferees.  ICTs,  who  belong  to 
the  internal  human  resources  of  the  company  in  question,  hold  very  specific  positions 
(managers,  specialists  or  graduate  trainees)  for  a  temporary  duration  and  on  the  basis  of  an 
employment  contract  concluded  with  a  third  country  employer:  due  to  these  particular 
features, ICTs are usually not considered as likely to adversely affect national labour markets. 
However, primary law prevails and for Member States which happen to apply a transitional 
period  to  nationals  of  "new"  Member  States,  Union  preference  –  and  consequently  labour 
market test- must be applied. 

In line with commitments under GATS, the maximum duration of stay would be limited to 3 
years for managers and specialists and 1 year for graduate trainees. At the end of this period, 
the ICT should have to leave the EU territory, unless he/she is authorized to change status. 

Criteria of residence and the rights to be granted to ICTs: working conditions of ICTs would 
be  aligned  to  those  laid  down  by  Directive  96/71/EC  on  posted  workers.  As  regards  other 
categories of rights, different options could be envisaged: 

Sub-option 2C: in line with EU acquis in the immigration field (e.g.: Blue Card) and ongoing 
proposals  (e.g.:  framework  directive),  ICTs  would  be  granted  equal  treatment  with  national 
workers of the Member State concerned in a large range of rights, in particular representation 
(i.e. right to association and affiliation of workers organizations), access to goods and services 
and  recognition  of  diplomas.  In  order  to  ensure  consistency  with  other  EU  instruments  (in 
particular the Blue Card Directive) and to avoid putting into question the possible favourable 
status of ICTs, tax benefits would not be not included .  

Sub-option  2D:  the  proposal  would  merely  refer  to  the  provisions  of  Directive  96/7159 
regarding working conditions. No other rights would be provided. As a result, ICTs would not 
benefit  from  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  in  a  number  of  areas  such  as:  recognition  of 

58 

59 

Most Member States are in favour of such a condition, but some of them would like to shorten or remove this period (ex: NL, SE, 
IT). As regards business organisations, they oppose this criterion. 
See 2.1.1. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
diplomas, certificates and other professional qualifications; and access to goods and services 
and the supply of goods and services made available to the public. 

These  provisions  would  be  without  prejudice  to  bilateral  agreements  concluded  by  Member 
States in this area.  

Option 3) Directive providing for intra-EU mobility for ICTs 

In  addition  to  definitions,  conditions  and  admission  and  rights,  provisions  would  be 
introduced  to  allow  the  ICTs  to  move  within  the  EU,  in  order  to  work  in  several 
establishments belonging to the same group of undertakings and located in different Member 
States.  The  situation  where  an  ICT  is  posted  by  the  first  EU  company  to  another  company 
located in another Member State are not covered by this scheme, as they fall under the posted 
workers Directive.  

This option is supported by a majority of Member States (exceptions: DE, EE, SK, CY) and 
deemed highly relevant by all stakeholders. 

A TCN who has been admitted as an ICT and fulfils the criteria for admission to the second 
Member State could be allowed to carry out part of his/her assignment,  upon request,  in an 
entity  of  the  same  group  located  in  the  second  Member  State,  without  having  to  request  a 
second  residence  permit,  provided  that  the  duration  of  the  secondment  did  not  exceed  a 
maximum period of time to be determined (e.g. 12 months). 

A document accompanying the first residence permit issued by the first Member State would 
list the entities of the group of undertakings in which the ICT was authorized to work. As a 
flanking  measure,  the  second  Member  State  could  be  informed  of  the  conditions  of  this 
mobility: the applicant would notify to the competent authority of the other Member State the 
relevant documents relating to his/her transfer to that Member State at least 30 days before the 
transfer and would also provide evidence of this notification to  the first Member  State. The 
second  Member  State  would  thus  have  the  opportunity  to  check  that  the  conditions  of 
admission specific to the job performed in its territory and to the host entity (such as: part of a 
group of undertakings, level of salary and position held) are met. When they are not, the list 
of entities where the ICT is allowed to work would not be enlarged and the ICT would thus 
not be authorized to work in those locations. 

The  second  Member  State  could require  a  residence  permit  if the  duration  of  work  exceeds 
three months but could not require the intra-corporate transferee to leave its territory in order 
to submit applications. 

Option 4) Directive facilitating family reunification and access to work for spouses 

This option would provide common definitions and conditions of admission. In addition, by 
way  of  derogation  from  Directive  2003/86/EC,  family  reunification  would  not  be  made 
dependent  on  the  requirement  of  obtaining  the right  of  permanent  residence  and  of  the  ICT 
having a minimum period of residence. 

Residence permits for family members could also be granted more rapidly (e.g. 2 months).  

In respect of access to the labour market, Member States could be prevented from applying 
the time limit of 12 months and spouses would thus have access to work in their country of 
residence. These provisions would be identical to the ones provided to Blue Card Holders. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
Member  States  mainly  agree  with  this  facilitation  but  usually  link  the  access  to  the  labour 
market to a minimum duration of stay in the EU, in general 6 months (SE, IT and FR). Some 
other  Member  States  are  against  the  creation  of  a  specific  right  in  this  matter  (ex:  DE,  AT, 
CY, PL and RO).  

Option 5) Directive laying down common admission procedures  

Elements  of  option  2  remain  (definition;  conditions  of  admission).  In  addition,  the 
introduction  of  a  single  permit  for  work  and  residence  is  proposed:  it  means  that  a  single 
60
document allowing to work and reside on the territory of the Member State would be issued
, 
which  would  imply  also  a  one-stop  shop  procedure  for  obtaining  the  permit.  Member  State 
mainly agree on this point (except for NL, SK and AT). 

In parallel, a maximum time for processing applications would be set for the single permit, 
e.g. 1 month: one of the major aims is indeed to facilitate the mobility of this specific category 
of  migrants;  moreover,  the  labour  market  test  would  not  be  applicable  and  the  procedure 
would be then simplified.  

Member States are generally in favour of a longer handling-time61. 

Options 2, 3, 4, 5 may be added, whereas the following option is alternative to the previous 
ones: 

Option 6) To foster communication, coordination, and cooperation among Member States on 
these issues, including through the open method of coordination 

No  new  legislation  would  be  introduced  but  the  Commission  would  focus  its  attention  on 
complementary  and  supporting  activities.  The  aim  is  to  bring  the  legislative  practices  of 
Member  States  closer  into  line  through  the  gathering  and  exchange  of  knowledge  and 
information  –including  best  practices–,  performing  comparative  analyses,  giving  advice, 
promoting innovative approaches and best practice, and evaluating experiences.  

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  

5.1. Options 

The assessments of policy options are presented in the tables below. Brief summaries of the 
policy options are provided above the relevant assessment grid. At the end of each grid, the 
opinions of the consulted stakeholders on the policy options are reported. 

Each policy option has been assessed according to a ranking, which considers the positive (√) 
and  negative  (-)  impacts,  as  well  as  neutral  ones  (0),  for  each  of  the  assessment  criteria 
considered.  

Regarding the impact on fundamental rights, it should be made clear that the Charter applies 
to every person irrespective of nationality or residence (Article 51). All the options considered 

60

61 

These  provisions  could  build  on  Regulation  1030/2002  laying  down  a  uniform  format  for  residence  permits  for  third-country 
nationals.  
According to Migrapol 207, current situation in this area is following: BE: 4-6 weeks; BG, HU, IT, NL, ES: 1-3 months; AT: 6 
months as a rule. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
within this Impact Assessment comply with all the rights included in the Charter. However, 
less  enhanced. 
depending  on 

these  rights  will  be  more  or 

the  option  chosen, 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Policy Option 1 – Status quo 

Assessment Criteria  

Rating 

Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 

Relevance  

To support economic development of EU 
businesses, while guaranteeing a fair 
competition. 

0 

Expected Impacts 

Economic Impacts at EU level 

0 

Social Impacts at EU level 

Impacts on third countries 

Impacts on fundamental rights 

Administrative burdens 

Difficulty/risks for transposition 

Financial impact 

Stakeholders’ view 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-The EU is not attractive as a whole for enterprises which face difficulties in 
making best use of their staff, although the need for highly qualified 
resources is increasing. National regulations continue to vary. 

- Some Member States set up specific schemes (facilitations in terms of 
procedures and rights) to attract ICTs but because of their fragmentation, 
such schemes are unable to enhance the attractiveness of the EU as a whole. -
In the absence of EU intervention, the issue of intra-EU mobility for ICTs is 
not addressed, creating obstacles to swift and effective allocation of human 
resources for companies. 

- As there is no clarification of the set of rights granted to TCN ICTs, the risk 
of unfair competition towards other posted workers covered by Directive 
96/71 continues to exist. 

-A growing number of people are choosing an international career and the 
needs for higher skills are growing. When admission procedures remain 
under the competence of the Member States, the uncertainty and delays in the 
transference of key personnel and experts will continue. The competitiveness 
of the EU will therefore be negatively impacted, since companies will 
continue to encounter difficulties in attracting and bringing in ICTs.  

-Moreover, due to difficulties raised by the transfer of their nationals, third 
countries could hamper the transfer of EU nationals to subsidiaries 
established in their territory 

-In the absence of EU common specific rules as regards the working 
conditions and further rights applicable to the ICTs transferred by third-
country companies, there is risk of unfair competition by third country 
companies. 

-Bilateral agreements in the Trade area may have an impact on the 
movements of ICTs. 

-The socio-economic position of TCN ICTs would depend on how far 
national rules grant rights and benefits to them. 

It depends on national Member State legislation, whether for ICT the 
fundamental rights of Article 7 (i.e. respect for private and family life), 
Article 12 (freedom of association and affiliation), Articles 15, 21 and 31 
(fair and equal working conditions) and Article 34 (social schemes) are 
sufficiently addressed.  

Feasibility 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

According to all stakeholders, a status-quo would be harmful for the 
competitiveness of EU companies and the valorisation of human resources 
by multinational companies. In addition, some stakeholders (IOM, ETUC), 
point to the current absence of safeguards regarding the level of rights 
granted to ICTs. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
Policy Option 2 - Directive dealing with conditions of entry and residence for ICTs 

Assessment Criteria  

Rating 

Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to achieve the 
impact 

To support economic development of 
EU businesses, while guaranteeing a 
fair competition 

VVV (2A, 
2C) 

VV (2B, 
2D) 

Relevance  

This option provides clear conditions of entry (notably, no labour market test), and 
stay and therefore enhances the transparency of the legal environment. Specific 
rules of admission are set up for ICTs. 

However, the rules still vary in terms of procedure (including the period of time 
needed to process the applications). Rights regarding family reunification are left to 
the discretion of Member States and intra-EU mobility is not provided. 

Sub-option 2A based on the positions occupied by ICTs provides for a broader 
scope than sub-option 2B, since criteria of salary and qualifications would not 
apply. In-house experts or managers would thus qualify, even if they are not able to 
demonstrate any higher education qualifications. Likewise, graduate trainees could 
be admitted even if they do not yet receive a high salary, provided that their 
working conditions are in line with Directive 96/71. On the other hand, salary and 
higher education qualifications are objective criteria which could facilitate the 
handling of applications by immigration authorities. 

Granting equal treatment in a number of rights (2C) would enhance the level of 
protection of TCN ICTs and would therefore reduce the risk of unfair competition  

Expected Impacts 

Economic Impacts at EU level 

Social Impacts at EU level 

VVV 
(2A, 2C) 

VV (2B, 
2D) 

VV 

(2A, 2B, 
2C) 

V (2D) 

-Establishing common rules for Member States on entry and residence will have a 
positive impact on EU competitiveness and innovation, since it enhances the 
transparency and predictability of the legal environment which is necessary to 
conduct business: the companies can bring in more easily ICTs. 

-The broader scope of sub-option 2A strengthens such a positive impact 

-Depending on the extent of rights granted to TCNs, constraints on companies 
could be more (2C) or less (2D) significant since EU companies could have to bear 
increased labour costs. For this reason, attractiveness for employers could be 
reduced. But conversely, the attractiveness of an EU scheme dedicated to ICTs 
could be more marked for ICTs (who, as key staff, are often able to choose the 
location of their work) under option 2C since they will enjoy a wider set of rights, 
thus countering the previous impact.  

-The labour market is not likely to beaffected by these movements of migrants 
endowed with very specific skills, as they do not substitute any national or EU 
worker. The scheme must therefore ensure that it only applies to some very specific 
categories of workers and that their labour cost is not lower than that of nationals or 
EU citizens.  

-Equal treatment of ICTs in a number of areas and common admission criteria will 
remove the opportunities for employers to use the competitive advantages of lower 
waged third country ICTs and reduce the risks of displacement or social dumping. 
This impact would be even stronger under 2C 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Option 2 - Directive dealing with conditions of entry and residence for ICTs 

Assessment Criteria  

Rating 

Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to achieve the 
impact 

Relevance  

-Positive impacts on third countries could be achieved through: 

-enhanced opportunities of migration, stronger under 2A, (thanks to a clearer legal 
framework and facilitated entry), possibly resulting, in a intensified transfer of 
skills to third countries;  

-a better attractiveness of the EU (deriving from the common clear picture, and also 
from the set of socio-economic rights); 

-higher level of protection and rights (stronger under 2C; see also fundamental 
rights)  

-and a possible higher level of remittances (resulting from better working 
conditions).  

-The risks of brain drain is low since migration is purely temporary. Moreover, 
according to available information, ICTs' source countries are mainly developed 
and emerging countries.  

This option would strengthen the set of Fundamental rights granted to TCN ICTs, 
regarding Articles 15, 21 and 31 (fair and equal treatment). Option 2C would have 
a stronger impact and would in addition better ensure the right under Art 12 
(freedom of association and affiliation) and Art 34 relating to social security. 

Feasibility 

-The application of new common definition and admission criteria will entail legal 
adjustments and result in a larger administrative burden for Member States and 
employers but only in the short term. Sub-option 2B provides objective criteria 
which could be considered easier to apply for immigration authorities. On the other 
hand, definitions put forward under sub-option 2A are already known by the 
Member States as they flow from Trade commitments. 

-The rights of sub-option 2D appear to be generally respected throughout the EU, 
but rights under 2C would partly and for some Member States have to be included 
in national legislations and respect ensured. 

VVV 
(2A) 

VV (2B, 
2C and 
2D) 

VV 

(2A, 2B, 
2D) 

VVV 

(2C) 

-VV (2A, 
2C) 

-V (2B, 
2D) 

-VV 
(2.B) 

-This policy option will impose adjustments on Member States, slightly reduced 
under sub-option 2B (see 'Administrative burden'). 

-VVV 
(2A, 2.C, 
2D) 

-V (2A, 
2B, 2D) 

-VV (2C) 

-However, the present option does not seem to pose major difficulties in 
transposition and appears proportionate. 

-Additional costs can be foreseen for Member States and employers, resulting from 
the new scheme and application of equal treatment with respect to social security 
rights (2C). However, these costs should be moderate as ICTs would not always 
qualify for social security benefits, taking account of their short duration of stay. 
Moreover, a reduction of overall costs is likely to occur in the medium term for 
employers, thanks to the common admission system for ICTs. 

-According to stakeholders, common definitions and conditions of admission will 
facilitate inflows of ICTs, thereby having a positive effect on competitiveness.  

-Regarding rights, ETUC is in favour of an enlarged set of rights. Business Europe 
mentions that as workers can claim social security and other benefits, this can cause 
a possible increase in public expenditures 

Impacts on third countries 

Impacts on fundamental rights 

Administrative burdens 

Difficulty/risks for transposition 

Financial impact 

Stakeholders’ view 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Option 3 Directive providing for intra-EU mobility for ICTs 

Assessment Criteria  

Rating 

Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 

Relevance  

To support economic development of EU 
businesses, while guaranteeing a fair 
competition 

VVV  

-This option provides for a clear legal framework for ICTs from third 
countries and introduces intra-EU mobility elements, which allow a swift re-
allocation of their internal resources for EU companies, preventing delays and 
costs  

Expected Impacts 

Economic Impacts at EU level 

VVV  

-In addition to transparency of the legal framework and the secured legal 
status of TCNs, the provisions for intra-EU mobility between branches of the 
same company will improve EU attractiveness for third country businesses 
and investments. From this perspective, positive impacts on the flexibility of 
assigning ICT and, in turn, on EU competitiveness could be achieved.  

As a result from this improvement of EU capacity to attract them, the future 
instrument should translate into an additional flow of third country nationals 
ICTs - those who at present turn down an international assignment because of 
the burdensome and unclear conditions of admission, stay and intra-EU 
mobility or who are not transferred since companies are deterred by 
complicated conditions of admission. However, at the same time, an enhanced 
possibility of intra-EU mobility could result in a lower number of ICTs. 
Taken into account these two expected results, a slight increase in the number 
of ICTs could result from the present proposal, which is however not possible 
to evaluate. 

Social Impacts at EU level 

VV 

The facilitation of intra-EU mobility will contribute to a better demand and 
supply matching within transnational corporations. 

Impacts on third countries 

VV 

The positive impacts of establishment of common rules of admission and 
residence (option 2) are slightly strengthened through a facilitated EU 
mobility, since this option allows for an enlarged transfer of skills and at the 
same time enhances the attractiveness of Europe as a destination for ICTs.  

Impacts on fundamental rights 

VV  

Fundamental rights under art 15, 21, 31, 12 and 34 are still positively 
impacted by option 2. No further rights are touched upon. 

Administrative burdens 

-VV  

Difficulty/risks for transposition 

-VV 

Feasibility 

-Apart from the administrative burden brought about by elements of option 2, 
the provision on intra-EU mobility will at first add to the administrative 
burden of Member States since they will need to set up cooperation systems. 
It will also require measures of notifications from companies. However, this 
option will eventually simplify the overall administrative burden, since the 
entry procedures will be taken on by the first Member State and because there 
will be no requirement for re-application of the ICT within the first months in 
the second Member State. This sub-option will also simplify significantly the 
administrative burden imposed on companies. 

Further commitments from the Member States relating to cooperation 
requirements would be required. However, a similar system is already in 
place for researchers (without the notification obligations) and this could 
inspire the new organisation. 

This action appears to be proportionate as the administrative burden imposed 
on Member States is outweighed by the benefits flowing from the enhanced 
possibility to easily transfer intra-corporate staff from one Member State to 
another. 

Financial impact 

-V 
(business)/-
VV ( 
Member 
States) 

Additional costs foreseen under option 2 would remain. This option would 
also increase costs for the 1st Member State because of coordination, but 
there would be reduced costs for the 2nd Member State. It would have 
significant positive impact on business which would be spared the return costs 
to the country of origin and the costs of the transfer to the second ICT 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Policy Option 3 Directive providing for intra-EU mobility for ICTs 

Assessment Criteria  

Rating 

Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 

Relevance  

Stakeholders’ view 

All the stakeholders agree on allowing ICT intra-EU mobility as this option 
would contribute to a better allocation of human resources. Also it will in 
their opinion increase the career opportunities for ICTs.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
Policy Option 4 Directive facilitating family reunification and access to work for spouses 

Assessment Criteria  

Rating 

Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 

Relevance  

To support economic development of EU 
businesses, while guaranteeing a fair 
competition 

VVV 

-This option includes a clear legal framework for IC transfers from third 
countries (option 2). In addition, it creates more attractive conditions of stay 
for ICTs (see also economic impacts). 

Expected Impacts 

Economic Impacts at EU level 

VVV 

Social Impacts at EU level 

V 

Impacts on third countries 

VV 

Impacts on fundamental rights 

VVV 

Administrative burdens 

-VV 

-When spouses are able to join the sponsor and are granted access to work 
more rapidly and Member States are not allowed to apply the time limit of 12 
months, this will have a positive effect on the willingness of ICT to be 
transferred for a longer period of time since concerns about partner 
employment are one of the main reasons why staff turn down an international 
assignment. Because of this, companies will be able to attract ICTs more 
easily and therefore be more competitive. 

In addition, since family members would be granted access to the labour 
market, this option would result in a larger availability of workforce. However, 
access to labour market would be easier for family members of of ICTs than 
for family members of nationals of new Member States subject to transitional 
measures, which could be politically difficult to defend and run counter to the 
Union preference. Yet, the current remaining transitional measures would not 
apply any more at the time when the directive would enter into force; in 
addition, such a provision was already put forward by the Blue Card Directive 
and the number of persons concerned would be small. 

- The positive impacts of establishment of common rules of admission and 
residence (option 2) are strengthened thanks to these further rights relating to 
family reunification; the attractiveness of a transfer to the EU territory would 
be enhanced and may bring about an increasing number of ICTs  

-The relevance of the remark depending on the country of origin, the 
remittances could be larger. 

-At the same time, the impacts in terms of circular migration could be 
negative, because an ICT could decide to stay in the Member State when 
united with his/her family and not return to the country of origin. The risks of 
brain drain could also be larger, as the spouse can be considered a second 
immigrant leaving the country of origin and possibly pursuing a carrier in the 
EU.  

However, according to available information, ICTs' source countries are 
mainly developed and emerging countries 

Fundamental rights under art 15, 21, 31, 12 and 34 are still positively impacted 
(see option 2). Moreover, under this option, article 7 (i.e. respect for private 
and family life) is further promoted.  

Feasibility 

Besides the administrative burden brought about by elements of option 2, this 
option would result in simplification of the administrative burden for the 
family of the TCN regarding access to the EU territory and the labour market 
and would not add much burden on Member States since even if family 
members do not have a right to enter and work, they may already apply for 
residence and work permits. However, Member States would have to deliver 
the authorization within a shorter period as foreseen under the common rules 
of family reunification. 

Difficulty/risks for transposition 

-VV 

This option would result in adjustments derived from the creation of a specific 
family right. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Policy Option 4 Directive facilitating family reunification and access to work for spouses 

Assessment Criteria  

Rating 

Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 

Financial and administrative costs 

-V 

Relevance  

Additional costs foreseen under option 2 would remain. The new elements 
introduced by this policy option would have marginal effects in terms of 
increased expenditure by Member State governments, due to specific family 
reunification scheme and in relation to social security/health care services 
possibly granted to ICT and their family. 

