COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training , voluntary service and au pairing Recasting and amending Directives 2004/114/EC and 2005/71/EC
Date: 2013-03-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, foreign national, foreign student, international voluntary worker, research staff, residence permit, traineeship

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 25.3.2013  
SWD(2013) 77 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

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

on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of 
research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training , voluntary 
service and au pairing 

Recasting and amending Directives 2004/114/EC and 2005/71/EC 

{COM(2013) 151 final} 
{SWD(2013) 78 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

2 

Introduction and background ....................................................................................... 2 

Procedural issues.......................................................................................................... 4 

2.1.  

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 4 

2.2.  

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 5 

2.3.  

Scrutiny by the Commission Impact Assessment Board ............................................. 7 

3 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 

3.1.  

General problems ......................................................................................................... 8 

3.1.1.   Problems with the current rules.................................................................................... 8 

3.1.2  

Issues related to groups not covered by the scope of the existing Students Directive. 9 

3.1.3.   Wider considerations.................................................................................................. 11 

3.2.  

Specific problems....................................................................................................... 13 

3.2.1   Difficulties in admission conditions........................................................................... 13 

3.2.2.   Lack of synergy and consistency between EU migration rules and EU funding 

programmes such as Erasmus Mundus and Marie Curie ........................................... 15 

3.2.3.   Shortcomings in procedural guarantees ..................................................................... 16 

3.2.4.   Difficulties to access the labour market ..................................................................... 18 

3.2.5.   Difficulties in exercising intra-EU mobility .............................................................. 19 

3.2.6.   Risk of exploitation and vulnerability of groups currently not covered .................... 19 

3.3 

3.4 

4 

4.1 

4.2 

Possible evolution of the problems all things being equal......................................... 20 

EU right to act and subsidiarity.................................................................................. 22 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 25 

General policy objectives........................................................................................... 25 

Specific and operational objectives............................................................................ 25 

4.2.1 

Improve the conditions of admission. ........................................................................ 26 

4.2.2.    Increase coherence of EU migration rules with EU mobility programmes ............... 26 

4.2.3.  

Improve procedural guarantees .................................................................................. 26 

4.2.4 

Improve access to the labour market.......................................................................... 26 

4.2.5 

Improve intra-EU mobility......................................................................................... 27 

4.2.6.   Provide for coherent provisions ensuring protection of au pairs and remunerated 

trainees ....................................................................................................................... 27 

2 

 
5 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4  

6 

7 

8 

8.1 

8.2 

8.3 

Policy Options............................................................................................................ 27 

Option 1 (baseline): No changes to the existing situation.......................................... 27 

Option 2: Increased communication efforts (in particular in case of researchers), and 
strengthened enforcement of the current rules ........................................................... 29 

Option 3: Improvement of admission conditions, rights and procedural guarantees. 30 

Option 4: Further improvement of admission conditions, rights also on intra-EU 
mobility and procedural guarantees; labour market access following completion of 
studies or research project; extended scope to au-pairs and remunerated trainees .... 31 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 33 

Comparison of the options ......................................................................................... 42 

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

Indicators.................................................................................................................... 47 

Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 48 

Transposition.............................................................................................................. 49 

3 

 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

This report assesses the impact of options to reform the EU framework regulating the access 
and rights of researchers, students, school pupils, volunteers, unremunerated and remunerated 
trainees  and  au  pairs  into  the  EU.  It  accompanies  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  recast  of 
Directives 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 and 2005/71/EC1 of 12 October 20052 which 
constitute the legal basis for the EU policy for researchers, students, school pupils, volunteers 
and unremunerated trainees. 

Policy context 

The EU is tasked by the Treaty with developing a common immigration policy3. According to 
the  competences  conferred  by  the  Treaty,  over  the  years  a  number  of  Directives  have  been 
adopted  which  regulate  the  admission  and  rights  of  different  categories  of  third-country 
nationals4 into the EU. Further to the amendments introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon5, EU 
legislation  may  cover  the  conditions  of  entry  and  residence,  and  standards  on  the  issue  by 
Member States of long-term visas and residence permits as well as definition of rights of third 
country nationals residing legally in a Member State, including conditions governing freedom 
of movement and residence in other Member States. The legislation falls under the ordinary 
legislative procedure.  

Having  a  coordinated  and  transparent  legislative  framework  makes  the  EU  more  accessible 
and attractive and, at the same time, seeks to ensure fair treatment of third country nationals 
and guarantee certain rights, including those resulting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of the European Union.  

1   Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for 
the  purposes  of  studies,  pupil  exchange,  unremunerated  training  or  voluntary  service,  OJ  L  375  of 
23.12.2004, p. 12, hereinafter: the Students Directive. 

2   Council  Directive  2005/71/EC  of  12  October  2005  on  a  specific  procedure  for  admitting  third-country 
nationals for the purposes of scientific research, OJ L 289 of 3.11.2005, p. 15, hereinafter: the Researchers 
Directive.  

3   The competences in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice are shared with the Member States, Articles 4 

and 79 (Chapter V) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 83 of 30.3.2010. 

4   Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who 
are long-term residents, OJ L 16 of 23.1.2004, p. 44; Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on 
the right to family reunification, OJ L 251 of 03.10.2003, Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on 
the  conditions  of  entry  and  residence  of  third-country  nationals  for  the  purposes  of  highly  qualified 
employment,  OL  L  155  of  18.6.2009,  p.  17;  Directive  2011/98/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals 
to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers 
legally residing in a Member State, OJ L 343 of 23.12.2011. 

5   OJ C 306 of 17.12.2007. The Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009 and amended two core 
Treaties. For consolidated version see: OJ C 83 of 30.3.2010, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The Students Directive sets out the conditions for admission of third-country nationals to the 
territory  of  the  Member  States  for  the  purposes  of  studies,  pupil  exchange,  unremunerated 
training or voluntary service for stays exceeding three months6. Once the applicants have met 
the  relevant  conditions,  they  are  entitled  to  a  residence  permit,  and  the  Directive  calls  for 
timely issuance of a visa7 in order to allow initial entry into the territory of a Member State.  

The Directive entitles students, under certain  conditions, to  move  within  the  EU  in  order  to 
follow or complement their studies in another Member State, the so-called intra-EU mobility, 
coupled  by  the  Member  States'  obligation  imposed  by  the  Directive  to  facilitate  intra-EU 
mobility, and to be employed in the host EU State or to exercise self-employed activity. 

The  right  to  intra-EU  mobility  is  not  available  to  all  third  country  national  students  but 
depends,  amongst  other  conditions,  on  a  student’s  participation  in  a  Union  or  bilateral 
exchange programme, or on them having been allowed entry to an EU State as a student for 
not less than two years. This right is particularly relevant for the effective implementation of 
the Union's mobility programmes such as Erasmus Mundus.   

The Researchers Directive provides for a fast track procedure for the admission of non-EU 
researchers  for  stays  of  more  than  three  months  if  they  have  a  “hosting  agreement”  with  a 
research organisation. When a researcher receives a residence permit, it automatically grants 
the right to work. Moreover, immediate family reunification is allowed. Once such a permit is 
granted, the researcher is also free to travel between most Schengen countries and Ireland (the 
Directive  does  not  apply  to  the  United  Kingdom  and  Denmark)  for  up  to  three  months  in 
order to carry out the research project. 

In  2011  the  Commission  presented  implementation  reports  on  both  Directives  which  in 
combination with other evidence in the form of reports, queries or complaints showed that in 
order to  reap the benefits  that well-managed  migration  can  bring,  the  EU  needs  to  adapt  its 
migration policy framework. On this basis, the Commission announced its plan to amend both 
Directives to facilitate the admission of the groups of migrants concerned and to increase the 
EU's attractiveness as a place of destination for study and research as well as other cultural 
and  social  exchanges.  This  is  in  line  with  a  range  of  policy  initiatives  and  operational 
measures  the  Commission  has  already  presented  on  migration,  mobility,  integration  and 
international protection in its Communications of 4 and 24 May 20118 and which were fully 
endorsed by the European Council in June 2011. 

The  importance  of  the  legislative  framework  for  the  groups  concerned  is  not  confined  to 
immigration  policy.  The  link  between  migration  policy  and  promoting  competitiveness  and 
growth has been identified as one of the areas in which further action is needed9. Attracting 

6   Ireland and the UK, in line with Protocol 21 to TFEU, are not bound by the Students Directive as they did not 
exercise the possibility to "opt-in" into the adoption and application of this measure Directive (cf. Article 3 of 
the Protocol 21). This is different for the Researchers Directive, as Ireland notified its wish to "opt-in". None 
Directives apply to Denmark, as according to the Protocol 22 to the Treaty (TFEU), Denmark does not take 
part in the adoption of the measures in the field of migration (Title V of the Treaty), the so-called "opt-out". 
7   Unless it is explicitly specified, a reference to a "visa" throughout this document is typically meant to cover: 

"long-term visas". The existing EU rules applicable to short-stay visas remain unaffected.  

8   Communication from the Commission: "Communication on migration", 4.5.2011, COM(2011) 248 final  and 
Communication  from  the  Commission:  "A  dialogue  for  migration,  mobility  and  security  with  the  southern 
Mediterranean Countries", 24.5.2011, COM(2011) 292. 

9    Communication  from  the  Commission,  An  Agenda  for  New  Skills  and  Jobs;  'The  potential  of  (…)  third-
country migrant inflows is not fully utilised and insufficiently targeted to meet labour market needs, despite 
the substantial contribution of migrants to employment and growth.' COM(2010) 682 final, 23.11.2010. 

5 

 
                                                 
the best minds to the EU for research and innovation has also been singled out as a priority in 
the  Innovation  Union  flagship  initiative  which  raises  the  need  for  one  million  new  research 
jobs10. The initiative will also be an important element supporting some of the objectives of 
EHEA and the underlying Bologna Process11, as well as the European Research Area and EU-
funded programmes on mobility of third country nationals into and within the EU.   

Any legislative proposal in the field of migration should also be seen in the wider context of 
the EU's external migration policy and its dialogue and cooperation with third countries in this 
area, as defined by the renewed EU Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM)12. 
One  particular  issue  in  this  context  is  the  need  for  the  EU  to  reconcile  its  interests  and 
objectives  in  promoting  inward  researchers'  and  students  mobility  with  its  confirmed 
commitment  to  assist  affected  developing  countries  addressing  brain  drain  challenges  in 
critical sectors.  

Fostering  people-to-people  contacts  and  engagement  in  the  area  of  education  are  important 
elements of the EU external migration policy across the globe, and notably vis-à-vis countries 
in  the  EU’s  neighbourhood  and  its  strategic  partners.  The  developments  in  the  Southern 
Mediterranean  in  the  past  months  in  particular  confirm  the  importance  of  developing  more 
and  stronger  people-to-people  contacts  and  possibilities  for  exchanges  especially  for  the 
younger generations.  

Any  legal  instrument  resulting  from  this  exercise  would  contain  a  general  clause  reminding 
that  its  implementation  should  be  in  line  with  the  rights  stemming  from  the  charter  on 
fundamental rights, such as for instance the right to family life13, the right to work or the right 
to  an  effective  legal  remedy.  Any  future  instrument  must  take  fully  into  account  that 
migration instruments can be abused, with safeguards in place at both national and EU level 
to prevent this from happening.  

2 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES 

2.1. Organisation and timing 

The 'admission of third country nationals for the purposes of scientific research, studies, pupil 
exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service' is included as a legislative initiative in 
the Commission's 2012 Work Programme14. The lead DG for this initiative is HOME.  

