REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive 2004/81 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities
Date: 2010-10-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, access to education, administrative formalities, foreign national, health care, help for victims, illegal migration, job access, residence permit, trafficking in human beings

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION  

Brussels, 15.10.2010 
COM(2010) 493 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL  

on the application of Directive 2004/81 on the residence permit issued to third-country 
nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of 
an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3 
1. 
Monitoring and state of transposition. ......................................................................... 3 
2. 
General provisions ....................................................................................................... 3 
3. 
Definitions (Article 2) .................................................................................................. 3 
3.1. 
Scope (Article 3) .......................................................................................................... 4 
3.2. 
Specific provisions ....................................................................................................... 4 
4. 
Information given to the third-country nationals concerned (Article 5) ...................... 4 
4.1. 
Reflection period (Article 6 (1)) .................................................................................. 4 
4.2. 
Protection from enforcement of expulsion orders (Article 6 (2)) ................................ 5 
4.3. 
Termination of the reflection period (Article 6 (4))..................................................... 5 
4.4. 
Issue of the residence permit (Article 8) ...................................................................... 5 
4.5. 
The period of validity and renewal of the residence permit (Article 8 (3)) ................. 6 
4.6. 
4.7. 
Treatment of victims (Article 7 and 9)......................................................................... 6 
4.7.1.  Standards of living capable of ensuring subsistence.................................................... 6 
4.7.2.  Attendance to the special needs of the most vulnerable (Articles 7(1) and 9(1-2))..... 6 
4.7.3.  Safety and protection needs (Article 7(2) and 9 (1)).................................................... 7 
4.7.4.  Translation and interpreting services (Article 7(3) and 9(1)) ...................................... 7 
4.7.5.  Free legal aid (Article 7(4) and 9(1)) ........................................................................... 7 
4.7.6.  Medical care (Articles 7 (1) and 9(1)).......................................................................... 7 
4.8. 
Minors (Article 10) ...................................................................................................... 8 
4.8.1.  Best interest of the child (Article 10(a)) ...................................................................... 8 
4.8.2.  Access to the educational system for minors (Article 10 (b))...................................... 8 
4.8.3.  Legal representation and location of family (Article 10 (c)) ....................................... 8 
4.9.  Work, vocational training and education (Article 11) ................................................. 8 
4.10. 
Programmes or schemes (Article 12)........................................................................... 9 
4.11.  Non-renewal of the residence permit (Article 13) ....................................................... 9 
4.12.  Withdrawal (Article 14) ............................................................................................... 9 
Statistics and figures .................................................................................................... 9 
5. 
Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 10 
6. 
Future developments .................................................................................................. 11 
7. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

On 29 April 2004 the Council adopted Directive 2004/81/EC on the residence permit issued 
to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been 
the  subject  of  an  action  to  facilitate  illegal  immigration,  who  cooperate  with  the  competent 
authorities (hereinafter: ‘the Directive’). It applies to all Member States except DK, IE and the 
UK1.  

The report has been prepared in accordance with Article 16 of the Directive, which provides 
that  the  Commission  shall  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the 
application of this Directive in the Member States and propose any necessary amendments.  

It is based on a study on the implementation of the Directive2. The Member States have been 
given the opportunity to revise and update the factual information.  

2. 

MONITORING AND STATE OF TRANSPOSITION 

Member States were required to complete transposition by 6 August 20063. The Commission 
assisted in this process by organising meetings with national experts. Following the expiry of 
the transposition deadline, infringement procedures were initiated against 14 Member States. 
Subsequently,  in  accordance  with  Article  226  of  the  Treaty,  the  Commission  sent  eight 
reasoned opinions. Decisions to bring cases before the European Court of Justice were taken 
for two Member States: one was withdrawn and a judgment was given for one4. 

All Member States bound by the Directive have communicated their transposition measures. 

3. 