However, by facilitating the access of partners to the labour market, these 
costs would most likely be limited for public budgets, since part of them 
would be borne by the employers.  

Stakeholders’ view 

All stakeholders agree on assigning ICTs the right of family reunification and 
access to work, as this option would remove an important obstacle to potential 
ICT for accepting an assignment.  

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
Option 5 Directive laying down common admission procedures 

Assessment Criteria  

Rating 

Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve the impact 

To support economic development of EU 
businesses, while guaranteeing a fair 
competition 

VVV  

Expected Impacts 

Economic Impacts at EU level 

VVV 

Social Impacts at EU level 

VV 

Impact on Third Countries 

Impacts on fundamental rights 

VV 

VV  

Relevance  

-This option provides, in addition to a clear legal framework for IC 
transfers from third countries, harmonization of the conditions of 
admission of ICTs in terms of procedure, providing more certainty for 
companies and TCNs and allowing costs saving (see also economic 
impact). 

-Transparency of the legal framework is provided thanks to common 
admission criteria (option 2) but further enhanced by common procedural 
provisions. 

-The introduction of a single permit for work and residence could 
significantly improve the ability to easily and rapidly transfer key 
personnel. It will also make it more attractive for ICT to be transferred, 
when it is easier to enter the EU. As a result of reduced time and costs for 
attracting ICTs, the ability of EU firms to better and rapidly match request 
and demand in key internal personnel will be strengthened. These 
procedural measures aim at further increasing the attractiveness of the 
scheme already provided by the secured legal status of TCNs (see option 
2). 

When a single permit is introduced as well as a shorter time to process 
applications, the effort, cost and time to complete the procedure for 
applying for permits will be reduced. 

- The positive impacts of establishment of common rules of admission and 
residence (option 2) are slightly reinforced by the favourable procedural 
rules. 

Fundamental rights would not be affected by such an option. 

Feasibility 

Administrative burdens 

-V (business)/-
VV (Member 
State ) 

The measures introduced by this option will simplify the administrative 
burdens for companies and ICTs, making the application procedures for 
work and residence more efficient. On Member States' side, it will add a 
slight administrative burden but will translate into costs saving in the long 
run. 

Difficulty/risks for transposition 

-VVV 

Financial impact 

-V (business)/ -
VV (member 
States) 

Stakeholders’ view 

This option will add to the adjustments derived from option 2 the 
adjustments required by the application procedures. 12 Member States 
would have to introduce the single permit system and invest for this aim. 
Costs saving would occur at the same time due to a reduced labour input. 
However, only 6 Member States already apply or would agree on a 
processing time no longer than 1 month. 

- Besides these costs flowing from option 2, in the short term, Member 
States will have to invest to make the single permit possible and to shorten 
the processing time. In a long-term perspective however, all Member 
States will eventually benefit financially from a single permit procedure.  

-On the contrary, business should take advantage of these simplifications 
in financial terms (less time dedicated to administrative tasks) 

According to all stakeholders, the introduction of a single permit and 
maximum processing time would reduce time and efforts required by 
companies, which would enhance the efficient use of corporate resources.  

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Option 6 - To foster communication, coordination, and cooperation among Member States on these issues, including the open method 
of coordination 

Assessment Criteria  

Rating 

Reasoning for the ranking and aspects of the policy option necessary to achieve 
the impact 

To support economic development of EU 
businesses, while guaranteeing a fair 
competition 

V 

Expected Impacts 

Economic Impacts at EU level 

0/(V) 

Social Impacts at EU level 

0/(V) 

Impacts on third countries 

Impacts on fundamental rights 

Simplification -administrative burdens 

Difficulty/risks for transposition 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Financial impact 

-VVV 

Relevance  

-Communication, coordination, exchange of best practices and cooperation 
among Member States could contribute to approximate national practices on 
TCN ICTs across EU and to create a more harmonised legal framework, 
resulting in an enhanced attractiveness and a better implementation of EU 
Trade commitments. However, impacts are likely to be very limited in the 
absence of a mandatory aspect. 

-In the absence of compulsory regulation regarding the set of rights granted to 
TCN  ICTs,  the  risk  of  unfair  competition  and  substitution  of  local  workers 
continues to exist. 

When information on the regulations on entry and stay in the Member States 
are exchanged better between them, this could improve the quick transference 
of personnel and thus improving the competitiveness of EU enterprises and EU 
as a whole. However, these impacts will probably be very limited.  

 Member States gain better access to information on effective policies and good 
practices. When Member States learn of and from each other’s policies, this 
may result in a degree of harmonisation of rights. 

However, no significant impact is expected.  

This option is unlikely to have an impact (positive or negative) on the transfer 
of skills or circular migration.  

(no specific effect in this field) 

Feasibility 

There will be no simplification or reduction of the administrative burden 
through this policy option. 

No difficulties or risks of transposition would be envisaged by this policy 
option since it would not impose any additional legislative interventions and 
Member States would have complete discretion in whether to adapt to the 
content of the information and best practices delivered through this policy 
option. 

At EU and Member State level, additional costs will be recurrent for 
organizing activities such as drafting national action plans, sharing good and 
best practices, creating networks of expertise, and data collection and 
dissemination.  

Stakeholders’ view 

According to stakeholders, the exchange of best practises could have positive 
effects on facilitating the entry and residence of ICT, although in their view 
this effect will be less than with the other policy options. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
5.2 Assessment of financial and administrative costs 

Policy  option  1  (Maintaining  the  status  quo)  will  not  require  additional  resources  besides 
those triggered by individual Member States on their own initiative. 

The  basic  provisions  of  policy  option  2,  conditions  of  entry  and  residence  of  ICTs  as  a 
common  definition  for  intra-corporate  transferees  and  common  admission  and  residence 
criteria,  will  require  both  one-time  and  recurring  additional  costs,  as  these  require  an 
adjustment of the procedures in all Member States.  

For  enterprises,  this  policy  option  holds  limited  recurring  changes  in  financial  and 
administrative  costs,  except  for  getting  acquainted  with  the  new  legislation  and  to  grant 
possibly more extended socio-economic rights to TCN ICTs. 

Policy option 3 may impose additional costs on the Member States, due to the requirement on 
cooperation  between  Member  States.  However,  the  incurring  costs  for  Member  States  are 
probably  slight  since  a  comparable  system  already  exists  for  the  researchers  according  to 
Directive 2005/71.  

Policy option 4 would have contradictory effects (possible slight increase but also benefits) 
and would altogether not bring about net costs for Member States.  

Policy options 3 and 4 would not cause any costs for enterprises, and the advantages would be 
high, because of the greater attractiveness and flexibility of deploying ICT. 

With  specific  regard  to  policy  option  5,  it  would  require  additional  resource  at  EU  and 
Member  State  level  in  order  to  respect  the  time-limits  set  for  processing  applications  (costs 
due to the need to comply with the time limit, possibly by employing more resources for the 
procedure). Additional costs regarding the introduction of a single permit for Member States 
that currently do not operate such a system are not expected to be very high (see below). EU 
staff resources (3 months FTE) would be required to prepare and channel that legislation. 

Employers would have great advantages of this option and much lower costs because of the 
single permit, the one-stop shop and the shorter procedures. 

As  regards  to  policy  option  6,  additional  costs  at  EU  level  would  be  mainly  related  to  the 
annual  budget  for  organizing  communication  and  coordination  activities  (i.e.  support  to  the 
exchange of best practices, creating networks of expertise, organizing information campaign). 
At Member State level, there would be need for dedicated personnel for the participation to 
the  cooperation  activities.  Regarding  Local  Governments,  additional  activities  cannot  be 
clearly identifiable due to their usually indirect involvement in the admission process of ICT. 
This option would require EU staff resources (1 month FTE annually) for support activities, 
and  Member  State  government  resources  in  terms  of  cost  of  time  of  participants  in  the 
activities (0.5 months FTE per Member State), as well as costs to convey information on their 
legislative framework and admission conditions. This option would not imply additional costs 
for employers and third countries. 

Finally, no particular costs would be delivered on third countries, except for those possibly 
needed  to  communicate  the  new  regime  to  potential  ICT.  Possible  gains  will  be  the 
remittances from ICT to the third country and the return (after a maximum of three years) of 
more qualified or skilled work force. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
5.3 Comparative assessment of policy options  

The tables below  compare the  different policy options and sub-options in order to highlight 
the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  solutions  identified  and  to  elaborate  the  preferred 
policy option.  

The  comparison  is  carried  out  with  respect  to  the  criteria  considered  for  the  assessment  of 
each policy option and sub-option: 

Relevance to policy objectives (global and specific objectives); 

Impacts (economic impacts, social impacts and impact on Third Countries); 

Feasibility (Simplification of administrative burden, the risk of transposition and the level of 
administrative costs).  

The sub-options have been compared in relation to their specific field of intervention, thereby 
identifying those sub-options which are more positive within their related field. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
Table 2. Comparison between policy options – Intra-Corporate Transferees  

Assessment criteria 

PO 2A 

PO 2B 

PO 2C 

PO 2D 

PO 3 

PO4 

PO5 

PO6 

Relevance to  

global objective 

VVV 

VVV 

VVV 

VV 

VVV 

VVV 

VVV 

V 

s
t
c
a
p
m

I

y
t
i
l
i
b
i
s
a
e
F

Economic impacts at EU level 

VVV 

Social impacts at EU level 

VV 

Impacts on Third Countries 

VVV 

VV 

VV 

VV 

VVV 

VV 

VVV 

VVV 

VVV 

VV 

V 

VV 

V 

VV 

VV 

VV 

VV 

VV 

VV 

Impacts on fundamental rights 

VV  

VVV 

VVV 

VV 

VV  

VVV 

VV  

Administrative burden  

-V V 

-V 

-VV 

-VV 

VV 

V 

-V 
(business)/ 
-VV 
(Member 
State 

Difficulty/risks of transposition 

-VVV 

-VV 

-VVV 

-VVV 

-VV 

-VV 

-VVV 

Financial impact  

-V  

-VV 

-V 

-V 

-VV 

-V 

-V 
(business)/ 
-VV 
(Member 
State) 

0/V 

0/V 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-VVV 

EN 

37 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. Identification of the preferred policy option 

Given the outcome of the comparison of policy options, the preferred option should have the 
following features: 

•  A  common  definition  of  ICTs  building  on  the  definitions  of  positions  occupied  by  ICTs 

(option 2A) 

•  a enlarged set of rights (option 2C)  
•  intra-EU mobility (option 3) 
•  facilitation for family reunification (option 4) 
•  common admission procedure (option 5) 

It  is  clear  that  none  of  the  individual  policy  options  completely  addresses  the  problems  or 
fully  achieves  the  policy  objectives.  However,  by  combining  different  aspects  of  the  policy 
options, a higher degree of effectiveness could be achieved.  

The table below summarizes the aspects of the assessed policy options, which are included in 
the preferred option.  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
Table 3 Intra-corporate Transferees - Preferred Policy option  

Main field of EU 
action 

Key feature of the preferred policy option 

Policy options and sub-options 
considered 

Definition of 
ICTs 

Common definition based on the specific positions 
occupied by ICTs (managers, specialists and graduate 
trainees) 

PO 2A 

Work contract with a company located in a third-
country and belonging to the multinational 
corporation 

A duration of prior employment, if required 

Conditions of 
admission  

Professional qualifications in line with the position 
taken 

PO 2A  

Higher education qualifications and a training plan for 
graduate trainees 

 No labour market test 

A common set of rights including working conditions 
as referred to in Directive 1996/71 and an enlarged set 
of further socio-economic rights  

Intra-EU mobility 

Family reunification  

Single permit for work and residence 

Conditions of 
residence 

Admission 
procedure 

PO 2C 

PO 3 

PO 4 

PO 5 

In the following paragraphs, the characteristics of each aspect of the preferred policy option 
are presented below in terms of advantages and disadvantages, with respect to the main issues 
and fields of expected impacts.  

Main advantages 

Common conditions of admission are an advantage to the competitiveness and attractiveness 
of  EU  enterprises  belonging  to  transnational  corporations,  while  the  reference  to  working 
conditions  laid  down  by  Directive  96/71  and  the  granting  of  a  series  of  rights  ensure  a  fair 
competition  between  EU  posted  workers  and  third  country  national  intra-corporate 
transferees.  

Facilitating  family  reunification  for  ICTs'  spouses  (without  access  to  work,  not  to  put  in  a 
more favourable situation ICTs compared to future new Member States) and supporting intra-
EU mobility strengthen the attractiveness of EU for ICTs.  

The  single  permit  for  work  and  residence,  along  with  the  maximum  time  for  processing 
applications contribute to a rapid application and facilitates the transfers of key personnel. 

All  the  above-mentioned  advantages  will  contribute  to  the  EU’s  competitiveness  and 
attractiveness for enterprises and investments by facilitating movement of ICTs.  

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main disadvantages 

The  main  disadvantage  of  the  preferred  policy  option  will  be  the  costs  involved:  Member 
States will have to make modifications to their legislative frameworks in order to adapt to the 
provisions  of  the  preferred  policy  option,  mainly  concerning  the  common  definition,  the 
single permit, intra-EU mobility and shortened time-limits to handle applications for an ICT 
permit  as  well  as  for  family  reunification.  From  the  employers'  perspective,  additional  time 
and resources will also be involved to comply with the new conditions of admission, but the 
simplifications  flowing  from  a  common  framework  will  far  outweigh  this  necessary 
investment (less time dedicated to administrative tasks). 

Assessment of the preferred policy option 

The  table  below  summarises  the  assessment  of  the  preferred  policy  option  with  respect  to 
assessment criteria identified and indicates the provisions of the preferred policy option that 
explain  the  related  rating  and  specifically  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  impacts 
identified. 

Table 4 Assessment of the preferred policy option 

Assessment Criteria  

Rating 

Provisions contributing to the rating 

support 

To 
economic 
EU 
development 
businesses, while contributing 
to  preventing 
the  risk  of 
unfair competition 

of 

Clear  conditions of  entry  (in  particular,  no  labour  market  test),  and  stay  which  enhance 
the transparency of the legal environment. Specific rules of admission are set up for ICTs. 
Procedures are simplified (single procedure/permit; shortened processing time), intra-EU 
mobility and family rights are granted to ICTs. Facilitation of intra-EU mobility enhances 
the competitiveness and attractiveness for enterprises and investments. 

VVV 

Granting equal treatment in the range of rights (2C) enhances the level of protection of 
TCN ICTs and therefore reduce the risk of unfair competition and substitution of workers 

The common definition for ICTs and criteria for admission and residence will make it 
more attractive for companies to transfer their key personnel. It will make the procedures 
rapid and less complex and costly (single permit, max time to process applications).  

Economic impacts at EU 
level 

VVV 

Attractive conditions of residence will make it attractive for ICTs to be transferred. 

Both will establish that the EU economy is a more competitive and more attractive for 
enterprises and investments.  

-Companies in need of in-house experts and managers will meet their needs more easily.  

Social impacts at EU level 

√√ 

-The risk of unfair competition will be prevented through definite working conditions and 
strict limitation to the scope of the Directive to staff who cannot be found on the national 
labour market. 

-Fundamental rights would be strengthened, in particular with regard to Articles 7 (family 
life), 12 (freedom of association and affiliation), 15, 11 and 31 (fait and equal treatment)  

Positive contributions to (the development of) third countrie are evident through easier 
access to the EU-economy.  

Impacts on Third Countries 

√√ 

At the same time migration is temporary, thus avoiding the risk of brain drain. 

However, the enhanced attractiveness of the EU and the common regulations cannot 
prevent that ICT may not return to their home country if Member States allow them to 
turn into a permanent status. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
Difficulty/risks for 
transposition 

√√ 

a common definition, the introduction of a single permit, intra-EU mobility, the 
application of the principle of equal treatment as regards the rights in the social security 
field and the maximum time for processing applications. 

Difficulties of transposition will probably arise from: 

Administrative burden 

VV/--
(business) 

A considerable degree of simplification will be achieved through the common conditions 
of admission, intra-EU mobility and the establishment of the single permit for work and 
residence.  

Financial impact 

-/√ 

Additional costs will by large be short term, concerning the costs for introducing a 
common definition and new procedures for admission and residence. 

In the medium-long term a reduction of costs is likely to occur due to better efficiency of 
the admission system and intra-EU mobility.  

Assessment of the administrative costs 

The following assumptions and estimates were made: 

The number of TCN ICTs admitted to the EU: although there is only limited data available 
on  the  number  of  ICTs  moving  from  third  countries  to  Member  States,  it  is  possible  to 
perform an “educated guess”. Under the assumption that the number of ICTs correlates on the 
one hand with the size of the Member State in inhabitants and on the other one the number of 
multinationals, the following tentative estimate can be made: multiplying the number of ICTs 
per country per year (3rd column of the second table) by the number of countries in one of the 
three  categories,  gives  the  total  number  per  category  of  Member  States.  Adding  those  three 
numbers leads to a total approximate annual number of ICTs coming to the EU: 17,500 (incl. 
UK and IE) or 15,500 (without UK and IE).  

Estimation of number of ICTs in the EU per year 

Table 5. Available data 

Name  of  the  Member 
State 

Number of ICTs 

Austria 

France 

Germany 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Total 

140 

1960 

4429 

1,095 

2,632 

459 

355 

1433 

1109 

13,587 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 6 Estimate numbers of ICTs 

Characteristic  of  category  of 
Member State 
Large  Member  States  (38  –  83 
million inhabitants) or  
a  large  number  of  international 
operating 
companies 
(multinationals) 
Medium  Sized  Member  States  (6 
– 22 million inhabitants) 

Small  Sized  Member  States  (<  6 
million inhabitants) 

Name of Member State 

UK 

Estimated number of ICT per 
year per Member State 
2,000* 

Total  number  per  category  of 
Member State 
2,000 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Finland 
Greece 
Hungary 
Portugal 
Rumania 
Sweden 
Cyprus 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Latvia 
Lituania 
Luxemburg 
Malta 
EU (incl. UK and IE) 
EU (without UK and IE) 

200** 

1,800 

20 

140 

17,500 (approx.) 
15,500 (approx.) 

based notably on Italy, The Netherlands and Germany. **  based  on  Slovakia  and 

* 
Austria 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  hourly  tariffs  of  Member  States'  personnel  are  estimated  to  be  €23 ,  based  on  EU 
average hourly labour costs in public administration (NACE L), extracted from Eurostat. The 
examination of an application is calculated to require 6 hs. 

The preferred option would cause the following additional administrative costs:  

-implementation  costs  in  the  first  two  years  for  familiarizing  with  the  obligations:  the 
following  estimations  have  been  made,  on  the  basis  of  the  estimations  retrieved  from  the 
Impact Assessment on the Blue Card Directive and taking into account the number of ICTs: 1 
working day and 50 officials/Member State concerned. 

-Costs for processing a application and issuing a ICTs permit (related to the examination 
and  assessment  of  the  documentation  presented,  the  processing  of  the  relevant 
information  in  the  specific  ICT  database  and  the  notifications  of  rejections  to  the 
applicants):  most  of  these  costs  with  regard  to  processing  the  application  already  occur  at 
present and are not additional. If the administrative costs are assumed to be the same as those 
foreseen for the Blue Card procedure in case of High Skilled Workers62, the required time per 
admitted ICT for the Member State would add up to 56 hours. Using a tariff of 23 Euro per 
hour,  the  costs  per  ICT  would  be  1,228  Euro.  16,500  ICT  per  year  would  cost  the 
administrations  of  the  Member  States  at  least  20,262,000  Euro  per  year  to  process  the 
applications.  To  these  costs  would  be  added  the  costs  required  to  process  the  applications 
which  are  eventually  not  approved  which  could  be  evaluated,  anticipating  a  high  rate  of 
success (80%) due to a clarified legal framework, at 6x23x(0,2x16500)=455 400 Euro.  

However, economies of experience would occur after one year, with a possible reduction of 
time  and  of  administrative  costs  occurred  for  key  actions.  In  parallel,  the  number  of  ICTs 
admitted would tend to increase, since EU attractiveness for ICTs would be enhanced. 

-To  these  costs  would  be  added  costs  resulting  from  coordination  needed  for  intra-EU 
mobility.  However,  a  similar  system  is  already  in  place  for  researchers  and  would  thus  not 
require new organization. Against this background, costs are assessed to be negligible. 

-Costs  relating  to  the  shortened  processing  time  and  the  single  permit:  net 
implementation  costs  for  the  introduction  of  a  single  permit  are  not  expected  to  be 
considerable,  given  that  under  the  framework  Directive  (currently  under  negotiation  in 
Council  and  Parliament)  the  12  Member  States  that  currently  do  not  have  a  single  permit 
system  would  be  required  to  introduce  one.  Given  certain  specificities  that  a  regime  about 
ICTs  requires,  these  were  excluded  from  the  scope  of  that  Directive.  The  extension  of  the 
single permit also to ICTs under the preferred policy option would thus not entail additional 
costs for Member State after having transposed the framework Directive. 

Costs savings could occur in the 12 Member States (BE, BG, CZ, ES, IE, HU, LV, MT, PL, 
PT, RO, SL) that currently do not have a single permit, notably with respect to assumptions of 
reduced labour input (up to 1 working day less) in a single application procedure that leads to 
a single permit. Assuming an overall total of 4261 ICTs for the 12 Member States, this would 
entail savings of up to 784 024 Euro. 

62

IA on EC proposal for a directive on Highly Skilled Workers, Final Report July 2007. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
-Obligation  to  submit  annual  statistics  to  the  Commission  and  other  Member  States  on 
numbers of residence permits or visa issued to TCN ICTs. Annual reporting is calculated to 
require 10hs (see table below). 

