GREEN PAPER on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the European Union  (Directive 2003/86/EC)
Date: 2011-11-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, family migration, fraud, integration of migrants, marriage of convenience, right of asylum

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.11.2011 
COM(2011) 735 final 

GREEN PAPER 

on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the European 
Union  (Directive 2003/86/EC)  

 
 
 
 
  
 
I. 

INTRODUCTION AND AIM OF THE GREEN PAPER 

For immigrants family reunification is a necessity for making family life possible. Since 2003 
there are common European immigration rules in place to regulate the conditions to exercise 
the right to family reunification of third-country nationals at EU level.1 The Directive defines 
the  conditions  of  entry  and  residence  for  non-EU  family  members  joining  a  non-EU  citizen 
already legally residing in a Member State. This Directive does not apply to EU citizens.2 

When  adopted,  the  Directive  was  considered  as  a  first  step  harmonisation  only  and  was 
criticised  after  adoption  by  NGOs  and  academics  for  establishing  a  rather  low  level  of 
harmonisation.  At  the  same  time  over  the  last  years  some  Member  States  have  set  up 
restrictive rules and have even called for a modification of the Directive3 in order to be able to 
add further conditions to family reunification. They claim that such changes are necessary in 
order to tackle abuse and better manage the large inflow of migrants.  

Indeed family reunification accounts for a large although decreasing4 share of legal migration. 
In the early 2000s, family migration seemed to make up, in those Member States with reliable 
data, more than 50 percent of the total legal immigration. Today, this share amounts to about 
one  third  of  all  immigration  to  the  EU.  The  share  is  even  smaller  when  considering  solely 
those targeted by the Directive – i.e. third country nationals joining non-EU citizens, which 
corresponds to roughly 500.000 migrants at EU level 21 percent of the overall permits.5  

Both the Stockholm Programme and the European Pact on immigration and asylum identified 
family reunification as an issue where EU policies should be further developed with special 
regard  to  integration  measures.  The  Commission  itself,  in  its  first  report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive  (COM  2008/610)6,  identified  national  implementation 
problems  and  shortcomings  of  the  Directive.  On  the  one  hand  a  few  cross-cutting  issues  of 
incorrect  transposition  were  identified  (the  provisions  on  visa  facilitation,  granting 
autonomous residence permits, taking into account the best interest of the child, legal redress 
and more favourable provisions for the family reunification of refugees). On the other hand 
the report concluded that the Directive itself leaves Member States too much discretion when 
applying  some  of  its  optional  provisions  (the  "may"-clauses)  in  particular  as  regards  the 
possible waiting period, the income requirement and the possible integration measures.  

1 
2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

Directive 2003/86 on the right to family reunification, Hereinafter referred as "the Directive" 
The situation of family reunification for EU citizens and their third-country national family members is 
covered by EU law through Directive 2004/38/EC. However, this Directive only covers cases where a 
Union citizen moves to, resides in or has resided in a Member State other than that of which he/she is a 
national and his/her third-country national family member joins or accompanies him/her. 
Position paper – the Dutch standpoint on EU migration policy 
This  decrease  is  probably  partly  linked  to  recent  policy  changes  in  some  Member  States  introducing 
stricter  conditions.  These  policy  changes  claim  to  better  manage  large  inflows  of  migrants  but  put  in 
question  the  acknowledged  right  to  family  reunification  as  set  out  in  the  Directive  which  at  present 
serves as a minimum legal guarantee throughout the EU.  
EUROSTAT-  Please  see  specific  numbers  in  the  annex;  no  data  for  Estonia,  Luxembourg  and 
Netherlands available 
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0610:FIN:EN:PDF.  

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  view  of  the  above  the  Commission  considers  it  necessary  to  initiate  a  public  debate  on 
family reunification highlighting certain issues within the remit of the Directive7, which is the 
purpose  of  this  Green  Paper.  All  stakeholders  are  invited  to  reply  to  different  questions  on 
how to have more effective rules on family reunification at EU level and to provide available 
factual  information  and  data  on  the  application  of  the  Directive  to  underpin  the  qualitative 
assessment provided. The objective of the Directive, namely to determine the conditions for 
the  exercise  of  the  right  to  family  reunification  and  to  facilitate  the  integration  of  third-
country nationals meeting the conditions in the given Member State should be kept in mind.8 
The Commission would in particular like to invite Member States who reported problems of 
abuse of the right to family reunification to specify and quantify them in order to be able to 
address them at EU level in a more targeted way.  

