REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents
Date: 2011-09-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: admission of aliens, foreign national, legal status, residence permit

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 28.9.2011 
COM(2011) 585 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the application of Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country 
nationals who are long-term residents 

 
 
 
 
  
 
I. INTRODUCTION 

Directive  2003/109/EC  concerning  the  status  of  third-country  nationals  who  are  long-term 
residents (LTRs) - hereinafter 'the Directive'1 - was adopted on 25 November 2003. It was the 
second  Directive2  on  legal  migration  adopted  after  the  Treaty  of  Amsterdam  introduced  the 
competence to legislate in this field at EU level. 

The new status created by the Directive was called for by the European Council in 1999 with 
a  view  to  fostering  the  integration  of  LTRs  in  the  Member  States  and  promoting  economic 
and  social  cohesion.  To  achieve  that  objective,  LTRs  are  granted  a  secure  residence  status, 
including  a  set  of  uniform  rights  which  are  as  close  as  possible  to  those  enjoyed  by  the 
citizens of the EU and, under certain conditions, the right to reside in other Member States.  

The Directive  is  therefore a major milestone in the development of EU immigration policy, 
which concerns more than half a million3 third-country nationals in the 24 Member States4 to 
whom the Directive applies. Its scope was recently extended to beneficiaries of international 
protection by the amending Directive 2011/51/EU of 11 May 2011. 

The  report  complies  with  the  Commission's  obligation  under  Article  24  of  the  Directive.  It 
gives an overview of the transposition and implementation of the Directive by Member States 
and  identifies  possible  problematic  issues.  It  has  been  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  a  study 
conducted  on  behalf  of  the  Commission5  and  other  sources,  including  a  number  of  ad-hoc 
queries launched through the European Migration Network6, individual complaints, questions, 
petitions, discussions with Member States on practical issues arising from application of the 
Directive and other studies7.  

Member States have been given the opportunity to revise and update the factual information.  

II. MONITORING AND STATE OF TRANSPOSITION 

As stipulated in Article 26 of the Directive, Member States had to comply with the Directive 
by 23 January 2006. 

The Commission organised several meetings with Member States to discuss issues concerning 
the implementation and interpretation of the Directive between 2005 and 2010. 

In 2007, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against 20 Member States8 under 
Article 258 (ex-226) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for not having 
implemented the Directive in time or for not having properly informed the Commission of the 
adoption of national legislation implementing the Directive. Judgments were handed down by 
the European Court of Justice against three Member States.9 Since then, as all Member States 

1 OJ L 16 of 23.1.2004, p. 44. 
2 The first Directive was Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification. 
3 567 100 in 2009 (source: Eurostat). 
4 DK, IE and the UK are not bound by the Directive. 
5 Study supported by the Commission and conducted by a consortium lead by Andersson Effers Felix (AEF) and involving 
Matrix  Insight  Ltd  (Matrix)  and  the  Centre  for  Migration  Law  (CMR),  updating  the  study  carried  out  in  2007  by  the 
Academic Network for Legal Studies on Immigration and Asylum in Europe -‘Odysseus’. 
6 See in particular ad-hoc queries n°7, 41, 46, 53, 57, 148, 180, 209. 
7 D. Acosta Arcarazo, The Long-Term Residence Status as a Subsidiary Form of EU Citizenship. An Analysis of Directive 
2003/109, Martinus Nijhoff, 2011. 
8 All Member States except AT, SI, SK, PL. 
9 Cases C-5/07 (Commission/Portugal), C-59/07 (Commission/Spain) and C- 34/07 (Commission/Luxembourg). 

 
 
 
                                                 
have  gradually  notified  the  transposition  measures,  the  infringement  proceedings  for  non-
communication have been closed.  