Equal  treatment  in  terms  of  social  security  rights  could  also  have  a  cost  for  those  Member 
States  which  do  not  already  grant  them  to  ICTs.  All  Member  States  already  grant  equal 
treatment in working conditions. With respect to social security rights, gaps in rights that the 
proposal  would  close  are  relevant  in  a  number  of  Member  States  that  appear  to  have  either 
waiting periods of between 1 and up to 10 years before access is granted to rights, or do not 
grant  certain  rights  to  TCNs.  As  far  as  ICTs  are  concerned,  these  are  mainly  sickness  and 
health  care  (FI,  BG,  MT63)  and  family  benefits  (FI,  BG,  LT64,  LV65,  UK).  ICTs  are  thus 
excluded from access to these benefits, unless a specific regime covered them. Social security 
bilateral agreements cover a number of ICTs, roughly estimated at 50%. For these TCNs, new 
provisions would apply without prejudice of the existing rules derived from the international 
agreement.  One  third  of  the  number  of  ICTs  concerned  is  assumed  to  be  eligible  for  health 
care and family benefits. For FI (1,914 per capita expenditure), on an estimation of 200 ICTs 
per year admitted, these additional costs are € 63162 for sickness and health care and € 9141 
for family benefits. For BG, there is no data on expenditure for sickness insurance so that the 
PL expenditure of € 204 is used as a proxy. That way, additional costs of € 8316 are expected 
for  these  rights.  For  UK,  additional  costs  related  to  family  benefits  would  amount  to  €  166 
167. 

63 
64

65

However, in this last Member State, the number of ICTs is negligible and cost assessment makes therefore no sense. 
Same remark as for MT. 
Same remark as for MT. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
Table 7 Administrative costs 

Proposal on conditions of entry and residence of ICTs 

Tariff 
(€ per hour) 

Time  
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action  or 
equip) 

Freq  
(per 
year) 

Nbr  
of  
entities 

Total 
of  
actions 

nbr

Total  
cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

No
. 

1 

Type of obligation 

Description  of  required 
action(s) 

Target group 

i 

e 

I 

e 

Int  EU  Nat  Reg 

Application for individual 
authorisation 
or 
exemption 

relevant 
Retrieving 
information  from  existing 
data 

Member  States  –
(Annual  reporting 
to COM and other 
Member States) 

23 

10 

23 

1 

26 

26 

5980 

100%  

Total administrative costs (€) 

5980 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. Monitoring and evaluation 

It should be noted that the current problem of lack of data will be remedied by the statistics 
Regulation  862/200766  under  which  Member  States  shall  supply  Eurostat  with  statistics  on 
residence  permits  and  residence  of  third-country  nationals,  including  number  of  permits, 
reasons for issuing the permit and its length (Article 6). The first reference year is 2008; data 
shall be supplied within 12 months of the end of the reference year. Additional disaggregation 
of  the  data  for  the  year  in  which  the  permit  was  issued,  age  and  sex  of  the  holder  can  be 
provided for. 

In  accordance  with  the  Commission  Communication  ‘A  Europe  of  results  –  Applying 
Community  law’,  the  Commission  suggests setting up an expert group of representatives of 
the Member States and the Commission ('Contact Committee'), which would meet to discuss 
issues  concerning  the  transposition  of  the  proposed  directive,  along  the  lines  of  the  Legal 
Working Group that meet regularly to consider the implementation of for example Directives 
2009/50/EC and 2009/52/EC. The proposed expert group would ensure improved information 
flow between EU and national authorities on how the directive is implemented and is intended 
to help anticipate and resolve problems more effectively.  

The following paragraphs present a possible set of indicators to use in monitoring the effects 
in  respect  to  the  main  objectives  of  the  EU  intervention.  In  addition  to  these  possible 
indicators we present a broad outline of possible monitoring and evaluation arrangements. 

7.1 Identify core progress indicators for the key objectives of the possible intervention 

The table below presents a list of indicators which will make it possible to assess the progress 
and effectiveness of the preferred option in achieving the main policy objectives. In relation 
to these possible indicators sources of information that could be used to collect related data 
and other information are also mentioned.  

66 

OJ L 199 of 31 July 2007, p. 23. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 8 Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option 

Main objectives 

Potential Indicators 

Sources of Information 

To support economic development 
of EU businesses… 

- Number of requests for admittance in all 
EU Member States  

- National Labour Force statistics 

- number of admittances in all EU 
Member States 

- number of movements of ICTs between 
all EU Member States 

- average time process the applications of 
ICTs 

- Employer satisfaction about the new 
scheme 

- EUROSTAT 

- Single surveys at national level 

- Single surveys at branch level 

- Administrative data from Member State 
authorities 

- Specific ICT Monitoring 

- Surveys amongst ‘ICT-employers’ 

- Measure of the investments 

- Surveys amongst ICTs 

- Surveys amongst Member State 
authorities 

…while guaranteeing fair 
competition 

- Working conditions of ICTs in 
comparison with the regular workforce in 
enterprises 

- National Labour Force statistics 

- EUROSTAT 

- Period of stay inside the EU as ICT 

- Single surveys at national level 

- Number of applications for staying in a 
Member State after the ICT-period 

- Single surveys at branch level 

- Administrative data from Member State 
authorities 

- Specific ICT Monitoring 

- Surveys amongst ‘ICT-employers’ 

- Surveys amongst ICTs 

- Surveys amongst Member State 
authorities 

- Surveys amongst third country 
authorities 

7.2. Provide a broad outline of possible monitoring and evaluation arrangements 

As  far  as  monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements  are  concerned,  they  should  involve 
reporting activities pertaining to both the Commission and the Member States.  

On  the  one  hand,  three  years  after  the  deadline  for  the  transposition  of  the  Directive,  the 
Commission will publish a report focused on the status of implementation of the Directive at 
Member  State  level  and  the  overall  evaluation  of  the  measures  adopted  through  the 
assessment of the above-mentioned indicators. Following this report, the examination of the 
results achieved against objectives would allow the Commission to decide whether proposals 
for amendment should be put forward in order to best respond to the defined objectives. 

On the other hand, a reporting system at Member State level will be set up by the means of a 
specific provision included in the Directive. On this basis, Member State will be obliged to 
communicate  statistics  on  the  number  of  ICT  permits  issued,  renewed  and  withdrawn, 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
disaggregated  by  citizenship,  age  and  sex,  by  transferee  position,  length  of  validity  of  the 
permit  and  economic  sector  during  the  previous  calendar  year.For  this  reason  it  should  be 
considered  to  ‘enlarge’  EC  Regulation  no.  862/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  on  EU  statistics  on  migration  and  international  protection  with  the  target-groups 
ICTs. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
ANNEXES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Annex 1. Statistics ………….………………………………………………………….........52 

Annex 2. Survey of Member States' legislations……………………………………..........70 

Annex 3. Case studies: main findings……………………………………………………....83 

Annex 4. Stakeholders consultation………………………………………………..………91 

References…………………………………………………………………………………103 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 1. STATISTICS 

Table 1 Inflows of foreign temporary workers into selected countries (thousands) 

1995  1996  1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002  2003  2004  2005 

EU 

Austria** 

Belgium** 

Cyprus* 

Denmark** 

Estonia* 

Finland* 

France** 

29.8 

26.5 

1.6 

1.5 

5.4 

9.0 

5.0 

5.0 

4.5 

0.02 

2.5 

Permanents 

 6.1 

 4.8 

 5.2 

5.4 

6.3 

6.4 

9.2 

8.0 

6.9 

7.0 

8.9 

APT (a) 

 4.5 

 4.8 

 4.7 

 4.3 

5.8 

7.5 

9.6 

9.8 

10.1 

10.0 

10.4 

Germany** 

Italy** 

Latvia* 

Netherlands* 

Slovakia* 

Spain* 

Sweden* 

United Kingdom** 

Non EU 

Australia** 

357.8  362.8 342.3 

68.1 

77.3 

70.6 

0.7 

6.2 

1.2 

10.7 

5.3 

144.5  195.6 183.5 

Permanent settlers 

20.2  20.0  19.7  26.0  27.9  32.4  35.7  36.0  38.5 

51.5 

53.1 

Temporary workers  14.3  15.4  31.7  37.3  37.0  39.2  45.7  43.3  48.8 

43.1 

48.6 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
New Zealand** 

Permanent settlers 

.. 

Temporary workers 

.. 

.. 

.. 

.. 

.. 

United States** 

5.0 

5.1 

6.7 

9.8 

13.8  12.0 

8.2 

14.5 

25.4  29.5  32.5  43.1  54.6  63.4 

69.8 

88.1 

Permanent settlers 

85 

117 

91 

78 

57 

107 

179 

175 

82 

155 

246.9 

Temporary workers 

.. 

.. 

208 

242 

304 

355 

414 

358 

352 

397 

388.3 

(a) Autorisation Temporaire de Travail 

* Data is extrapolated from Eurostat evidence collected on a pilot basis. Number of permits issued in 
2005  to  non-EU  nationals  (Bulgaria  and  Romania  included  given  their  accession  only  in  2007)  for 
employment under a 12 month period in several MS. 

** OECD data, Source: Abella 2006, on data OECD. Total amount of foreign temporary workers (EU 
nationals included) 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table  2  Permits  issued  for  employment  by  selected  EU  MS  to  non-EU  citizens  and 
regions of origin, 2005 (permits valid for less than 12 months)  

Region of origin 

EE 

ES 

CY  LV  NL 

SK 

FI 

SE 

Total 

EFTA 

Central 
Europe 

and  Eastern 

Other Europe 

Africa 

America 

Asia 

Oceania 

Others 

Total 

0 

7 

0 

0 

4 

7 

0 

0 

0 

2 

4 

184 

0 

0 

0 

190 

8171 

3025  424 

730 

562 

1917  1993  16829 

0 

3 

10 

317 

18 

342 

907 

7 

382 

14 

85 

23 

79 

512 

238 

1913 

2014 

96 

72 

1591  136 

88 

1060  5061 

158 

4988  134 

2689  423 

262 

1809  10470 

3 

0 

6 

7 

21 

285 

1 

38 

8 

0 

7 

148 

478 

88 

10 

144 

18 

10688 9034  673 

6216  1161  2470  5337  57732 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
Table  3  Permits  issued  for  employment  by  selected  EU  MS  to  non-EU  citizens  and 
regions of origin, 2005 (permits valid for less than 12 months)  

Total 

Employees 

Self employed 

Highly skilled 

Region 
origin 

of 

Males  Females  Males  Females Males  Females  Males  Females 

Total non EU 

43556  14176 

2768 

266 

33821  8795 

2498 

634 

EFTA 

193 

69 

63 

4 

129 

64 

0 

0 

and 

Central 
Eastern 
Europe 

27012  8855 

1176 

143 

24812  6339 

278 

107 

Other Europe 

536 

87 

Africa 

1698 

353 

America 

4421 

1297 

Asia 

9137 

3356 

Oceania 

438 

139 

Others 

120 

20 

85 

96 

368 

914 

66 

0 

4 

2 

30 

76 

6 

1 

Source: Eurostat, data collected on a pilot basis.  

369 

58 

626 

247 

80 

138 

24 

37 

3405 

1040 

618 

212 

4144 

947 

1229 

210 

217 

117 

87 

13 

154 

43 

1 

1 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
Table 4. Duration of stay of the foreign-born population from the five main countries of origin, by country of residence and education 
level (percentage of the employed population aged 15 and above) 