Depending  on  the  outcome  of  this  consultation  the  Commission  will  decide  whether  any 
concrete  policy  follow  up  is  necessary  (e.g.  modification  of  the  Directive,  interpretative 
guidelines or status quo). Any possible EU instrument will need to comply with the Charter of 
Fundamental  Rights,  in  particular  respect  for  private  and  family  life,  the  right  to  marry,  the 
rights  of  the  child,  the  principle  of  non  discrimination,  as  well  as  with  other  international 
obligations. The Commission will therefore ensure that any possible follow-up is subject to an 
in-depth assessment of its impact on fundamental rights, and its compliance with the Charter, 
in line with the "fundamental rights check-list" established by the Commission in its Strategy 
for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.9 

II. 

QUESTIONS TO STAKEHOLDERS  

1. 

SCOPE OF APPLICATION  

1.1 

Who can qualify as a sponsor for the purpose of the Directive?  

The  Directive  identifies  two  conditions  for  being  eligible  as  a  sponsor  for  family 
reunification;  a  valid  residence  permit  of  at  least  one  year  and  reasonable  prospects  of 
obtaining the right of permanent residence10 (Article 3(1)). The Directive leaves a margin of 
interpretation  to  Member  States  concerning  the  second  condition  which  could  lead  to  legal 
insecurity  and  to  the  exclusion  of  almost  any  third-country  national  from  the  scope  of  the 
Directive. 

In  addition  to  these  two  conditions  Article  8(1)  allows  Member  States  to  introduce  a 
minimum period of lawful residence (not exceeding two years) before reunification can take 
place. This means the application may be filed, but Member States may delay granting family 
reunification until the period determined by their legislation expires. 

7 

8 
9 

10 

Notably,  this  consultation  does  not  touch  upon  issues  linked  to  Directive  2004/38/EC  on  the  right  of 
citizens  of  the  Union  and  their  family  members  to  move  and  reside  freely  within  the  territory  of  the 
Member States. 
See recital 4 of the Directive. 
COM(2010)573  final  of  19.10.2010;  see  also  the  Operational  Guidance  on  taking  account  of 
Fundamental Rights in Commission Impact Assessments, SEC(2011) 567 final of 6.5.2011. 
In  accordance  with  the  travaux  preparatoire  the  idea  of  this  condition  was  that  the  right  to  family 
reunification would not be open to persons staying only temporarily without the possibility of renewal. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Q1 

Are  these  criteria  (reasonable  prospect  for  the  right  of  permanent  residence  at  the  time  of 
application as regulated in Article 3 and a waiting period until reunification can actually take 
place  as  regulated  in  Article  8)  the  correct  approach  and  the  best  way  to  qualify  the 
sponsors?  

1.2. 

Eligible family members 

1.2.1.  Mandatory provisions- the nuclear family 

Currently  in  accordance  with  Article  4(1),  the  Directive  requires  (subject  to  the  other 
conditions  of  the  Directive)  Member  States  to  authorize  the  entry  and  residence  of  the 
"nuclear"  or  "core"  family,  which  means  the  sponsor’s  spouse  and  minor  children  of  the 
sponsor or spouse. However, even for this category, the Directive allows certain restrictions. 

As for the spouse, under Article 4(5) Member States can fix a minimum age (21 years is the 
maximum threshold under the Directive) irrespective of whether this corresponds to the age of 
majority in the given Member States. The reason behind this provision was a worry that the 
rules on family reunification could be abused for forced marriages. However, it is difficult to 
estimate if this is a real problem and how big it is.  

Q2 

Is it legitimate to have a minimum age for the spouse which differs from the age of majority in 
a  Member  State?Are  there  other  ways  of  preventing  forced  marriages  within  the  context  of 
family reunification and if yes, which? 