3.1. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Definitions (Article 2) 

For the purposes of this Directive, trafficking in human beings covers cases ‘such as’ those 
referred to in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA. This means that even 
if the domestic definition does not need to be identical, any substantially altered or narrower 
one may impact negatively on the transposition of Directive 2004/81/EC. Certain deficiencies 
in this respect have already been identified in the Commission report on the implementation 
of  that  Framework  Decision  and  the  accompanying  staff  working  paper5.  At  the  time  of  its 
adoption,  the  Commission  invited  the  Member  States  concerned  to  correct  this  situation  as 
soon as possible. 

1 
2 

3 
4 
5 

In this report ‘Member States’ means the Member States bound by the Directive. 
Study  supported  by  the  Commission  and  conducted  by  the  Academic  Network  for  Legal  Studies  on 
Immigration and Asylum in Europe ‘Odysseus’ (2007). 
RO and BG had to transpose the Directive as from their accession to the EU. 
C-2008/266, judgment of 14.5.2009, Commission v Spain. 
COM (2006) 187 final and SEC (2006) 525. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
3.2. 

Scope (Article 3) 

All Member States shall apply the Directive to third-country nationals who are, or have been 
victims of offences related to trafficking in human beings, even if they have illegally entered 
their territory. 

In addition to victims of trafficking, Member States may apply this Directive to third-country 
nationals  who  have  been  the  subject  of  an  action  to  facilitate  illegal  immigration.  Nine 
Member States (AT, BE, CZ, ES, LU, MT, PT, RO, SE) have used this opportunity. 

A large majority of Member States apply the transposition norms to both adults and minors, 
though two Member States (LT, SK)apply it only to adults. In EE the application to minors is 
subject to a restriction that it is within the interests of and for the benefit of the rights of the 
minor. 

4. 

4.1. 

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS 

Information given to the third-country nationals concerned (Article 5) 

When the competent authorities take the view that a third-country national may fall within the 
scope  of  this  Directive,  they  shall  inform  the  person  concerned  of  the  possibilities  offered 
under this Directive.  

AT, ES and LT have not shown that they have fulfilled this obligation. 

The  legislation  in  RO  may  be  problematic,  since  it  does  not  specify  to  which  authority  this 
obligation refers, nor the content and form of the information. 

Notwithstanding the formal transposition, there are indications that practical difficulties have 
arisen  on  certain  occasions  in  some  Member  States  (EE,  EL,  NL,  PL),  in  particular  where 
victims  were  not  identified  satisfactorily.  In  some  cases  this  led  to  the  alleged  victim  being 
taken  into  custody  as  an  illegally  staying  alien,  rather  than  being  seen  as  an  opportunity  to 
grant a reflection period (NL).  

4.2. 

Reflection period (Article 6 (1)) 

All  Member  States  offer  a  reflection  period  for  persons  falling  within  the  scope  of  the 
Directive.  The  Directive  does  not  prescribe  its  duration,  but  it  stipulates  that  it  should  be 
determined by national law.  

Member States adopted varying solutions in this regard. Some of them (BE, CZ, EL, FR, LU, 
LV,  SK)  provide  a  single  fixed  duration  (30  days  or  more).  In  a  few  other  Member  States, 
only a minimum length of reflection period is stipulated, while others (EE, FI, DE) provide 
for a lower and upper threshold (up to 6 months). Certain Member States (MT, PT, RO, SI) 
set out only a maximum length (2-3 months).  

In  LT  there  is  no  indication  of  the  length  of  the  reflection  period,  while  the  period  is  not 
specifically regulated by law in IT, though it is usually granted in practice.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

In PL the residence permit of maximum three months, which may be granted to all victims of 
trafficking,  is  treated  as  equivalent  to  a  reflection  period.  The  optional  character  of  this 
provision is not in line with the Directive, where the issue of a reflection period is mandatory.  

4.3. 