Primary 

Secondary 

Tertiary 

Total 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

Country 

Country of birth 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

Australia 

United Kingdom 

2,6 

2,6 

94,8 

5,6 

4,7 

89,8 

11,1 

5,8 

83,1 

5,7 

4,1 

90,2 

New Zealand 

22,4 

10,7 

66,9 

22,8 

9,7 

67,5 

24,7 

8,6 

66,6 

23,1 

9,8 

67,1 

Italy 

0,4 

Former Yugoslavia 

8,1 

0,3 

5,6 

99,3 

1,5 

0,9 

97,5 

5,1 

2,4 

92,6 

0,9 

0,6 

98,6 

86,4 

15,4 

12,2 

72,4 

21,7 

21,0 

57,3 

12,3 

9,8 

77,8 

Vietnam 

9,1 

22,7 

68,3 

9,0 

18,4 

72,5 

6,6 

10,5 

82,9 

8,6 

19,1 

72,2 

Austria 

Former Yugoslavia 

5,4 

31,9 

62,7 

5,9 

48,7 

45,4 

5,2 

50,1 

44,8 

5,6 

39,9 

54,5 

Germany 

Turkey 

Czech Republic 

8,0 

5,1 

2,0 

13,8 

78,2 

13,3 

15,0 

71,6 

22,7 

24,4 

52,9 

14,3 

16,8 

68,9 

30,7 

64,2 

7,3 

27,2 

65,5 

14,6 

33,6 

51,8 

5,9 

30,0 

64,1 

3,0 

95,1 

4,5 

8,1 

87,4 

2,0 

14,0 

84,0 

3,4 

7,4 

89,2 

Poland 

France 

Italy 

11,5 

30,1 

58,5 

7,5 

33,5 

59,0 

7,7 

29,1 

63,2 

8,3 

32,0 

59,6 

6,1 

2,4 

5,2 

2,6 

88,6 

16,3 

10,1 

73,5 

33,3 

13,1 

53,6 

14,2 

8,0 

77,8 

94,9 

5,6 

4,1 

90,3 

19,7 

10,1 

70,2 

4,2 

3,4 

92,4 

54 

EN 

Belgium 

EN 

 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
Primary 

Secondary 

Tertiary 

Total 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

Country 

Country of birth 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

Morocco 

16,3 

12,4 

71,3 

20,9 

15,0 

64,1 

31,2 

18,1 

50,7 

19,2 

13,7 

67,1 

Netherlands 

18,2 

13,1 

68,7 

26,9 

19,4 

53,8 

30,9 

18,6 

50,5 

24,1 

16,4 

59,6 

Germany 

Canada 

United Kingdom 

6,4 

1,7 

5,5 

2,4 

88,0 

9,5 

95,9 

2,2 

7,3 

3,4 

83,2 

19,2 

10,1 

70,7 

10,8 

7,3 

82,0 

94,5 

3,3 

3,8 

92,9 

2,5 

3,3 

94,2 

China 

Italy 

India 

17,8 

26,1 

56,0 

24,1 

26,3 

49,6 

53,7 

16,4 

29,9 

33,5 

22,3 

44,2 

0,4 

0,6 

99,1 

0,9 

1,0 

98,0 

1,8 

1,5 

96,8 

0,7 

0,8 

98,5 

24,8 

24,1 

51,1 

23,5 

22,3 

54,3 

30,2 

16,7 

53,1 

26,6 

20,6 

52,8 

United States 

5,9 

7,8 

86,2 

6,8 

7,2 

86,0 

7,6 

7,4 

85,0 

7,1 

7,4 

85,5 

Switzerland 

Former Yugoslavia 

13,8 

23,9 

62,4 

10,8 

20,6 

68,6 

17,9 

18,0 

64,1 

12,7 

22,1 

65,2 

Italy 

4,1 

2,9 

92,9 

7,6 

5,3 

87,1 

33,2 

11,0 

55,7 

7,6 

4,4 

88,0 

Germany 

18,2 

10,7 

71,1 

27,0 

10,5 

62,5 

44,1 

15,2 

40,7 

35,4 

12,9 

51,7 

Portugal 

France 

17,2 

16,4 

66,4 

8,2 

15,6 

76,1 

40,2 

4,6 

55,2 

15,2 

15,8 

68,9 

21,9 

11,2 

66,8 

26,6 

12,2 

61,2 

49,7 

17,1 

33,2 

35,6 

14,1 

50,3 

EN 

55 

EN 

 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
Primary 

Secondary 

Tertiary 

Total 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

Country 

Country of birth 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

Czech Republic 

Slovak Republic 

2,9 

3,8 

93,2 

5,8 

7,0 

87,2 

5,9 

20,4 

73,7 

4,8 

7,2 

88,0 

Former USSR 

22,6 

32,4 

45,1 

32,7 

36,8 

30,6 

43,7 

26,9 

29,4 

32,3 

32,9 

34,8 

Poland 

Germany 

Hungary 

Germany 

Former USSR 

Turkey 

Poland 

- 

- 

- 

6,0 

1,6 

1,7 

- 

100,0 

2,1 

2,4 

97,6 

- 

100,0 

- 

- 

7,8 

8,0 

- 

90,0 

10,5 

- 

89,5 

1,7 

92,0 

16,5 

40,8 

42,7 

1,1 

100,0 

- 

- 

100,0 

- 

4,0 

8,0 

- 

94,2 

90,9 

100,0 

28,6 

65,4 

4,1 

22,0 

73,9 

2,5 

30,6 

66,9 

4,5 

25,9 

69,5 

9,4 

89,0 

- 

8,1 

91,9 

15,3 

83,1 

1,8 

10,7 

87,5 

Former Yugoslavia 

0,1 

Romania 

1,3 

7,5 

8,0 

92,4 

0,1 

90,7 

0,6 

3,8 

7,2 

96,1 

92,2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

7,8 

1,3 

3,2 

100,0 

1,2 

8,8 

90,0 

92,2 

1,4 

11,6 

87,0 

98,7 

0,1 

96,8 

0,7 

5,7 

6,7 

94,3 

92,5 

Denmark 

Turkey 

11,8 

12,2 

76,0 

18,7 

14,4 

66,9 

14,2 

13,6 

72,2 

13,5 

12,8 

73,7 

Former Yugoslavia 

10,4 

51,4 

38,2 

11,2 

60,1 

28,7 

9,5 

67,2 

23,4 

10,6 

57,5 

31,8 

Germany 

4,2 

5,2 

90,6 

9,9 

9,5 

80,6 

10,7 

12,9 

76,4 

8,7 

9,5 

81,8 

EN 

56 

EN 

 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
Primary 

Secondary 

Tertiary 

Total 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

Country 

Country of birth 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

Spain 

Sweden 

Norway 

Morocco 

Ecuador 

France 

2,9 

3,4 

3,8 

6,0 

93,4 

6,5 

7,4 

86,1 

7,6 

9,4 

83,0 

5,9 

90,6 

10,3 

8,0 

81,7 

9,3 

13,0 

77,7 

8,1 

7,0 

9,2 

87,1 

82,7 

42,3 

13,3 

44,5 

29,3 

10,6 

60,0 

22,9 

8,2 

68,9 

38,9 

12,5 

48,7 

77,4 

4,0 

18,7 

74,0 

4,6 

21,4 

65,3 

6,6 

28,1 

75,2 

4,4 

20,4 

7,0 

4,0 

89,0 

11,3 

7,7 

81,0 

17,3 

8,2 

74,5 

10,7 

5,9 

83,4 

Colombia 

71,0 

6,7 

22,4 

71,4 

6,8 

21,8 

59,6 

7,9 

32,5 

69,1 

6,9 

24,0 

Germany 

23,3 

11,1 

65,6 

20,7 

11,6 

67,7 

21,2 

10,5 

68,3 

22,0 

11,1 

66,9 

Finland 

Former USSR 

22,8 

54,9 

22,3 

18,0 

55,7 

26,3 

21,1 

61,8 

17,2 

20,5 

57,2 

22,4 

Sweden 

1,2 

11,7 

87,1 

3,0 

2,5 

94,5 

2,4 

3,1 

94,4 

2,3 

5,6 

92,1 

Germany 

- 

26,5 

73,5 

11,1 

2,8 

86,2 

4,6 

31,3 

64,1 

7,9 

13,4 

78,7 

France 

Vietnam 

Algeria 

3,0 

3,3 

Former Yugoslavia 

42,3 

39,4 

18,3 

2,5 

93,4 

4,1 

51,3 

45,7 

7,6 

41,3 

51,1 

- 

- 

64,4 

35,6 

17,1 

68,7 

14,2 

- 

100,0 

4,3 

47,5 

48,2 

5,0 

91,8 

3,3 

4,9 

91,9 

5,4 

8,1 

86,5 

3,6 

5,4 

91,0 

EN 

57 

EN 

 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Primary 

Secondary 

Tertiary 

Total 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

Country 

Country of birth 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

Morocco 

Portugal 

Italy 

Spain 

United Kingdom 

Ireland 

India 

Pakistan 

Germany 

5,5 

4,2 

1,3 

1,2 

1,5 

5,9 

11,9 

82,7 

5,6 

8,6 

1,0 

1,0 

4,4 

7,5 

87,2 

2,8 

97,8 

5,2 

97,8 

3,7 

94,1 

6,2 

86,6 

4,1 

10,0 

12,1 

77,8 

4,7 

0,7 

7,5 

91,8 

5,1 

9,0 

5,1 

3,0 

1,8 

8,2 

6,9 

9,4 

5,7 

85,4 

5,7 

92,1 

5,5 

8,6 

6,2 

88,3 

3,9 

85,7 

5,5 

10,5 

84,0 

91,8 

20,6 

10,2 

69,3 

3,5 

94,5 

19,2 

7,4 

73,4 

3,4 

85,7 

11,1 

16,0 

72,8 

6,2 

88,9 

10,3 

7,5 

82,2 

6,9 

7,8 

2,1 

1,7 

9,4 

7,3 

88,3 

94,4 

94,9 

84,4 

85,8 

85,8 

7,2 

16,9 

75,9 

8,1 

12,1 

79,8 

89,2 

8,2 

8,9 

82,8 

5,6 

6,9 

87,5 

United States 

37,5 

15,4 

47,1 

21,8 

11,8 

66,4 

23,8 

16,1 

60,2 

24,4 

14,6 

61,0 

Greece 

Albania 

54,7 

43,6 

1,7 

47,8 

50,5 

1,7 

44,3 

53,4 

2,3 

51,5 

46,7 

1,7 

Former USSR 

63,4 

31,2 

5,5 

68,9 

27,3 

3,8 

70,5 

25,7 

3,9 

67,4 

28,2 

4,4 

Germany 

39,0 

20,5 

40,5 

38,9 

19,8 

41,4 

40,2 

17,3 

42,5 

39,3 

19,2 

41,5 

Turkey 

15,8 

11,2 

73,0 

14,0 

11,3 

74,8 

20,3 

11,9 

67,8 

15,7 

11,3 

73,0 

EN 

58 

EN 

 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
Primary 

Secondary 

Tertiary 

Total 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

Country 

Country of birth 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

Bulgaria 

73,5 

24,4 

2,0 

76,2 

20,7 

3,1 

72,3 

21,2 

6,5 

74,5 

22,6 

3,0 

Hungary 

Romania 

17,4 

19,7 

62,9 

14,0 

34,5 

51,6 

11,4 

27,6 

61,0 

14,6 

28,9 

56,5 

Former Yugoslavia 

8,0 

12,5 

79,5 

20,7 

32,5 

46,8 

18,5 

29,0 

52,5 

15,8 

24,7 

59,5 

Slovak Republic 

- 

2,2 

97,8 

9,2 

1,4 

89,4 

5,9 

7,1 

87,1 

5,0 

2,6 

92,4 

Former USSR 

10,3 

36,9 

52,9 

16,7 

28,6 

54,7 

21,8 

27,4 

50,9 

17,3 

29,9 

52,9 

Germany 

24,3 

4,4 

71,4 

9,1 

7,4 

83,5 

5,4 

9,0 

85,6 

9,6 

7,5 

82,8 

Ireland 

United Kingdom 

23,5 

18,4 

58,1 

26,4 

17,1 

56,5 

33,5 

19,9 

46,6 

28,2 

18,6 

53,2 

United States 

14,9 

16,1 

69,0 

28,8 

15,8 

55,4 

40,4 

18,9 

40,7 

34,2 

17,8 

48,0 

Former USSR 

91,5 

6,8 

1,7 

95,6 

3,6 

0,8 

88,9 

9,1 

2,0 

92,0 

6,5 

1,5 

Germany 

35,5 

17,3 

47,2 

46,4 

18,7 

35,0 

45,6 

22,1 

32,3 

44,5 

20,3 

35,2 

Nigeria 

95,9 

3,0 

1,2 

90,7 

6,0 

3,3 

88,1 

7,1 

4,8 

90,1 

6,1 

3,8 

Italy 

Switzerland 

16,3 

14,8 

68,9 

19,7 

15,3 

65,0 

22,3 

17,8 

59,9 

18,7 

15,5 

65,8 

Former Yugoslavia 

33,7 

37,7 

28,6 

31,3 

46,9 

21,8 

26,2 

45,9 

28,0 

32,5 

40,9 

26,7 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Primary 

Secondary 

Tertiary 

Total 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

Country 

Country of birth 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

Germany 

Morocco 

Albania 

20,6 

14,0 

65,4 

21,4 

15,8 

62,9 

30,9 

18,9 

50,1 

23,8 

16,1 

60,1 

36,5 

24,7 

38,8 

31,8 

24,5 

43,7 

33,7 

21,3 

45,0 

35,5 

24,5 

40,0 

57,9 

30,0 

12,1 

47,1 

36,7 

16,2 

49,9 

36,7 

13,4 

53,9 

32,6 

13,5 

Luxembourg 

Portugal 

32,9 

21,4 

45,7 

40,1 

21,4 

38,5 

38,4 

29,3 

32,3 

35,4 

21,5 

43,0 

France 

Belgium 

Germany 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Indonesia 

Turkey 

Morocco 

Germany 

Belgium 

16,4 

4,8 

78,8 

39,8 

10,5 

49,7 

68,0 

7,4 

24,5 

44,2 

8,5 

47,3 

13,8 

7,8 

78,4 

37,3 

12,3 

50,5 

58,4 

14,6 

27,0 

44,2 

12,8 

43,0 

7,1 

6,8 

2,0 

4,6 

7,7 

4,5 

6,0 

3,0 

3,3 

1,8 

89,9 

28,6 

9,3 

62,0 

49,2 

11,1 

39,7 

28,3 

8,1 

63,6 

89,9 

21,9 

6,5 

71,6 

49,2 

8,9 

41,8 

17,4 

5,2 

77,4 

96,2 

1,0 

2,2 

96,7 

2,6 

1,3 

96,1 

1,8 

1,8 

96,4 

17,1 

78,2 

6,6 

17,6 

75,8 

11,6 

22,1 

66,3 

5,4 

17,5 

77,1 

17,3 

75,0 

12,5 

20,5 

66,9 

7,6 

22,3 

70,0 

8,6 

18,2 

73,2 

8,0 

7,8 

87,5 

8,9 

13,3 

77,8 

16,4 

14,8 

68,8 

8,7 

11,5 

79,9 

86,1 

14,9 

9,7 

75,4 

16,7 

13,5 

69,8 

12,1 

10,2 

77,7 

EN 

60 

EN 

 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Primary 

Secondary 

Tertiary 

Total 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

Country 

Country of birth 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

Norway 

Sweden 

6,8 

9,3 

83,9 

10,3 

13,7 

76,1 

10,8 

16,1 

73,1 

10,0 

14,0 

76,0 

Former Yugoslavia 

16,9 

46,5 

36,6 

13,3 

60,1 

26,7 

13,6 

58,5 

27,9 

14,0 

57,1 

28,9 

Denmark 

Pakistan 

United States 

New Zealand 

United Kingdom 

2,1 

5,3 

1,6 

2,5 

5,4 

92,6 

3,7 

5,6 

90,7 

5,7 

10,4 

84,4 

5,5 

10,1 

84,5 

9,3 

85,7 

4,0 

6,5 

89,5 

82,3 

5,9 

10,0 

84,2 

3,5 

2,5 

94,9 

2,5 

94,9 

8,4 

3,5 

6,5 

94,0 

3,8 

88,7 

3,0 

85,0 

14,4 

7,9 

77,7 

9,2 

5,3 

6,2 

91,7 

84,6 

8,5 

8,4 

7,5 

Samoa 

10,5 

8,3 

81,3 

16,5 

10,2 

73,4 

12,4 

8,1 

79,4 

14,0 

9,3 

76,7 

Australia 

6,4 

7,6 

86,0 

15,5 

10,3 

74,2 

20,4 

10,2 

69,4 

15,6 

9,9 

74,6 

Portugal 

China 

Fiji 

France 

Brazil 

32,9 

20,3 

46,9 

60,2 

20,2 

19,5 

61,0 

26,2 

12,8 

55,6 

21,9 

22,5 

26,8 

14,1 

59,1 

29,5 

14,4 

56,1 

28,9 

12,5 

58,6 

28,9 

13,8 

57,3 

8,6 

22,3 

69,1 

11,6 

21,0 

67,4 

8,3 

11,5 

80,2 

9,5 

20,5 

70,0 

31,3 

14,2 

54,5 

50,1 

17,1 

32,8 

14,6 

23,6 

61,7 

35,4 

16,8 

47,8 

Germany 

6,9 

19,4 

73,7 

7,0 

4,9 

88,1 

30,1 

6,5 

63,4 

10,8 

12,5 

76,7 

EN 

61 

EN 

 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
Primary 

Secondary 

Tertiary 

Total 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

0-5  
years 

5-10  
years 

10+  
years 

Country 

Country of birth 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

(%) 

Spain 

7,3 

13,3 

79,4 

2,4 

1,2 

96,5 

44,9 

23,7 

31,4 

11,8 

13,1 

75,2 

South Africa 

11,0 

62,3 

26,7 

6,5 

35,2 

58,4 

21,2 

30,5 

48,3 

10,2 

45,2 

44,6 

Sweden 

Finland 

2,0 

1,5 

96,4 

3,1 

1,9 

95,1 

12,2 

6,6 

81,2 

4,2 

2,5 

93,3 

Former Yugoslavia 

8,9 

36,9 

54,1 

9,0 

37,9 

53,1 

11,6 

39,3 

49,2 

9,4 

37,8 

52,8 

Iraq 

Iran 

Poland 

38,9 

32,4 

28,8 

26,4 

29,3 

44,3 

42,0 

24,2 

33,8 

35,7 

28,8 

35,4 

9,2 

6,0 

14,7 

76,1 

7,9 

9,6 

84,4 

5,7 

8,9 

7,5 

83,2 

11,3 

7,6 

81,1 

9,1 

86,8 

13,1 

7,6 

79,3 

8,1 

9,6 

7,9 

81,2 

84,1 

United States 

Mexico 

25,4 

18,9 

55,7 

23,2 

18,5 

58,3 

22,8 

14,3 

62,9 

24,7 

18,6 

56,7 

Philippines 

16,0 

20,7 

63,4 

13,5 

18,3 

68,1 

12,4 

17,0 

70,6 

13,4 

18,0 

68,6 

Puerto Rico 

10,6 

8,7 

80,6 

12,9 

9,9 

77,2 

15,5 

11,5 

73,0 

12,2 

9,6 

78,2 

China 

19,0 

20,5 

60,5 

21,1 

20,4 

58,6 

25,2 

20,7 

54,1 

22,3 

20,5 

57,2 

Germany 

9,2 

4,2 

86,6 

6,8 

4,5 

88,7 

11,6 

5,6 

82,8 

8,8 

4,9 

86,4 

Source: Database on Immigrants in OECD Countries (DIOC). 

EN 

62 

EN 

 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
Table 5 Imports of Services to EU15 from non-EU Countries, 1992-2002 (Euro Million - Ecu Million in 1992) 

Annual 
Average 

Trade 
Balance 2002 

1992 

2002 

Merchandise 

All Services 

Transportation 

Travel 

Communications 

Construction Services 

Insurance 

Financial Services 

Change 
1992-
2002 (%) 

441118  923958 

7.7 

145357  311918 

7.9 

41830 

73075 

37317 

82231 

2692 

6930 

4012 

6660 

3591 

5012 

4766 

9908 

5.7 

8.2 

9.9 

5.2 

3.4 

7.6 

9.9 

7.2 

53089 

24361 

5838 

-11957 

-1066 

3685 

12676 

12007 

-8719 

2006 

5874 

Royalties and Licence Fees. 

9196 

23584 

Trade Related Services & Leasing 

9772 

19651 

Computer and Information Services 

2192 

7508 

13.1 

EN 

63 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Business Services 

13598 

51829 

14.3 

5304 

Legal,  Accounting,  Management  etc. 
Services 

2874 

11875 

15.2 

Advertising, Market Research etc. 

2143 

5605 

10.1 

526 

-36 

Research and Development 

2402 

10328 

15.7 

-1095 

Architecture, engineering etc. 

2868 

8559 

Agric, Mining etc. Services 

848 

538 

11.6 

-4.4 

3496 

105 

Other Business Services 

2463 

14924 

19.7 

2308 

Services  between  affiliated  enterprises 
nie 

6328 

9955 

4.6 

-2343 

Personal,  Cultural  and  Recreational 
Services 

3269 

6058 

Government Services nie 

4507 

5746 

Services not allocated 

2287 

3771 

6.4 

2.5 

5.1 

-2008 

3003 

61 

Source. EUROSTAT. International Trade in Services EU, 1991-2002 

International trade in services expanded throughout the 1990s. Table 5 shows the value of services imports for EU15 from non–EU states for the years 1992 
and 2002, distinguishing a range of service type categories. The figures indicate a substantial rise of just under 8 per cent on an annual average basis over the 
ten year period in question. 

EN 

64 

EN 

 
  
 
However, not all of the service categories distinguished necessarily involve labour migration. The most likely area to generate Mode 4 inflows is the broad 
sector covering trade related services, computer and information services and the business service activities. The table 1 shows that these categories exhibited 
the strongest growth in the 1990s: EU15 imports for these activities rose from €26 billion to €79 billion, or by 15.1 per cent between 1992 and 2002. It is 
worth  noting  that  this  increase  went  along  with  a  rise  in  the  corresponding  services  exports  figures  by  7.8  per  cent  annually  between  1992  and  2000,  in 
particular in the export of computer and information services, and to a lesser extent some business activities. Exports for the former (i.e. computer services) 
category rose by as much as 25 per cent annually, nearly double the corresponding imports increase (13 per cent). The “trade balance” data for 2002 reveal 
that  trade  in  services  generated  a  net  EU15  cash  inflow  of  over  €24  billion  in  that  year.  Significant  contributions  to  this  favourable  outcome  arose  from 
positive balances for the insurance and financial areas, computer related services and business services generally67. 

67 

EN 

study on assessing the question of applying numerical ceilings to the temporary movement of contract service suppliers (mode 4) in the context of the Gats negociations on trade in services, report to the EU 
Commission, J.J. Sexton, Dublin, 7 April 2005 

65 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Table  6  Number  of  foreign-controlled  enterprises  (Industry  and  services  -  excluding 
financial  intermediation  and  public  administration)  in  selected  EU  MS:  ownership  of 
enterprise by extra-EU 25 countries, absolute numbers 

Member States 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Estonia 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Hungary 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

Total 

Source: Eurostat 

2003 

2199 

2034 

110 

901 

5410 

4270 

- 

762 

433 

470 

2004 

2169 

3412 

127 

926 

5979 

4292 

127 

802 

485 

502 

1362 

1417 

817 

351 

440 

471 

90 

615 

- 

346 

700 

552 

298 

639 

2005 

1942 

3393 

- 

1329 

6249 

4766 

- 

- 

578 

586 

2132 

- 

1288 

684 

- 

324 

684 

3014 

23749 

3066 

25839 

3234 

27189 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
Table  7  Number  of  foreign-controlled  enterprises  (related  to  the  business  economy: 
industry, construction and market services) in selected EU MS: ownership of enterprise 
by extra-EU 25 countries, absolute numbers 

Member States 

1998 

1999 

2000 

Austria 

Denmark 

- 

- 

Germany (a) 

2975 

France 

Ireland (b) 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Source: Eurostat 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

301 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1243 

471 

- 

- 

- 

- 

4472 

318 

- 

969 

550 

1951 

8047 

- 

2001 

767 

- 

- 

4954 

- 

- 

1355 

539 

2667 

- 

2002 

779 

- 

- 

- 

- 

3500 

1561 

- 

3165 

- 

(a) Extra-EU countries considered are Switzerland, Japan and US 

(b) Data available only for the manufacturing sector (NACE category D) 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
Table 8 Number of main extra-EU foreign affiliates in the manufacturing sector 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

60 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

301 

Poland 

Portugal 

26 

19 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

112 

102 

397 

626 

306 

298 

183 

24 

282 

242 

104 

110 

374 

624 

345 

343 

171 

15 

297 

285 

102 

465 

996 

347 

1210 

418 

168 

19 

295 

290 

473 

978 

312 

394 

183 

307 

360 

Source: OECD “Measuring Globalization – Activities of Multinationals”, 2007 

496 

967 

277 

181 

314 

402 

1978 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2. SURVEY OF MEMBER STATES' LEGISLATIONS 

2.1. National regulations on highly skilled workers  

Significant  policy  developments  took  place  in  a  number  of  Member  States  regarding  the 
admission  of  third-country  nationals  for  the  purpose  of  employment,  which  indicates  the 
existence  of  labour  shortages  in  sectors  requiring  both  highly-skilled  and  lower-skilled 
workers  in  those  countries.  A  substantial  number  of  member  states  practise  a  policy  of 
selective  high-skilled  immigration  consisting  of  reducing  and  facilitating  the  administrative 
procedures applicable to the admission for employment purposes of those who are labelled as 
‘high-skilled, talented or well-educated’68.  

The  priorities,  challenges  and  policy  responses  differ  greatly  from  one  state  to  another 
according  to  their  divergent  national  histories  of  settlement  and  colonialism,  perceived 
societal problems and labour market needs, as well as the economic and political situation in a 
given time period.  

69

Most  of  the  countries  studied  have  a  specific  scheme  for  highly  skilled  immigrants  but  this 
category must not be mistaken with ICTs. The Netherlands practices a selective and demand-
driven immigration policy that is rooted in economic considerations
. According to Section 
13  of  the  Aliens  Act  an  accelerated  procedure  for  high-skilled  migrants  has  been  in  force 
since  1  October  2004.  High-skilled  immigrants  will  not  need  to  experience  the  long  and 
.In  Germany,  the 
tedious  bureaucratic  procedures  of  applying  for  a  work  permit
Employment  Ordinance  –  Foreign  Countries  provides  that  highly  skilled  migrants  are 
directly eligible for a permanent settlement permit upon entering the German territory
. The 
Federal  Employment  Agency  does  not  need  to  give  its  consent  to  these  categories  of 
immigrants to ensure a quick response to the application by the Foreigners Office. The new 
Art. 9 of the Arrêté Royal modifiant l’Arrêté Royal du 9 juin 1999 relatif à l’occupation 
des travailleurs étrangers in Belgium gives a clear preferential treatment to the category of 
persons falling within the privileged status of highly skilled workers allowing them to renew 
 The  Settlement  and  Residence  Act  of 
their  work  permit  for  a  new  period  of  four  years.
Austria provides in Art. 41 a special settlement permit – key worker which will be granted 
in an accelerated procedure in the case of qualified personnel

.  

70

71

73

72

68

69

70

71

72

73

There is a wide diversity as regards the definition given to high-skilled immigrants in each national legal system. 
Section  13  of  the  Aliens  Act  provides  that  «an  application  for  the  issue  of  residence  permit  shall  be  granted  only  if:  (b)  the 
presence of the alien would serve a real interest of the Netherlands». V. Marinelli (2005). 
An immigrant is high-skilled if s/he is in possession of a contract and proves that s/he will be earning at least 45,495 or 33,363 
euros if his/her age is less than 30 years old. Other countries who define who is a highly skilled immigrant based on salary are: 
Austria, Belgium and Germany. 
Section  19  provides  that  highly  qualified  persons  are:  scientists  with  special  technical  knowledge,  teaching  personnel  in 
prominent positions or scientific personnel in prominent positions, or specialists and executive personnel with special professional 
experience  who  receive  a  salary  corresponding  to  at  least  twice  the  earnings  ceiling  of  the  statutory  health  insurance  scheme. 
Also,  Section  18  says  that  labour  migration  may  take  place  taking  into  account  «the  requirements  of  the  German  economy, 
according due consideration to the situation on the labour market». «In justified individual cases, a residence permit will be issued 
for the purpose of taking up employment when there is a public interest, and in particular a regional interest or an interest relating 
to the economy or the labour market 
Art. 9.6. Arrêté Royal modifiant l’arrêté royal du 9 juin 1999 relative à l’occupation des travailleurs étrangers, 6 Février 2003. 
(AR 2003-02-06/41). S. Gsir et al. (2005). 
Special legal rules also exist for the health sector. Qualified personnel are defined according to income threshold. Workers will be 
qualified as such if they earn more that 60% of the income threshold for social security contributions (Höchstebeitragsgrundlage). 
Policy Report, National Contact Point Austria (2005). 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  France,  immigration  is  regulated  according  to  the  perceived  economic  needs  of  the 
country.  The  main  principle  seems  to  be  that  nobody  should  become  a  public  burden,  and 
hence that the applicant must have sufficient income and sickness/health insurance coverage. 
The Loi relatif à l’immigration et a l’intégration presents a new residence permit called the 
residence permit mentioning competencies and skills (La carte de séjour portant la mention 
compétences  et  talents)
. This  permit  shall  be  granted  to  those  immigrants  who,  because  of 
their special competences or skills, may contribute significantly and durably to the economic 
situation  or  the  intellectual,  scientific,  cultural,  humanitarian  or  sportive  development  of 
75
France and of the country of his/her nationality

.  

74

The  United  Kingdom  has  also  opened  its  borders  to  highly  skilled  workers  from  third 
countries. Job seekers with excellent university degrees and at least two years of professional 
experience  as  well  as  key  workers  may  be  issued  work  permits,  provided  the  state  of  the 
labour market allows this. Their stay can last for up to four years. After three years, they may 
apply for immigrant status, which about 25% of these workers do successfully.  

In  Sweden  the  government  uses  targeted  permits  aimed  at  highly  skilled  workers  or 
immigrants  of  exceptional  talent.  These  targeted  permits,  which  are  valid  for  a  renewable 
period of up to 48 months, are granted once a job offer has been made and require a minimum 
income  and  guaranteed  housing.  In  Denmark,  foreign  experts  are  given  the  opportunity  to 
receive  a  residence  permit  after  specific  assessment  is  made  of  prevailing  circumstances. 
Furthermore, foreign experts receive a tax reduction for their first three years of residence. 

76

77

Other  countries  do  not  have  a  specific  system  for  high-skilled  immigration.  In  the  case  of 
Poland, while the policy priorities of the Polish Immigration Law seem to give preference 
to highly skilled and qualified migrants
, there are no specific rules addressing or facilitating 
that goal
. Spain does not have a general system for the ‘highly-skilled’ either. The annual 
quota  (contingente)  system  is  one  of  the  main  mechanisms  for  legal  labour  migration.  The 
government annually approves a quota that provides a technical estimation of the number of 
. 
workers  who  are  deemed  as  ‘necessary’  by  employers  and  the  Autonomous  Communities
. 
The administrative mechanisms for their incorporation into the labour market are simplified
It  also  encourages  hiring  immigrant  workers  in  the  countries  of  origin
.  In  the  Czech 
Republic, a pilot project on the selection of qualified labour from specified third countries is 

80

79

78

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

See R. Blio, C. Wihtol de Wenden and N. Meknache (2003). Article L341-2 Code du Travail (Loi nº 2005-32 du 18 janvier 2005 
art. 147 Journal Officiel du 19 janvier 2005 en vigueur le 1er janvier 2006). 
This type of residence permit is valid for three years and may be renewed once if the holder is a national of one of the countries 
having  special  historical  tights  (zone  de  solidarité  prioritaire)  with  France.  The  permit  allows  the  bearer  to  carry  out  a 
professional activity of his/her choice as part of the law 
Art. 53.1.2. The Aliens Law which states that a residence permit will be granted to an immigrant who «carries out an economic 
activity which is beneficial to the national economy and in particular, contributes to the development of investments, transfer of 
technology, innovations or job creation». 
In 2004 a few amendments were introduced in the new laws regulating the access to labour market by immigrants, yet there is no 
system for highly qualified immigrants. Regulation of 9 February 2004 of the Minister of Labour, Economy and Social Policy to 
amend  the  Regulation  concerning  detailed  principles  on  issuance  of  promises  of  work  permits  and  work  permits  to  foreign 
workers, of 19 December 2001, Text No. 236. Dziennik Ustaw, 25 February 2003, No. 27, pp. 1494-1503. 
Quotas are established according to the labour sector, territory and kind of employment. The competent authority drawing up the 
contingente is the Secretaría de Estado de Inmigración y Emigración, after consulting the Tripartite Employment Commission on 
Immigration,  which  is  a  permanent  platform  for  cooperation  between  the  state  and  the  social  partners  (employers  and  trade 
unions). A. Balch (2005). 
It offers the possibility for them to obtain visa and residence and work permit at the same time in the embassy 
See Art. 77-83 of the Royal Decree 2393/2004. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in  place  to  attract  skilled  workers  for  settlement.  This  scheme  can  also  be  accessed  by 
students who have studied in Czech universities and high schools. 