Do  you  have  clear  evidence  of  the  problem  of  forced  marriages?  If  yes  how  big  is  this 
problem  (statistics)  and  is  it  related  to  the  rules  on  family  reunification  (to  fix  a  different 
minimum age than the age of majority)? 

For minor children, two further restrictions are allowed by the Directive, both in the form of 
a stand-still clause derogation. The first one (Article 4(1) last indent) asking children over 12 
years  arriving  independently  of  the  rest  of  their  families  to  prove  that  they  meet  integration 
conditions.11  has  only  been  used  by  one  Member  State.  The  second  possible  restriction 
(Article 4(6)) states that children older than 15 may be required to enter a Member State on 
grounds other than family reunification - has not been used by any Member State.  

Q3 

Do you see an interest in maintaining those standstill clauses which are not used by Member 
States, such as the one concerning children older than 15?  

11 

See page 5 of the report (COM 2008/610). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
1.2.2.  Optional clause- other family members 

As  the  Directive  only  obliges  Member  States  to  ensure  family  reunification  for  the 
core/nuclear  family,  Member  States  are  free  to  decide  whether  to  include  other  family 
members  in  their  national  legislation  (Article  4(3)).  Despite  the  fact  that  it  is  only  a  "may" 
clause, more than half of Member States have chosen to include parents of the sponsor and/or 
his/her spouse. In this context, it should be noted that it flows from recital 5 of the Directive 
that Member States that recognise same sex marriages within their national family law should 
also do so in application of the Directive.12. In the same vein, whenever same sex registered 
partners are recognised under national family law and Member States apply the "may" clause 
of the Directive for registered partners, they should also do so for same sex partners. 

Q4 

Are the rules on eligible family members adequate and broad enough to take into account the 
different definitions of family existing other than that of the nuclear family?  

2. 

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO FAMILY REUNIFICATION  

The Directive does not oblige Member States to introduce conditions for family reunification 
such as various integration measures, but allows them to do so - a contrario other conditions 
cannot be applied for family reunification within the EU. 

2.1 

Integration measures  

The optional clause (Article 7(2)) enables Member States to require third-country nationals to 
comply  with  integration  measures.  This  was  one  of  the  most  controversial  and  debated 
requirements during the negotiations. In its present form the Directive itself does not give any 
precise  indication  what  these  integration  measures  should  entail  and  how  should  they  be 
applied  and  they  are  used  in  some  Member  States  only.  Three  Member  States  use  these 
measures  as  a  condition  before  admission  to  the  territory  requiring  the  family  members  to 
pass language tests, test on the knowledge of the host society  or to sign a contract  obliging 
them to take civic and if needed, linguistic courses upon entry. Other Member States require 
family  members  to  undertake  certain  obligations  only  upon  entry  such  as  participation  in 
integration (mainly language) courses.  

The admissibility of integration measures - as stated already in the evaluation report - should 
depend on whether they serve the purpose of facilitating integration and whether they respect 
the principles of proportionality13 and of subsidiarity. Decisions on the application for family 
reunification in relation to passing tests should take into account whether there are available 
facilities  (translated  materials,  courses)  to  prepare  for  them  and  whether  they  are  accessible 
(location,  fees).  Specific  individual  circumstances  (such  as  proven  illiteracy,  medical 
conditions) should also be taken into account.  

12 

13 

"Member  States  should  give  effect  to  the  provisions  of  this  Directive  without  discrimination  on  the 
basis of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion or beliefs, 
political or other opinions, membership of a national minority, fortune, birth, disabilities, age or sexual 
orientation." 
For more details see 4.3.4 of the report. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
The  renewed  European  Agenda  for  the  Integration  of  third-country  nationals14  contains 
specific  recommendations  to  Member  States  also  on  the  provision  of  language  courses, 
reflecting  migrants'  varying  needs  at  different  stages  of  their  integration  process,  including 
introductory programmes for newly arrived migrants.  

Q5 

Do these measures efficiently serve the purpose of integration? How can this be assessed in 
practice? Which integration measures are most effective in that respect? 

Would you consider it useful to further define these measures at EU level?  