III. COMPLIANCE OF THE TRANSPOSITION MEASURES 

3.1. Personal scope (Article 3) 

The Directive applies to third-country nationals lawfully residing in the territory of a Member 
State. However, a series of exclusions are provided for. Specific problems arise with respect 
to  the  exclusion  of  third-country  nationals  who  have  been  admitted  solely  on  temporary 
grounds (Article 3(2)(e)). Some Member States apply a very broad reading of the exception 
contained in the provision and define the status of certain categories of third-country nationals 
as temporary, even though their residence permit may be renewed for a potentially indefinite 
period, without any definite time limit and regardless of the total duration of residence in the 
Member  State.  Artists,  athletes,  ministers  of  religion,  social  workers,  researchers,  family 
members  of  permanent  third-country  nationals,  low  skilled  migrant  workers  or  other  third-
country nationals whose stay is unduly labelled 'temporary' may thereby be excluded from EU 
long-term residence status in AT, CY, EL, IT and PL. This restriction of the personal scope of 
the Directive seriously affects the 'effet utile' of the Directive.  

This  issue  is  the  subject  of  a  preliminary  referral  to  the  European  Court  of  Justice  by  the 
Dutch Raad van State in case C-502/10 (M. Singh).  

3.2. Conditions for acquisition of the status in a first Member State (Articles 4, 5, 6 and 
7(1)) 

•  Lawful residence of 5 years (Article 4) 

Third-country  nationals  are  required  to  have  resided  legally  and  continuously  within  the 
territory for five years prior to the submission of the application for LTR status.  

Member  States  remain  competent  to  define  the  notion  of  ‘lawful  residence’  under  national 
legislation,  within  the  limits  of  EU  law.  However,  once  they  have  defined  that  notion,  they 
cannot  then  narrow  it  down  when  transposing  Article  4  of  the  Directive.  Restricting  lawful 
residence to residence under a residence permit and excluding as a matter of principle visas 
and  other  forms  of  authorisation  for  stay  may  constitute  an  incorrect  transposition  of  this 
provision when these stays do not fall under the exceptions provided for under Article 3(2). 
Problems may arise in this regard with FR, IT, LU, SE and SK.  

According to Article 4(3), a period of absence from the territory of the Member State that is 
shorter  than  six  consecutive  months  and  does  not  exceed  a  total  of  10  months  within  five 
years  does  not  interrupt  the  five-year  period  of  residence10.  LT  has  not  transposed  this 
provision11. Many Member States12 have made use of the possibility to allow longer periods 
of absence in cases of "specific or exceptional" circumstances (such as serious illness, pursuit 
of studies, employment reasons) without the five-year period being interrupted.  

10 For third country nationals holders of the so-called 'Blue Card' according to Directive 2009/50 on the conditions of entry 
and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, this period of absence is extended 
up to 12 consecutive months for a total period of maximum 18 months. 
11 Amendments in preparation. 
12 AT, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FI, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO. 

2

 
 
 
                                                 
Specific  (optional)  rules  for  calculation  are  laid  down  for  students  and  vocational  trainees 
under Article 4(2) which a majority of Member States13 have transposed.  

•  Resources and sickness insurance (Article 5 (1)) 

The income requirement varies across Member States, as it is usually set by reference to the 
level  of  social  assistance,  minimum  living  standard  or  minimum  wage/pension.  Many 
Member States provide for thresholds which are raised in proportion to the number of family 
members  and  take  account  of  the  costs  of  accommodation.  In  order  to  prove  stability  and 
regularity  of  resources,  CY  requires  that  the  employment  contract  be  valid  for  at  least  18 
months, which in practice may prove a serious obstacle in a labour market characterised by 
short-term employment contracts. 

The handling of applications of family members raises further issues. In BG, EE, EL, MT, PL 
and  RO,  the  legal  framework  requires  that  family  members  applying  for  LTR  status  must 
prove  that  they  have  appropriate  resources  and  that  these  do  not  include  the  income  of  the 
sponsor. This restrictive interpretation of the resources requirement prevents family members 
from  achieving  a  stable  situation and  runs  counter  to  the  aim  of  fostering  the  integration  of 
LTRs.   

•  Integration requirements (Article 5 (2)) 

In addition to these conditions, Member States may require third-country nationals to comply 
with integration conditions, as is the case in AT, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FR, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, 
NL,  PT  and  RO14.  These  integration  conditions  include  language  proficiency,  though  of 
varying levels. They may also include further knowledge about the host society, typically its 
history, legal order and values15. Some Member States require third-country nationals to pass 
an exam16, which may be preceded by compulsory courses. Others only make it compulsory 
to attend integration courses17.  