Chronology of the impact assessment: 

•  2008  -  2009:  Data  gathering  on  third-country  national  remunerated  trainees15  with  a 
view  to  amending  the  Students  Directive  and  including  remunerated  trainees  in  its 

10    Communication  from  the  European  Commission:  A  Reinforced  European  Research  Area  Partnership  for 

Excellence and Growth COM(2012) 392 final 

11   http://www.ehea.info/article-details.aspx?ArticleId=3 
 12   Communication  from  the  European  Commission:  "The  Global  Approach  to  Migration  and  Mobility", 

Brussels, 18.11.2011, COM(2011) 743 final.  

13   In  particular,  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  held  that  the  mere  fact  that  a  person  did  not  have 
permanent residence in the country was not in itself a sufficient reason not to grant family related benefits to 
this person, Niedzwiecki v. Germany, 58453/00, European Court of Human Rights, 25 October 2005. 
14   Commission Work Programme (CLWG) 2012 (15.11.2011, COM(2011) 777 final; initiative nr. 67). 
15   Including an external study commissioned by the European Commission and carried out by Ernst & Young 

on amongst others, remunerated trainees.  

6 

 
 
                                                 
scope. It was decided to postpone the presentation of the modification of the Directive 
until the report on the implementation of the Students Directive has been carried out.  

•  2009 - 2011: Data gathering on third country au pairs16 with a view to amending the 
Students Directive and including au pairs in its scope. It was decided to postpone the 
presentation  of 
the 
the  Directive  until 
implementation of the Students Directive has been carried out. 

the  modification  of 

the  reports  on 

•  2010 – 2011: External studies on the implementation of the Students and Researchers 
Directives17. The reports primarily give an overview of how the Directives have been 
transposed  and  implemented  by  the  Member  States,  identify  possible  problematic 
issues and potential areas for improvement. 

•  Throughout  2011:  Drafting  of  the  implementation  reports  for  the  Students  and 
Researchers Directives, verifying the information with the Member States; adoption of 
the reports at the end of 201118. 

•  Throughout  2011  and  2012:  Consultation  and  exchange  of  views  with  relevant 
stakeholders;  including  research,  student,  youth  and  research  organisations  and 
structures. 

•  End 2011 and beginning 2012: Discussions with Member States in the context of the 
Commission's Committee on Immigration and Asylum (hereinafter “CIA”); survey of 
Member States views on a possible revision of the Directives. 

•  25 May and 18 July 2012: Meetings of the Impact Assessment Steering Group. 

•  1 June 2012 launch of on-line public consultation19. 

2.2. Consultation and expertise  

This Impact Assessment is based on a number of studies and existing literature, reports and 
consultations. The implementation reports on Directives 2004/114 and 2005/71 as well as the 
assessments they are based on inform key parts of this impact assessment, most notably the 
problem  definition,  but  also  the  development  of  options.  The  Commission  has  consulted 
Member States and interested groups as well as individuals to help identify problems, develop 
options for possible future action, and review subsidiarity.  The Commission's standards for 
consultation were met. 

Implementation  reports:  In  2011,  the  Commission  presented  implementation  reports  on  the 
Students Directive 2004/114 and the Researchers Directive 2005/71. Both reports were based 
on  the  work  carried  out  by  external  contactors.  In  the  case  of  the  Students  Directive,  this 
concerned predominantly the legal implementation of the Directive's provisions by  Member 
States  and  identification  of  possible  areas  of  improvement  of  the  Directive.  For  the 

16    Including  through  EMN  Ad-Hoc  query  and  a  study  by  GHK  commissioned  by  the  European  Commission 

(JLS/2009/EVAL/FW/0002/A1). 

17   For the Students Directive, external study commissioned by the European Commission and carried out by  
GHK (Contract JLS/2009/EVAL/FW/0002/A1). For the Researchers Directive, external study commissioned 
by the European Commission and carried out by ICMPD. 

18   COM(2011)587 of 28 September 2011 and COM(2011)901 of 20 December 2011. 
19   http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=Immigration2012 

7 

 
 
                                                 
Researchers  Directive,  the  study  also  looked  at  empirical  evidence  of  the  effect  that  the 
Directive has had. This included surveys of third-country nationals who had come to the EU 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Directive,  research  organizations  located  in  the  EU,  as  well  as 
Member  States’  national  authorities  (both  from  the  area  of  immigration  as  well  as 
education/research). 

Consultation  of  Member  States:  Discussions  with  the  Member  States  took  place  within  the 
framework of Committee on Immigration and Asylum (CIA) meetings. First, on the findings 
of the implementation reports and, secondly, in the context of the preparation of this initiative, 
where,  in  addition,  Member  States  submitted  their  written  contributions  in  response  to 
questions circulated before the CIA meeting. This consultation focused on existing problems, 
approaches  currently  taken  by  Member  States,  possible  options  and  the  need  for  EU 
intervention. 

Consultation  of  relevant  stakeholders20:  Consultation  of  relevant  stakeholders  included 
workshops organized by the European Audiovisual Culture Education Agency (EACEA) with 
the  Erasmus  Mundus  community  on  visa  and  on  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Doctorates, 
workshops  and  discussions  with  National  Platforms  of  youth  exchange  organisations 
(including school pupil and volunteering organisations), and a workshop on the views of the 
research Community in a meeting of the EURAXESS bridgehead organizations21. 

European  Migration  Network  (EMN):  Several  workshops  were  organized  by  the  European 
Migration Network (EMN) on international students' mobility, EMN Ad-hoc queries22 as well 
as  a  large-scale  study  on:  "Immigration  of  International  Students  to  the  EU".23  The  2012 
annual  conference  of  the  EMN  focused  on  the  'Immigration of International Students  to the 
EU'. 

Online  public consultation (referred to in the text also as 'the  survey' or 'questionnaire') and 
additional contributions from interested parties: this survey was launched on 1 June through 
IPM24 and 1461 replies were received. A statistical overview of the key results of the survey 
is  available  in  Annex  I.  Both  individuals  as  well  as  institutional  stakeholders  have  taken  an 
opportunity  to  provide  their  views  (including  Member  States'  authorities,  educational 
establishments and research institutions). The survey was open to replies from both with and 
outside of the EU. Although the assumption could be made that given that the issue at stake, 
the majority of responses would come from outside of the EU, this proved not to be the case. 
Out  of  1461  responses  received,  883  came  from  within  the  EU,  around  60%.  The  active 
participation  of  stakeholders  from  within  the  EU  is  particularly  striking  in  the  case  of 
educational  establishments  and  research  institutions.  Overall  247  educational  establishments 

20    Stakeholders  were  consulted  on  the  current  legislative  framework,  in  particular  on  problems  affecting  the 
admission and mobility of third country nationals concerned, on the potential scope for improvements as well 
as on the possible amendments of the Directive.  

21  EURAXESS  bridgehead  organizations  coordinate  the  work  of  around  200  service  centres  for  mobile   

researchers across the EU as well as other European countries. 

22   http://emn.intrasoft-intl.com/ See under: EMN Outputs / EMN Ad-Hoc Queries / Students.  
23  The EMN Steering Board chose the topic Immigration of International Students to the EU as the Main Study 
for the Work Programme 2012. The aim of the study is to provide an overview of the immigration policies 
implemented by the EU Member States and Norway regarding international students, with a view to assisting 
policy-makers  and  practitioners  to  achieve  a  balance  between  actively  attracting  international  students  into 
the EU for the purposes of study, and preventing the misuse of international student routes to migration. The 
full results of the Study will be available in the second half of 2012. 

24    http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=Immigration2012.  The  consultation  closed  on  23 

August.  

8 

 
                                                 
and research institutions provided answers to the survey, and 191 (close to 80%) are based in 
the EU. Importantly,  regarding the results of the survey, the analysis shows that there is  no 
geographical  bias  between  responses  coming  from  within  or  outside  of  the  EU.  To  take  the 
example of the significant number of EU-based education and research institutions, they were 
equally strongly arguing for the need to further facilitate the admission conditions and rights 
of the groups concerned by this initiative as those whose answers were given from outside of 
the EU. 

Finally,  the  results  of  the  public  consultation  of  the  European  Research  area  framework 
Communication25  that  are  relevant  to  this  exercise  as  well  as  the  results  of  the  Erasmus 
Mundus  Visa  Survey  of  Erasmus  Mundus  Alumni  and  students  carried  out  by  the  Erasmus 
Mundus  Students  and  Alumni  Association  (EMA)26  on  the  request  of  the  European 
Audiovisual, Education and Culture Agency (EACEA) also have been taken into account. 

Inter-service  Steering  Group:  DG  HOME  set  up  a  Steering  Group  of  relevant  Commission 
Services to support and monitor the work on the IA, inviting 18 DGs and Services, EEAS as 
well as the EU's Education Agency (EACEA). The first meeting of the group took place on 25 
May27. The second meeting took place on 18 July28 on the basis of a draft IA report. Overall, 
the approach and analysis were welcomed. Additional inputs submitted during and after the 
meeting by the members of the Group are reflected in this IA. 

2.3. Scrutiny by the Commission Impact Assessment Board 

The  Impact  Assessment  Board  of  the  European  Commission  assessed  a  draft  version  of  the 
present  impact  assessment  and  issued  a  first  opinion  on  07.09.2012.  In  light  of  the  Board's 
recommendations, the impact assessment report was reviewed and resubmitted on 25.09.2012. 
The  Board  issued  a  second  opinion  on  24.10.2012,  stating  that  while  the  report  had  been 
improved to some extent, the evidence presented in terms of a need for, and proportionality 
of, further harmonisation of national immigration rules remained to be further strengthened. 
The  opinion  asked  for  concrete  evidence  that  would  duly  reflect  the  existing  diversity  of 
national immigration rules, and required more precise information on the design of individual 
measures.  It  requested  that  impacts  on  Member  States  be  assessed  in  more  detail,  and 
stakeholders' views presented throughout the report. In light of the Board's recommendations, 
the  impact  assessment  was  reviewed  and  a  revised  version  was  resubmitted  on  19.11.2012. 
On 30.11.2012, the Board issued a third opinion, stating that while the report had improved 
along the lines of their second opinion, the report had not provided evidence demonstrating 
that Member States cannot adequately protect au pairs themselves or facilitate the access of 
third-country  nationals 
labour  markets.  The  Board  recommended  further 
demonstration  of  the  size  of  the  identified  problems  and  their  cross-border  effects.  The 
opinion  also  suggested  to  provide  a  better  assessment  of  the  proportionality  of  measures 
against divergent national immigration rules. It also asked that the views of stakeholders with 
reserved or negative opinion be presented and analysed in greater depth. The present version 
of the impact assessment reflects the recommendations by the Board where the availability of 
information allowed to do so. In particular, it has further elaborated on the problem definition 
including cross-border issues such as intra-EU mobility, it has further fine-tuned the analysis 

their 

to 

25    http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/era/consultation_en.htm  
26    http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/events/visas-students/ema_visa_survey_16112011.pdf  
27   DGs present: EAC, COMM, RTD, SG, JUST, ECFIN, ENTR and EACEA. 
28   DGs present: EAC, RTD, SG, JUST, ECHO as well as EACEA and EEAS. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
regarding job-seeking and labour market access related issues, and added more information on 
proportionality.  It  has  further  differentiated  the  assessment  of  impacts,  and  presented  in 
greater detail the positions of the stakeholders. 

3 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

3.1. General problems 

3.1.1. Problems with the current rules 

Significant  weaknesses  have  been  identified  in  the  Researchers  and  Students29  Directives 
covering  third-country  national  students,  researchers,  but  also  school  pupils,  trainees  and 
volunteers.  These  concern  key  issues  such  as  admission  procedures  including  visas,  rights 
(such  as  equal  treatment  with  own  nationals)  and  procedural  safeguards.  Current  rules  are 
insufficiently  clear  or  binding,  not  always  fully  coherent  with  existing  EU  funding 
programmes,  and  sometimes  fail  to  address  the  practical  difficulties  that  applicants  face. 
When  combined,  these  problems  put  into  question  whether  third-country  nationals 
consistently receive fair treatment under the existing instruments. 