Protection from enforcement of expulsion orders (Article 6 (2)) 

The Directive prohibits the enforcement of any expulsion order during the reflection period. A 
large majority of Member States complied with the requirement. 

However, no protection of this kind is provided for in BG.  

4.4. 

Termination of the reflection period (Article 6 (4)) 

The  Directive  allows  the  reflection  period  to  be  terminated  if  the  person  concerned  has 
actively,  voluntarily  and  on  his/her  initiative  renewed  contact  with  the  perpetrators,  or  for 
reasons relating to public policy and to the protection of national security.  

Less  than  half  of  the  Member  States  (BE,  DE,  EE,  FI,  FR,  EL,  LU,  LV,  MT,  PL,  SE,  SK) 
transposed  this  optional  provision  in  accordance  with  the  circumstances  addressed  by  this 
Article. 

In  NL,  the  reflection  period  can  be  terminated  where  the  victim  has  indicated  during  the 
period that he/she is not willing to cooperate with the competent authorities or where he/she 
left  the  country  during  the  reflection  period;  this  goes  beyond  the  criteria  laid  down  in  the 
Directive. 

The relevant provision in ES may be excessively broad since it allows the reflection period to 
be terminated on the general grounds that the authorities become aware that the victim's claim 
is not justified.  

4.5. 

Issue of the residence permit (Article 8) 

For  the  issue  of  the  residence  permit  Member  States  should  consider  cumulatively  the 
opportunity presented by prolonging his/her stay on its territory for the investigations or the 
judicial  proceedings,  whether  he/she  has  shown  a  clear  intention  to  cooperate  and  whether 
he/she has severed all relations with the suspected perpetrators.  

Most Member States have correctly transposed these criteria.  

Some (BG, LT) additionally require that the victim present one or more documents, such as a 
passport or an entrance visa, as a pre-condition for the issue of the residence permit. This may 
impede the actual enjoyment of rights under this Directive, given that some victims may have 
been, under certain circumstances, left with no proof of identity.  

The  legislation  in  FR  requires  that  the  victim  should  file  an  official  complaint  to  the 
competent  authorities  as  a  pre-requisite  to  the  issue  of  the  residence  permit.  Depending  on 
practice on the ground, this may go beyond the conditions set out in the Directive. 

The  conditions  for  issuing  a  residence  permit  mentioned  under  Article  8(1)  are  without 
prejudice to the reasons relating to public policy and to the protection of national security.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

A number of Member States (AT, BE, DE, EE, FI, FR, LU, SE, SI) provide a possibility to 
for the residence permit to be refused for such reasons. In certain cases this provision forms 
part of the general principles governing the issue of residence permits.  

In EE the permit may be refused where the person may be likely to jeopardise public order, 
public safety, public morals or the rights or interests of other people; this exceeds the margin 
set out in the Directive. 

In  addition  to  residence  permits  granted  in  exchange  for  cooperation  with  the  competent 
authorities, some Member States (e.g. AT, BE, ES, HU, IT, LU, NL, PL, SK) make provision 
for  certain  forms  of  residence  permit,  based  on  the  vulnerable  position  of  the  victim.  This 
possibility is sometimes limited to particular categories of persons (e.g. minors).  

4.6. 

The period of validity and renewal of the residence permit (Article 8 (3)) 

The  Directive  requires  the  residence  permit  to  be  valid  for  at  least  six  months.  It  shall  be 
renewed if the conditions of issue continue to be satisfied.  

In a majority of Member States the period of validity is at least six months (AT, CZ, FI, FR, 
DE, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, RO, SE, SI) or one year (EL, ES, NL, PT). 

In two Member States (BG, EE) there is either no minimum period of validity or it is shorter 
than six months.  

All Member States have made provision for the residence permit to be renewed.  

4.7. 

Treatment of victims (Articles 7 and 9) 

4.7.1. 