When  transposing  this  provision,  Member  States  must  be  in  line  with  the  purpose  of  the 
Directive and take due account of the general principles of EU law, such as the principle of 
preserving  its  effectiveness  ("effet  utile")  and  the  proportionality  principle.  In  order  to 
perform  such  an  assessment,  the  nature  and  level  of  the  knowledge  expected  from  the 
applicant, also by comparison to the knowledge of the host society, the cost of the exam, the 
accessibility  of  the  integration  training  and  tests,  the  comparison  between  the  integration 
requirements imposed on a prospective LTR and those applied to prospective citizens (which 
are expected to be higher), are all valuable indicators. 

•  Public order and public security (Article 6) 

Taking  account  of  the  fact  that,  by  definition,  the  LTR  has  already  resided  in  the  Member 
State concerned for at least 5 years, the possibility for Member States to refuse an application 
on  public  policy  or  public  security  grounds  is  more  limited  than  in  the  other  Directives  on 
legal migration, as Member States have to take into account the following four elements: the 
severity or type of offence against public policy or public security; the danger posed by the 
person concerned; the duration of the person’s residence; and the existence of links with the 
country of residence.  

13 All Member States except CY, FI, FR, IT, LT, SE. 
14 However, this requirement is lifted for family members in DE, EE, LT, LU, LV, MT, RO. 
15 AT, FR, DE, EL, LT, MT, NL. 
16 AT, DE, EE, EL, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO. 
17 Civic courses in FR. 

3

 
 
                                                 
The  completeness  of  the  transposition  is  difficult  to  assess  in  this  area:  it  is  not  only  the 
wording of the corresponding national transposition measures that often differs slightly from 
the  text  of  the  Directive,  but  typically  they  are  also  based  on  various  sources  of  law,  the 
combination and legal force of which may be difficult to assess. Subject to these reservations, 
national law does not appear to guarantee that each of the elements specified in this article of 
the Directive is taken into account every time a decision is made to refuse the status in AT, 
BE,  ES,  FR,  HU,  LT,  LV,  PL,  RO,  SI18  and  SK  (incomplete  transposition  of  the  criteria, 
excessively  vague  formulation,  automatic  link  between  certain  custodial  sentences/criminal 
records and refusal).  

•  Documentary evidence (Article 7(1)) 

from  a  valid 

Apart 
travel  document  and  documentation  confirming  appropriate 
accommodation,  the  documentation  that  can  be  required  in  support  of  the  application  is 
specified  under  Articles  4  and  5.  Therefore,  national  legislation  systematically  requiring 
additional documents, such as an extract from the judicial record (CY, CZ, HU, IT, RO, SI) or 
detailed curriculum (BG19) does not appear to comply with the Directive.  

Another  problematic  issue  under  some  national  laws  concerns  the  consequences  of  the 
absence of documentation regarding appropriate accommodation - this notion usually refers to 
normal  accommodation 
to 
accommodation meeting welfare-based social housing standards. As this is not a condition for 
admission,  Member  States'  legislation  stating  that  the  absence  of  such  evidence  is  a  ground 
for refusing an application is in breach of the Directive20. In addition, the specific requirement 
under  MT  legislation  that  the  accommodation  must  not  be  shared  by  another  person/other 
person(s) who are not family members does not seem justified. 

the  general  health  and  safety  standards  or 

that  meets 

Moreover,  the  absence  of  any  specific  legal  provision  regarding  documentary  evidence,  as 
seems to be the case in DE, SE and NL, is difficult to reconcile with the general principle that 
third-country nationals must be able to ascertain their rights and obligations21.  

•  Additional requirements  

In AT, the issuance of the EU LTR permit is formulated as a 'may' clause and is conditional 
upon the acquisition of a settlement permit, which itself depends on the fulfilment of a quota 
criterion or on the achievement of a sufficient number of points (skilled-based point system), 
which is not compatible with the Directive. 

As  regards  fees  levied  by  all  24  Member  States  for  processing  the  application,  they  may, 
when they are excessively high, be regarded as contrary to the principle of proportionality and 
as equivalent to an unlawful additional condition for admission endangering the "effet utile" 
of the Directive. In this regard, the following group of Member States: BG, CY, EL, FR, NL 
and PT, in which fees range from 260 euro to 600 euro, can be seen as problematic. This issue 
is the subject of an infringement procedure before the Court of Justice22. 