Would you recommend pre-entry measures? If so, how can safeguards be introduced in order 
to  ensure  that  they  do  not  de  facto  lead  to  undue  barriers  for  family  reunification  (such  as 
disproportionate fees or requirements) and take into account individual abilities such as age, 
illiteracy, disability, educational level? 

2.2 

Waiting period in relation to reception capacity 

The  second  indent  of  Article  8  provides  for  a  specific  derogation  for  those  Member  States 
whose  legislation  took  reception  capacity  into  account  at  a  time  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Directive. It allows them to introduce a three years waiting period as from the submission of 
the application. In connection with this clause the ECJ has clarified15 that, at the latest three 
years after an application is filed, a residence permit needs to be issued if the conditions are 
met.  

In  other  words  reception  capacity  may  be  one  of  the  factors  taken  into  account  when 
considering  an  application,  but  cannot  be  interpreted  as  authorising  any  quota  system  or  a 
three-year waiting period imposed without regard to the particular circumstances of specific 
cases. This derogation is used by only one Member State. 

Q6 

In  view  of  its  application,  is  it  necessary  and  justified  to  keep  such  a  derogation  in  the 
Directive to provide for a three year wating period as from the submission of the application? 

3. ENTRY AND RESIDENCE OF FAMILY MEMBERS 

Member  States  must  grant  family  members  a  first  residence  permit  of  at  least  one  year’s 
duration (Article 13(2)). It is also stipulated that the duration of residence permits granted to 
family  members  in  principle  should  not  go  beyond  the  date  of  expiry  of  the  sponsor’s 
residence permit (Article 13(3)). 

When  implementing  these  provisions  a  problem  may  arise  if  the  remaining  validity  of  the 
sponsor’s residence permit is less than one year when the family member’s residence permit 
is issued. In that case these two rules could be in conflict with specific regard to the case when 
the sponsor’s residence permit is already in the process of renewal. 

14 
15 

COM (2011) 455 final as adopted on 19/07/2011 
C 540/03 para 100 and 101. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Q7 

Should  specific  rules  foresee  the  situation  when  the  remaining  validity  of  the  sponsor's 
residence permit is less than one year, but to be renewed?  

4. 

ASYLUM RELATED QUESTIONS 

4.1 

Exclusion of subsidiary protection 

Third-country nationals who are beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are excluded from the 
scope  of  the  Directive  (Article  3(2)b).  However,  the  Stockholm  Programme  called  for  the 
establishment  of  a  uniform  status  of  protection  as  one  of  the  main  objectives  for  the 
completion of the Common European Asylum System, based on the fact that protection needs 
of refugees and of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are the same. The aim, therefore, is to 
increase  the  approximation  of  the  rights  of  beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  protection  to  those 
provided to refugees, as underlined in the recast of the Qualification Directive 16. The question 
thus  arises  whether  such  an  approximation  should  also  take  place  as  regards  family 
reunification, which would necessitate the adjustment of the personal scope of the Directive. 

Q8 

Should the family reunification of third country nationals who are beneficiaries of subsidiary 
protection be subject to the rules of the Family reunification Directive? 

Should  beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  protection  benefit  from  the  more  favourable  rules  of  the 
Family  reunification  Directive  which  exempt  refugees  from  meeting  certain  requirements 
(accommodation, sickness insurance, stable and regual resources)?  

4.2 

Other asylum related questions 

The  Directive  provides  some  more  favourable  rules  for  refugees  (Chapter  V).  However, 
Member States may limit the application of these more favourable rules to certain situations. 
For example to family relationships which were formed prior to the entry of the refugee to a 
Member State (Article 9(2)), or to the applications for family reunification submitted within a 
period of three months after the granting of the refugee status.(Article 12(1)). These possible 
limitations do not take sufficiently into account the particularities of their situation. Refugees 
encounter practical difficulties linked to their specific situation which are of a different nature 
than those faced by other third country nationals (e.g.: problems maintaining the contact with 
the family left in the country of origin). In addition, refugees may have spent lengthy periods 
in exile or on the territory of a Member State waiting for the outcome of the asylum procedure 
and  may  have  founded  a  family  during  this  time.  Refugees  may  also  be  unaware  of  family 
members  who  are  still  alive  or  unable  to  produce  information  regarding  their  location  or  to 
provide the necessary documentation for an application for reunification within a short period 
after  receiving  a  protection  status.  Their  family  members  may  have  undergone  similar 
situations of conflict, trauma and extreme hardship as the refugees have suffered themselves. 