A particularly interesting development that appears, to a certain extent, to be the result of the 
outflow of their nationals to other Member States for the purpose of employment concerns the 
growing labour shortages that have been identified in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and the 
interest  expressed  by  employers  there  in  hiring  workers  from  third  countries.  In  Estonia, 
employers  would  like  to  employ  qualified  workers,  particularly  in  the  construction  and  IT 
sectors but they are discouraged by the complex rules applicable to hiring workers from third 
countries. In  Latvia,  plans  are  being  discussed  to  facilitate  access  of  employment  for  third-
country  nationals,  particularly  specialists,  in  light  of  depopulation  and  the  low  birth  rate.  A 
related development concerns amended regulations, which enable students in Latvia to work 
up to 20 hours a week and the possibility for asylum-seekers to obtain a work permit until a 
final decision is taken on their status. Emigration from Lithuania has resulted in a significant 
decrease in the population, which is not however reflected in the official statistics indicating 
that  by  the  end  of  2005  there  were  22,100  fewer  persons  in  the  country  than  by  the  end  of 
2004. As a result, job shortages have appeared in the construction and retail sectors, hospitals 
and  educational  establishments.  There  has  also  been  an  adverse  impact  on  investment  in 
Lithuania  with  some  companies  considering  withdrawal  or  reconsidering  their  entry  in  the 
country because of the lack of an appropriate labour force. 

2.2. National regulations on ICTs 

The investigation has been carried out on the basis of the responses provided by the Member 
States to the questionnaire Migrapol 20781.  

The  present  analysis  covers  the  24  EU  Member  States  which  provided  responses  to  the 
questionnaires  and  is  mainly  focused  the  following  areas:  definition;  entry  and  residence 
conditions;  rights  granted  and, 
in  particular,  specific  provisions  regarding  family 
reunification. 

14 MS have specific provisions for ICTs, who are typically defined as follows: 

-employees of a foreign company, working on the territory of the Member States in order to 
carry out a specific activity or service; 

-employees transferred on the basis of a specific agreement or programme; 

-trainees82 of a foreign company part of an intra-corporate transfer. 

Most  of  Member  States83  generally  limit  the  admission  of  the  ICTs  to  the  following 
categories: managers, key staff personnel, high skilled personnel. 

As  far  as  the  entry  and  residence  conditions  are  concerned,  admission  criteria  usually 
include: 

81

82
83  

The questionnaire Migrapol 207 has been circulated in the framework of the 28h CIA Meeting.  
This is the case of FI, IE, ES, NL. 
DE, ES, IE, NL, SK, DK and SE 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
-certificates attesting the level of education, qualification and previous training activities (CZ, 
DE, NL, AT); 

-previous experience in the same activity (ES, NL and IE84); 

-thresholds regarding the annual minimum salary (IE, NL, FR85). 

Some  Member  States  provide  for  further  conditions  for  the  admission  of  ICTs,  by  fixing 
annual  quotas  for  third  countries  employees  (this  is  the  case  of  RO)  or  placing  percentage 
caps to the number of ICTs for each company86. 

Work and the residence permits are usually issued separately87.  

The duration of the work permit is highly variable across EU Member States, ranging from 
1  month  to  2  years.  However,  in  all  the  Member  States  these  permits  are  renewable.  The 
duration of residence permit is generally linked to the duration of the work permit. 

Finally, some Member States88 explicitly foresee geographical and professional limitations as 
regards the validity of the permit. 

As  far  as  the  rights  are  concerned,  Member  States  usually  grant  the  ICTs  equal  treatment 
with EU nationals. In particular cases89 it is specified that health assistance is guaranteed.  

Finally,  it  is  worth  noting  that  many  Member  States  foresee  explicit  provision  for  family 
reunification.  Family  reunification  may  be  allowed  from  the  beginning  of  the  stay  of  the 
ICT90;  or  after  6  or  18  months  of  continuous  residence  of  the  ICT91;  or  if  the  work  permit 
exceeds a certain duration92. 

Generally,  the  permit  to  reunification  is  granted  to  the  spouse  and  the  children.  In  Ireland, 
spouse  and  dependant  are  allowed  to  seek  employment  and  apply  for  a  spousal/dependant 
work permit. 

In the light of the above, the main remarks can be summarized as follows: 

-there  is  a  general  concordance  among  MS  on  categories  admitted  as  ICTs,  generally 
identified as “key personnel” or “highly skilled personnel”, but admission criteria and work 
permit durations range widely across EU Member States. 

-Procedures for admission can be particularly long or difficult (e.g. SK and RO).  

84

85

86

87
88  
89  
90  
91  
92  

For at least one year. 
France requires a gross salary of 1,5 SMIC (Salaire Minimum Interprofessionel de Croissance); the Netherlands requires a salary-
criterion of at least € 47.565 (younger then 30y: € 34.881); Ireland requires a minimum annual salary of € 40,000. 
This is the case of Ireland where the number of ICTs should not exceed 5% of the total Irish workforce in a company, although in 
exceptional circumstances such as small or start-up companies a higher percentage may be permitted on a strictly temporary basis 
with an absolute limit of 50% of non-EEA staff. 
Except from DE and DK. 
PL and SE. 
IT, CZ, and LT. 
e.g.: ES. 
e.g.: FR, AT in particular circumstances. 
e.g.: SE. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
-Many  Member  States  grant  equal  treatment  with  EU  nationals  and  right  to  family 
reunification but, at the same time, conditions and limitations to such rights exist and they are 
highly  variable  between  Member  States.  Moreover,  the  possibility  for  spouses  to  seek 
employment in the host country is rarely granted.  

-The  wide  differentiation  between  EU  Member  States  and  the  lack  of  clear  and/or  specific 
schemes in some of them create severe difficulties to foreign multinational companies which 
are  faced  with  highly  variable  systems  across  EU  and  have  to  fulfil  complex  and  long 
procedures.  

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
2.3 Summary of Member States' responses to Migrapol 207 

The analysis focuses on replies to Section B of Migrapol 207. 

Legislation concerning Intra-Corporate Transferees 

MS 

Presence  of 
specific 
rules 

Categories’ Definitions 

Entry and residence conditions 

Admission criteria 

Work 
Residence Permit 

and 

Rights 
limitations 

granted 

and 

Family 
reunification 

-"rotational  workforce":  as 
defined  in  the  GATS  but 
not  limited  to  the  service 
sector 

AT 

Y 

-check 
health 
of 
insurance  and  work 
conditions 

-residence 
and 
work  permit  is  for 
one 
but 
year 
renewable 

-required 
diploma 
and  documents  for 
work qualification 

up 

to 

6 

-visa 
months 

-key 
temporary) 

personnel 

(not 

-university 
for graduate trainee  

degree 

BE 

N 

-schemes  for  managers  and 
high skilled skilled workers  

-single procedure 

-processing  time:  6 
key 
weeks 
personnel; 
6 
months as a rule 

for 

-no work permit for 
workers  posted  to 
the  main  place  of 
business 

-processing time: 4-
6 weeks 

BG 

N 

managing 

-superior 
personnel 

-specialists 

CY 

N 

n.a. 

labour  market 

-no 
test 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

CZ 

Y 

-reference 
category 

to 

GATS 

that 

-proof 
the 
applicant  is  covered 
by the GATS 

-certificate  attesting 
the 
of 
level 
qualification; 

about 
-declaration 
the 
type  of  work, 
place  of  work  and 
the  period  during 
which  the  work  will 
performed, 
be 
statement 
the 
employer  expressing 
his 
to 
intention 
employ the ICT 

of 

labour  market 

-no 
test 

-the  work  permit 
may  be  issued  for 
maximum 
the 
period  of  one  year; 
renewable 

-work 
permit 
limited to a specific 
post 

-as  regards  social  assistance 
this  is  generally  guaranteed  to 
a  person  with  a  permanent 
the  Czech 
in 
residence 
to  ES/EEA 
Republic  and 
citizens  whose  stay 
the 
in 
Czech  Republic  is  longer  than 
3 months (allowance for living 
and supplement for housing). 

-family  allowances  after  365 
days 

generally 
provided 
possible 
personnel 

not 
but 
for  key 

-family 
reunification 
right to work 

and 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

DE 

Y 

EN 

skilled personnel part of an 
a 
exchange 
Company  or  Companies 
same 
to 
belonging 

within 

the 

-a)university or High 
school 
Professional 
degree 
a 
comparable 

or 

-work 
restricted 
specific employer 

permit 
a 
to 

-employment  conditions  equal 
to German standards. 

not 
-generally 
allowed 
but 
granted  on  a  case-

74 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Presence  of 
specific 
rules 

Categories’ Definitions 

Entry and residence conditions 

Admission criteria 

Work 
Residence Permit 

and 

Rights 
limitations 

granted 

and 

Group; 

qualification; 

holding 

specific 
ICT 
knowledge 
and 
indispensable  to  prepare  a 
project overseas  

level 
to  German 

-a)b)salary 
equal 
standards 

-a)b) no LM test 

-duration  no  longer 
than three years. 

Family 
reunification 

by-case basis 

93

DK

  N 

-the  regulation  applies  to 
foreign  professionals  who 
play  a  leading  role  in  a 
company. 

EE 

N 

-no restriction regarding the 
type of work performed 

and 

salary 

-the 
employment 
must 
conditions 
correspond to Danish 
standards. 

-employment 
contract or offer 

-valid  work  contract 
with an employer 

-seconded  to  another 
country  for  a  certain 
period of time 

-residence 
permit 
for  work  purposes, 
issued  for  a  period 
of  maximum  three 
with 
years 
possibility 
of 
extension. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

receive 

-ICTs 
residence 
for employment; 

a 
permit 

n.a. 

n.a. 

. 

-Host entity has to be 
registered  in  Estonia 
and 
has 
responsibility  as  a 
sponsor 

-the  Greek  company 
must  employ  at  least 
100 Greek nationals 

their 

-TCNs  must  possess 
scientific  knowledge 
field  of 
in 
expertise,  in  which 
their counterparts are 
lacking  

-certified  copies  of 
the 
employment 
contract, diplomas  

-the 
of 
number 
employees  may  not 
exceed  5%  of  all 
Greek employees 

-prior employment in 
the foreign company: 
9  months, 
the 
same job: 12 months; 

in 

-the  ICT  habitually 
resides  and  works  in 
the foreign country 

holding 

a 
-companies 
specific 
status 
legal 
(trading,  trade  &  industry, 
constructions, shipping);  

administrators, 
-directors, 
legal 
representatives  and 
managing  executives  of 
subsidiaries  and  branches 
of foreign companies which 
are 
in 
legally  activated 
trading in Greece 

workers  posted  by  a  TC 
company 
principal 
(its 
place of business is outside 
the EU/EEA): 

-contract services suppliers; 

-ICT 
for 
(including 
purpose of a training); 

the 

permit 
-residence 
initially issued for a 
period  of  one  year; 
may be renewed for 
two years 

n.a. 

family 
reunification 

-single application 

-xork  permit  with 
duration  of  one 
with 
year 
possibility 
of 
extension one  more 
year  (in  any  case 
the 
linked 
the 
duration 

to 
of 

n.a. 

family 

-specific 
reunification 
scheme 
managers 
highly 
workers 

for 
and 
qualified 

93

The concept of ICTs does not exist on a separate basis in Danish law. 

75 

   EN 

EL 

Y 

ES 

Y 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
MS 

Presence  of 
specific 
rules 

Categories’ Definitions 

Entry and residence conditions 

Admission criteria 

Work 
Residence Permit 

and 

Rights 
limitations 

granted 

and 

Family 
reunification 

-highly qualified workers in 
charge of the monitoring of 
services 
works 
or 
performed 
Spanish 
companies 

by 

FI 

N 

expert  duties  in  the  middle 
or  top  management  of  a 
company  or  that  requires 
special expertise 

FR 

Y 

TCN  transferred  to  France 
realize  an 
to 
in  order 
activity  within  the  same 
company 

HU 

N 

n.a. 

-the  ICTs  are  either 
employees  of  a  FR 
company  or  a  TC 
company 

-they  earn  more  than 
1,5  time  the  minimal 
wage: 

-prior employment in 
the foreign company: 
3 months  

in  some  cases  (i.e. 
key  personnel) 
the 
work permit is issued 
without 
labour 
the 
market test. 

eenior management; 

IE 

Y 

key personnel; 

trainees. 

employee  or 
-the 
transferee in question 
been 
must 
have 
working 
a 
minimum  period  of 
12  months  with  the 
overseas 
company 
prior to transfer; 

for 

EN 

activity); 

-work 
restricted 
specific 
and place 

permit 
a 
to 
employer 

-processing time: 1-
3 months 

work  permit  with 
different 
duration 
with  respect  to  the 
categories: 

-up to 18 months; 

-up  to  a  maximum 
of two years 

single  permit 
-a 
(carte  de 
séjour 
temporaire « salarié 
is 
en  mission ») 
issued. 
The 
duration  of  such 
to 
permit 
three 
years 
renewable.  

is  up 

-work 
permit 
(exceptions: 
chief 
executives 
and 
the 
members  of 
supervisory  board 
of 
business 
associations  with 
foreign 
participation; 
persons  who  will 
carry  out  work  that 
involves 
commissioning, 
service 
guarantee 
activities performed 
on  the  basis  of  a 
contract 
private 
with 
foreign-
a 
registered 
if  such 
company, 
does  not  exceed 
fifteen  consecutive 
days) 

-the  duration  of  an 
Intra 
Company 
Transfer  Permit  is 
for a defined period 
depending  on 
the 
reason for transfer; 

-applications  may 

76 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

family 
reunification 
is 
allowed  whether 
the  ICT  can  prove 
continuous 
a 
residence 
for  at 
least 6 months; 

n.a. 

and 
-spouses 
dependents,  once 
legally 
they  are 
resident 
the 
State  on  the  basis 
of being the permit 
holder’s  Spouse  or 
are 
Dependant, 

in 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Family 
reunification 

to 

seek 
free 
and 
employment 
apply 
a 
for 
Spousal/Dependant 
work permit; 

spouse  and 
-the 
dependant  children 
can  apply  to  join 
the 
in 
transferee 
the  State  while  the 
is 
transferee 
lawfully in Ireland. 

-the  alien’s  family 
members 
can 
follow him and are 
issued  a  residence 
permit  which  has 
the  same  duration 
as 
the  worker’s 
permit, considering 
that the duration of 
the 
worker’s 
residence  permit  is 
not  less  than  one 
year. 

MS 

Presence  of 
specific 
rules 

Categories’ Definitions 

Entry and residence conditions 

Admission criteria 

Work 
Residence Permit 

and 

Rights 
limitations 

granted 

and 

first 

be  granted  for  a 
maximum period of 
up  to  24  months  in 
instance 
the 
be 
and 
upon 
extended 
a 
to 
application 
maximum  stay  of 
five years. 

may 

-work  permit  for  a 
specific employer 

and 
-work 
residence 
permit 
(Entry  visa  issued 
by 
Italian 
Embassy); 

-the 
permit’s 
duration  is  equal  to 
the  work 
that  of 
permit 
less 
(not 
than  one  year)  and 
cannot be renewed. 

-no work permit for 
ICTs 

-provided  a  Work 
permit; 

-maximum duration 
of 
year 
one 
(renewable); 

-the  work  permit 
has  to  specify  the 
job  (position)  and 
enterprise,  agency 
or 
organization 
where the alien will 
be employed. 

-minimum 
salary of €40,000. 

annual 

-the  number  of  ICTs 
cannot exceed 5% of 
Irish 
total 
the 
workforce  in  a  firm 
(except 
for 
exceptional cases) 

-for  both  categories: 
required 
University/high 
vocational 
qualifications; 

training 

category 

b): 
-for 
required 
a 
traineeship program; 

category 

-for 
a): 
salary-
required  a 
criterion of at least € 
47.565 (younger then 

IT 

Y 

n.a. 

LT 

Y  

n.a. 

MT 

N 

n.a. 

key 
staff 
(manager/specialists)  of  an 
international company; 

NL 

Y 

graduate 
international company. 

trainees 

in  an 

-the  residence  permit  entitles 
its  holder  to  register  in  the 
National Health Service. 

-ICTs  enjoy  equal  treatment 
with  nationals  with  regard  to 
working  conditions,  including 
pay  and  dismissal,  health  and 
social security and pensions (if 
social  taxes  are  paid  in  LT), 
freedom  of  association  and 
affiliation 

n.a. 

-all  employees  in  Malta  have 
equivalent  rights  in  respect  of 
working conditions. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Presence  of 
specific 
rules 

Categories’ Definitions 

Entry and residence conditions 

Admission criteria 

Work 
Residence Permit 

and 

Rights 
limitations 

granted 

and 

Family 
reunification 

30: € 34.881); 

-for 
b): 
category 
required  a  market-
conform salary;  

-for 
b): 
category 
required  a  period  of 
employment  of  at 
most 3 years. 

specific  permit  are 
issued  with  regard 
to  the  category:  a) 
no  work  permit 
necessary,  visa  for 
of 
purpose 
the 
work;  b)c)  work 
permit  

limited 

the  duration  of  the 
work  permit  differs 
for  each  category: 
a) 
to  30 
days in the calendar 
year;  b)  general 
work  permit  rules 
apply;  c)  generally 
the 
limited 
duration 
of 
contract; 

to 

permits 
residence 
are  granted  for  a 
period  exceeding  3 
months.  Maximal 
period  –  2  years.  It 
is possible to renew 
the 
residence 
permit or change its 
conditions. 

rights  granted  differ  with 
respect  to  the  categories:  a) 
since no legal relationship with 
the  Polish  entity  is  entered 
into,  TCNs  has  contract-based 
rights;  b)  generally,  same  as 
for  nationals  performing  work 
on 
duration 
contracts;  c)  generally,  not 
worse 
for 
nationals  performing  work,  as 
not 
regards 
lower 
the 
sector/position. 

then  minimal 

then  average 

remuneration: 

limited-time 

in 

limitations 

-some 
are 
envisaged  for  the  categories 
mentioned:  a)    not  limited;  b) 
and  c) 
to  specific 
employment  with  a  specific 
employer  and 
in  a  certain 
location; 

limited 

-possibility to change status. 

-same  as  general 
for  TCN-workers, 
the 
based 
Social 
European 
Charter. 

on 

PL 

Y 

a)  ICTs  posted  for 
the 
period  not  exceeding  30 
days in the calendar year; 

b)  ICTs  posted  for 
the 
period exceeding 30 days in 
the calendar year; 

c)  ICTs  posted  to  Poland 
within 
framework  of  a 
service  provided  by  a 
foreign  establishment  for 
the Polish one. 

that 

-proof 
transfer 
within a group 

the 
occurred 

PT 

Y 

GATS 

RO 

N 

n.a. 

-same 
services 
between 2 companies 

-prior employment: 1 
year 

of 

 -the vacant positions 
cannot be filled in by 
citizens, 
Romanian 
other 
citizens 
European 
Union 
Member  States,  of 
the signatories of the 
Agreement  on 
the 
European  Economic 
Area,  as  well  as  by 
permanent  residents 
on  the  territory  of 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Presence  of 
specific 
rules 

Categories’ Definitions 

Entry and residence conditions 

Admission criteria 

Work 
Residence Permit 

and 

Rights 
limitations 

granted 

and 

Family 
reunification 

Romania; 

-they  meet 
the 
special  requirements 
regarding 
professional  training, 
experience 
activity 
and 
authorization, 
which  are  requested 
by 
employer 
according to the laws 
in force; 

the 

-they  produce  proof 
that  are  medically  fit 
to  perform  the  given 
activity  and  have  no 
criminal 
record 
incompatible  with 
activity 
the 
to 
performed 
or 
perform 
the 
territory of Romania; 

on 

-they  fit  the  annual 
number 
of 
employees  approved 
Government 
by 
decision; 

-the  employers  have 
their  obligations  to 
the State budget paid 
up to date.  

-no LM test 

can 
for 

-a  temporary  work 
be 
permit 
a 
issued 
maximum period of 
48  months  and  it 
can  in  some  cases 
be  extended  to  3 
years  depending  on 
sector 
the 
concerned 

-permit  valid  for  a 
specific 
employer 
and occupation 

SE 

Y 

-leadership  position  within 
an  international  concern  or 
within  a  business  which  is 
their 
or 
customer,  and  who  in  this 
capacity  needs  to  work  in 
Sweden; or: 

subcontractor 

subcontractor 

-specialist  duties  within  an 
international  concern  or 
within  a  business  which  is 
or 
their 
customer 
(so-called 
concern-transfers),  and  in 
this capacity needs to work 
in  Sweden  for  more  than 
one year; or: 

an 
-employment  within 
international  concern  and 
who  needs 
in 
Sweden  in  order  to  obtain 
training 
business 
in 
techniques or methods. 

to  work 

-the  ICT  must  be  ensured 
insurance  protection 
salary, 
of 
conditions 
other 
and 
accordance 
employment 
in 
with 
collective 
applicable 
agreements  or  practices  in  the 
relevant occupation branch; 

period 

the 

-during 
permits 
admission, 
restricted 
a 
occupation  and  a 
employee. 

to 

of 
are 
specific 
specific 

is 
-if  a  permit 
issued 
for  more 
than  six  months, 
family 
reunification 
allowed 
immediately. 

is 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
MS 

Presence  of 
specific 
rules 

Categories’ Definitions 

Entry and residence conditions 

Admission criteria 

Work 
Residence Permit 

and 

Rights 
limitations 

granted 

and 

Family 
reunification 

-the  alien  is  required 
to  attach  documents 
than  90 
not  older 
days 
the 
to 
temporary  residence 
and 
application, 
which confirm: 

-duration  of  prior 
employment: 1 year 

to 

-the  IC  transfer  (e.g. 
amendment 
the 
contract  employment 
specifying 
the 
position  and  type  of 
work  and  place  of 
employment) 

-no LM test 

-financial  means  of 
stay; 

of 

-proof 
accommodation 
during the temporary 
residence; 

-Proof of integrity. 