18 Amendments in preparation. 
19 Amendments in preparation. 
20 A transposition issue may arise in this area in AT, CY, CZ, DE, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, RO, SK. 
21 CJUE, 30/05/1991, case C-361/88. 
22 Case C-508/10 (Commission c/Netherlands). 

4

 
 
                                                 
3.3. The LTR permit and status (Article 8 (1) (2) and (3)) 

The  Directive  establishes  a  fundamental  distinction  between  LTR  status  and  the  residence 
permit, as LTR status is permanent and the permit only certifies that status23. In the light of 
this, the absence of explicit provisions under national law (in FR, LV, NL, PT and SE) about 
the permanent nature of the status could give rise to a legal issue.  

Member  States  correctly  transposed  the  provision  on  the  period  of  validity  of  the  permit 
(Article 8(2)), generally setting it at 5 years, with some exceptions24.  

The  rules  applying  to  the  form  of  the  permit  (Article  8(3))  were  changed  by  Council 
Regulation 380/2008 of 18 April 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 laying down 
a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals. As regards the compulsory 
mentions on the permit, they were not laid down in a number of Member States (e.g. ES25, IT 
and RO) during the initial years following the entry into force of the Directive, which caused 
problems as regards intra-EU mobility. 

3.4. Conditions of renewal of the permit and loss of status (Articles 8 (2) and 9) 

•  Renewal of the LTR permit (Article 8(2)) 

Concerning  the  provision  of  Article  8(2)  relating  to  automatic  renewal,  which  is  closely 
linked  to  Article  9(6)  on  the  expiry  of  the  LTR  permit,  transposition  is  correct  in  those 
Member States where there is no renewal procedure since the permit is valid for an indefinite 
period. It is also correct in the Member States where the LTR permit is automatically renewed 
upon  expiry  or  on  request.  The  high  fees  applied  on  this  occasion  (CY)  do  not  seem 
compatible with the concept of automatic renewal, nor the high fines (up to 1659 euro) that 
are reportedly applied in SK to LTRs that do not apply for the renewal of their permit in time. 

•  Withdrawal or loss of the LTR status (Article 9) 

Article 9 regulates the conditions for withdrawing or losing LTR status. Withdrawal must take 
place  in  five  specific  cases  listed  in  Articles  9  (1)  and  (4)  and  may  take  place  in  the 
circumstances  referred  to  in  Article  9(3).  Withdrawals  of  LTR  status  cannot  be  justified  on 
other grounds. 

In addition, Article 9(2) allows Member States to withdraw the permit in the case of absence 
from EU territory for more than 12 months, unless longer periods are allowed26 for specific or 
exceptional  reasons  (e.g.  development  of  a  project  in  the  country  of  origin).  Incorrect 
transposition is reported in SK and NL, providing additional grounds for loss of status in the 
event of a 180-day period of absence from the national territory.  

Under the terms of Article 9(3), Member States may provide that the LTR shall no longer be 
entitled to maintain his or her status in cases where s/he constitutes a threat to public policy, 
but  such  a  threat  is  not  a  reason  for  expulsion.  The  national  laws  of  most  Member  States 
provide for this possibility; however, it is not always clear whether consideration is given to 
the  seriousness  of  the  offences  committed.  In  particular,  FR  legislation  providing  that  LTR 
status may be withdrawn in the event of employment of a third-country national without the 
required work permit seems to go beyond the grounds for withdrawal set out in Article 9. 

23 See Recital 11. 
24 10 years: CZ, FR; indefinite duration: FI, IT, DE, SI. 
25 Amendments in preparation. 
26 AT, BE, CZ, FI, LU, MT, PT, SI. 

5

 
 
                                                 
Article  9(4),  which  relates  to  the  loss  of  the  LTR  status  in  the  first  Member  State  upon 
acquisition of the LTR status in a second Member State or after six years of absence from the 
territory of the first Member State, has been transposed in all Member States.  

Regarding Article 9(5) and the facilitated procedure for LTR status (e.g. removal or relaxing  
of  the  residence  or  integration  requirement)  with  regard  to  the  cases  referred  to  in  Article 
9(1)(c)  and  Article  9(4),  CY,  ES27,  LT  and  MT  do  not  show  that  they  have  transposed  this 
provision.  