16 

Minimum  standards  for  the  qualification  and  status  of  third  country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  as 
beneficiaries  of  international  protection  and  the  content  of  the  protection  granted  (recast)  COM 
(2009)551. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Some issues should therefore be reconsidered in this context – in partiuclar in order to judge 
whether these possible limitatios should be deleted from the Directive.  

Q9 

Should  Member  States  continue  to  have  the  possibility  to  limit  the  application  of  the  more 
favourable  provisions  of  the  Directive  to  refugees  whose  family  relationships  predate  their 
entry to the territory of a Member State? 

Should  family  reunification  be  ensured  for  wider  categories  of  family  members  who  are 
dependent on the refugees, if so to which degree?  

Should refugees continue to be required to provide evidence that they fulfil the requirements 
regarding  accommodation,  sickness  insurance  and  resources  if  the  application  for  family 
reunification  is  not  submitted  within  a  period  of  three  months  after  granting  the  refugee 
status? 

5. 

FRAUD, ABUSE , PROCEDURAL ISSUES  

5.1 

Interviews and investigations  

Article 5(2) of the Directive provides for the possibility to carry out interviews and to conduct 
other  investigations  if  deemed  necessary.  A  number  of  Member  States  have  introduced  the 
possibility of DNA tests to prove family ties. The Directive is silent on this type of evidence. 
The Commission has stated that in order to be admissible under EU law these interviews and 
other investigations must be proportionate - thus not render the right to family reunification 
nugatory - and respect fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy and family life. 

Q10 

Do you have clear evidence of problems of fraud? How big is the problem (statistics)? Do you 
think  rules  on  interviews  and  investigations,  including  DNA  testing,  can  be  instrumental  to 
solve  them?  Would  you  consider  it  useful  to  regulate  more  specifically  these  interviews  or 
investigations at EU level?If so, which type of rules would you consider? 

5.2 

Marriages of convenience  

Marriage of convenience is a specific case of fraud, which Member States should counteract. 
In  addition  to  its  general  procedural  rules  Article  16(4)  of  the  Directive  provides  for  the 
possibility to conduct specific checks and inspections where there is reason to suspect fraud or 
marriage  of  convenience.  Every  national  system  has  such rules; an  EU financed project has 
compiled  Member  States'  practices17.  Nevertheless,  it  is  difficult  to  estimate  if  this  is  a  big 
problem for Member States and if it is linked to the Directive. 

17 

ARGO,  Project,  an  action  programme  on  "Cooperation  in  the  combat  against  abuse  or  misuse  of  EU 
administrative statutes" tackling also marriages of convenience among other things highlighted the need 
of  the promotion  of  a  common  database  and  the  need  of a  common  approach how  to deal  with  these 
"bogus marriages."  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Q11 

Do you have clear evidence of problems of marriages of convenience? Do you have statistics 
of  such  marriages  (if  detected)?  Are  they  related  to  the  rules  of  the  Directive?  Could  the 
provisions in the Directive for checks and inspections be more effectively implemented, and if 
so, how? 

5.3 

Fees  

Currently there is no harmonisation at EU level as regards the fees to be paid for the purpose 
of family reunification (application fees, fees for visa and residence permits and other related 
costs for fulfilling the conditions such as pre-departure languages tests if exist etc.). Excessive 
fees can undermine the effect of the Directive by hampering the right to family reunification. 
The absence of EU rules on this matter has resulted in very different levels of fees in Member 
States. 

Q12 

Should administrative fees payable in the procedure be regulated? If so, should it be in a form 
of safeguards or should more precise indications be given? 