Standards of living capable of ensuring subsistence 

Member States are  obliged  to  ensure  that the persons concerned who do not  have sufficient 
resources  are  granted  a  standard  of  living  capable  of  ensuring  their  subsistence  during  the 
reflection period and at least the same treatment after the issue of the residence permit.  

A large majority of Member States provide some sort of support in either cash or kind in this 
respect.  

In AT the treatment is granted only after a residence permit has been issued, while there is no 
specific provision for assistance during the reflection period, unless the victim is an asylum 
seeker. This appears not to meet the requirements of the Directive.  

Moreover, practical difficulties have been noted in some Member States, where the treatment 
offered may not be sufficient to provide beneficiaries with adequate means of subsistence. In 
BG, there is no evidence that shelters for victims have been established. In LT, the victims do 
not enjoy specific  rights in this respect:  they  receive  the same treatment  as illegally  staying 
third-country nationals.  

4.7.2.  Attendance to the special needs of the most vulnerable (Articles 7(1) and 9(1-2))  

Member  States  shall  attend  to  the  special  needs  of  the  most  vulnerable,  including,  where 
appropriate and if provided by national law, psychological assistance. This concerns both the 
reflection period and the time after the issue of the residence permit. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

However, very few Member States have established a general clause to that effect.  

Most Member States provide access to psychological assistance by way of explicit provisions.  

No  venues  where  assistance  is  given  have  been  established  in  BG.  In  EE  access  to 
is  provided  only  under  aggravated  circumstances,  and 
psychological  assistance 
reimbursement  is  granted  to  victims  post  factum,  which  may  make  it  difficult  for  them  to 
enjoy this right in practice. In AT, LT and SK there are no specific provisions guaranteeing 
psychological assistance to victims.  

4.7.3. 

Safety and protection needs (Article 7(2) and 9 (1)) 

Only  a  few  Member  States  have  introduced  explicit  provisions  on  the  safety  and  protection 
needs of the persons concerned (BG, EL, FI, FR, LV, MT, PT). A number of Member States 
rely on pre-existing victim protection measures (CZ, DE, ES, LT, NL, SE, SK).  

No correlating national provisions have been demonstrated in AT, EE and RO.  

4.7.4.  Translation and interpreting services (Article 7(3) and 9(1)) 

A  considerable  number  of  Member  States  provide  translation  and  interpreting  services  both 
before and after the issue of the residence permit (BE, CZ, FI, DE, EL, ES, LT, LU, MT, NL, 
PT, RO, SE, SK). 

In PL these services are provided by NGOs authorised by the government.  

In  some  cases,  the  benefits  of  interpretation  may  be  insufficient  because  of  practical 
deficiencies, such as a limited number of services (EL). AT provides translation only after the 
issue  of  the  residence  permit,  SI  only  during  the  reflection  period,  and  BG  only  during 
criminal proceedings. EE provides no more than an ‘emergency translation service’. 

LV  legislation  may  be  problematic  due  to  the  lack  of  explicit  entitlements  for  victims  of 
trafficking after the issue of the residence permit.  

4.7.5.  Free legal aid (Articles 7(4) and 9(1)) 

The optional provision concerning free legal aid was transposed in a considerable number of 
Member  States,  covering  the  period  both  before  and  after  the  issue  of  the  residence  permit 
(BE, BG, CZ, DE, FI, FR, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, ES, SE, PT). 

Provision  has  been  made  for  the  relevant  entitlements  in  EL,  but  a  lack  of  operational 
provisions may jeopardise their application in practice.  

4.7.6.  Medical care (Articles 7 (1) and 9(1)) 

Member  States  are  obliged  to  ensure  ‘emergency’  medical  treatment  during  the  reflection 
period and ‘necessary’ medical assistance after the issue of the residence permit.  