3.5. Right to equal treatment in the first Member State (Article 11) 

Under the terms of Article 11 of the Directive, LTRs enjoy equal treatment with nationals in a 
number of areas, including access to employment, education, social protection and access to 
goods and services. As a result, in particular, of the absence of explicit provisions under the 
laws of many Member States, there is an information gap in this area which is to be regretted. 
It is therefore difficult to assess whether national legislation is in compliance with Article 11. 
However,  the  number  of  complaints  lodged  in  this  area  indicates  that  transposition  of  this 
provision  may  be  problematic,  especially  where  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  has  to  be 
implemented by a range of different regional and local authorities. 

12 Member States28 have made use of the possibility provided by paragraph 2 of Article 11 to 
restrict equal treatment to cases where the registered habitual place of residence of the LTR or 
that of his or her family members lies within the territory of the Member State concerned. In 
addition,  EL  is  the  only  Member  State  where,  in  accordance  with  paragraph  4,  the  national 
legislator  limits  equal  treatment  to  core  benefits  in  respect  of  social  assistance  and  social 
protection29. Regarding access to employment, the legislation in 17 Member States30 contains 
a restriction or excludes LTRs from activities involving the exercise of public authority.  

Transposition issues arise as regards: access to education in NL (universities are allowed to 
charge  higher  fees  for  non-EEA  nationals,  including  LTR);  acquisition  of  real  estate  in  PL; 
free access to the territory in LT (freedom of movement of foreigners may be restricted on the 
basis of an extended list of grounds, including protection of the rights and freedoms of other 
persons). 

The compatibility with Article 11 of a national housing allowance restricted to EU nationals is 
the subject of a preliminary referral to the CJ by an IT tribunal31. 

3.6. Relationship with the national permanent residence permit – more favourable 
provisions (Article 13)  

Article  13  of  the  Directive  allows  Member  States  to  issue  national  permanent  residence 
permits under more favourable terms. Those permits do no confer a right to move to a second 
Member  State.  13  Member  States32  have  made  use  of  this  possibility,  including  to  the 
advantage  of  persons  enjoying  international  protection,  major  investors  or  third-country 
nationals  who  have  a  special  relationship  with  the  Member  State  concerned,  because  they 
were born or resided for a long time on its territory, or married a national. 

27 Amendments in preparation. 
28 AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, HU, IT, LU, PL. 
29 Understood as those benefits which affect the protection of childhood, of indigents and of the family. 
30 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, PL, RO, SE, SI. 
31 Case C-571/10. 
32 BE, BG, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, NL, PL, SE, SI. 

6

 
 
                                                 
Possible problems arise in the Member States33 where third-country nationals are not allowed 
to hold a LTR permit and another residence permit at the same time and must choose between 
the two permits. Such a choice is not in accordance with Articles 4(1) and 7(3), which provide 
that Member States should grant LTR status when the applicant fulfils the conditions of the 
Directive.  In  addition,  this  situation  creates  a  risk  of  competition  between  national  and  EU 
permits, which will not necessarily result in more favourable provisions being applied to the 
third-country  national,  given  that  the  comparison  of  the  advantages  respectively  granted  by 
the two kinds of permits is often a delicate issue requiring in-depth knowledge of immigration 
law and a thorough assessment.  

3.7 The conditions for residence and work in another Member State (Articles 14, 15, 16, 
18) 

The  facilitation  of  intra-EU  movement  for  LTRs  is  one  of  the  main  added  values  of  the 
Directive,  contributing  to  the  effective  attainment  of  an  internal  market.  Transposition  falls 
short  of  this  ambition.  In  many  Member  States,  Chapter  III  of  the  Directive  dedicated  to 
residence  in  the  other  Member  States  has  been  only  partially  transposed  or  has  seen  its 
implementation delayed. In addition, problems have arisen as regards residence permits which 
were  not  issued  in  accordance  with  the  specifications  of  the  Directive  (see  point  3.3.).  This 
situation has resulted in LTRs of another Member State being refused admission on grounds 
not provided for by the Directive, or not being granted their rights.  