5.4 

Length of procedure - deadline for the administrative decision 

The application procedure for family reunification can be rather lengthy. The Directive sets an 
absolute  deadline  within  which  a  written  notification  of  the  decision  is  to  be  given  to  the 
applicant. The notification of the decision should be given no later than nine months from the 
date on which the application was lodged (Article 5(4)). However, Member States can extend 
this  deadline  if  exceptional  circumstances  which  are  linked  to  the  complexity  of  the 
application  justify  it.  In  practice  such  deadlines  are  set  at  an  average  of  three  months 
combined with the extension clause. 

Q13 

Is the administrative deadline laid down by the Directive for examination of the application 
justified? 

5.5 

Horizontal clauses 

There  are  two  horizontal  mandatory  clauses  in  the  Directive.  Article  5(5)  obliges  Member 
States  to  pay  due  regard  to  the  best  interests  of  minor  children  when  examining  an 
application.  This  provision  mirrors  the  obligation  in  Article  24(2)  of  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights and in Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that 
the child's best interest must be a primary consideration in all actions relating to children as 
well as the need, expressed in Article 24(3) of the Charter, for a child to maintain on a regular 
basis a personal relationship with both parents. The ECJ has put an extra emphasis on these 
provisions of the Charter and to Article 5(5) in its relevant case law.18 As shown in the report 

18 

ECJ C-540/03 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
on the implementation of the Directive, many Member States have nevertheless implemented 
this  clause  only  through  a  general  reference  to  other  international  instruments  (e.g.  the 
European Convention on Human Rights and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child)19. 

The other horizontal clause, Article 17, is an obligation to take due account of the nature and 
solidity  of  the  person’s  family  relationships,  the  duration  of  his  or  her  residence  in  the 
Member State and of the existence of family; cultural and social ties with his or her country of 
origin. In other words, this clause obliges Member States to make individual examinations of 
each case, specifically recalled by the ECJ in its case law.20  

Q14 

How could the application of these horizontal clauses be facilitated and ensured in practice?  

6. 

CONCLUSION AND FOLLOW-UP 

The Commission aims to launch a broad discussion among all relevant stakeholders. All EU 
institutions,  national,  regional  and  local  authorities,  candidate  countries,  third-country 
partners,  intergovernmental  and  non-governmental  organisations,  all  state  actors  and  private 
service  providers  involved  with  family  members,  academia,  social  partners,  civil  society 
organisations and individuals are invited to contribute by replying the above questions. 

The  Commission  plans  to  organise  a  public  hearing.  In  order  to  prepare  it  the  Commission 
invites all interested parties to send their responses to this consultation in writing no later than 
1 March 2012 to: 

Immigration and Integration Unit – "Green Paper on Family reunification" 
Directorate General Home Affairs 
European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 
e-mail: HOME-family-reunification-green-paper@ec.europa.eu 
All relevant contributions will be published on the web portal 'Your Voice in Europe' 
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm 

19 
20 

COM (2008) 610 p 11. 
C-540/03; ECJ C-578/08. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Annex: Family reunification in numbers 

Total  number  of  residence  permits  issued  to  third  country  nationals  joining  non-EU 
citizens (family reasons, compared to total number of residence permits issued to third 
country nationals (all reasons) 

  Family related first permits for 
TCNs joining non-EU citizens 

Total first residence permits issued 
to TCNs, all reasons 

COUNTRY/YEAR 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Share of permits 
issued to TCNs 
joining non-EU 
citizens to total first 
permits issued to 
TCNs 
2008  2009  2010 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

7,333 

1,480 

9,712 

8,596 

1,482 

9,997

1,725

8,281 

13,398

1,410 

1,490

46,201 

58,939 

67,653 

15.9 

14.6 

14.8 

3,933 

61,350 

31,655 

4,385 

27,539 

30,255 

4,051 

37.6 

33.8 

42.6 

34,653 

15.8 

30.1 

38.7 

28,576 

: 

4.7 

5.2 

29,215 

29,761 

28,200

114,289 

121,954 

117,202 

25.6 

24.4 

24.1 

: 

: 

456 

568 

300

18,684 

19,570 

13,398

3,884 

28,926 

40,411 

3,777 

25,509 

45,148 

2,647 

: 

: 

: 

22,235 

1.6 

2.2 

1.3 

33,623 

46.2 

43.3 

39.8 

: 