All Member States have complied with this obligation. A few (BE, CZ, EL, FI, NL, SE) have 
gone further and provide general, rather than merely emergency, medical care both before and 
after the issue of the residence permit. General medical care is granted after the issue of the 
residence permit in PL and PT.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

There  are  no  indications  of  other  Member  States  providing  a  broader  range  of  services  for 
holders  of  a  residence  permit,  despite  the  Directive  encouraging  this  by  specifying  that  the 
treatment  after  the  issue  of  the  residence  permit  should  be  ‘at  least’  the  same  as  during  the 
reflection period.  

4.8. 

Minors (Article 10) 

4.8.1.  Best interest of the child (Article 10(a)) 

Those Member States which chose to apply this Directive to minors shall take due account of 
the best interests of the child when applying its provisions. Only a few Member States provide 
for this explicitly in their legislation (BE, EE, FI, MT, PT, RO, ES, SE). Some others consider 
that the principle is effectively in force due to the ratification of the UN Convention on the 
Rights  of  the  Child  or  general  laws.  However,  the  actual  application  of  this  principle  may 
raise concerns. 

For  example,  only  ES,  FR  and  MT  have  introduced  a  specific  provision  ensuring  that  the 
procedure is appropriate to the age and maturity of the child.  

Only BG, EL and PT have used the optional provision (Article 10 (a)) to extend the reflection 
period for minors.  

4.8.2.  Access to the educational system for minors (Article 10 (b)) 

All Member States provide access to the educational system for minors.  

It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  provisions  in  RO  and  EE,  which  make  such  access 
conditional on residence in the country, do not pose problems in practice.  

4.8.3.  Legal representation and location of family (Article 10 (c)) 

A  large  majority  of  Member  States  have  complied  with  the  requirement  on  legal 
representation for unaccompanied minors. However, no operational provisions, providing for 
the conditions of legal representation, have been established in EL.  

The  requirement  for  Member  States  to  make  every  effort  to  locate  the  family  members  as 
quickly as possible has not been introduced in several Member States (AT, CZ, FI, MT, PL, 
SE, SI).  

4.9. 

Work, vocational training and education (Article 11) 

Member  States  shall  define  the  rules  under  which  holders  of  the  residence  permit  shall  be 
authorised to have access to the labour market, to vocational training and education.  

All  Member  States  except  for  RO  provide  access  to  the  labour  market  for  the  persons 
concerned. MT imposes the condition of obtaining a licence from the Minister for Justice and 
Home Affairs, which may make it difficult for people to exercise this right. 

All Member States except for RO allow victims access to vocational training and education. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

4.10. 

Programmes or schemes (Article 12)  

The victims shall be granted access to existing programmes or schemes aimed at the recovery 
of  a  normal  social  life,  while  an  option  is  foreseen  to  provide  specific  arrangements  for  the 
persons concerned.  

All Member States allow victims to participate in programmes which are normally targeted at 
victims  of  trafficking  or,  more  generally,  immigrants.  However,  only  three  Member  States 
(CZ, FI, LV) have taken the opportunity to launch targeted programmes.  

No Member State has made renewal of the residence permit conditional on participation in the 
relevant programmes or schemes.  

4.11. 

Non-renewal of the residence permit (Article 13) 

A  large  majority  of  Member  States  do  not  renew  the  residence  permit  if  the  conditions 
provided for in Article 8(2) cease to be satisfied,  or if a decision  adopted by  the  competent 
authorities has terminated the relevant proceedings.  

Some Member States (BE, CZ, FI, LU, NL) make it possible to grant a permanent residence 
permit for the victims after proceedings have been terminated or once the victim has spent a 
specified period in the country.  

4.12. 

Withdrawal (Article 14) 

The  residence  permit  may  be  withdrawn  at  any  time  if  the  conditions  for  the  issue  are  no 
longer satisfied, in particular in the cases listed under Article 14 (a-e).  

The criteria for withdrawal of the residence permit vary in the Member States' legislation.  