Intra-EU mobility is much enhanced in those Member States where LTRs who obtained that 
status in another Member State are exempted from the labour market test (and in some cases 
from the work permit requirement as well), namely in BE34, CY, HU, LV, PL, PT and SE. In 
IT, RO and SI, national quotas - as distinct from those provided for by Article 14(4)35 - apply. 
The  conformity  of  these  quotas  with  the  Directive  depends  on  whether  they  are  based  on  a 
labour market assessment. Therefore, the IT quotas broken down by nationality appear to be 
in breach of the Directive. 

Some  Member  States  have  removed  the  requirements  of  stable  and  regular  resources  and 
evidence  of  sickness  insurance  from  LTR  status-holders  from  another  Member  State  when 
they  apply for  a residence permit. The application  under  Article  15  of  income  requirements 
that are stricter than those of Article 5, as provided for in FR, IT and RO for some categories 
of  LTRs,  hampers  intra-EU  mobility  and  raises  compliance  issues  on  the  basis  of  the 
principles of proportionality and effectiveness of the Directive.  

Article 15(3) provides for Member States to require LTRs applying for a residence permit to 
comply  with  integration  'measures',  provided  that  the  integration  condition  has  not  been 
applied  to  the  LTRs  concerned  in  the  first  Member  State.  As  demonstrated  by  the  wording 
used  and  the  limitations  provided  for  as  regards  their  application  and  content,  these 
integration  'measures'  are  not  equivalent  to  the  integration  'conditions'  referred  to  in  Article 
5(2). Therefore, national legislation providing that LTR status-holders from another Member 
State  must,  despite  the  application  of  an  integration  condition  in  the  first  Member  State, 
comply  with  integration  measures  entailing  more  than  the  mere  attendance  of  a  language 
course is in breach of the Directive. This is the case in AT, EE36, FR, DE and LV. 

33 AT, BE, DE, EE, EL, FI, IT, LT, LU, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK. 
34 During the application of transitional measures for EU citizens, only for occupations in short supply 
35 only used by AT 
36 However, this requirement is not applicable to temporary residence permits. 

7

 
 
                                                 
Article  18(1)  of  the  Directive  regulates  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  refuse 
applications  in  the  event  of  a  threat  to  public  health.  In  some  Member  States  it  is  unclear 
whether  the  diseases  mentioned  are  also  subject  to  protective  measures  in  relation  to 
nationals. BE, HU, IT, LV and RO37 did not transpose Article 18(3) which forbids Member 
States  to  refuse  the  permit  because  of  diseases  contracted  after  the  first  residence  permit. 
Further,  despite  Article  18(4)  which  bans  the  performance  of  a  medical  examination  on  a 
systematic basis and charges for such examination, in EL and LT medical documentation is 
required in all cases, and in CY, CZ, LV, LT and RO the applicant must pay the costs of the 
examination or of the medical documentation. 

As regards Article 16(1) which provides that the spouse and minor children have the right to 
accompany the LTR if the family was already constituted in the first Member State, problems 
of transposition arise in EE and LT38, where the general rules regarding family reunification 
apply,  and  in  ES  and  IT  which  apply  an  accommodation  requirement.  Moreover,  the  'may' 
clause contained in HU legislation may also be misleading as regards the right of the family to 
accompany the LTR. 

3.8 Residence permit issued to a LTR in a second Member State (Articles 19(2), (3) and 
(21)) 

According to Article 19(2), the second Member State must grant a renewable residence permit 
to the LTR if the conditions are met and must inform the first Member State of its decision. 
This obligation to provide information is not transposed in FR, IT, LT, LV and RO.  

As  soon  as  the  LTR  receives  a  residence  permit  in  the  second  Member  State,  s/he  should 
enjoy  equal  treatment  in  the  areas  covered  by  Article  11  in  the  second  Member  State,  as 
provided for by Article 21(1). Specific issues of transposition arise: in FI, LT, SI, SK, where 
full  equal  treatment  applies  only  to  LTRs  who  hold  a  permanent  permit;  in  NL,  where  the 
temporary residence permit of a LTR may be withdrawn if s/he applies for social assistance.  

BG, FI, IT, RO, SI39 and SK continue to apply restrictions to access to employment after the 
first 12 months in breach of the Directive. The national legislation on this point is not clear in 
CY and EL. 