These  problems  have  been  identified  mainly  through  the  implementation  reports  of  the  two 
Directives. They were also raised consistently in the public consultation, both by individuals 
as well as by public authorities, universities and research institutions from outside as well as 
from  within  the  EU.  There  are  no  substantial  differences  in  the  views  given  by  those  from 
outside  of  the  EU  compared  with  those  given  from  within  the  EU.  The  relevance  and 
seriousness  of  the  problems  have  also  been  confirmed  by  the  questions  raised  in  the 
framework  of  Contact  Committee  meetings  on  the  Directives.  As  regards  school  pupils, 
volunteers and unremunerated trainees, subject to optional rules in the Students Directive, the 
picture  of  the  situation  in  the  EU  is  fragmented.  Ten  Member  States  (CY,  CZ,  EE,  ES,  IT, 
LU,  PT,  RO,  SK  and  SI)  apply  the  rules  for  all  three  groups,  whereas  five  Member  States 
(BG, EL, FR, HU and LV) apply the rules to one or two of the three optional groups30. The 
other  Member  States  have  their  own  national  rules  which  differ  from  the  EU  framework 
increasing further the degree of disparity. Sending youth organizations have indicated that the 
complexity of visa application procedures was a big obstacle for their work as well as for the 
concerned third-country nationals themselves, due to the amounts of documents needed  and 
the  diversity  of  different  regulations  per  hosting  EU  country.  The  lack  of  consistency  in 
provisions  on  visas  and  residence  permits  between  countries  exacerbates  the  process  even 
more. Additional country-specific regulations on both visa and residence permit applications 
mean that there is no common procedure for school pupils going to the EU which creates a 
need for additional organisational efforts.  

Not only do the problems concern key parts of the Directives and are of serious nature, but 
they  also  concern  a  large  number  of  people  -  around  220,000  first  residence  permits  were 
issued in 2010 to non-EU nationals coming to the EU for education and study purposes, the 

29    Provisions  on  school  pupils,  volunteers  and  unremunerated  trainees  are  currently  optional  in  the  Students 
Directive. Less than half of the Member States apply the Directive to these groups; hence the analysis carried 
out in the Implementation Reports of the problems can only focus on these. 

30  Member States which have already transposed one or several of the optional groups of the students Directive: 
School pupils: BG, CY, CZ, EE, ES, IT, LU, LV, PT, RO, SI and SK; unremunerated trainees: BG, CY, CZ, 
EE, ES, FR, IT, LU, PT, RO, SI and SK; volunteers: CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, HU, IT, LU, PT, RO, SI and SK. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
large majority being university students, and around 7,000 for researchers. Although there is 
no comprehensive quantitative data on the precise number of incoming third-country nationals 
that  encounter  the  above-mentioned  problems,  or  who  have  been  prevented  to  move  ahead 
with their initial wish to come to the EU, it is clear that a considerable number of those who 
come  under  the  current  rules  are  affected  as  long  as  there  are  no  national  provisions  that 
would remedy their deficiencies. Overall, despite the lack of quantitative data, and despite the 
fact that whereas some Member States receive substantial numbers of third-country nationals 
that belong to the groups concerned, others only have limited inflows (see Annex II for a full 
overview  by  Member  State),  the  information  available  on  the  nature  of  the  problems 
identified,  coupled  with  the  overall  substantial  number  of  permits  issues  on  an  annual  basis 
under  the  students  and  researchers  Directives  suggests  that  the  situation  needs  to  be 
addressed. 

In addition it should be noted that the optional approach applied in Directive 2004/114/EC for 
school  pupils,  volunteers  and  unremunerated  trainees  makes  it  difficult  to  give  a 
comprehensive  quantitative  picture  on  these  optional  groups,  however  it  is  clear  that 
significant  variations  can  be  observed  between  Member  States.  For  researchers,  France,  the 
Netherlands,  Spain  and  Sweden  are  the  Member  States  that  in  absolute  terms  receive  the 
largest  numbers  of  third-country  national  researchers  coming  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Directive. For those third-country nationals coming to the EU for educational reasons, the size 
of the Member State plays an important role, with Germany, Spain, France and Italy issuing 
the largest numbers of permits.31 

3.1.2 Issues related to groups not covered by the scope of the existing Students Directive 

Remunerated trainees 

There  is  currently  no  specific  legislative  framework  dedicated  to  third-country  remunerated 
trainees and there are high levels of variability between Member States in terms of admission 
criteria, type of 'remuneration', type of permit issued, levels of rights and maximum duration 
of  stay.  Currently  10  Member  States  apply  the  optional  rules  of  Directive  2004/114/EC  for 
unremunerated trainees, with some of them at the same time also covering also remunerated 
trainees. Other Member States have specific rules for remunerated trainees, whereas another 
group  of  Member  States  applies  more  general  immigration  rules  related  to  economic 
migration. As a result there is little quantitative information on the  number  of  third-country 
national trainees coming to the EU, or the share of those coming who are or would like to be 
mobile  within  the  EU,  and  no  quantitative  information  at  all  on  the  number  of  those  who 
would like to come to the EU for a limited period of time but not being able to do so in the 
absence of a clear framework (in those countries where this is the case). Remunerated trainees 
face  a  number  of  challenges  comparable  to  those  met  by  unpaid  trainees:  training  may 
sometimes  constitute  a  disguised  employment  or  fail  to  provide  for  a  genuine  development 
opportunity  in  absence  of  a  proper  traineeship  agreement  or  supervision  of  work. 
Remunerated trainees are exposed to the risks of being used as supplementary and underpaid 
labour force. The existence of a fragmented approach between Member States can also make 
coming  to  the  EU  difficult,  as  both  trainees  and  businesses  would  need  to  differentiate 
between the different frameworks applicable in different Member States. The lack of common 
rules  at  EU  level  also  makes  intra-EU  mobility  more  difficult.  Both  third-country  national 
trainees  for  whom  intra-EU  mobility  forms  part  of  the  training  experience,  as  well  as  their 

31 For a more detailed breakdown of the numbers by Member State, please see Annex II.  

11 

 
                                                 
host organizations, currently would need to organize the stay in a second Member State on the 
ground of national-level rules which differ between Member States. 

Already  in  2005,  the  Commission  in  its  Action  plan  on  legal  migration32  foresaw  a 
modification of the Students Directive to include remunerated trainees. However, in order to 
take into account the up-coming report on its implementation, it was decided to postpone the 
presentation  of  the  modification  of  the  Directive  as  the  report  could  identify  other 
shortcomings which would need to be addressed.  

Given that the issues related to trainees are very similar whether they are remunerated or not, 
bringing  the  remunerated  trainees  into  the  scope  of  the  EU  framework  would  increase  the 
coherence  of  approaches  and  consolidate  the  logic  of  the  currently  existing  framework.  In 
addition, allowing remunerated trainees to be mobile would increase the coherence with on-
going EU-level initiatives, as the proposal for intra-corporate transferees33 also foresees intra-
EU mobility provisions for trainees that move within the framework of such a transfer. 

Au pairs 

Au pairs are an important immigrant group, with up to 45,000 au pairs estimated to come to 
the EU annually. However, they are not covered by any common EU rules on migration and 
conditions  of  admission  or  requirements  of  their  stay.  Twelve  Member  States  have  national 
immigration  rules  that  take  into  account  the  specific  characteristics  of  au-pairs,  with  the 
remaining Member States not foreseeing rules specific to this group, and often allowing au-
pairs to enter under general or employment-related immigration rules. In cases where Member 
States have in place a specific legal framework for au-pairs, this typically covers a definition 
of  the  age-range  of  au-pairs,  the  duration  of  the  maximum  period  of  stay,  as  well  as  a 
description of the type of the work that is expected from them or which they are authorized to 
do. Some more specific conditions found in national legislations include the determination of 
the nationality or language of the host family, unmarried status of the au-pair, or a minimum 
number  of  years  of  schooling.  In  the  remaining  Member  States  there  is  no  protective  legal 
framework which clearly sets out au pairs' rights. 

In  parallel  to  the  absence  of  specific  legislation,  many  Member  States  also  do  not  have 
statistics that would monitor the entry and stay of third-country national au-pairs. This makes 
it difficult to quantify in detail the number of third-country national au-pairs that come to the 
EU  (hence  the  above  estimate).  It  also  explains  the  lack  of  systematic  reporting  tools  on 
abuses.  Scarcity  of  reports  on  abuse  is  also  likely  to  be  linked  to  au-pairs  being  of  third-
country origin and therefore in a vulnerable position, and to the fact that abuse by definition 
occurs  in  the  private  sphere,  possibly  with  no  obvious  or  easily  accessible  facility  to  issue 
complaints  or  report  abuse.  There  is  however  (largely  anecdotal)  evidence  on  abuse.  In 
Austria, there have been reports that the au-pair status is used to hide organized prostitution 
(2006 and 2010) whereas in Belgium abuse has been identified in the form of using au-pair to 
obtain cheap labour. In France abuses seem related mainly to excessive working hours or to 
abuses of the services to be rendered. In Italy, while abuse of au pair status is not reported to 
be a widespread phenomenon, organizations against trafficking and sexual exploitation have 

32  Communication from the Commission: Policy Plan on Legal Migration, 21.12.2005, COM(2005) 669 final. 
33 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions of entry and residence of 

third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer (COM(2010) 378 final) 

12 

 
                                                 
sometimes denounced the existence of fake job posts on au pair vacancies. In the Netherlands 
a study is on-going on the possible improper use/misuse of the au pair policy34. 

3.1.3. Wider considerations 

EU attractiveness and competitiveness  

The problems identified above, in particular when faced by students, researchers and trainees, 
can pose a risk to the attractiveness of the EU as a destination for (highly)-skilled migration. 
While  the  attractiveness  as  a  whole  of  any  region  or  country  for  third  country  national 
students  and  researchers  is  to  a  large  extent  determined  by  the  quality  of  education  and 
research systems, migration policy, through procedures on visas and residence permits, plays 
an important role in facilitating and enabling the access and residence of non-EU students and 
researchers.  Past  experiences  from  other  countries  clearly  show  that  the  way  immigration 
policies are designed matters in a country's capacity to attract certain groups of migrants. For 
example  after  Canada  decided  to  extend  its  post-graduation  work  program  from  one  to  two 
years  for  students  working  in  fields  related  to  their  degrees,  foreign  student  enrolment 
increased by 17% between 2002-2003 and 2003-200435. And while students, researchers and 
trainees are not labour migrants in the sense of those coming with, for example, the EU Blue 
Card, they are nevertheless increasingly sought after. The current EU rules do not foresee any 
possibility  for  third-country  national  students  and  researchers  to  remain  in  the  EU  after 
graduation/having  finished  a  research  project  in  order  to  identify  work  opportunities36,  and 
whether or not they are allowed to stay is subject to national rules. For the US, having a large 
pool  of  international  students  in  combination  with  an  employer-driven  selection  system  has 
proved an effective mechanism for identifying the most appropriate workers across the skill 
spectrum37. Regarding remunerated trainees, there is an uncertain or even declining trend in 
foreign  trainees  coming  to  the  EU,  compared  to  countries  like  Japan,  Australia  and  the  US, 
which have a much larger, steady or growing inflow of this group of third-country nationals. 

There  is  strong  evidence  that  the  European  economy  depends  more  than  ever  before  on  the 
skills  of  its  workforce,  and  that  this  is  a  trend  that  is  likely  to  continue.  The  further 
development  of  knowledge-intensive  services,  high  tech  manufacturing,  or  the  "green  jobs" 
that underpin Europe's future competitiveness requires Europe as a whole to "up its game" in 
terms of skills development. The forecasts tell that, by 2020, 35% of all jobs in the EU will 
require high-level qualifications38. While past decades have seen significant increases in the 
educational  attainment  and  skills  level  of  the  labour  force  in  the  European  Union39,  further 
increases  in  the  educational  attainment  levels  of  young  workers  are  getting  increasingly 
difficult to achieve. 