Some  of  them  (BE,  DE,  EL,  LU,  MT,  RO)  lay  down  conditions  based  on  those  set  out  in 
Article 14. Others (BG, CZ, ES, FR, EE, LV, NL, PT, SK) have introduced more restricted 
criteria for withdrawal.  

In SE and LT, the residence permit may be withdrawn if the person concerned is on the list of 
persons banned from entering those countries. Other grounds for withdrawal of permit include 
a public health criterion (LT), misuse of the permit by the holder (PL), provision of false or 
forged information on identity (FI and SI), supply of incorrect information or suppression of 
circumstances that have been important for obtaining the permit (SE). The above-mentioned 
grounds appear to exceed the scope of Article 14.  

5. 

STATISTICS AND FIGURES 

Only  a  limited  number  of  Member  States  were  able  to  provide  data  on  the  number  of 
residence permits granted as a result of transposition of this Directive, and even fewer of them 
informed the Commission about the number of reflection periods. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

The available data6 on residence permits for victims of trafficking show that the impact of the 
Directive varies considerably. In certain Member States the number of permits was significant 
(BE,  IT,  NL,  FR,  DE),  in  some  cases  exceeding  100  per  year.  In  others,  the  figures  were 
considerably  smaller,  in  most  cases  between  1-20  per  year  (CZ,  FI,  HU,  PL,  SE).  In  other 
Member States no residence permit was granted on this basis or no information was provided 
(BG, EE, ES, LV, LT, RO, SI, SK).  

It  must  be  noted  that  the  available  data  may  not  be  fully  comparable,  since  some  Member 
States are able to grant humanitarian residence permits whose issue is not restricted to victims 
of trafficking or is not dependent on their cooperation with the competent authorities.  

With  a  view  to  obtaining  more  complete  and  reliable  statistics  on  the  application  of  this 
Directive,  the  Commission  will  examine  technical  options  for  the  collection  of  data  on 
residence  permits  granted  under  the  norms  transposing  this  Directive  as  part  of  the  existing 
data collection organised within the framework of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 862/2007.  

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Even  though  the  available  figures  cannot  in  themselves  allow  for  a  full  assessment  of  the 
effectiveness  of  this  Directive,  its  impact  does  appear  to  be  insufficient  in  the  light  of  the 
overall data on victims of trafficking in the EU. While the identified victims in some Member 
States  number  several  hundred  or  even  upwards  of  two  thousand  per  year7,  the  number  of 
residence permits based on this Directive is rarely higher than twenty per year.  

Even if a proportion of victims would not qualify under this Directive (e.g. because they are 
not  third-country  nationals),  the  difference  between  identified  victims  and  those  who  made 
use of the specific residence permits is remarkable. This may indicate that the potential of the 
Directive in dismantling networks of traffickers while protecting the rights of victims is not 
being put to full use.  

Although some of the deficiencies indicated in this report are not manifestly serious, there are 
some  which  may  prevent  the  Directive  being  applied  correctly.  Moreover,  as  indicated  by 
Member States, some victims may be reluctant to rely on the mechanisms. However, it may 
also be assumed that giving victims more effective access to information on the opportunities 
that are available would raise the Directive's profile and help it to work better. Improving the 
supply  of  information  would  need  increased  efforts  by  the  competent  authorities  of  the 
Member States and non-governmental organisations and associations, as set out in Article 5. 

Another  way  of  getting  victims  to  take  full  advantage  of  the  scheme  would  be  if  the 
provisions of the Directive relating to how victims are treated in the course of the reflection 
period or for the residence permit were fully complied with.  

The  statistics  also  show  that  making  it  possible  to  grant  temporary  residence  permits  to 
victims  who  for  various  reasons  do  not  cooperate  with  the  competent  authorities  may 
significantly increase  the number of victims who benefit from  the legal stay in the Member 
States.  