: 

103,640 

82,521 

89,905

399,827 

290,813 

257,918 

25.9 

28.4 

34.9 

32,333 

29,607 

29,400

188,723 

193,500 

194,973 

17.1 

15.3 

15.1 

60,134 

70,904  160,200

550,226 

506,833 

589,988 

10.9 

14.0 

27.2 

1 

1,498 

641 

1 

414 

764 

741

413

691

25,156 

25,638 

19,139 

0.0 

0.0 

3.9 

7,706 

5,298 

2,304 

2,659 

2,329 

19.4 

18.0 

17.7 

1,861 

12.1 

28.7 

37.1 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

5,337 

1,144 

1,349

37,486 

14,289 

14,601 

14.2 

: 

: 

172 

61 

30

: 

: 

7,891 

8,805 

7,651 

8,549 

7,838

598

17,087 

11,036 

11,967

1,216 

0 

619 

1,261 

2,110 

640 

910

2,231

697

4,915 

4,304 

4,302

35,050 

36,325 

25,358

4,989 

62,589 

21,783 

40,907 

63,715 

19,354 

29,215 

8,025 

21,873 

84,144 

: 

: 

8.0 

1.7 

: 

: 

9.2 

1.1 

3,682 

56,489 

28,035 

2,763 

3.4 

54,478 

: 

30,596 

36.2 

27.3 

25.6 

33,427 

101,574 

21.5 

25.6 

0.6 

46,324 

15,380 

15,759 

5,336 

18,034 

91,337 

37,010 

26.8 

23.8 

32.3 

10,218 

7,537 

4,373 

6.3 

0.0 

7.7 

8.2 

8.9 

13.4 

29.6 

12.0 

15.9 

19,210 

22.5 

23.9 

22.4 

74,931 

41.7 

39.8 

33.8 

United Kingdom 
EU above21 

106,538 

96,341  103,187

633,170 

671,324 

732,208 

16.8 

14.4 

14.1 

452,757  423,301  508,325

2,534,835  2,338,669  2,466,347 

17.9 

18.1 

20.6 

Source of the data: Eurostat 

Data from years before 2008 are not available as the data collection on residence permits was 
established  by  Regulation  862/2007,  with  2008  as  first  reference  year.  Estonia  and  the 
Netherlands  have  not  provided  data  on  first  permits  issued  to  TCNs  joining  an  non-EU 

21  

EU total, excluding those Member States for which data are not available. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
citizens,  as  these  data  cannot  be  distinguisehd  from  other  permits  issued  for  family  related 
reasons.  Denmark  did  not  provide  data  for  2008.  Luxembourg  did  not  provide  any  data  for 
2008-2010. 

The  relative  low  overall  ratio  of  permits  issued  for  family  reasons  as  opposed  to  the  other 
permits is due to the fact that this statistic only covers the Family reunification scenario, and 
does not include those third-country national family members who join EU nationals.  

Number  of  first  residence  permits  issued  to  third  country  nationals  joining  non-EU 
citizens for family related reasons, by type of family member. 

REASON 

Family reasons: Person joining a non EU citizen 

COUNTRY/YEAR -
2010 

Total 

Spouse/partner 
joining a non EU 
citizen 

Child joining a 
non EU citizen 

Other family 
member joining a 
non EU citizen 

4,157

5,831 

: 

: 

: 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany  
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

9,997
1,725 : 

13,398
1,490
28,200

: 

300
13,398
89,905
29,400 : 

4,547
600
11,912

112
4,044
19,140

160,200

67,509

741 : 
413
691 : 
: 

1,349
30

: 
7,838 : 
598
11,967
910
2,231 : 
697
4,302
25,358

103,187 : 

254

0
2

291
916
424

401
1,576
18,223

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 
: 

: 
: 

: 

: 

7,626 
890 
15,895 

117 
9,354 
69,099 

70,336 

78 

794 
21 

286 
1,013 
429 

75 
2,497 
6,938 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 
: 

: 
: 

: 

: 

9

1,225
0
393

71
0
1,666

22,355

81

555
7

21
10,038
57

0
229
197

EN 

11 

   EN