As regards family members (Article 19(3)), the second Member State should issue them with 
renewable residence permits that are valid for the same period as the permit of the LTR. This 
specific provision was not transposed in RO and SK, and undue restrictions apply in SI and 
LT40. As soon as family members have received this residence permit, they should enjoy the 
rights  listed  in  Article  14  of  the  Family  Reunification  Directive.  This  provision  is  not 
transposed in EE, LV and RO, and is not properly transposed in SI as regards access to labour 
market and in FI as regards education.  

3.9. Protection from expulsion (Articles 12 and 22) 

Expulsion from the first Member State is strictly regulated under the Directive (Article 12): 
only  when  the  third-country  national  constitutes  'an  actual  and  sufficiently  serious  threat'  to 
public policy or public security, exclusive of economic considerations, may a Member State 
expel  a  LTR.  The  expulsion  decision  must  be  preceded  by  a  thorough  assessment  of  the 

37 Amendments in preparation. 
38 Amendments in preparation. 
39 Amendments in preparation. 
40 Amendments in preparation. 

8

 
 
                                                 
particular circumstances of the person and the consequences of the decision, based on a set of 
specified  criteria  (Article  12(3)).  Legal  issues  arise  under  those  national  laws  which  do  not 
expressly  refer  to  a  specific  threat  (ES,  RO,  SE);  do  not  take  account  of  the  whole  set  of 
criteria (BE, BG, FR, HU, LU, LV, NL, RO, SE); provide for further grounds than those of 
public policy or national security; or do not specifically exclude economic considerations as 
stipulated by Article 12(2). 

Article 22 covers the possibility of expelling a LTR who has been granted a residence permit 
in  a  second  Member  State,  but  who  has  not  yet  obtained  LTR  status  in  this  Member  State. 
Except for MT, PT and SE, Member States have not adopted special provisions in this regard, 
which  is  problematic  since  most  Member  States  lay  down  a  number  of  further  grounds  for 
refusing or withdrawing residence permits. 

Directive  2008/115/EC  of  16  December  2008  on  common  standards  and  procedures  in 
Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals had an impact on Article 
22(2)  and  (3)  as,  according  to  Article  6  of  this  Directive,  third-country  nationals  staying 
illegally  on  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  and  holding  a  valid  residence  permit  issued  by 
another  Member  State  must  be  required  to  go  to  the  territory  of  that  other  Member  State 
immediately.  It  is  only  in  the  event  of  non-compliance  by  the  third-country  national 
concerned with this requirement that Member States can issue a return decision. Procedural 
guarantees  and  provisions  regarding  the  entry  ban  as  provided  by  Directive  2008/115/EC 
should also be respected. 

3.10. Procedural guarantees (Articles 7 (2), 10, 19 (1) and 20) 

•  Time-limit to process the application (Articles 7(2) and 19(1)) 

In accordance with Article 7(2), most Member States respect the 6-month deadline to process 
the application for a LTR residence permit41 and make use of the possibility of extending this 
deadline in "exceptional circumstances". BE and DE are legally problematic cases as there is 
no  provision  for  an  explicit  maximum  time  period  in  these  countries.  In  addition,  in  some 
Member States practice may differ from the official deadlines42.  

In most Member States, the LTR is allowed to stay in the second Member State pending the 
processing of the application for a residence permit.  

Member States are required to determine the consequences of no decision being taken within 
the  deadline  (e.g.  extension  of  the  temporary  residence  permit  of  the  applicant;  positive 
decision or a negative decision after which the applicant can file an appeal). Transposition is 
not correct in this respect in EE, FI and IT, where no provisions have been made. 

In  accordance  with  the  observance  of  the  'effet  utile'  of  the  Directive,  the  positive  decision 
should equate to having the actual LTR permit, as provided for by BE and NL, or in any event 
to not delaying access to rights attaching to the permit.  

•  Other procedural safeguards (Articles 7(2) (3rd par.) 10 and 20) 

41 30 days: SI; two months: CZ; three months: BG, CZ, EE, ES, IT, LV, PL, SK; four months: FR, HU. 
42 E.g. IT. 