6 

7 

The  data  were  collected  on  the  basis  of  ad-hoc  requests  made  for  the  Odysseus  report,  Impact 
Assessment  for  the  proposal  of  the  Framework  Decision  on  trafficking  in  human  beings  and,  more 
recently, through national contact points of the Committee on Integration and Asylum. 
Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, February 2009, UNODC. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
7. 

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 

The fight against trafficking in human beings is a top priority in the area of freedom, security 
and justice.  

Several important initiatives, also affecting immigration policy, have been taken to step up the 
action against this type of crime. The Commission Communication of 10 June 2009,8 adopted 
with  a  view  to  the  Stockholm  Programme,  stressed  that  there  must  be  zero  tolerance  of 
trafficking in human beings and adequate resources should be invested in order, inter alia, to 
simplify the conditions for issuing residence permits to victims. The Stockholm Programme9 
stressed that the fight against human trafficking must mobilise all means of action, bringing 
together  prevention,  law  enforcement  and  victim  protection.  It  was  made  clear  that  all 
competences of  the Union  should  be used in the  most  optimal  way  in  order  to  reach  a  well 
coordinated  and  consolidated  EU  policy.  The  Commission  was  called  on  to  propose  further 
steps to protect and assist victims through an array of measures10.  

The  rights  of  minors  received  particular  attention  in  this  context.  It  was  indicated  in  the 
Stockholm Programme that children in particularly vulnerable situations will receive special 
attention,  notably  in  the  context  of  immigration  policy  (unaccompanied  minors,  victims  of 
trafficking,  etc.).  According  to  the  Action  Plan  on  Unaccompanied  Minors11,  the  EU  and 
Member States should reinforce action regarding child victims of trafficking in human beings 
by assistance which should at least include the measures provided for by Directive 2004/81.  

The  Commission  has  already  taken  action  to  respond  to  these  calls.  On  29  March  2010  it 
presented a legislative proposal which will strengthen protection of and support for victims12. 
In addition, a new integrated strategy on fighting trafficking in human beings and on measures 
to  protect  and  assist  victims  is  scheduled  for  201113.  Moreover,  the  2008  and  2009 
Commission  proposals  amending  the  Reception  Conditions  and  the  Qualification  Directives 
specify  that  victims  of  trafficking  must  be  considered  as  vulnerable  persons  whose  special 
needs  must  be  appropriately  addressed.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  launched  a  public 
consultation and is carrying out an impact assessment with a view to presenting a package of 
measures in 2011 on victims of crime and violence in general. 

Thought will now be given to additional measures increasing the potential of immigration law 
in  combating  trafficking  and  enhancement  of  the  protection  of  victims.  In  this  context  the 
Commission may consider the need for amendments to the Directive, including the possibility 
of  issuing  a  temporary  residence  permit  based  on  the  vulnerable  situation  of  the  victim  and 
not  necessarily  in  exchange  for  cooperation  with  competent  authorities.  Other  amendments 
might  include  having  a  specified  length  of  reflection  periods  for  victims;  strengthening  the 
framework  of  treatment,  in  particular  for  minors,  reinforcement  of  the  obligation  to  inform 
victims of their rights. 

8 
9 
10 

11 
12 
13 

COM (2009) 262 final. 
Council document 17024/09. 
Directive  2009/52/EC  on  employer  sanctions  was  also  partly  inspired  by  the  scheme  provided  under 
Directive  2004/81/EC.  It  foresees  establishing  comparable  arrangements  for  the  issue  of  residence 
permits  for  third-country  nationals  involved  in  criminal  proceedings  concerning  particularly 
exploitative working conditions or illegally employed minors. 
COM (2010) 213 final. 
COM(2010) 95 final. 
See Action Plan: COM(2010) 171 final. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
The Commission will examine all cases where problems of application of this Directive have 
arisen. This may imply contacting Member States and/or launching the necessary procedural 
steps for non-compliance, where appropriate, in accordance with Article 258. 

EN 

12 

   EN