34  Commissioned by the Ministry of Immigration, Integration and Asylum. 
35    Migration  Policy  Institute  2005;  The  public  consultation  found  that  the  existence  of  more  consistent  rules 
across  the EU would  increase  Europe's  competitiveness  in  comparison  to other  countries  seeking  to attract 
students and researchers. 

36       Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration 2012; 6,239 students at 25 universities 
in Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK took part in an online survey. While two-thirds of 
the  respondents  would  like  to  remain  in  the  country  of  study  after  graduation,  only  about  one-quarter  in 
Germany, the Netherlands and the UK and one-third in France do stay on. 

37  Migration Policy Institute (2011): The role of immigration in fostering competitiveness in the United States 
38  CEDEFOP (2010) Skills supply and demand in Europe: Medium-term forecast up to 2020. 
39  Driven largely by the fact that new entrants to the labour market had significantly higher levels of educational 

attainment than the retirees. 

13 

 
                                                 
At the same time, recent years have seen an intensified international competition for mobile 
students and staff, coinciding with the development of higher education systems in emerging 
economies.  Awareness  of  mounting  international  competition  in  higher  education  and 
research has grown among European governments and universities40. In November 2011, the 
Council stated that 'Attracting the best students, academics and researchers from outside the 
EU  (…)  are  key  conditions  for  making  the  European  Higher  Education  Area  and  European 
Research Area attractive destinations in the global race for knowledge and talent.' 41   

Out of the 3.7 million international students worldwide42, 1.2 million are studying in the EU-
2743. Compared to the overall student population in the EU, the share of third-country national 
students has decreased in recent years and stands at slightly above 5%, whereas international 
students  make  up  10%  or  more  of  the  enrolments  in  tertiary  education  in  Australia,  New 
Zealand  and  Switzerland44.  Behind  these  high  percentages  stand  dedicated  policies  and 
strategies to attract international students. Australia for example has followed such a strategy 
with favourable rules for international students (efficient student visa delivery and permission 
to work for students and spouses), aided by a dedicated government agency with staff in most 
consulates  and  embassies.  Between  2000-2006,  Australia  has  seen  a  75%  increase  in 
international  students,  generating  $12  billion  income,  and  through  tuition  revenue  often 
representing 15% or more of financial resources of education institutions. Currently the fastest 
growing regions of destination for international students are Latin America and the Caribbean, 
Oceania and Asia45. 

As regards researchers, one million additional researchers will be needed in order to meet the 
Europe 2020 target of increasing R&D investment to 3% of GDP. Furthermore, indicators of 
scientific  quality,  excellence  and  impact  show  a  weakening  of  the  EU's  global  position  in 
research. Whilst it is clear that most of the researchers the EU needs will have to come from 
within the EU, there is clearly a potential and interest for attracting more non-EU researchers 
in the EU especially  when  data show that only 6,945 researchers46 were admitted under the 
Researchers Directive in 201047. 

People-to-people contacts 

The  benefits  of  the  EU  to  remain  or  become  even  more  attractive  for  school  pupils, 
volunteers,  unremunerated  trainees  and  au-pairs  are  not  of  an  economic  nature.  Mobility  of 
young  people  is  important  in  promoting  mutual  understanding,  raising  awareness  about 

40    European  Commission  staff  working  document  (SEC(2011)1063  final),  Recent  developments  in  European 
higher education systems, 20.09.2011; in the public consultation, several universities and research institutions 
from  within  the  EU  have  highlighted  the  need  for  third-country  national  highly-qualified  graduates  or 
researchers to remain in the EU, and the role that the attractiveness of the EU plays in this. 
41  Council conclusions on the modernisation of higher education, 28 and 29 November 2011.  
42  International students are those who travel to a country different from their own for the purpose of tertiary  

study. This excludes EU nationals studying in another EU Member State. 

43  The UK is the most preferred destination (500,000), followed by France and Germany (250,000/300,000) and 

then by Italy, Spain and Austria (50,000 each). 

44   OECD Education at a Glance 2011. 
45  World Education News and Reviews, July/August 2009, cited from John Aubrey Douglass, John Aubrey and 
Edelstein, Richard: The global competition for talent. The rapidly changing market for international students 
and the need for a strategic approach in the US. 2009. 

46    Based  on  figures  from  countries  for  which  data  were  available;  Less  than  20%  of  those  consulted  on  the 
European  Research  Area  framework  believe  that  Europe  attracts  and  retains  sufficient  numbers  of 
researchers. 

47  Working in: Natural sciences (52.2%), engineering (14.6%), IT (12.7%) and health sciences (9.0%); based on 

the results from the ICMPD survey. 

14 

 
                                                 
attitudes  and  situations  existing  in  the  world,  allowing  exchanges  of  ideas,  establishing 
relations between people, assisting personal development, encouraging the acquisition of soft 
skills,  increasing  employment  opportunities,  promoting  intercultural  competences  and 
fighting prejudices.48 

In  the  absence  of  sufficiently  favourable  admission  scheme  and  rights,  the  benefits  for  host 
and  sending  societies  resulting  from  the  period  of  training,  volunteering  programmes  and 
school  pupil  exchanges  with  third  counties  are  not  fully  reaped  of.  It  prevents  people-to 
people  contacts  which  are  helpful  in  shaping  mutual  perceptions  and  in  enabling  reciprocal 
enrichment. It makes dissemination of values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law 
more difficult49.  

EU  immigration  rules  should  keep  pace  with  intensified  initiatives  supporting  international 
youth  cooperation,  dialogue  and  mutual  understanding  and  encourage  mutual  learning  with 
third countries50.  

3.2. Specific problems 

The  above  general  problems  are  caused  by  a  number  of  specific  drivers  which  are  detailed 
below. 

3.2.1 Difficulties in admission conditions   

While  third-country  nationals  who  meet  the  conditions  of  the  existing  Directives  have  the 
right  to  be  issued  a  residence  permit  and  to  have  this  permit  renewed  if  the  conditions 
continue to be met, this right may, in practice, be hindered or even invalidated by additional 
requirements  concerning  visa  as  shown  by  complaints  and  queries  to  the  Commission.  This 
problem  concerns  students  and  researchers51  as  well  as  school  pupils,  volunteers  and 
unremunerated  trainees,  no  matter  whether  Member  States  currently  apply  the  relevant 
provisions of Directive 2004/114/EC or not.  

In  addition,  as  reported  not  only  by  individuals  concerned  by  such  issues,  but  also  by 
institutional  stakeholders  such  as  research  organizations  or  educational  establishments,  the 
issuance  of  residence  permits  abroad  may  sometimes  involve  lengthy,  costly  and  complex 

48  In  the  public  consultation,  EU  institutional  stakeholders  (including  public  authorities  from  the  area  of 
education  and  interior  affairs)  have  underlined  the  role  that  in  particular  students  play  in  the  promotion  of 
cultural and linguistic diversity of the EU. 

49  In the consultation questionnaire, around seven in ten respondents felt that the attractiveness of the EU should 
be increased for school pupils, volunteers and unremunerated trainees (71%-74%). In the open text answers, 
respondents were particularly favourable towards volunteers coming to the EU. A number of problems were 
identified  in  relation  to  this  group,  mainly  relating  to  visa  problems.  Respondents  mentioned  that  many 
embassies are not aware of volunteer-specific requirements, make inappropriate requests, e.g. work permits, 
treat  applicants  with  suspicion  and  take  excessively  long  to  process  visas.  It  was  also  thought  that  there 
should  be  clear  and  common  rules  for  all  Member  States  with  a  dedicated  volunteer visa  as  it  is  often  not 
clear what kind of visa they should apply for. 

50    See  also  Council  conclusions  on  the  Eastern  dimension  of  youth  participation  and  mobility,  28  and  29 

November 201; http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/126387.pdf. 

51  Some respondents reported that visas were rejected without a reason being given, making it impossible to take 
up research opportunities for which funding had been granted. 86% of researchers and students thought that 
if  the  conditions  for  a  residence  permit  are  fulfilled  a  visa  should  be  issued  automatically;  In  the  public 
consultation,  69%  of  researchers  and  70%  of  students  identified  visas,  and  66%  of  both  groups  identified 
residence permits as key issues.  

15 

 
 
                                                 
 
procedures  both  for  the  applicant  and  consular  posts  (including  the  question  of  the 
accessibility of embassies and having to travel long distances, sometimes to other countries, to 
request/apply  for  relevant  authorisations),  and    diverse  practices  applied  by  Member  States' 
consular posts. Currently only some Member States issue residence permits on their territory, 
making initial access to the territory dependant on a visa52. 

In  general  terms,  and  as  was  identified  in  the  implementation  reports  for  both  Directive 
2004/114/EC  and  Directive  2005/71/EC,  in  the  absence  of  common  rules  regarding  the 
conditions and procedures of issuing long-stay visas at EU level, the guarantees regarding the 
issuing  of  visas  offered  by  the  Directives  do  not  always  apply  in  practice  (for  all  groups 
concerned).  

For the groups for which the immigration procedure necessarily involves an organization to 
initiate and facilitate admission (in particular school pupils and volunteers), the existence of a 
fragmented situation across the EU greatly increases the resources and efforts needed. As for 
these organizations, they need to take into account several divergent frameworks. 

For researchers, the fact that the residence permit may be given for a shorter period than the 
duration  of  the  research  project  can  lead  to  unnecessary  costs  and  investment  of  time  of 
reapplying, and lead to insecurity. Regarding the hosting agreement which is crucial in order 
to obtain a residence permit, Member States have addressed this provision in different ways; 
the  majority  of  them  only  requires  the  hosting  agreement,  some,  however,  require  an 
employment  contract  instead  of  or  in  addition  to  the  hosting  agreement,  and  others  require 
only  an  employment  contract53.  This  practice  points  to  a  lack  of  clarity  on  the  side  of  the 
hosting  organisations  as  to  the  nature,  aim  and  content  of  the  hosting  agreement.  Lack  of 
clarity in such a central component of the Directive poses a serious problem to the instrument 
as a whole. 

Regarding equal treatment rights enjoyed by third-country nationals once they are in the EU, 
the situation has been improved through the recent Single Permit54 although it must be noted 
in the context of this initiative that some groups risk being excluded from the access to goods 
and  services  made  available  to  the  public,  and  that  third-country  national  researchers  in 
particular may find themselves in a position where they do not have access to certain branches 
of social security including family benefits.  

52    In  the  case  of  Directive  2005/71,  initial  applications  for  admission  are  considered  and  examined  while  the 
applicant is still residing outside the territory of the Member State concerned in BG, EE, ES, CY, LU, SI, FI 
and SE. 

53  Identified to be an issue both by the implementation report, the EURAXESS workshop as well as the online 
consultation. In the latter this was identified as a problem both by individuals as well as research institutions 
from within the EU. 

54  Directive  2011/98/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  council  of  13  December  2011  on  a  single 
application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a 
Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, OJ  
L 343 of 23.12.2011 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Clarity of rules and access to information regarding the conditions of admission and rights55 

The  implementation  report  on  the  Students  Directive  identified  a  series  of  shortcomings 
regarding conditions of admission. The groups covered by the Directive face a lack of clarity 
when  it  comes  to  the  required  insurance,  are  confronted  with  a  variety  of  provisions  with 
respect to the types of evidence proving sufficient means of subsistence, and have difficulties 
in  finding  the  relevant  information  on  the  admission  conditions.  This  lack  of  clarity,  in 
addition to making admission complicated, may have a negative impact on the exercise of the 
rights that should be recognised in particular under the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

Related to this, rules and conditions are not adequately communicated. The Students Directive 
implementation  report  found  that  the  information  on  the  admission  conditions  for  third 
country students is not easily identifiable or easy to read. Lack of good information provision 
and proper transparency makes it more difficult for students and other groups of third country 
nationals to enter the EU.  