9

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The obligation of information as it is laid down by Article 7(2), third subparagraph, appears to 
be insufficiently fulfilled in practice, especially as regards the range of rights granted to the 
LTR in accordance with Article 11. 

As for the other procedural guarantees laid down in Articles 10 and 20, these are included in 
most national legislation. However, in CZ the loss of LTR status according to Article 9(4) of 
the Directive cannot be challenged. 

IV. CONCLUSIONS 

Promoting the integration and non-discrimination of third-country nationals, and particularly 
of LTRs, is a long-standing commitment of the EU. The LTR Directive is a crucial tool for 
achieving this objective and a pillar of EU immigration policy. An innovative scheme inspired 
both  by  the  regime  applicable  to  EU  citizens  and  by  immigration  policy,  this  Directive 
guarantees to third-country nationals who are LTRs an extended set of rights throughout the 
EU, promotes the principle of non-discrimination and lays down for the first time provisions 
to facilitate mobility from one Member State to another.  

Against  this  ambitious  objective,  the  weak  impact  of  the  LTR  Directive  in  many  Member 
States  is  to  be  deplored.  In  2009,  around  four  fifths  of  these  third-country  nationals  having 
LTR status were living in four Member States: EE (187 400), AT (166 600), CZ (49 200) and 
IT (45 200). In FR and DE, only 2 000 third-country residents had acquired the LTR permit43. 
Moreover, the available data indicates that only small numbers of LTR third-country nationals 
have  made  use  of  this  new  avenue  for  mobility  within  the  EU  so  far  (fewer  than  fifty  per 
Member  State).  Even  though  third-country  nationals  residing  for  more  than  5  years  do  not 
automatically meet the conditions for being granted LTR status (for example, because they do 
not  meet  the  income  requirement)  or  may  qualify  for  citizenship  and  prefer  to  acquire  such 
status,  the  difference  between  potential  LTRs  and  those  granted  this  specific  status  is 
important. 

This  report  reveals  a  general  lack  of  information  among  third-country  nationals  about  the 
status of LTR and the rights attached to it, as well as many deficiencies in the transposition of 
the Directive (for example, restrictive interpretation of the scope of the Directive, additional 
conditions  for  admission,  such  as  high  fees,  illegal  obstacles  to  intra-EU  mobility,  watering 
down of the right of equal treatment and protection against expulsion) which should lead to 
further steps being taken, at EU and national levels. 

V. STEPS TO BE TAKEN 

The Commission will increase its efforts to ensure that the Directive is correctly transposed 
and implemented across the EU. In order to achieve this result, the Commission will make full 
use  of  its  powers  under  the  Treaty  and  continue  to  launch  infringement  proceedings  when 
necessary. Five years after the deadline for the transposition of the Directive, it is now high 
time to put it to full use.  

At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  will  continue  working  with  the  Member  States  at  the 
technical  level.  The  Contact  Committee  will  continue  to  identify  difficulties,  facilitate  the 

43 Source: Eurostat. 

10

 
 
 
 
                                                 
exchange  of  views  on  interpretation  of  the  Directive  and  offer  guidance.  Some  legal  and 
technical  issues  could  be  further  discussed  and  clarified,  such  as:  integration  measures  and 
conditions;  specific  rules  on  the  admission  of  LTR  in  the  second  Member  State;  protection 
against expulsion; and exchange of information between Member States. 

Moreover,  LTRs  should  be  better  informed  about  their  rights  under  the  Directive.  The 
Commission will make the best use of existing websites, mainly  via the  future Immigration 
Portal, and is considering preparing a simplified guide for LTRs. The Commission could also 
encourage  and  support  Member  States  in  launching  awareness-raising  campaigns  to  inform 
LTRs of their rights.  

Finally, in order to promote LTR status, advance the integration of third-country nationals and 
improve  the  functioning  of  internal  market,  amendments  to  the  Directive  could  also  be 
considered, such as: taking better account of temporary stays in the calculation of the 5-year 
period; further encouraging circular migration through more flexible arrangements as regards 
periods of  absence  of the  EU  territory, in line with the EU Blue Card scheme44; facilitating 
access  to  the  labour  market  of  the  second  Member  State;  and  further  simplifying  the 
acquisition of LTR status in the second Member State. 

44 Directive 2009/50/EC 

11