Upon 
permit 
the 
issuance  within  30 
days: 

of 

not 
-proof 
suffering  from  any 
disease 
that 
endangers  the  public 
health; 

-proof 
insurance. 

of medical 

period 

-the  ICT  must  be  in 
possession  of  a  valid 
document 
travel 
whose 
of 
validity  exceeds  the 
intended  period  of 
stay  in  the  Republic 
of  Slovenia  by  at 
least three months; 

Workers  employed  by  a 
foreign legal person: 

-essential senior executive; 

-specialist; 

SK 

Y 

-person  at  the  managing 
position  within  the  legal 
person  (manager),  and  who 
responds  for  establishment 
commercial 
of 
representation 
the 
service provider in the SR. 

of 

a 

94

SL

  N 

-must 
possession 
appropriate 
insurance; 

be 

of 

in 
an 
health 

-must 

be 

in 

-provided  a  Work 
and 
permit 
Temporary 
Residence Permit; 

-the  work  permit 
intra-
the 
for 
corporate 
transfer 
may  be  issued  for 
the  period  of  the 
transfer,  maximum 
for  a  period  of  1 
year; 

-the  work  permit  is 
renewable; 

n.a. 

n.a. 

temporary 
permit 
period 
the 

-the 
residence 
for 
a 
necessary  for 
purpose 
achievement, 
maximum 
period of 2 years. 

for 

a 

-work permit issued 
by 
the  competent 
Authorities; 

-residence 
permit 
for  employment  or 
work 
purposes, 
issued  oh  the  basis 
of a work permit; 

-work permit issued 
for  a  maximum  of 
year 
one 
(renewable  for  no 
longer 
two 
years); 

than 

n.a. 

-TCN  who  has 
resided  for  at  least 
year  in  SL  on  the 
basis 
a 
residence permit of 
at least one year  

of 

94

The concept of ICTs does not exist in the Slovenian law. 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
MS 

Presence  of 
specific 
rules 

Categories’ Definitions 

Entry and residence conditions 

Admission criteria 

Work 
Residence Permit 

and 

Rights 
limitations 

granted 

and 

Family 
reunification 

-residence 
to 
linked 
duration 
of 
Work permit. 

permit 
the 
the 

of 
possession 
sufficient  funds  for 
subsistence 
during 
his/her  stay  in  the 
country,  or  his/her 
subsistence  must  be 
guaranteed  otherwise 
and 
valid  work 
permit. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 3. CASE STUDIES: MAIN FINDINGS 

In the countries studied (Germany, the Netherlands and the USA), regulations managing entry 
and temporary residence of ICTs may be part of more general regulations on (highly) skilled 
labour. The entry conditions are generally simpler than those applicable to other (temporary) 
migrants, e.g. no labour market check is needed.  

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
ICT Case study n°1 - German work permit  

BACKGROUND 

On August 1st 2000, the Green Card regulation was  introduced to admit IT specialists for businesses 
and to address the emerging need for specialists in other industries. It is generally agreed that the Green 
Card  was  unsuccessful,  in  that  it  did  not  succeed  in  bringing  about  the  additional  IT  workers  as  was 
expected.  

The new Immigration Act (1 January 2005) has replaced the former German Green Card Initiative. This 
new provision of the Immigration Act is not limited to IT specialists.  

The  national  regulation  for  employment,  Section  31  on  International  exchange  of  Personnel  and 
External Projects (December 2007), distinguished two groups of transferees, one is of employees posted 
in foreign projects and one is of intra-corporate transferees. 

Legal provisions 

Under  the  national  regulation  for  employment,  an  ICT  is  described  as  a  qualified,  skilled  employee 
holding  a  university  or  high  professional  degree  or  a  comparable  qualification,  in  the  context  of 
exchanges of personnel within an international company or corporation.  

Specialists and skilled employees of an internationally operating group who are transferred temporarily 
to Germany can obtain a work permit provided that the intended assignment can be seen as a part of a 
personnel exchange program for internationalization of the group. 

A residence permit can be granted without a economic need test for employment / labour market check 

The permit is valid for at least one year with a maximum of three years. An extension over three years 
is not allowed. Permits cannot be renewed, but the status of the employee could be changed. 

The terms of employment, especially on salaries, should be comparable to those of German employees 
in similar positions. 

The approval from the labour agency is limited to the individual employer. 

One cannot make a claim on family reunification, but admission is allowed by discretion. 

It is sufficient that the company sends, from time to time, skilled employees also from Germany to other 
countries. 

This  kind  of  work  permit  can  be  obtained  from  a  special  labour  authority  (ZAV),  without  a  labour 
market check, which usually speeds up the visa process considerably.95 

Conclusion and remarks 

There  have  been  different  programmes  introduced  to  attract  different  kinds  of  skilled  workers  to 
Germany, not always successful. There are still a lot of barriers faced by companies that would like to 
attract  skilled workers. In  some  cases companies will attract their employee through the International 
Personnel exchange, to find a way around the bureaucratic situation. 

95 

Baker & McKenzie's Global Migration & Executive Transfers practice (2006) Immigration Manual 2006. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ICT Case study n° 2 - Dutch work permit 

BACKGROUND 

On 1 October 2004, the skilled worker regulation came into force. To this end, the Aliens Employment 
Act,  the  Aliens  Decree  2000,  the  Regulations  on  Aliens  2000  and  the  Aliens  Act  implementation 
guidelines were amended.  

The background of the skilled worker regulation is the Lisbon Strategy, an EU-agreement  to turn the 
European Union into the most dynamic knowledge economy in the world. 

A  skilled  worker96  is  a  migrant  who  comes  to  the  Netherlands  in  order  to  work  in  paid  employment, 
receiving  a  certain  income.  In  order  to  comply  with  the  skilled  worker  regulation,  the  employer  for 
whom the skilled worker shall work must have signed a declaration and submitted certain documents to 
the IND (The Immigration and Naturalisation Service). 97 

There are no special regulations regarding ICT in the Netherlands. The Intra-Corporate Transferee can 
however apply as a skilled worker. Many ICT are admitted to the Netherlands this way because of the 
easier  and  quicker  procedures  that  is  involved  specifically  for  skilled  workers.  From  2005  to  2007 
between 2500 and 3000 skilled workers a year were admitted through this Skilled Worker Regulation..  

More than 2,000 employers and institutes have already signed statements to enable the admission and 
residence  of  knowledge  migrants.  It  has  become  clear  that  companies  use  the  scheme  specifically  to 
bring international managers, researchers and ICT staff to The Netherlands. The top three countries of 
origin are: India, the United States of America and Japan.98 

LEGAL PROVISIONS 

For  aliens  who  meet  the  conditions  of  the  skilled  worker  regulation,  obtaining  a  residence  permit  is 
easier  and  can  be  done  quicker  than  for  aliens  who  apply  for  a  residence  permit  via  the  regular 
procedure based on paid employment. 

Also the employers do not need a work permit for non-EU subjects when employing skilled workers, 
while  a  decision  about  the  application  for  a  residence  permit  is  taken  within  fourteen  days  through  a 
separate procedure.  

An employer can bring a foreign employee to the Netherlands as a skilled worker, if: 

-the employer has signed a declaration on the admission of skilled workers and the employer has been 
admitted to the procedure by the Immigration and Naturalisation Service; and 

-the employee is to work as an employee and proves this by means of an employment contract; and 

-the employee earns a gross income of at least € 46,541 or €34,130 if he is under 30.  

The employee must apply for a provisional residence permit at the Dutch embassy or the consulate in 
the country of origin or continuous residence.  

The  residence  permit  is  granted  for  the  period  of  the  employment  contract,  with  a  maximum  of  five 

96

97

98

Several terms are used in English to identify this kind of employee; knowledge worker, knowledge migrant and skilled worker. 
Source: EMN. 
Source: IND - The Immigration and Naturalisation Service. 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
years. 

The  (registered)  partner  of  the  labour  migrant  will  be  given  a  residence  permit  for  the  period  of  one 
year.  The  residence  permit  of  the  children  is  the  same  as  the  residence  permit  of  the  highly  skilled 
migrant. Family members are free to work on the labour market. 

One attractive aspect of employing foreign nationals both labour migrants and highly skilled migrants 
in the Netherlands is that many will qualify to receive 35% of their income tax free. The effect of this is 
to make the overall tax burden similar to that faced in the UK.  

After  3  years  in  the  Netherlands  on  a  work  permit,  it  is  usually  possible  for  an  individual  to  obtain 
permanent residence. Thereafter they are free to take up any lawful employment and no longer require 
an employer-sponsored work permit. 

CONCLUSION AND REMARKS 

The work permit legislation in the Netherlands makes it possible for employees’ spouses to get a job. 
With  the  law  passed  in  April  2005  the  importance  of  dual  careers  for  highly  qualified  people  to 
international  companies  is  recognized  and  this  was  welcomed  by  global  companies  who  need  highly 
skilled internationally-mobile workforces. 99 

It  seems  however,  that  bringing  specialized  personnel  to  the  Netherlands  has  become  increasingly 
difficult  with  employers  facing  stricter  rules  and  time-consuming  procedures.  Universities  and  high-
tech companies are complaining that they cannot get bright people and top talent to come from distant 
countries to the Netherlands to work for a specific period. The procedures are said to be too slow and 
complicated. 

In  a  recent  letter  to  parliament,  the  Dutch  government  requested  relaxing  a  number  of  restrictions  on 
knowledge migrants. The aim of the new strategy is to make it much easier for this labour talent from 
abroad to find their way into the Dutch labour market.100 

In  2007  the  Immigration  and  Naturalisation  Service  concluded  that  there  were  a  few  obstacles  in  the 
functioning of the law and in attracting the target group:  

The residence applications should be processed within a two-week period, which proves not always to 
be the case. 

Collaboration between the various organizations involved is not yet fully streamlined. The obstacles are 
found in the area of the issuance of the residence permits and the registration of the migrants’ personal 
data. 

Not all target groups are reached due to the salary criterion.  

There is a risk of fraud, because no pre-selections are made to assess companies for their reliability and, 
if necessary, block them from participating in the scheme.101 

99

100

101

Source: Stichting Permits/Permits Foundation 
Source: Foreign Investment Agency (NFIA.com) April 20, 2006 
Source: IND (April 2007) 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
ICT Case study n° 3 - NAFTA ICT Visa 

Background 

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was designed to open borders and promote free 
trade  between  three  countries:  Canada,  the  United  States  and  Mexico. This  agreement  was  signed  on 
December 17, 1992 and implemented on January 1, 1994. As a treaty under international law, NAFTA 
is  a  complex  trade  agreement,  which  brought  significant  immigration  consequences.  NAFTA  is  an 
expansion  of  the  earlier  Canada-U.S.  Free  Trade  Agreement  (CFT)  of  1988.  Border  restrictions  were 
largely  unaffected  by  the  1988  Free  Trade  Agreement.  It  intends  to  facilitate  the  movement  of  U.S., 
Canadian and Mexican business persons across each country’s border through streamlined procedures. 
Chapter  16  of  NAFTA,  entitled  “Temporary  Entry  for  Business  Persons”  provides  for  the  temporary 
entry of businesspersons among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

TN (Trade NAFTA) status is a special non-immigration status unique to citizens of the United States, 
Canada and Mexico. It allows American, Canadian and Mexican citizens the opportunity to work in the 
United  States  or  Canada  under  a  somewhat  limited  set  of  occupations.  Business  persons  included  in 
NAFTA  are  grouped  under  four  categories:  Business  Visitors,  Professionals,  Intra-Company 
Transferees, Traders and Investors 

Provisions foreseen by the law/agreement examined 

Intra-Company Transferees are businesspersons employed by an enterprise to perform management or 
executive  functions  or  those  which  involve  specialized  knowledge,  and  are  being  transferred  to  an 
enterprise,  parent  branch,  subsidiary  or  affiliated  branch  located  in  the  United  States,  Canada  or 
Mexico. The Chapter Sixteen, Annex 1603, “Temporary entry for Business Persons”, section C-Intra-
Company Transferees provides that: 

Each  Party  shall  grant  temporary  entry  and  provide  confirming  documentation  to  a  business  person 
employed  by  an  enterprise  who  seeks  to  render  services  to  that  enterprise  or  a  subsidiary  or  affiliate 
thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge, provided that the 
business person otherwise complies with existing immigration measures applicable to temporary entry. 
A  Party  may  require  that  such  business  person  shall  have  been  employed  continuously  by  such 
enterprise for one year within the three-year period immediately preceding the date of the application 
for admission. 

No Party shall, as a condition for temporary entry under paragraph 1, require labor certification tests or 
other procedure of similar effect; or impose or maintain any numerical restriction relating to temporary 
entry under paragraph 1. 

Notwithstanding paragraph 2, a Party may require a business person seeking temporary entry under this 
Part  to  obtain  a  visa  or  its  equivalent  prior  to  entry.  Before  imposing  a  visa  requirement,  such  Party 
shall  consult  with  a  Party  whose  business  persons  would  be  affected  with  a  view  to  avoiding  the 
imposition of the requirement. With respect to an existing visa requirement, a Party shall, at the request 
of a Party whose business persons are subject to the requirement, consult with that Party with a view to 
its removal. 

Even though the three countries are bounded to apply the above provision of NAFTA Agreement, there 
are nevertheless some differences in the type of classifications and in the procedures applicable in the 
three concerned States. 

United States of America: 

NAFTA Intra-Company Transferees are admitted in the US under the L-1 classification. L-1 applies to 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
intra-company  transferees  who  come  to  the  United  States  to  perform  services  in  a  managerial  or 
executive capacity. The L-1 is generally issued for three years (one year only for a new company). It 
may be renewed for up to seven years for a person employed in an executive or managerial capacity, 
and  up  to  five  years  for  a  person  employed  in  a  capacity  requiring  specialized  knowledge.  These 
limitations on stay do not apply to L-1 employees who work six months per year or less in the U.S. or 
who  commute  regularly  to  part-time  work  in  the  U.S.  Dependents  (spouses  and  unmarried  children 
under 21 years of age) of L-1 workers are entitled to L-2 status, and L-2 spouses may apply for work 
authorization in the United States. To qualify as a NAFTA Intra-Company Transferee people must: 

-be a Canadian/Mexican citizen; 

-be in an executive or managerial capacity, or one involving specialized knowledge, in which case they 
must prove that they possess such knowledge and that it is required for their proposed employment; 

-have been engaged in a similar position within the enterprise for at least one out of the previous three 
years; 

-be  transferred  to  an  enterprise  that  has  a  clear  relationship  with  the  enterprise  in  which  they  are 
currently employed; 

-comply with the country’s existing temporary entry immigration requirements. 

Once applicants have a job offer, confirmed by a letter presented to an immigration or consular officer, 
visas involve little paperwork or delay, which makes them well-suited for meeting companies’ needs in 
a timely manner. Canadians need only to supply job documents, proof of citizenship and an approved 
Petition  for  temporary  worker  before  they  will  be  admitted  to  the  U.S.  For  Mexicans,  the  process  is 
slightly more complicated and can’t take place at a port of entry. A Mexican citizen must obtain first a 
visa at a US consulate (generally in Mexico). Once the visa stamp is obtained in the passport, they may 
enter the US in a similar manner to a Canadian citizen. 

Mexico: 

To work in Mexico as an Intra-company Transferee, an approved FM-3 FORM will be required, which 
American and Canadian citizens can obtain from a Mexican embassy or consulate or from a National 
Migration Institute office within Mexico, or on the Internet. 

When applying for the required FM-3 form, the American and Canadian citizens must demonstrate that 
they meet the qualifying criteria as a NAFTA Intra-Company Transferee. FM-3 forms are valid for one 
year but they may request up to four extensions of one year each before they need to get a new form. 

When applying for an FM-3, the following information will be required:  

-a letter in Spanish from the employer addressed to the immigration authority  

-a passport (valid for at least six months from the date of application)  

-two recent passport-size photos 

-cash or a money order for the application fee. 

The letter from the company in Mexico must contain the full name and address of the applicant, request 
for  a  FM-3  Visa,  and  refer  to  the  attached  documentation.  In  addition,  the  arrangements  for  payment 
and the location(s) of work within Mexico should be explained. The information demonstrating that the 
applicant meets the requirements of a NAFTA Intra-Company Transferee is also required. 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
Canada: 

Canada  allows  for  the  transfer  of  certain  employees  (executives,  senior  managers  and  specialized 
knowledge workers) to the Canadian branch, subsidiary or affiliate of an international company without 
the  involvement  of  Human  Resources  Social  Development  Canada  (HRSDC).  American  or  Mexican 
Companies can use the Intra-Company Transferee provisions to transfer their employees to Canada with 
respect for the following conditions: 

-they  must  have  worked  at  least  one  year  in  the  preceding  three-year  period  for  the  United  States  or 
Mexican employer who wishes to effect the transfer;  

-The  employee  must  be  in  an  executive  or  managerial  position,  or  one  involving  “specialized 
knowledge” relating to their company’s business;  

-the  employee  must  be  transferred  to  Canada  to  work  temporarily  for  the  same  or  an  affiliated 
employer;  

The  enterprise  in  the  USA  or  Mexico  must  have  either  a  parent,  branch,  subsidiary,  or  affiliate 
relationship with the Canadian firm  

They need a work permit.  

Transferees  should  be  prepared  to  supply  the  following  documentation  when  applying  for  a  work 
permit: 

-Proof of citizenship; 

-Outline of pre-arranged position in Canada, including: duration of stay; description of employment as 
executive or specialized knowledge; 

-Proof of relationship between Canadian and foreign employers; 

-Proof  of  previous  employment  with  organization:  minimum  of  one  continuous  year  in  the  last  three 
years; similar position to the one being offered in Canada. 

Initial work permits for Transferees will be valid for at most three years. Transferees entering Canada to 
open or work in a new office will be granted permits valid for up to one year only. 

Extensions may be granted for up to two years at a time. Executive Transferees can be granted permits 
for up to seven years in total. Specialized knowledge workers can receive permits valid for up to five 
years in total. 

KEY LESSONS 

Immigration  patterns  were  not  affected  by  NAFTA.  The  long-term  trend  in  legal  and  unauthorized 
labour migration from Mexico to the United States continued and even accelerated after NAFTA was 
implemented. 

The first 10 years of NAFTA agreement show that Canadians’ use of TN status is particularly large. By 
contrast,  relatively  few  high-skilled  Mexican  workers  enter  the  U.S.  Cost  of  living,  the  education 
differential and language are barriers that stop Mexicans to make use of NAFTA. Also, Americans do 
not  make  use  a  lot  of  the  TN  visa  as  the  U.S.A  is  the  biggest  host  country  to  receive  high-skilled 
workers. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
The  L-1  visa  applied  in  the  US  seems  to  be  an  excellent  visa  for  multinational  employees.  It  offers 
immediate  and  future  immigration  benefits  and  is  a  solution  for  employees  who  would  otherwise  not 
qualify  for  visas.  It  does  not  require  the  company  to  try  to  find  a  U.S.  worker  first,  pay  a  prevailing 
wage or refrain from laying off U.S. workers. Holders may adjust to permanent residency, and do not 
need to demonstrate non-immigrant intention. 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 5 STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION  

5.1.  Questionnaire for the stakeholders  

A questionnaire has been sent to the stakeholders in the framework of the consultations for the 
Impact  Assessment  on  Community  instruments  on  economic  migration,  including:  seasonal 
workers, remunerated trainees and Intra-Corporate Transferees. The questionnaire is divided 
in three sections, concerning the three specific categories of immigrant workers.  

The  complete  questionnaire  and  list  of  stakeholders  was  delivered,  asking  stakeholder  to 
complete  the  section/s  in  which  they  have  specific  interest  or  have  developed  relevant 
experience. Below are reported the list of all stakeholders involved and the relevant sections 
of the questionnaire.  

The consultation began on 11 of February and ended on 7 of April.  

List of stakeholders: 

ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation); 

Business Europe; 

UEAPME (European association of craft, small and medium-sized enterprises); 

International Organization for Migration (IOM); 

International Labour Organisation (ILO); 

Migration Policy Group; 

University of Kent; 

Nijmege University; 

Université Libre de Bruxelles; 

CEPS; 

Caritas Europe; 

European Platform for Migrant Workers Rights; 

Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association; 

Platform of European Social NGOs (Social Platform); 

ENAR – European Network against racism; 

European Coordination’s for Foreigners Rights to Family Life; 

Euro-Mediterranean Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration (CARIM); 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
European Women's Lobby; 

AISEC; 

Work Permit Foundation; 

Migration Policy Institute; 

OECD; 

UN-DESA; 

FEACO - European Federation of Management Consultancies Association; 

AmCham EU – American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union; 

Mission of Japan to the European Union. 

A  more  selected  group  of  stakeholders  was  contacted  for  a  second  round  of  consultation 
during  the  last  phase  of  the  Impact  Assessment  in  order  to  gather  relevant  stakeholders’ 
opinions  regarding  the  list  of  policy  options  identified  and  agreed  with  DG  JLS  and  their 
potential economic and social impacts. Replies were received from Business Europe and from 
ETUC  whose  opinions  and  observations  have  been  reported  and  used  to  complete  the 
assessment of each policy option. 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
Questionnaire for stakeholders 

Section 3: Intra-Corporate Tranferees 

Question 3.1.  

a.  The  preliminary  research  carried  out  in  the  context  of  this  assignment  identified  some 
relevant  issues  concerning  the  socio-economic  context,  which  can  be  classified  into  the 
following categories: 

Effects on the EU labour market: matching skills and labour shortages, innovation, R&D and 
capabilities, EU attractiveness for Foreign Direct Investments, GDP growth, productivity and 
competitiveness at EU level; 

Other  social  issues:  because  of  the  exemption  from  labour  market  test  and  due  to  potential 
difficulties  to  check  ICT's  remuneration,  possible  effects  on  wages  and  employment;  socio-
economic integration of ICT, family reunification and access to work for spouses, their access 
to social security and health care services; 

Main issues in sending countries: brain drain, skills availability and human resources; 

Circular migration: helping EU Member States addressing their labour needs, supporting the 
development of countries of origin.  