As  regards  researchers'  difficulties  in  acceding  the  relevant  information  on  which  research 
organizations  have  been  authorized  to  host  third-country  national  researchers  under  the 
provisions of the Researchers Directive are limiting the use of the Directive56. The Directive 
only  obliges  Member  States  to  publish  and  regularly  update  the  list  of  approved  research 
organisations, without  any further specification. Publication  in official documents fulfils the 
requirements,  however  does  not  guarantee  at  all  that  the  information  is  known  to  potential 
host organizations or among third-country national researchers. 

3.2.2.  Lack  of  synergy  and  consistency  between  EU  migration  rules  and  EU  funding 

programmes such as Erasmus Mundus and Marie Curie 

The  importance  of  EU  rules  vis-à-vis  EU  funding  programmes  comes  into  play  both  in  the 
admission procedure as well as in intra-EU mobility. Erasmus Mundus students are required 
to  study  in  at  least  two  Member  States,  and  yet  they  often  need  to  fulfil  new  and  separate 
entry and residence conditions. This can involve lengthy and complex procedures or even the 
need to leave the Member State´s territory, and therefore hamper the pursuits of the studies. 
Furthermore, even when candidates have been accepted for Marie Curie fellowships can they 
experience lengthy procedures in obtaining the necessary authorisations for admission. 

55  In the CIA consultation, several Member States raised the need to clarify existing rules. In the consultation 
questionnaire, clarity of rules, information provision and dissemination was also identified as an important 
issue.  More  than  half  of  respondents  felt  that  better  provision  of  information,  e.g.  on  the  conditions  to  be 
fulfilled, would facilitate access of researchers (66%) and students (69%). Many people explicitly stated that 
they had never heard of certain aspects of the rules, e.g. hosting agreements, school pupils, unpaid trainees. 
The clarity and confusing information were also discussed by a large number of respondents in open answers. 
This lack of consistency was particularly identified in relation to hosting agreements. In terms of information 
provision,  this  was  very  strongly  identified  as  an  area  for  improvement.  Clearer,  consistent  and  accurate 
information on national websites was requested. There were some questions about discrepancies between the 
information  given  online  and  what  happens  in  practice.  This  was  put  in  the  context  of  the  US,  where  all 
information  is  available  in  one  place.  A  large  number  of  respondents  also  felt  that  more  effort  should  be 
taken to provide information in English, including making application forms available in English. Some also 
requested dedicated, tailored personal support/information provision by staff specialising in immigration of 
researchers and students. 

56  Identified as an important issue in the EURAXESS workshop. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
Without  sufficient  synergies  between  migration  rules  and  EU  programmes  on  mobility,  the 
effectiveness  of  these  programmes  is  undermined57.  Under  the  current  proposals  for  EU 
mobility programmes58, the incoming mobility by third-country nationals continues to form a 
substantial part of EU programmes for higher education and research from 2014 onwards. The 
importance of visa procedures for programmes like Erasmus Mundus has been highlighted by 
the European Parliament, which already in 2008, in the context of (at the time) proposal for 
Erasmus  Mundus  Programme,  called  for  a  special  Erasmus  Mundus  visa  which  would  be 
valid for the entire duration of the Erasmus Mundus scholarship59. 

3.2.3. Shortcomings in procedural guarantees 

Neither the Researchers nor the Students Directive set time limits for Member States in taking 
a decision on an application for admission.  

Although under the Researchers Directive Member States are required to adopt a decision on 
a  researcher’s  admission  as  soon  as  possible  and  -  where  appropriate  -  to  provide  for 
accelerated  procedures,  in  practice  only  few  Member  States  have  set  explicit  time  limits, 
leaving (potential) applicants in the majority of cases in an unclear situation as to when they 
can expect a decision60.  

The  Students  Directive  does  not  call  for  any  specific  measures  on  the  assessment  of 
applications  for  third-country  nationals  interested  to  come  to  the  EU  as  school  pupils, 
volunteers or unremunerated trainees and, in the case of students, it limits itself to a general 
call to issue a decision within a period which does not hamper the pursuit of the studies. Only 
four Member States transposed the provisions of the Students Directive on possible fast-track 
procedures  for  school  pupils  and  students  which  would  involve  co-operation  of  migration 
authorities with the educational establishments or recognised organisations involved in school 
pupil exchanges. In practice, this results in substantial differences in the approaches that are 

57  Identified as an issue by workshops with the European Audiovisual Culture Education Agency (EACEA) with 
the  Erasmus  Mundus  community  on  visa  and  on  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Doctorates,  workshops  and 
discussions  with  National  Platforms  of  youth  exchange  organisations,  and  EURAXESS  national  contact 
points. 

58   Cf. "Erasmus for All" and "Horizon 2020" initiatives which are currently in the legislative process; Proposal 
for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing "ERASMUS FOR ALL", The 
Union  Programme  for  Education,  Training,  Youth  and  Sport,  Brussels,  23.11.2011,  COM(2011)  788  final, 
2011/0371 (COD); Brussels, 30.11.2011; COM(2011) 809 final; Proposal for a Regulation of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  Horizon  2020  -  The  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and 
Innovation  (2014-2020),  2011/0401  (COD).  See  also:  http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus-for-all/; 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm. 

59    Report  of  the  Committee  on  Culture  and  Education  of  7  July  2008  on  the  proposal  for  a  decision  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council establishing an action programme for the enhancement of quality in 
higher education and the promotion of intercultural understanding through co-operation with third countries 
(Erasmus Mundus) (2009-2013), COM(2007)0395, 2007/0145(COD). In the case of students, not all Member 
States  have  transposed  the  provisions  of  Article  6(2)  of  the  Students  Directive,  which  requires  them  to 
facilitate  the  admission  of  third-country  nationals  participating  in  EU  Programmes  that  enhance  mobility 
towards and within the Union. Many other Member States appear simply to call for such facilitation rather 
than translating it into specific rules on (for example) lower fees or faster procedures. Thus the transposition 
of  this  important  provision  is  not  yet  satisfactory.  At  the  same  time,  the  Directive  does  not  impose  any 
concrete measures through which such facilitations should be carried out. 

60  In practice, 15% of first residence permits for researchers were issued within 2 weeks, around 23% within one 
month, in around 44% cases processing took between 1 and 3 months, and for 17% it took over 3 months60. 
During  the  period  of  renewal  of  a  permit  for  researchers  (which  can  take  up  to  three  months),  travel  is 
impossible, causing difficulties for researchers who need to be mobile. 

18 

 
 
                                                 
applied across the EU. They range from 7 working days to 6 months and some Member States 
do not set any explicit lime-limits at all61. 

The  absence  of  time  limits  for  Member  States  to  assess  applications  can  complicate  the 
planning  both  for  individuals  and  organizations,  to  the  extent  that  it  may  endanger  the 
fulfilment of the purposes covered by the proposed instrument. For students for example, in 
case where they apply for several different universities in different locations, some of which 
may be outside of the EU, lack of planning security, may result in choosing other locations.  

Importantly, the uncertainty created by this lack of clear timing was identified as a problem 
not  only  for  individuals  concerned,  but  also  by  research  organizations  and  educational 
establishments that are based in the EU. 

As  more  recent  EU  instruments  in  the  area  of  legal  migration  (most  notably  the  EU  Blue 
Card) have introduced time limits for decisions on applications, the above-identified problems 
are all the more relevant. 

As for the right of legal redress for a decision on rejection, non-renewal or withdrawal of an 
authorisation to enter/stay, there is no clear framework for any of the concerned groups on the 
reasons to be given in case such decisions are issued62. Such a situation may unduly limit the 
right to an effective remedy enjoyed under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the  European  Union,  as  the  absence  of  clear  criteria  in  administrative  decision  may  render 
more difficult the effective exercise of this right.   

Regarding  fees  required  by  Member  States  for  the  processing  of  applications,  several 
stakeholders as consulted in the public consultation, highlighted these to be a problem in cases 
where  these  were  considered  to  be  high.  Recent  case-law  by  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the 
European Union has  clarified  the  margin of discretion of Member  States  in  deciding on the 
level  of  such  fees.  In  Case  C-508/10  Commission  v  Netherlands,  the  Court  stated  that  the 
amounts of the charges claimed by the Netherlands for issuing residence permits to long-term 
residents  and  their  family  members  were  disproportionate  as  they  varied  within  a  range  in 
which  the  lower  amount  was  about  7  times  higher  than  the  amount  to  be  paid  by  Dutch 
citizens  to  obtain  a  national  identity  card.  The  Court  held  that  such  excessive  and 
disproportionate  charges  were  liable  to  create  an  obstacle  to  the  exercise  of  the  rights 
conferred by the Long-Term Residents Directive.63 

61  The periods are 7 days in ES, 15 working days in HU, 30 days in LV, 2.5 months in PL, RO, SI and SK; 2 

months  in  CZ,  EL,  PT,  EE; 3  months  in  LU;  4  months  in  FR;  the  on-line  consultation  highlighted  that  the 
absence of a time limit set for a Member State to take a decision on entry was a crucial issue to be addressed 
–  overall  88%  and  87%  saw  this  as  important  for  students  and  researchers  respectively.  Also  institutional 
stakeholders stated that the sometimes overly long and different time periods applied by Member States in 
the assessment of application poses a significant problem. 
62   This was also identified as a problem in the online consultation. 
63   C-508/10. Judgment on 26.4.2012. 

19 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.4. Difficulties to access the labour market  

3.2.4.1.  Limitations  in  students'  right  to  cover  part  of  their  study  costs  through 
carrying out economic activities  

Students who carry out economic activities to cover part of their study costs do not enjoy any 
specific rights under the Directive concerning, for instance, the level of remuneration or social 
security  protection.  In  addition,  Member  States  are  allowed  to  restrict  access  to  economic 
activities  in  the  first  year  of  students'  residence  whereas  very  often,  additional  economic 
means are very important for the student to enable the continuation of their studies and help in 
covering  the  costs  of  living  abroad,  in  particular  for  students  who  do  not  benefit  from 
scholarships.  

Moreover,  current  rules  require  that  Member  States  allow  students  to  work  for  at  least  10 
hours  per  week.  Consultations  with  stakeholders  indicate  that  this  is  not  sufficient  of  a 
threshold64.  Some  Member  States  already  go  beyond  the  minimum  provisions  of  Directive 
2004/114, however for the EU as a whole there is a need for an improvement of the situation.  

3.2.4.2 Difficulties to access the labour market once research or studies are completed 

Access to job-seeking after graduation is a key element that can attract students to a particular 
country.  The  international  experiences  cited  above  clearly  demonstrate  this.  Providing  the 
possibility  to  look  for  work  for  a  reasonable  period  of  time  makes  countries  where  such  a 
possibility exists more competitive in the search for talent on a global stage, and will enable 
them to retain more graduates that can apply their skills to the benefit of the host country. A 
very  large  majority  of  the  respondents  to  the  online  survey  (90%)  thought  that  graduates 
should be allowed to stay in the territory of the Member States for some time after graduation 
to  look  for  work.  Frequently  the  argument  was  made  that  the  EU  should  better  value  the 
people  who  came  to  graduate  in  the  EU,  and  who  could  make  useful  contributions  on  the 
labour  market.  The  EMN  conference  on  29-30  October  2012  on  international  students  also 
identified access to the labour market after graduation to be an important issue. 

None of the existing Directives contain rules concerning access to the labour market or job-
seeking once the research or studies are completed. As a result, practices vary widely across 
the EU. Several Member States allow graduates to remain in the country for a certain period 
of  time  to  identify  job  opportunities.  For  example,  Germany  allows  this  possibility  for  a 
period  of  18  months,  the  Netherlands  for  12  months,  Austria,  Finland  and  France  for  6 
months.  In  other  countries,  while  no  provision  is  foreseen  to  allow  them  to  stay  to  seek 
employment,  students  are  allowed  to  apply  for  jobs  during  their  studies.  In  some  Member 
States, graduates are obliged to return to the third country immediately after graduation and 
do not get an automatic, even temporary, authorisation to stay on the territory to seek a job.  

64    In  terms  of  ways  to  improve  the  situation,  85%  of  respondents  thought  it  was  important  to  allow  students 
greater labour market access. When asked about the number of hours students are allowed to work per week, 
more than seven in ten either thought that current threshold of 10 hours/week should be increased (42%) or 
that there should be no threshold (30%). 25% felt that the current threshold should be maintained. In the open 
text consultation responses, better access to the labour market during studies also emerged as a theme. It was 
pointed out that research assistants on Master programmes often have contracts for more than 10 hours. In 
practice  restricting  to  10  hours  may  mean  that  such  students  work  more  but  are  only  paid  for  ten  hours. 
Instead, there was wide support for a 20 hour limit, and it was pointed out that this is in place already in the 
UK and Ireland. While there was some concern about abuse of the student route for labour market access, 
there was also some suggestion that a limit could be abolished as long as attendance and performance was 
measured to avoid abuse of study authorisations for work purposes. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
For  researchers,  the  issue  of  access  to  the  labour  market  following  the  finalization  of  their 
research  was  also  identified  as  an  important  issue  in  the  EURAXESS  workshop  and  in  the 
survey where almost all respondents (94%) thought that researchers should be allowed to stay 
in the EU for a temporary period to identify other working opportunities65. Both individuals 
and  research  institutions  (most  of  them  based  within  the  EU)  shared  this  view,  considering 
counterproductive for the growth potential of the EU to not allow researchers to identify work 
opportunities after completion of their research. 

3.2.4.3. Lack of provisions concerning access to labour market for family members of 
researchers  

While  the  researchers  Directive  provides  for  the  possibility  for  family  members  of  third-
country  national  researchers  to  join  them,  there  are  no  provisions  that  would  grant  them 
immediate  access  to  the  labour  market,  making  it  less  attractive  for  a  highly-qualified 
researcher to move to the EU.  

A majority  of Member States do  so  however, but not all of them. The lack of an automatic 
right for family members to work was considered a 'significant disincentive' (in the Member 
States where this is the case) in the conclusions drawn by the report on the implementation of 
the  researchers.  The  EURAXESS  workshop  confirmed  that  this  issue  was  crucial  for 
promoting attractiveness.  

A  lack  of  access  also  has  a  potentially  negative  impact  on  the  right  to  family  life  protected 
under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.  

3.2.5. Difficulties in exercising intra-EU mobility 

The  current  rules  limit  intra-EU  mobility  to  students  who  have  been  admitted  to  a  Member 
State for periods of no less than two years, and who would like to follow in another Member 
State  curricula  already  commenced  or  to  complement  it  with  a  related  course  of  study.  For 
those who stay for shorter periods or wish to engage in subjects other than those they started 
with in the first Member State of admission, there are no intra-EU mobility provisions.   

In  the  case  of  researchers,  the  existing  provisions  may  even  lead  to  legal  uncertainty  and 
cannot  be  considered  fully  compatible  with  the  requirement  for  researchers  to  be  mobile,  if 
needed also together with their family members.  

Other categories of third-country nationals covered by the Students Directive do not enjoy any 
mobility  provisions.  Regarding  trainees,  as  they  may  be  required  to  stay  in  various 
establishments in different Member States, specific intra-EU mobility provisions are needed. 

3.2.6. Risk of exploitation and vulnerability of groups currently not covered 

Risk of exploitation of remunerated trainees 

Whilst unremunerated trainees are within the optional scope of the students Directive, this is 
not the case for remunerated trainees. Nevertheless, in many ways, the purpose and features of 
the  traineeship  in  the  EU  is  the  same  for  both  groups;  providing  for  an  opportunity  to  gain 

65  Respondents stated that the existence of such long term programmes was one of the key reasons for the US, 
Canada and Australia to be more attractive. It was thought that developing a long term career was easier and 
more certain, and that therefore the US in particular was good at attracting post-doc researchers.  

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
and/or  increase  professional  experience  and  skills,  and  bridging  the  gap  between  education 
and the labour market. The challenges that the two groups face are also comparable: risk of 
disguised employment or fail to provide for a genuine development opportunity in the absence 
of  a  proper  traineeship  agreement  or  supervision  of  work,  or  exposure  to  the  risks  of  being 
used as supplementary and underpaid labour force. 

The lack of a specific legislative framework at EU level has as a consequence that there are 
high  levels  of  variability  between  Member  States  in  terms  of  admission  criteria,  type  of 
'remuneration', type of permit issued, levels of rights and maximum duration of stay. It also 
means  that  any  attempt  to  be  mobile  within  the  EU  would  need  to  rely  on  national  rules, 
rendering intra-EU mobility difficult and complicated, as there is no common EU framework 
to exercise intra-EU mobility for remunerated trainees. 

Risk of vulnerability of au pairs 

Au pairs are not covered by any common EU rules on migration, and conditions of admission 
or requirements of their stay. There is also no protective legal framework clearly setting out 
au  pairs'  rights,  and,  therefore,  a  lack  of  monitoring  of  their  situation  which  is  a  matter  of 
concern in view of the evidence of exploitation affecting this vulnerable group. 

While  au  pair  schemes  are  formally  described  as  cultural  exchange  programmes  in  most 
Member States, they are in practice often used as a way of importing cheap domestic or care 
workers. There is evidence that au pairs may be exploited by their host families in terms of 
long hours and lack of time off. They often work longer hours within the family than agreed 
under their immigration agreement and frequently do unpaid overtime.66 Furthermore, many 
au  pairs  are  unable  to,  or  choose  not  to,  participate  in  language  and  cultural  exchange 
activities,  whereas  these  are  traditionally  the  defining  characteristics  of  au  paring  and  the 
purpose  of  their  stay.  In  addition,  au  pairs  often  undertake  undeclared  work  on  their  days 
off67. 

Common  EU  rules  regarding  the  definition  of  au  pairs,  conditions  of  entry,  obligations  in 
terms of cultural / linguistic activities, accommodation etc., would support vulnerable au pairs 
in protecting their rights and ensure that the aim of au pair programmes as a cultural exchange 
is better achieved. Common rules would create clarity and would thereby make monitoring of 
the fulfilment au pair placement's objectives and the respect of rights and obligations easier. 

3.3 

Possible evolution of the problems all things being equal 

Without  any  changes,  the  problems  identified  with  the  current  rules  would  remain,  and  the 
differences between Member States would continue to provide for a fragmented landscape in 
areas where the EU has initiated a number of crucial initiatives related to mobility, people to 
people contacts, innovation and growth. For those students and researchers admitted under the 
Directives who are already in the EU or continue to come to the EU, the current problems are 
likely to persist. Despite the fact that some Member States have been developing strategies to 

66  GHK Study "Impact assessment on au pairs and possible amendments to Directive 2004/114". 
67       See also a report requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, 
"Abused Domestic Workers in Europe: The Case of au pairs", 2011 European Parliament, authors Stenum H. 
in cooperation with Dahl H.M.. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
promote  internationalisation  and  attractiveness68,  recent  trends  show  that  progress  has  been 
uneven and the EU as a whole would likely give further ground in the attractiveness for third-
country  national  students  and  researchers  to  international  competitors  which  in  recent  years 
have already started to become more interesting destinations for these groups, in particular for 
the most talented students and researchers. As a result, the EU's competitiveness may suffer in 
a medium- to long-term scenario, with a stalling internationalisation of education and research 
systems at least as far as human resources from third countries are concerned.  

Without enough synergies between migration rules and EU programmes on mobility, the full 
effectiveness of these programmes will be undermined whereas, as shown by the Erasmus for 
All and Horizon 2020 initiatives currently in legislative process, the mobility of third-country 
nationals  continues  to  form  a  substantial  part  of  EU  programmes  for  higher  education  and 
research from 2014 onwards. The importance and impact of visa procedures for programmes 
like  Erasmus  Mundus  has  been  highlighted  by  the  European  Parliament,  which  already  in 
2008 called for a special Erasmus Mundus visa which would be valid for the entire duration 
of the Erasmus Mundus scholarship.  

Whereas  the  European  Higher  Education  Area  and  the  European  Research  Area  create  ever 
more  possibilities  for  mobility,  the  current  rules  for  third-country  national  students  and 
researchers  may  continue  to  hinder  these  groups  from  benefiting  from  the  advantages  of 
mobility. In the area of higher education, there is a growing number of degrees administered 
jointly  by  higher  education  institutions  involving  two  or  more  Member  States,  requiring 
students  to  be  mobile  in  order  to  take  part  in  such  programmes.  Relying  solely  on  the 
restrictive intra-EU mobility provisions of the current legal framework would mean that third-
country national students would in many cases not be able to enrol in such programmes, or 
only be able to do so on the basis of national-level provisions where those exist. Equally for 
researchers, undertaking research in different locations increasingly forms part of their work, 
and  limiting  the  possibility  to  be  mobile  within  the  framework  of  the  hosting  agreement  to 
three months therefore creates further obstacles, also as researchers' family members are not 
covered.  For  third-country  national  remunerated  trainees,  the  proposal  on  intra-corporate 
transferees foresees intra-EU mobility provisions. Once adopted, trainees that are not part of 
an  intra-corporate  transfer  would  be  in  an  increasingly  disadvantaged  position  by  not  being 
able to rely on EU-level provision on mobility. 

Regarding the rights that the third-country nationals enjoy, the situation has evolved to some 
extent  in  relation  with  employment  related  rights  with  the  adoption  of  the  Single  Permit 
Directive69. According to the Directive, anybody considered to be allowed to work under the 
conditions  foreseen  by  the  Single  Permit  Directive  would  automatically  benefit  from  these 

68  Belgium  for  example  is  organising  events  to  attract  students  through  seminars  and  training.  For  Bulgaria 
highly qualified migrants are one of the target groups of a national strategy. Cooperation between the ministry 
of education, youth and science and universities to attract highly educated immigrants is seen as a national 
priority. Germany applies marketing campaigns aimed at highly qualified students, graduates and academic 
researchers.  Finland  has  a  strategy  for  the  internalisation  of  higher  education  and  policy  co-operation  with 
selected  non-EU  countries.  In  France,  a  new  public  body  (Campus  France)  was  set  up  to  promote  higher 
education  and  vocational  training  in  France.  Ireland  has  an  international  education  Strategy  to  increase  the 
attractiveness as a higher education destination.  

69   See in particular Article 3.1b and 3 1c together with Article 12 of the Single Permit. 

23 

 
                                                 
 
rights70, with some exceptions where Member States may restrict them. These concern access 
to  social  security,  (can  be  restricted  to  those  who  have  been  in  employment  for  less  than  6 
months), access to education and vocational training (Member States may restrict this in cases 
where  this  is  not  directly  linked  to  the  specific  activity  carried  out),  tax  benefits  (can  be 
restricted by limiting the entitlement to cases where the registered or usual place of residence 
of the family member of the third-country worker for whom he/she claims benefits lies in the 
territory  of  the  Member  State  concerned),  as  well  as  access  to  goods  and  services  made 
available to the public (can be restricted to those in employment and may exclude access to 
housing).  

Furthermore, keeping the current framework would lead, as regards the rights protected under 
the  Charter  for  Fundamental  Rights,  to  maintain  an  unsatisfactory  situation  where  rights 
remain  unclear  or  risk  being  insufficiently  protected.  This  is  particularly  relevant  for  the 
groups currently not covered by EU legislation, or covered only in an optional way. 