Are these issues a reason for concern? Could you explain the rationale behind your answer? 

b. What other issues and problems do you identify, if any? 

a.  Do  you  think  that  there  is  a  need  for  an  EU  intervention  and  the  need  for  an  EU-level 
approach to address these issues? 

YES 

NO 

Please explain your choice below: 

b.  If  you  think  that  EU  intervention  is  essential  or  useful,  could  you  please  motivate  your 
choice and explain what would be in your opinion the added value of EU action? 

c.  If  you  think  that  EU  intervention  is  not  appropriate  (or  not  fully  appropriate),  could  you 
please  motivate  your  choice  and  explain  why  these  objectives  could  be  better  achieved  at 
national level?  

Question  3.3  As  defined  at  this  stage,  the  set  of  objectives,  that  the  Commission  initiative 
could pursue, are the following:  

enhancing the competitiveness and the attractiveness of the EU economy for ICT; 

reinforcing the EU position in its relationship with international partners; 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ensure quickly and effective entry procedures for ICT; 

granting favorable residence conditions for ICT102; 

What  is  your  opinion  on  the  relevance/pertinence  of  each  one  of  the  above  mentioned 
objectives?  Are  there  other  global  or  specific  objectives  that  you  consider  important  to 
include? 

102

It is worth mentioning that the conditions under which ICTs can perform their economic activity broadly fall under the common 
commercial policy. Therefore, the immigration policy can only address entry procedures and residency rights of ICTs.  

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Question 3.4 What is your opinion on the options listed below? Which would be the positive 
and negative effects of the solutions that you identified? 

Explanation  of 
choice 

the 

Possible  positive  and  negative 
effects 

With  reference 
the 
to 
introduction  of 
a 
common 
single 
procedure  in  all 
MS 
the 
for 
application  by 
and 
ICT 
trainees  for  a 
residence/work 
permit, would it 
be appropriate? 

Should 
equal 
treatment  with 
EU nationals be 
ensured? 

family 

Should 
reunification 
and  access 
to 
work to spouses 
be granted? 

Should 
intra-
EU 
mobility 
a 
(still 
in 
context of intra-
corporate 
transfers) 
allowed? 

be 

  Yes 

No 

  Yes 

No 

  Yes 

No  

  Yes 

No 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Explanation  of 
choice 

the 

Possible  positive  and  negative 
effects 

Upon  the  ICT's 
return to his/her 
of 
country 
origin, 
should 
provisions 
the 
ensuring 
transfer 
of 
pensions'  rights 
or  the  payment 
of  a  lump  sum 
be introduced? 

  Yes 

No 

Question 3.5 With regard to the definition of ICT and the categories included103, which could 
be the possible solutions? Which would be the positive and negative effects of such solutions? 

Question 3.6  

a.  Which  conditions  of  entry  (i.e.  criteria  to  be  fulfil  in  order  to  be  admitted  as  ICT  and 
procedures for admission) would be applicable for ICT?  

What should be the duration of the permit? Would it be possible to renew it? 

b. Among the rights listed below, which ones should be granted? Please explain the choice 
and specify the positive and negative effects 

Explanation  of 
choice 

the 

Possible  positive  and  negative 
effects 

Protection  against 
discrimination  at 
work 

treatment 
Equal 
with 
national 
workers in respect 
of wages 

  Yes 

No 

  Yes 

No  

103

According to art. 14 of the 2001 Proposal for Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals 
for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic activities, “Intra-corporate transferees shall either be: (a) “key 
personnel”, that is to say persons working in a senior management or executive position within a legal entity, receiving general 
supervision  or  instructions  principally  from  the  board  of  directors  or  stockholders  of  the  business  or  their  equivalent;  (b) 
“specialists”,  that  is  to  say  persons  possessing  uncommon  knowledge  essential  to  the  establishment’s  service,  research 
equipment, techniques or management” (COM(2001) 386 final).  

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Explanation  of 
choice 

the 

Possible  positive  and  negative 
effects 

social 
a 
Join 
protection scheme 

  Yes 

No 

free 

Access 
to 
public  medical 
health services 

  Yes 

No 

Free housing 

  Yes 

No 

Adequate 
prevention 
occupational 
accidents 
diseases 

of 

or 

  Yes 

No 

Others 
specify) 

(please 

  Yes 

No 

Additional comments 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2.  Outcome stakeholder analysis – first consultation 

Below  is  the  list  of  those  stakeholders  which  specifically  answered  the  section  of  the 
questionnaire on Intra-Corporate Transferees: 

Business Europe; 

International Organization for Migration (IOM); 

European Coordination’s for Foreigners Rights to Family Life (hereinafter COORDEUROP); 

Work Permit Foundation; 

FEACO-Pendo group; 

American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union 

Mission of Japan to the European Union 

The  consultation  began  on  February  11th  and  ended  on  April  7th.  After  having  collected  all 
contributions,  an  in-depth  analysis  of  their  contents  and  insights  was  carried  out  and  is 
presented  in  the  following  paragraphs.  Since  the analysis  was  performed  in  relation  to  each 
question, each analysis is introduced by a general overview of the issues and concerns raised 

a. The preliminary research carried out in the context of this assignment identified some relevant issues concerning the socio-economic 
context, which can be classified into the following categories: 

a.  Effects on the EU labour market: matching skills and labour shortages, innovation, R&D and capabilities, EU attractiveness for Foreign 

Direct Investments, GDP growth, productivity and competitiveness at EU level; 

b.  Other social issues: because of the exemption from labour market test and due to potential difficulties to check ICT's remuneration, 

possible effects on wages and employment ; socio-economic integration of ICT, family reunification and access to work for spouses, 

their access to social security and health care services; 

c.  Main issues in sending countries: brain drain, skills availability and human resources; 

d.  Circular migration: helping EU Member States addressing their labour needs, supporting the development of countries of origin.  

Are these issues a reason for concern? Could you explain the rationale behind your answer? 

b. What other issues and problems do you identify, if any? 

by each question and to which stakeholders were expected to give their views and remarks 

A) Problem definition 

Most  stakeholders  agree  that  the  issues  concerning  the  socio-economic  context,  mentioned 
above are relevant. Many of them raise the issue of overall competitiveness of the EU and its 
attractiveness  for  foreign  direct  investment.  Business  Europe,  for  example,  is  concerned 
that  the  difficulties  in  attracting  ICTs  will  hamper  companies  to  innovate,  remain 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
 
 
competitive  and  expand  their  activities,  and  ultimately  negatively  effect  the  creation  of 
wealth and growth. The FEACO-Pendo Group mentions that the current state of play, of each 
EU Member States having separate rules and regulations reduces the competiveness of the EU 
in  an  increasing  global  market  and  faced  by  shortages  of  skilled  labour.  The  EU  should 
instead  be  able  to  recruit  quickly  and  move  ICTs  quickly,  according  to  the  FEACO-Pendo 
Group.  The  Mission  of  Japan  to  the  European  Union  emphasizes  the  point  of  the  EU’s 
attractiveness for foreign direct investments. 

The Work Permit Foundation addressed, as the only stakeholder, the issue of brain drain by 
stating that ICTs often return to their home country with the benefit of the added experience 
and  development  potential.  The  other  stakeholders  do  not  make  notice  of  brain  drain  as  a 
problem. 

As  an  additional  problem,  the  International  Organisation  for  Migration  is  concerned  for  the 
absence of safeguards ensuring that ICTs undergo equal treatment with nationals in terms 
of wages and working conditions. The Mission of Japan to the European Union also raises 
this  issue,  but  emphasizes  more  on  the  practical  issues  for  ICTs,  such  as  moving  to  other 
Schengen  Agreement  countries,  difficulties 
in  home  doctor  applications,  residence 
registrations and opening bank accounts. 

B) Subsidiarity and EU Added Value  

Question 2 

a.  Do  you  think  that  there  is  a  need  for  an  EU  intervention  and  the  need  for  an  EU-level 
approach to address these issues? (YES/NO and explanation of the choice) 

b. What other issues and problems do you identify, if any? 

c.  If  you  think  that  EU  intervention  is  not  appropriate  (or  not  fully  appropriate),  could  you 
please  motivate  your  choice  and  explain  why  these  objectives  could  be  better  achieved  at 
national level? 

All  stakeholders  agree  that  there  is  a  need  for  an  EU  intervention.  Many  stakeholders 
emphasise the need for unifying the current 27 different systems for application and residence 
in common rules or principles.  

According to most of the stakeholders, the added-value of EU intervention would be useful to 
establish,  singe,  fast  and  transparent  procedures,  or  common  principles  of  entry, 
admission  and  residence  for  ICTs  and  their  family  members.  For  employers  EU 
intervention would be more increased simplicity, transparency, and efficiency in obtain work 
permits  and  visa  for  ICT  and  the  lifting  of  restrictions  on  the  movement  of  ICTs  between 
Member States (Work Permit Foundation).  

Some stakeholders also mention that more attractive policies would support attractiveness of 
the  EU  as  a  business  location  and  to  ensure  that  member  states  stay  competitive  (Business 
Europe, Work Permit Foundation, International Organisation for Migration). 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
C) Objectives (question 3) 

Most stakeholders consider each of the objective stated above as relevant.  

reinforcing the EU position in its relationship with international partners; 

enhancing the competitiveness and the attractiveness of the EU economy for ICT; 

Question 3.3 As defined at this stage, the set of objectives, that the Commission initiative could pursue are the following:  

Only Business Europe states that instead of a set of objectives there should be a key objective 
wh
ich 
is 
to 
ens
ure 
qui
ck 
an
d 
eff

What is your opinion on the relevance/pertinence of each one of the above mentioned objectives? Are there other global or 
specific objectives that you consider important to include? 

ensure quickly and effective entry procedures for ICT; 

granting favorable residence conditions for ICT1; 

ective entry procedures for ICT.  

The  International  Organisation  for  Migration  raises  the  additional  objective  of  creating 
transparency  for  companies  by  the  applying  one  set  of  rules  and  procedures  to  all  the 
Member States.  

The  Mission  of  Japan  to  the  European  Union  makes  as  an  additional  remark  that  the 
objectives currently focus just on the rights of ICTs. They suggest exempting ICTs from 
certain obligations, such as language requirements, only relevant to economic migrants.  

D) Policy Options (question 4) 

Question 4 

The stakeholders where asked to express their opinion on the following elements:  

Common single procedure 

Equal treatment 

Family reunification and access to work to spouses 

Allowing Intra EU mobility  

Pension rights 

Common single procedure 

All stakeholders agree on the need for a common single procedure, because: 

It  will  simplify  and  accelerate  the  procedure  both  for  the  employer  and  the  migrant  (The 
International Organisation for Migration) 

It would be a business-friendly solution. However, they warn for grouping ICTs together with 
remunerated trainees. In their view the latter should be subject to simpler admission criteria. 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
They foresee as a positive effect of a single procedure that all business initiated transfers (as 
opposed  to  individual  initiated  migration)  could  be  processed  through  a  single  ‘fast  track’ 
procedure.  Possible  negative  they  foresee  is  that  it  would  become  more  difficult  to  transfer 
trainees (The Work Permit Foundation).  

It will not only enhance the benefit of ICT, but also help to promote the attractiveness of the 
EU as a Single Market (American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union). 

Also  the  FEACO-  Pendo  group  suggests  a  fast  track  single  application  procedure  as  the 
preferred  policy  option.  They  recommend  as  an  additional  remark,  to  combine  the  work 
permit,  visa  and  residence  permit  in  a  single  permit  for  third  country  ICTs  temporarily 
assigned  to  the  EU  (similar  to  the  elements  contained  in  the  proposed  Directive  for  highly 
skilled workers). They also recommend that a proposed directive should allow Member States 
to waive some of the minimum requirements which would be harmonised under the Directive 
if they believe lower requirements are justified. 

Equal treatment 

All  stakeholders  that  replied  agree  on  the  need  of  equal  treatment  for  third-country  ICTs  to 
EU nationals.  

The International Organisation for Migration underlines that equal treatment will enhance the 
attractiveness of the EU economy for ICT. 

The Work Permit Foundation also mentions equal treatment to family members of ICT. They 
recommend  to  apply  equal  treatment  to  rights  and  duties  that  accrue  as  a  result  of  being 
legally resident and employed and paying taxes and social premia. They suggest to omit the 
application  of  specific  Member  States  requirements  for  longer-term  migrants  to  speak  the 
language and attend integration courses for ICTs and their family members. The Work Permit 
Foundation  foresees  as  positive  effects  of  equal  treatment  the  integration  of  ICTs  and  their 
family  members  for  the  period  of  the  assignment  without  being  a  burden  on  public  funds. 
Negative effects are in their opinion not significant as ICTs remain a limited time in the host 
country  and  their  residence  is  dependent  on  a  contract  of  employment.  Their  numbers  are 
small (less than 1% of the total employed staff) and they are not a drain on public funds. 

The American Chamber of Commerce to the EU states that the EU should continue its efforts 
in  the  liberalisation  of  the  movement  of  people  in  the  EU  internal  market  in  the  least 
discriminatory possible manner for non-EU nationals including Japanese citizens. Their point 
of view is that equal treatment with EU nationals will only enhance the benefits of ICT but 
also help to promote the attractiveness of the EU 

Family reunification and access to work for spouses 

All stakeholders agree on assigning ICTs the right of family reunification and access to work 
for spouses. 

Business  Europe  mentions  that  if  family  reunification  or  access  to  work  for  spouses  is  not 
granted, it is difficult to convince staff to take assignments of a longer duration.  

According to the International Organisation for Migration, the ease in which companies can 
move around their key personnel can play an important role in determining whether to set up 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
business in a particular country. Therefore family reunification and access to work for spouses 
should be facilitated. 

The Work Permit Foundation remarks that the experience in international companies  is  that 
policies  that  apply  to  the  family  members  often  determine  the  success  of  an  international 
assignment.  In  particular,  concerns  about  partner  employment  are  one  of  the  main  reasons 
why  staff  turn  down  an  international  assignment.  Therefore  the  Work  Permit  Foundation 
suggests that family members should be allowed to accompany the ICT without waiting time. 
Also  they  should  be  allowed  to  join  at  a  later  date  without  additional  bureaucracy  (i.e.  still 
linked to the ICT). They suggest that spouses and family members should be given immediate 
and open access to the labour market without an additional work permit requirement.  

The FEACO- Pendo remarks that the spouses should be given free access to the labour market 
of all EU Member States during the validity of the work permit of his/her ICT spouse. 

The American Chamber of Commerce also sees family reunification and access to work for 
family members as a mean to promote the attractiveness of the EU as a single market. 

As an additional remark to this question, the Work Permit Foundation foresees the following 
positive effects of family reunification and granting spouses the right to work:  

- For EU/ Member States: an attractive climate for skills and talented ICTs, enhanced country brand, 
supports trade and investment, helps integration, the whole family can contribute to economy.  

- For employers: reduced cost of assignment failure, help to attract/retain mobile talent 

-  For  ICT  family:  mobile,  motivated  family,  partner  can  work  and  maintain  skills,  eases 
transition back to employment in home country 

-  Negative  effects:  None.  ICT  numbers  are  small  (1%  of  employees).  Not  all  partners  will 
want  to work or find a job. They have to compete with local nationals. If the partner is the 
best person for the job, this will contribute most to the local economy.  

Allowing intra-EU mobility  

All  the  stakeholders  agree  on  allowing  ICT  Intra-EU  mobility.  Although  the  Work  Permit 
Foundation suggests to make it subject to a continuing or new contract of employment. 

Business Europe emphasis that companies should be able to move executive and professional 
staff from country to country depending on commercial needs or where the ICT can be most 
productive for a specific period. 

The  International  Organisation  for  Migration  mentions  that  intra  EU  mobility  for  ICTs 
increases  the  attractiveness  for  business  of  EU  Member  States  and  the  EU  economy  as  a 
whole. 

The  American  Chamber  of  Commerce  highlights  that  the  progress  in  EU  integration  and 
globalisation has boosted the number of ICT who move across Member States. Against this 
background they suggest that free intra-EU movement should be allowed. 

Pension rights 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
Three stakeholders, who are stated below, agree on the importance of pension rights for ICTs: 

According  to  the  International  Organisation  for  Migration  it  will  foster  the  circularity  of 
migration and increases the chances that the ICT with a pension will go back to their countries 
of origin. 

The  Work  Permit  Foundation  states  that  transfer  of  pension  rights  or  accrued  value  or, 
perhaps more realistically, a lump sum refund of the contributions will be welcome. The view 
as positive effect the reduced costs to employers or employees depending on how it would be 
administered. 

The  American  Chamber  of  Commerce  mentions  suggests  that  from  the  viewpoint  securing 
income of elderly people, it is essential that pensioners are guaranteed the reasonable scope of 
rights  of  pension  benefits  proportionate  to  the  insurance  premium  paid  in  the  country  of 
appointment, upon the return of ICT to his/her country of origin. If its purpose is to prevent 
non-refund for the insurance premiums paid in the country of appointment, it will help reduce 
economic burden of ICT and promote personnel and economic exchanges. Furthermore, they 
suggest it will be necessary for ICT to have a choice between receiving benefits as pension or 
as lump-sum payment. 

E) Additional comments (remarks not strictly linked to a specific question) 

As an additional remark, The FEACO-Pendo Group summarizes the specific costs companies 
have to bear as a result of the various barriers and constraints encountered by companies when 
looking  to  temporarily  transfer  third  country  ICTs  to  the  EU.  Those  are  direct  costs  to 
companies related to obtaining a work permit, visa and residence permit and additional costs 
to  companies  such  as  delays  in  assigning  the  ICT  due  to  the  length  and  complexity  of  the 
various  procedures;  lost  opportunity  costs  if  the  ICT  cannot  be  assigned  to  the  required 
location at all or on time to perform the work. In some cases, contracts are lost resulting in 
lost revenue for the company; increased attrition rate if cannot assign ICTs easily; reduction 
in productivity of ICTs. 

The  Mission  of  Japan  to  the  European  Union  highlights  issues  such  as  the  length  of  time 
required  for  the  issuance,  the  complexity  of  procedures,  the  expiry  period,  renewal 
procedures,  language  requirements,  inconsistency  in  service  at  the  local  levels  as  problems 
associated to the issue of residence and work permits, as well as visa procedures for ICT and 
their families. 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
REFERENCES 

Commission Documents 

Communication on circular migration and mobility partnerships between the European Union 
and third countries, COM (2007) 248 final 

Commission  Communication,  The  demographic  future  of  Europe  –  from  challenge  to 
opportunity, COM(2006) 571 final 

Commission  Communication  402  final.  See  also:  -MEMO/06/296  EU  policy  to  fight  illegal 
immigration COM (2006) 

Commission Communication 699 final of 21 December 2005. See also: IP/05/1664 Economic 
migration in the EU – Commission presents a roadmap on Legal Migration COM (2005) 

Commission  Communication  on  A  Common  Agenda  for  Integration:  Framework  for  the 
Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union , COM (2005)389 final; 

Commission  Communication  on  Priority  actions  for  responding  to  the  challenges  of 
migration: first follow up to Hampton Court , COM(2005)621 final; 

Commission  Communication  on  Improved  effectiveness,  enhanced  interoperability  and 
synergies  among  European  databases  in  the  area  of  Justice  and  Home  Affairs 
, 
COM(2005)597 final; 

Commission Communication on European values in the globalised world: Contribution of the 
Commission  to  the  October  Meeting  of  Heads  of  State  and  Government  ,  COM(2005)525 
final; 

Commission  Communication  on  Migration  and  Development:  Some  concrete  orientations  , 
COM (2005)390 final 

Commission  Communication  First  Annual  Report  on  Migration  and  Integration 
COM(2004)508 final 

, 

Commission Communication Study on the links between legal and illegal immigration , COM 
(2004)412 final; 

Commission Communication on Immigration, integration and employment , COM(2003)336 
final; 

Commission  Communication  on  Integrating  migration  issues  in  the  EU  relations  with  third 
countries , COM(2002)703 final; 

Commission Communication on A Community immigration policy , COM(2000)757 final 

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000 

Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in 
Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status OJ L 326/13, 13.12.2005 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
Council  Directive  2005/71/EC  of  12  November  2005  on  a  specific  procedure  for  admitting 
third-country nationals for purposes of scientific research; 

Council Decision of 12 July 2005 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member 
States, OJ L 205 of 06.08.2005 (New Lisbon Agenda). 

Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-
country  nationals  for  the  purposes  of  studies,  pupil  exchange,  unremunerated  training  or 
voluntary service applicable as of 12 January 2007 

Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29th April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification 
and  status  of  third  country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  as  refugees  or  as  persons  who 
otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted OJ l 304/12, 
30.9.2004  

Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country 
nationals who are long-term residents (applicable as of 26 January 2006) 

Council  Directive  2003/86/EC  of  22  September  2003  on  the  right  to  family  reunification 
(applicable as of 3 October 2005); 

Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification OJ L 
251/12, 3.10.2003 

Council  Directive  2003/9/EC  of  27  January  2003  laying  down  minimum  standards  for  the 
reception of asylum seekers OJ L 31/18, 6.2.2003  

Council Directive 2003/109/EC. See also:IP/06/56 Status of third-country nationals who are 
long-term residents in the EU : deadline for rules to take effect on 23 January 2006 

Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary 
protection  in  the  event  of  a  mass  influx  of  displaced  persons  and  on  measures  promoting  a 
balance  of  efforts  between  Member  States  in  receiving  such  persons  and  bearing  the 
consequences thereof OJ L 212/12, 7.8.2001  

Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment 
between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin 

Council  Directive  2000/78/EC  of  27  November  2000  establishing  a  general  framework  for 
equal treatment in employment and occupation 

Council Document on Common Basic Principles on integration , Council Document 14615/04 
of 19 November 2004 

Council Conclusions on A Common Agenda for Integration , Council Document 14390/05 of 
1-2 December 2005; 

Council  Recommendation  2005/762/EC  of  12  October  2005  to  facilitate  the  admission  of 
third-country nationals to carry out scientific research in the European Community; 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  859/2003  of  14  May  2003  extending  the  provisions  of 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  1408/71  and  Regulation  (EEC)  No  574/72  to  nationals  of  third 
countries  who  are  not  already  covered  by  those  provisions  solely  on  the  ground  of  their 
nationality; 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  343/2003  of  18  February  2003  establishing  the  criteria  and 
mechanisms  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for  examining  an  asylum 
application  lodged  in  one  of  the  Member  States  by  a  third-country  national  OJ  L  50/1, 
25.2.2003 

Council Resolution of 20 June 1994 on limitations on the admission of third-country nationals 
to the territory of the Member States for employment; 

Council  Resolution  of  30  November  1994  relating  to  the  limitations  admission  of  third-
country nationals to the territory of the Member States for the purpose of pursuing activities 
as self-employed persons; 

Council Regulation n°1612/1968 on freedom of movement for workers (in particular, article 
19(2) for the “Community preference”). 

Green paper on The future of the European migration network , COM(2005)606 final 

Green Paper on Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations , 
COM(2005)94 final; 

Green Paper on An EU approach to managing economic migration , COM(2004)811 final; 

IP/06/1345  Entry  into  force  of  key  asylum  law  creating  a  «level  playing  field»  in  asylum 
policies  throughout  Europe  hampered  by  failure  of  timely  transposition  by  most  Member 
States 

IP/05/1079  Commission  adopts  major  package  of  measures  in  the  field  of  immigration  and 
asylum 

IP  IP/06/1026  Package  of  measures  to  reinforce  solidarity  between  Member  States  and  the 
fight against illegal immigration 

MEMO/05/291  New  orientations  on  the  external  dimension  of  immigration  and  asylum 
policies 

MEMO/05/290 Integration of third-country nationals 

MEMO/05/288 Common standards on return 

MEMO/06/437-
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/437&format=HTML&a
ged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en]  The  EU  meets  the  entire  African  continent  in 
Tripoli to launch a partnership on migration and development 

MEMO/05/494 Policy Plan on Legal Migration 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
MEMO/06/15  Status  of  third-country  nationals  who  are  long-term  residents  in  the  EU  : 
deadline for rules to take effect on 23 January 2006 

MEMO/06/297 Rapid reaction teams of border guards 

Presidency Conclusions on A Comprehensive Migration Policy, European Council, Brussels, 
14th-15th 
2006. 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/92202.pdf 

December 

Recommendation  2005/761/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28 
September 2005 to facilitate the issue by the Member States of uniform short-stay visas for 
researchers from third countries travelling within the Community for the purpose of carrying 
out scientific research; 

Treaty Establishing the European Community OJ C 325, 24.12.02 

Treaty on European Union OJ C 325, 24.12.02 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
Studies in the field of legislation: 

Apap,  Joanna  and  de  Groot,  Gerard-René  and  Besselink,  Leonard  F.M.  and  Carrera,  Sergio 
and  Groenendijk,  Kees  and  Guild,  Elspeth  and  Niessen,  Jan  and  Pratt,  Sandra.  The  Nexus 
between  Immigration,  Integration  and  Citizenship  in  the  EU.  Collective  Conference 
Volume/April 2006. CEPS Challenge Papers, 10 April 2006. 

Apap,  Joanna  and  Carrera,  Sergio.  Maintaining  Security  within  Borders:  Towards  a 
Permanent State of Emergency in the EU? CEPS Policy Briefs No. 41, October 2003. 

Apap,  Joanna  and  Carrera,  Sergio  Towards  a  Proactive  Immigration  Policy  for  the  EU? 
CEPS Working Document No. 198, December 2003 . 

Balzacq, T. and S. Carrera (eds.), Security versus Freedom: A Challenge for Europe’s Future, 
Ashgate Publishing, 2006. 

Balzacq, T. and S. Carrera, Migration, Borders and Asylum: Trends and Vulnerabilities in EU 
Policy, CEPS, Brussels, 2005 

Bia,  Maria  Teresa.  Towards  an  EU  Immigration  Policy:  Between  Emerging  Supranational 
Principles and National Concerns. EDAP paper, 2/2004. 

Carrera,  Sergio,  and  Geyer,  Florian.  Terrorism,  Borders  and  Migration:  The  Commission's 
2008 Policy Strategy in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. CEPS Policy Brief, No. 
131, 1 June 2007. 

Carrera,  Sergio.Building  a  Common  Policy  on  Labour 
Immigration:  Towards  a 
Comprehensive  and  Global  Approach  in  the  EU?  CEPS  Working  Document,  No.  256,  7 
February 2007. 

Carrera,  S. , A Comparison of Integration Programmes in the EU: Trends and Weaknesses, 
CHALLENGE Research Paper, Centre for European Policy Studies, CEPS: Brussels, March 
2006. 

Carrera,  S,  A  Typology  of  Different  Integration  Programmes  in  the  EU,BRIEFING 
PAPER:ORDER FORM No IP/C/LIBE/OF/2005-167, January 2006. 

Carrera, Sergio ‘Integration’ as a Process of Inclusion for Migrants? The Case of Long-Term 
Residents in the EU. CEPS Working Documents No. 219, 1 March 2005. 

Carrera,  Sergio  and  Formisano,  Marco.  An  EU  Approach  to  Labour  Migration:  What  is  the 
Added Value and the Way Ahead? CEPS Working Documents No. 232, 1 October 2005. 

Carrera,  S.  and  M.  Formisano,  An  EU  Approach  to  Labour  Migration:  What  is  the  Added 
Value and the Way Ahead?, CEPS Working Document, No. 232/October 2005. 

Cyrus,  N.  and  D.  Vogel,  «Germany»,  in  J.  Niessen,  Y.  Schibel  and  C.  Thompson  (eds), 
Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A Publication of the European Migration Dialogue, 
Migration Policy Group, Brussels/Warsaw, 2005 

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
Ellermann,  Antje."Limiting  the  scope  of  conflict:  Deportation  and  damage  control  in 
Germany and the United States". In European Union Studies Association (EUSA) > Biennial 
Conference > 2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, pages 49, Nashville, TN. 

Faria,  Cláudia  Preventing  Illegal  Immigration:  Reflections  on  Implications  for  an  Enlarged 
European Union. EIPSACOPE 2003(1):pp. 1-5. 

Geddes, A, The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe, London: Sage Publications, 
pp. 126-48, 2003 

Givens,  Terri  and  Luedtke,  Adam.  "The  politics  of  EU  immigration  policy"  .  In  European 
Union Studies Association (EUSA) > Biennial Conference > 2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, 
pages 35, Nashville, TN. 

Guild,  E.  Making  the  EU  Citizens'  Agenda  Work.  CEPS  Policy  Brief,  No.  122,  9  February 
2007. 

Guild, E., The Legal Elements of European Identity: EU Citizenship and Migration Law, The 
Hague: European Law Library, Kluwer Law International, pp. 201-14, 2004 

Guild, E., ‘Mechanisms of Exclusion: Labour Migration in the European Union’, in J. Apap 
(Ed),  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  in  the  EU:  Liberty  and  Security  Issues  after  Enlargement, 
Edwar Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, pp. 211-234, 2004 

Herz,  Dietmar.  "European 
limits  of 
intergovernmental  Europeanization.".  In  European  Union  Studies  Association  (EUSA)  > 
Biennial Conference > 2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, pages 29, Nashville, Tennessee. 

immigration  and  asylum  policy:  scope  and 

Hugelin, Laurent. "L'incidence d'une nouvelle politique communautaire de l'immigration sur 
le partenariat euro mediterraneen = The Impact of a new Community immigration policy on 
the  Euro-Mediterranean  Partnership".  In  EURO-MED  INTEGRATION  AND  THE  'RING 
OF FRIENDS': THE MEDITERRANEAN'S EUROPEAN CHALLENGE, VOL IV , Xuereb, 
Peter G., Eds. European Documentation and Research Centre, 2003 

Iglicka,  K.,  P.  Kazmierkiewicz  and  A.  Weinar,  Poland,  in  J.  Niessen,  Y.  Schibel  and  C. 
Thompsson  (eds),  Current  Immigration  Debates  in  Europe:  A  Publication  of  the  European 
Migration Dialogue, Migration Policy Group, September 2005. 

König,  K.  and  B.  Perchinig  ,  «Austria»,  in  J.  Niessen,  Y.  Schibel  and  C.  Thompson  (eds), 
Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A Publication of the European Migration Dialogue, 
Migration Policy Group, Brussels/Warsaw, 2005 

Korys,  P.  and  A.  Weinar,  Poland,  in  J.  Niessen  and  Y.  Schibel,  Immigration  as  a  labour 
market strategy – European and North American Perspectives, Migration Policy Group, June 
2005. 

Lahav,  Gallya.  "Opposition  to  immigration:  Self-interest  or  public  interest?".  In  European 
Union Studies Association (EUSA) > Biennial Conference > 2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, 
pages 27, Nashville, TN. 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
Luedtke, Adam. "European Integration, Public Opinion and Immigration Policy: Testing the 
Impact  of  National  Identity".  In  European  Union  Studies  Association  (EUSA)  >  Biennial 
Conference > 2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, pages 39, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Maas,  Willem  "The  future  of  European  migration  rights".  In  European  Union  Studies 
Association  (EUSA)  >  Biennial  Conference  >  2003  (8th),  March  27-29,  2003,  pages  13, 
Nashville, TN. 

Menz,  Georg."Changing  patterns  and  parameters  in  EU  immigration  policy"  .  In  European 
Union Studies Association (EUSA) > Biennial Conference > 2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, 
pages 38, Nashville, TN. 

Niemann,  Arne."Dynamics  and  countervailing  pressures  of  visa,  asylum  and  immigration 
policy  Treaty  revision:  explaining  change  and  inertia  from  the  Amsterdam  IGC  to  the 
Constitutional  Treaty".  In  European  Union  Studies  Association  (EUSA)  >  Biennial 
Conference > 2005 (9th), March 31-April 2, 2005, pages 61, Austin, Texas. 

Niessen, J. and Y. Schiebel, Immigration as a labour market strategy: European and North 
American perspectives, Migration Policy Group, Brussels, 2005 

Sterkx,  Steven.  "Cross-pillarisation  at  the  intersection  of  EU  migration  and  refugee  policy 
and  the  Union's  external  relations".  In  European  Union  Studies  Association  (EUSA)  > 
Biennial Conference > 2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, pages 27, Nashville, TN. 

Schneider,  H.  and  A.  Wiesbrock  ‘The  Council  Directive  on  Family  Reunification: 
Establishing  Proper  Rights  for  Third  Country  Nationals?’,  in  H.  Schneider  (ed),  Migration, 
Integration and Citizenship: A Challenge for Europe’s Future, Forum Maastricht: Maastricht, 
2005 

Thielemann,  Eiko  "Does  Policy  Harmonisation  Work?  The  EU's  Role  in  Regulating 
Migration Flows" . In European Union Studies Association (EUSA) > Biennial Conference > 
2003 (8th), March 27-29, 2003, pages 27, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Studies on Member States Legislation:  

Apap,  J.  and  S.  Carrera  ,  Spain’s  new  regularization  procedure:  Is  this  the  way  forward? 
CEPS Commentary, Brussels, February 2005. 

Apap,  J,  Shaping  Europe’s  Migration  Policy:  A  Comparative  Analysis  of  a  Selection  of 
Member  States  and  Candidate  Countries  ‘Green  Card»  and  Equivalent  Legislation:  A 
Comparison  of  Strategies  in  Germany,  Sweden,  The  Netherlands,  the  UK,  Czech  Republic, 
Hungary and Poland, CASE, Poland, 2004. 

Apap,  J,  ‘Shaping  Europe’s  Migration  Policy:  New  Regimes  for  the  Employment  of  Third 
Country Nationals: A Comparison of Strategies in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and the 
UK’, European Journal of Migration and Law 4: 309-328, 2002. 

Arango,  J.  and  R.  Sandell,  Inmigración:  Prioridades  para  una  Nueva  Política  Española, 
Informes Elcano, Real Instituto Elcano, December 2004. 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
Balch, A., Spain, in J. Niessen and Y. Schibel, Immigration as a Labour Market Strategy – 
European and North American Perspectives, Migration Policy Group, 2005. 

Blio, R., C. Wihtol de Wenden and N. Meknache, ‘France’, in J. Niessen, Y. Schibel and R. 
Magoni (eds), EU and US Approaches to the Management of Immigration, Migration Policy 
Group 2003. 

Cimade, Service Oecuménique d’Entrade, Analyse du projet du loi relatif a l’immigration et a 
l’integration, 12 avril 2006. 

Collectif Uni(e)s contre une immigration jetable, Nouvelle analyse du projet de loi modifiant 
le code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile (CESEDA), retriavable from 
http://www.contreimmigrationjetable.org/, 2006 

European  Migration  Network,  Policy  Analysis  Report  on  Asylum  and  Migration:  Belgium, 
July  2004  to  December  2005,  retrievable  from  http://www.dofi.fgov.be/fr/1024/frame.htm, 
2005 

Federal Governments Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration, A Manual for 
Germany, , www.integrationsbeauftragte.de, January 2005 

Federal  Ministry  of 
www.bmi.bund.de, 2005 

Interior, 

Immigration  Law  and  Policy, 

retrievable 

from 

Federal Office for Migration and Refugees/Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge , «The 
Impact  of  Immigration  on  Germany’s  Society»,  in  Berlin  Institute  for  Comparative  Social 
Research  (eds),  The  Impact  of  Immigration  on  Europe’s  Society:  A  Pilot  Research  Study 
undertaken by the European Migration Network, Berlin: BIVS, 2005 

Federal  Office  for  Migration  and  Refugees/Bundesamt  für  Migration  und  Flüchtlinge, 
Concept for a Nation-wide Integration Course (retrievable from www.bamf.de). 

Hamilton,  K.,  P.  Simon  and  C.  Veniard  ,  The  Challenge  of  French  Diversity,  Migration 
Information Source www.migrationinformatiom.com, 2004 

Justitie, Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, Bringing a foreign employee to the Netherlands, 
January 2006. 

Justitie, Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, Residence in the Netherlands, May 2006. 

Justitie,  Immigratie-  en  Naturalisatiedienst,  The  Civic  Integration  Examination  Abroad, 
March 2006. 

Marinelli, V, «The Netherlands», in J. Niessen, Y. Schibel and C. Thompson (eds), Current 
Immigration  Debates  in  Europe:  A  Publication  of  the  European  Migration  Dialogue, 
Migration Policy Group, Brussels/Warsaw, 2005 

Martiniello,  M.  and  A.  Rea 
Challenges,Migration Information Source (http://www.migrationinformation.com), 2003 

,  Belgium’s  Immigration  Policy  Brings  Renewal  and 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
National  Contact  Point  Austria  within  the  European  Migration  Network,  «The  Impact  of 
Immigration  on  Austria’s  Society:  A  Survey  of  Recent  Austrian  Migration  Research»,  in 
Berlin  Institute  for  Comparative  Social  Research  (eds),  The  Impact  of  Immigration  on 
Europe’s  Society:  A  Pilot  Research  Study  undertaken  by  the  European  Migration  Network, 
Berlin: BIVS, 2005 

National  Contact  Point  The  Netherlands,  «A  review  of  recent  literature  on  the  impact  of 
immigration on Dutch society», in Berlin Institute for Comparative Social Research (eds), The 
Impact  of  Immigration  on  Europe’s  Society:  A  Pilot  Research  Study  undertaken  by  the 
European Migration Network, Berlin: BIVS, 2005 

Ortega Martín, E., Manual Práctico de Derecho de Extranjería, Europea Temática, European 
de Derecho: Editorial Jurídica: Madrid, 2005. 

Pérez-Díaz,  V.,  B.  Álvarez-Miranda  and  C.  González-Enríquez  (2001),  España  ante  la 
Inmigración, Fundación La Caixa, Colección de Estudios Sociales, No. 8, 2001. 

Policy  Report,  National  Contact  Point  Austria,  Immigration  and  Integration  in  Austria, 
Reference Period 1 July 2004 to 31 December 2005, European Migration Network, 2005 

Santolaya, P. ,España, en E. Aja y L. Díez, «La Regulación de la Inmigración en España», 
Obra 

General Studies 

Abella M., Policies and best practices for management of temporary migration, June 2006 

Agunias D., Linking Temporary Worker Schemes with Development, 2007 

Agunias D., From a zero-sum to a win-win scenario? literature review on circular migration, 
2006 

Baker  &  McKenzie's  Global  Migration  &  Executive  Transfers  practice  (2006)  Immigration 
Manual 2006.  

CEDEFOP report: “Future skill needs in Europe Medium-term forecast - Synthesis report”, 
2008 

Cholewinski R., Temporary Migration in Europe in the Past and Present: General Features 
and  Protection  Afforded,  Presentation  to  the  ILO  Workshop  on  Temporary  Migration  — 
Assessment  and  practical  proposals  for  overcoming  protection  gaps,  Geneva,  18-19 
September 2003 

Ernst & Young, Ernst & Young Attractiveness Survey for Europe, 2007 

ECFIN, Labour Migration Patterns in Europe: Recent Trends, Future Challenges, 2006 

European  Migration  Network  EMN  Policy  Analysis  Report  2005.  Den  Haag:  European 
Migration Network Dutch National Contact Point, April 2006 

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
Federal Ministry of Finance Germany Handbook Rules on the supply of work or services in 
relation to the EU freedom of services and establishment. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Finance, 
2006 

Fotakis C. and Coomans G., “Demographic ageing, migration and the challenge for growth 
and labour market sustainability” - The Economic and social aspects of migration, conference 
jointly organized by European Commission and OECD, January 2003  

Gächter A., Training measures for young people continued, EIRO, August 1999 

GèDAP, Berlin Institute for Comparative Social Research, Migration and Asylum in Europe 
2003, Project financed by the European Commission 

Grell M., Foreign-controlled enterprises in the EU, Eurostat Statistics in Focus, 30/2008 

Home Office UK Border Agency, Work Permits Guidance for Employers training and work 
experience scheme, April 2008 

Hornbeck  J.  F.,“NAFTA  at  Ten:  Lessons  from  Recent  Studies”,  CRS  Report  for  Congress, 
February 13, 2004 

ILO, Temporary foreign worker programmes: Policies, adverse consequences, and the need 
to make them work, 2002 

ILO, A Fair Globalization: Creating opportunities for all, 2004 

Immigration  and  Naturalisation  Service  (IND),  Bringing  a  foreign  employee  to  the 
Netherlands, December 2007 

Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) Third country higly-skilled migrants in the EU 
- Small scale study III, April 2007 

Jansen  M.,  and  Piermartini  R.,  The  Impact  of  Mode  4  on  Trade  in  Goods  and  Services, 
November 2004 

Kuptsch C. and Oishi N., Training abroad: German and Japanese schemes for workers from 
transition economies or developing countries, ILO 1994 

A.  Math  (IRES)  et  Alexis  Spire  (CNRS,  CERAPS-Lille-, vers  une  immigration  permanente 
de travailleurs temporaires, juin 2004 

Meyers  D.  W.,  Temporary  Worker  Programs:  A  Patchwork  Policy  Response,  Migration 
Policy Group, 2006 

Nonimmigrants  –  v.  06.a;  Temporary  Migration  to  the  United  States:  Nonimmigrant 
Admissions  Under  U.S.  Immigration  Law  U.S.  Immigration  Report  Series,  Volume  2, 
January 2006 

OECD, International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, OECD Policy Brief, July 2002 

OECD, Offshoring and employment: trends and impacts, 2007 

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
OECD, Measuring Globalization – Activities of Multinationals, 2007 

Ratha D., Leveraging Remittances for development, 2007  

Ruhs M., The potential of temporary migration programmes in future international migration 
policy, 2005 

Report  of  the  Special  Rapporteur,  Ms.  Gabriela  Rodríguez  Pizarro,  Submitted  Pursuant  to 
Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2002/62, Addendum, Mission to the Philippines,” 
United Nations Economic and Social Counci1, 2002 

Rodríguez Pizarro G., Report of the Special Rapporteur, Submitted Pursuant to Commission 
on Human Rights Resolution 2002/62, Addendum, Mission to the Philippines, United Nations 
Economic and Social Counci1, 2002  

Sole-24 Ore, “Vicepresidente in Italia fermo da 12 mesi a Tokyo”, 11 of March 2007, n. 69 

SOPEMI – OECD, International Migration Outlook, 2007 

UNDESA, World Economic Survey, 2004 

Vogel  S.,  Traineeships:  a  barrier  or  stepping  stone  to  employment?,  Cologne  Institute  for 
Economic Research, May 2007 

Wasem  R.  E.  “Immigration  Policy  for  Intracompany  Transfers  (L  Visa):  Issues  and 
Legislation” CRS Report for Congress, RL32030 Updated October 24, 2005 

World  Bank,  Global  economic  prospects  –  Economic  implications  of  remittances  and 
migration, 2006 

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
Websites 

www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis 

www.usimmigrationsupport.org/visa_h3.html 

www.cic.gc.ca  

travel.state.gov  

www.nafta-visa.com/tn_visa.html  

www.americanlaw.com/cdnnafta.html 

www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/workpermits/workpermitarrangements/ 

www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/employers/points/ 

www.permits2work.co.uk/employers/trainingworkexperience.asp 

www.arbeitsagentur.de 

www.auswaertiges-amt.de 

www.goethe.de/ges/pok/thm/mui/en2622050.htm 

www.geo.international.gc.ca/canada-europa/finland/embassy/need_work_experience-en.asp 

www.aucc.ca/programs/intprograms/cimo/index_e.html 

www.fulbright.fi 

www.cimo.fi 

www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/52aTraineeVisa.htm 

EN 

114 

   EN