3.4 

EU right to act and subsidiarity 

EU right to act  

The legal basis for EU action in the area is established in Article 79(2) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union, which provides that "the Union shall develop a common 
immigration  policy  aimed  at  ensuring,  at  all  stages,  the  efficient  management  of  migration 
flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member States …" 

This provision empowers the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with 
the ordinary legislative procedure, to adopt measures in the following areas: (a) the conditions 
of entry and residence, and standards on the issue by Member States of long-term visas and 
residence permits; (b) the definition of the rights of third-country nationals residing legally in 
a Member State, including the conditions governing freedom of movement and of residence in 
other Member States. 

The  main  purpose  of  this  EU  action  is  to  design  an  admission  instrument  for  third-country 
national students, researchers, school pupils, unremunerated trainees, volunteers as well as au 
pairs  and  remunerated  trainees,  in  the  sense  of  Art  79  of  the  Treaty.  Article  79  is  a 
comprehensive legal base under which conditions of residence include "working conditions", 
which  are  regulated  as  ancillary  matters  to  entry  and  residence.  The  same  approach  was 
already  used  for  the  existing  migration  acquis  such  as  Directives  2003/109/EC  (long-term 
residents), 2005/71/EC (researchers) and 2009/50/EC ("EU Blue Card"). 

Finally it should be noted that the unanimity requirement that applied to the negotiations of 
the  Students  and  Researchers  Directives  had  led  to  the  adoption  of  minimum  standards 
Directives, the provisions of which often represented the lowest common denominator as they 
had  to  be  acceptable  to  all  Member  States.  This  in  part  explains  the  limited  scope  of  the 
existing  Directives.  With  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty,  the  ordinary  legislative 
procedure,  coupled  with  the  qualified  majority  voting  in  the  Council,  should  allow  the 
adoption  of  a  more  ambitious  instrument  with  an  EU  dimension  and  added  value  moving 
beyond minimum standards. 

70  Whereas the Single Permit limits its application to those issued a residence permit in accordance with Council 
Regulation 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country 
nationals, any future instrument would grant these rights both on basis of a permit as well as a long-stay visa. 

24 

 
                                                 
Principle of subsidiarity 

Immigration  is  a  competence  shared  by  the  Union  and  the  Member  States.  The  principle  of 
subsidiarity  therefore  applies,  which  involves  ensuring  that  the  objective  of  the  proposed 
action  could  not  be  achieved  sufficiently  by  the  Member  States  (necessity  test),  and 
considering whether and how these objectives could be better achieved by action on the part 
of the Union (European added value test). 

Necessity test 

The  initiative  touches  only  those  areas  in  which  problems  have  been  identified  and 
substantiated.  In  line  with  the  approach  taken  in  other  Directive  on  legal  migration,  the 
initiative  does  not  prevent  Member  States  in  any  way  from  applying  more  favourable 
conditions in a number of areas. 

In addition, the rationale for action at EU-level (increase the number of researchers in the EU 
for  the  benefit  of  more  competitive  and  dynamic  knowledge-based  economy,  promoting 
Europe  as  a  world's  centre  of  excellence  for  studies  and  vocational  training  and  promoting 
forms of temporary migration which constitute a form of mutual enrichment) which was the 
basis  for  the  adoption  of  the  Students  and  Researchers  Directives  remains  the  same.  The 
progress in the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area has made it 
even more pertinent.  

The challenge to keep, and become increasingly more attractive to talent from outside of the 
EU has increased and is common to all Member States. Although each Member State could 
have its own national system of admitting the third country nationals groups concerned, this 
would  not  achieve  the  general  objective  of  increasing  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  as  a 
destination for talented migrants and to promote possibilities for cultural exchanges. Having 
one set of common admission and residence requirements rather than a number of national-
level rules is more efficient and simpler for potential migrants than having to look into and 
deal with 27 different systems.    

In addition, promoting intra-EU mobility, one of the key objectives of the initiative require for 
an EU-wide instrument.  

With  the  increased  number  of  initiatives  targeting  youth  and  stimulating  culture,  social, 
educational people-to-people contacts with nationals of third countries and forms of informal 
training, the need for matching them with adequate immigration rules is even greater. 

Finally, the minimum levels of protection and rights of third country students, researchers and 
other  groups  should  be  the  same  so  as  to  avoid  the  exploitation  of  certain  vulnerable 
categories, e.g. remunerated trainees and au-pairs.  

The  views  of  Member  States  on  the  need  to  act  depend  on  the  type  of  authority  consulted. 
Most  immigration  authorities  of  the  EU  Member  States  as  consulted  in  the  Committee  on 
Immigration and Asylum see no need to amend the EU legal framework on immigration rules 
for the groups concerned. They consider that the legislative framework is working well and 
should  be  kept  as  it  is.  Some  Member  States  argued  that  the  Directives  should  be  kept  as 
separate instruments. Furthermore the argument was made that while the current instruments 
leave Member States with sufficient flexibility regarding implementation depending on their 
national specificities, a new instrument may limit such flexibility. Some national immigration 
authorities also pointed to room for improvement of the current framework, for example with 

25 

 
regard  to  a  potential  for  clarification  of  overlaps  between  the  Students  and  Researchers 
Directives and to resolve any contradictions between the two, with regard to more guidance 
on the hosting agreement in the Researchers Directive, or with regard to the rules to change 
between student and researcher status, to avoid cases where researchers have been classified  
as  students.  At  the  same  time  some  Member  States'  authorities  in  the  area  of  research  and 
education  support  changes  in  the  legislative  framework  to  facilitate  the  admission  of  the 
groups concerned and thereby increase the attractiveness of the EU for the groups concerned. 
They  stressed  the  positive  benefits  that  immigration,  and  in  particular  international  students 
and  researchers,  can  bring  to  the  economy,  the  contribution  it  can  make  to  societies  and 
cultural enrichment. 

Regarding  third-country  national  researchers  and  students,  volunteers  and  school  pupils, 
stakeholders from the areas of education, research and youth exchange as consulted through 
workshops  and  conferences  overwhelmingly  support  the  objective  to  improve  admission 
conditions and rights for the groups concerned. 

The online public consultation also revealed very strong support to increase the attractiveness 
of the EU for the groups concerned, whereby strongest support was expressed for researchers 
and students. Support was expressed independently from where the respondents were based or 
whether they were EU citizens or not.  

EU added value 

The EU added value of the existing Students and Researchers Directive has been proven over 
the years, and this initiative will further improve this situation. For researchers, Marie Curie 
fellowships  have  been  opened  to  third-country  researchers,  through  Incoming  International 
Fellowships (IIF). In the case of students, one of the objectives of EU action in the field of 
education,  as  supported  by  EU  Programmes  on  mobility  such  as  Erasmus  Mundus,  is  to 
promote Europe as a world centre of excellence for studies and training.  

Migration  for  the  purposes  of  studies,  training,  school  education,  volunteering  and  culture 
exchanges, constitutes a form of mutual enrichment for the migrants concerned, their country 
of origin and the host Member State, and helps to promote better familiarity among cultures. 
There is a need for an improved common legislative framework for such migration.  

A transparent legal framework including appropriate safeguards to ensure a genuine transfer 
of skills would facilitate economic, social and cultural international relationships between the 
Member  States  and  sending  countries.  With  respect  to  the  external  aspects  of  migration 
policy, an EU instrument covering remunerated trainees would help further deepening of the 
global  approach,  as  it  both  provides  transfers  of  skills  and  strengthens  third  countries´ 
commitment  to  fight  irregular  immigration  thanks  to  additional  legal  migration  routes. 
Concerning au pairs, an EU framework would help increase their protection.  

The new instrument would be complementary to the existing instruments in the area of legal 
migration,  in  particular  the  EU  Blue  Card  Directive.  Whereas  the  latter  is  for  third-country 
nationals  who  are  already  highly-skilled  and  wish  to  work  in  the  EU,  the  new  rules  would 
cover students and researchers whose entry and residence are under normal circumstances not 
directly  linked  to  the  requirements  of  Member  States'  labour  markets.  However,  one  of  the 
key  elements  of  the  new  proposal  would  be  to  better  tap  into  the  potential  of  these  groups 
upon finalizing their studies or research, who undoubtedly constitute for the future a pool of 
highly-skilled  workers,  and  who  speak  the  language  and  are  integrated  in  the  host  society. 

26 

 
 
Regarding  remunerated  trainees,  the  new  instrument  would  complement  the  proposal  for  a 
Directive on intra-corporate transferees which is currently in negotiation with Council and the 
European  Parliament.  This  Directive,  once  adopted,  will  cover  admission  into  the  EU  and 
rights of third-country national trainees insofar as they will come to the EU in the context of 
an intra-corporate transfer. Trainees falling outside of the scope of such a transfer will not be 
covered by the Directive on intra-corporate transferees. 

Provisions  aiming  at  clarifying  and  promoting  rights  and  residing  conditions  would  also 
contribute  to  the  overall  objective  of  enhancing  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights. 
Providing a series of equal treatment rights with own nationals to third country nationals who 
are  legally  residing  on  the  territory  of  the  Member  States  has  already  been  ensured  by 
different  EU  Directives.  The  distinction  between  students  and  other  groups  covered  by  the 
Directive,  even  taking  into  account  the  temporary  character  of  the  stay  of  the  third  country 
nationals  concerned,  should  also  be  examined  in  the  light  of  the  principle  of  non-
discrimination as it results from Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the 
impact a differentiated treatment may have on the rights of these groups such as the freedom 
to choose an occupation and right to engage in work (Article 15 of the Charter), right to fair 
and  just  working  conditions  (Article  31  of  the  Charter)  and  to  right  social  security  (Article 
34), as well as other rights as relevant. 

4 

OBJECTIVES 

The policy options for tackling the problems identified in the existing EU framework will be 
assessed against the following policy objectives. 

4.1  General policy objectives 

The main general policy objective is to improve the legal framework applied to third-country 
nationals  willing  to  come  and  temporarily  stay  in  the  EU  for  more  than  three  months  for 
research and studying purposes. Improving the way in which these groups are admitted to the 
EU and the rights they have once they have been admitted will contribute to making the EU a 
more  attractive  destination  for  studies  and  research  and  as  a  destination  for  third-country 
national school pupils, volunteers, trainees or au pairs.  

In  broader  terms,  the  initiative  also  serves  to  contribute  to  increasing  the  EU's  innovative 
capacity and competitiveness, support the economic, social and cultural relationships between 
the EU and temporary migrants' country of origin and promote people-to-people contacts. 

4.2 

Specific and operational objectives 

Achieving the general objectives set out above entails the following specific and operational 
objectives71. 

71  Questions from the EP in particular concerned visas (with a specific and recurring emphasis on measures for 
students from South Mediterranean), access to the labour market and measures targeting trainees, pupils and 
volunteers.  The  MEP  questions  also  concerned  assimilated  issues  to  the  objectives  behind  the  Directives 
which are currently outside the scope of both Directives, for instance, on the situation of au pairs. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
4.2.1 

Improve the conditions of admission. 

•  Strengthen the right to enter and reside in the EU once the admission conditions set out 
in  the  Directive  have  been  fulfilled,  reduce  the  number  of  admission  and  residence 
procedures and costs and increase transparency and coherence of the EU system. 

•  Link/combine long-term visa and residence permit procedures. 

• 

Increase coherence regarding the currently fragmented situation with regard to school 
pupils, volunteers and unremunerated trainees. 

•  Ensure  better  access  to  information  and  adequate  means  of  communication  on  the 
admission conditions and rights of third country nationals who wish to come to the EU 
to  do  research,  study,  carry  out  volunteering  activity,  participate  in  the  school  pupil 
exchange or undergo unremunerated training.  

•  Provide more clarity on the admission conditions, e.g. the necessary scope of sickness 
institutions  and 
the  hosting  agreement  between  host  research 

insurance  or 
researchers72. 

4.2.2.  Increase coherence of EU migration rules with EU mobility programmes 

• 

• 

Increase  synergies  of  immigration  procedures  with  EU  funding  programmes,  so  that 
third-country  nationals  who  have  succeeded  as  candidates  for  programmes  such  as 
Erasmus  Mundus,  Marie  Curie  International  Incoming  Fellowships,  etc.  can  benefit 
from  certain  additional  facilities  helping  in  the  exercise  of  their  "mobility  track" 
within the EU, which involves studies/research in more than one Member State. 

Introduce  rules  enabling  the  Erasmus  Mundus  students  and  Marie  Curie  fellow  to 
apply for an authorisation covering the duration covered by the scholarship/fellowship 
and allowing to move - for a period of up to one year - to study and carry out research 
in different Member States bound by the Directive. 

4.2.3. Improve procedural guarantees  

•  Provide  better  procedural  guarantees,  in  particular  clear  time-limits  within  which 

applications are decided upon and rights to an effective remedy.  

•  Provide  for  clear  framework  of  rights  in  cases  of  rejection,  non-renewal  and 

withdrawal of the authorisation to enter/stay. 

•  Ensure that where fees are charged to third-country nationals as part of the admission 

procedure, these are proportionate. 

4.2.4 

Improve access to the labour market 

• 

Improve conditions on the basis of which students are allowed to engage in economic 
activities during their studies.  

72  An appropriate model for the hosting agreement could be developed. In the on-line consultation, insufficiently 
clear definitions about the legal quality and the format of hosting agreements were identified as a problem. 
When respondents were asked specifically about this, less than a quarter thought that the rules should stay as 
they are, and 59% felt that the hosting agreement mechanism should be retained but there should be clearer 
guidance on its form and content. 17% thought the hosting agreement should be replaced. 

28 

 
                                                 
•  Enable students and researchers to temporarily stay on the territory of a Member State 
in order to identify work opportunities after they completed their studies/ research.  

•  Allow family members of researchers an immediate access to the labour market. 

4.2.5 

Improve intra-EU mobility 

•  Facilitated and simplify intra-EU mobility for students, trainees as well as researchers 

and researchers' family members.  

4.2.6.  Provide  for  coherent  provisions  ensuring  protection  of  au  pairs  and  remunerated 
trainees  

•  Broaden the scope of application of the rules provided by the Students Directive to au 

pairs and remunerated trainees and provide for sufficient protection and rights. 

5 

POLICY OPTIONS 

In  order  to  reach  these  objectives,  four  policy  options  have  been  considered.  The  measures 
covered by these options have been combined so that they can address the identified problems 
subject to varying degrees of ambition. As the current framework consists of two Directives, 
and  as  suggestions  calling  for  improvements  of  the  current  framework  did  so  by  proposing 
changes to the existing Directives, no other type of regulatory measure has been considered. 

5.1  Option 1 (baseline): No changes to the existing situation 

This policy option would mean that most of the problems would remain unresolved. Different 
and  diverging  solutions  with  respect  to  admission  conditions,  in  particular  visa,  would 
continue  to  be  implemented  by  the  Member  States  acting  independently.  For  potential 
applicants  as  well  as  organizations  involved,  in  particular  in  the  cases  of  school  pupils, 
volunteers  or  unremunerated  trainees,  the  lack  of  clarity  and  transparency  on  these  aspects 
would remain, and the organizations involved would have to  keep  taking into consideration 
all  existing  different  frameworks  rather  than  being  able  to  operate  within  an  EU-wide 
framework. 

Regarding the rights that the third-country nationals enjoy, the situation has evolved to some 
extent  with  the  adoption  of  the  Single  Permit  Directive73.  The  Directive  ensures  mainly 
employment-related  equal  treatment  rights  such  as  working  conditions  including  pay  and 
dismissal,  collective  labour  rights  such  as  freedom  of  association  and  affiliation,  education 
and  vocational  training,  recognition  of  diplomas,  social  security  including  health  care,  tax 
benefits, access to goods and services and advice services of employment offices. There are 
however some exceptions to this rule, where Member States may restrict these rights. These 

73   See in particular Article 3.1b and 3 1c together with Article 12 of the Single Permit. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
concern access to social security, access to education and vocational training, tax benefits as 
well as access to goods and services made available to the public74.  

Under  the  baseline  scenario,  applicants  would  continue  to  lack  sufficient  procedural 
safeguards. In those Member States where this is the case, the lack of time limits or the very 
long time limits to decide on admission applications would still entail the risk of jeopardizing 
the possibility to come to the EU, in particular in those cases where specific deadlines have to 
be met, as is the case for example with the start of an academic semester for students. 

Conditions to exercise intra-EU mobility (in particular in the case of students) would remain 
restrictive, whereas remunerated trainees would not be covered at all by EU legislation, and 
would  still  face  obstacles  to  intra-EU  mobility  and  would  need  to  rely  on  national-level 
legislation which differs between countries. The proposal on intra-corporate transferees also 
includes intra-EU mobility provisions for trainees. Not including intra-EU mobility provisions 
in a framework for trainees coming to the EU outside of an intra-corporate transfer would lead 
to inconsistencies in the overall EU legal framework. 

Keeping  the  existing  situation  unchanged  would  also  imply  a  continued  lack  of  coherence 
between  EU-funded  mobility  programmes  and  EU  migration  rules.  Third-country  nationals 
who in principle succeeded in obtaining funding from EU mobility programmes may still be 
blocked from being able to benefit from such funding, as EU immigration rules may render 
the  taking-up  of  the  funding  impossible.  And  while  EU-funded  mobility  programmes  can 
include intra-EU mobility, those who would benefit from this may be faced with problems in 
exercising such intra-EU mobility.  

Regarding the access of students to the labour market during their studies, the situation would 
remain different across the EU and some students would continue facing possible difficulties 
in  earning  enough  money  to  support  their  stay.  In  some  Member  States,  students  already 
benefit from more advantageous possibilities to fund their stay through working more than the 
minimum 10 hours per week foreseen by the Directive (typically up to a limit of around 20 
hours per week, such as Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Latvia, Lithuania and Germany).  

Similarly,  regarding  the  access  to  the  labour  market  for  students  following  graduation, 
different  approaches  would  continue  to  apply  across  the  EU.  In  those  countries  that  allow 
students to look for work (without granting them an automatic right to work) after graduation, 
students would have the possibility to seek to embark on a professional career, applying their 
skills  and  contributing  to  economic  development  (Austria,  Belgium,  Finland,  France, 
Germany,  Latvia,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Slovenia  and  Sweden),  whereas  in  those  Member 
States that do not foresee such a possibility, students would need to immediately leave the EU 
following graduation. This results in a loss of skilled human capital, trained to high standards 
in the EU, however not given the possibility to apply their knowledge and skills to the benefit 
of the EU economy. It should be noted that some Member States (for example Lithuania), are 
considering to grant a period to students after graduation to stay and seek employment (for up 
to six months). 

Regarding  the  access  to  the  labour  market  of  the  third-country  national  researchers’  family 
members,  the  situation  is  similar,  with  many  Member  States  already  providing  for  such  a 
possibility, whereas others do not foresee this. Given that the aspect of labour market access 

74  Whereas the Single Permit limits its application to those issued a residence permit in accordance with Council 
Regulation 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country 
nationals, any future instrument would grant these rights both on basis of a permit as well as a long-stay visa. 

30 

 
                                                 
of  family  members  has  been  identified  as  an  important  potential  factor  in  the  decision  by 
researchers  where  to  move,  a  continuation  of  the  existing  situation  would  not  lead  to  an 
improvement of the attractiveness of the EU as a whole. 

Overall, the EU would not improve its status as a destination for third-country nationals that 
are already highly-qualified or are entering in order to study. 

As  regards  third-country  national  remunerated  trainees  and  au-pairs,  they  would  be  covered 
through  immigration  legislation  only  in  Member  States  which  have  national  rules  on  these 
specific  groups.  Once  the  negotiations  on  the  current  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  intra-
corporate  transferees  will  have  been  completed,  third-country  nationals  coming  within  the 
context of an intra-corporate transfer will be covered by EU legislation, but will leave others - 
who may be in similar situations - uncovered. In the absence of further legislative initiatives 
of Member States, au-pairs will continue to be a particularly vulnerable group. 

More generally, whereas some Member States have made further changes to their respective 
legislative frameworks on the implementation of the rules on students and researchers, others 
have  not  done  so  which  means  that  the  situation  has  already  moved  towards  a  more 
fragmented approach between Member States. There  are  no  signs  that  this  would  change  in 
the future, and this fragmented approach is the opposite of the intention that was behind the 
rationale of the Directives and of the significant efforts undertaken to progress in building the 
European  Research  Area  and  the  European  Higher  Education  Area.  Keeping  the  rules  on 
immigration  as  they  are  would  imply  that  the  openness  towards  third  countries  would  not 
materialize as advocated for by these important policy frameworks. 

5.2  Option 2: Increased communication efforts (in particular in case of researchers), 
and strengthened enforcement of the current rules 

that  various  problems 

the 
Considering 
implementation  of  the  existing  legal  framework,  including  those  coming  from  the  lack  of 
information  and  transparency  on  the  EU  legal  framework,  a  second  option  could  be  to 
increase communication efforts and strengthen the enforcement of the current rules. 

identified  are  related 

to  difficulties  with 

Better  provision  of  and  access  to  information  would  increase  the  transparency  of  existing 
rules,  making  them  better  used  and  applied.  The  EU  Immigration  Portal  as  well  as  the 
EURAXESS  portal  could  be  used  as  a  tool  to  make  the  provisions  of  the  Directives  better 
known. 

Furthermore, and with the view to increase the use of the Researchers Directive by national 
authorities  and  subsequently  research  organizations  and  third-country  national  researchers, 
renewed  and  increased  communication  efforts  could  bring  out  the  advantages  that  the 
Directive  holds  for  all  stakeholders  involved.  This  could  involve  actions  at  EU  level  (for 
example through the EURAXESS network, especially EURAXESS Links) as well as outside 
the EU, in third countries, by informing both consular staff to make them better aware of the 
existing  rules  and  possibilities,  and  potentially  interested  third-country  national  researchers. 
Information  could  also  be  channelled  through  EU  delegations.  At  national  level  individuals 
should also be better informed of the existing redress mechanisms. 

31 

 
 
There could also be increased efforts in raising awareness for currently existing best practices 
by Member States in admitting and protecting groups which are currently not covered by the 
Directive, i.e. au pairs and remunerated trainees.  

As  regards  enforcement  of  the  current  rules,  a  more  systematic  exercise  of  ensuring  that 
Member States understand and comply with their obligations under the Directives would be 
carried out. 

5.3  Option  3:  Improvement  of  admission  conditions,  rights  and  procedural 
guarantees 

Under this option, a combination of provisions would be designed with the aim of addressing 
the flaws identified in the existing legislative framework with a particular focus on improving 
admission  conditions,  procedural  guarantees  and  rights  of  the  groups  covered  by  the 
Directives.    

Admission  conditions:  the  provisions  on  granting  visa  for  students  (and  other  categories 
currently  optional  in  the  Students  Directive,  which  would  become  mandatory)  would  be 
strengthened  to  bring  them  in  line  with  the  corresponding  provisions  of  the  Researchers 
Directive. Member States would be obliged to grant every facility to obtain the requisite visas 
to the third-country national (students and other categories) who has submitted an application 
and meets the admission conditions. The new legal framework would also include a provision 
encouraging Member States to ensure that information on admission criteria is made publicly 
available. 

Rights: the rights of students as currently covered by the Students Directive would be aligned 
-  as  long  as  they  are  not  covered  by  the  Single  Permit  -  with  those  granted  to  researchers 
under  the  Researchers  Directive.  Students'  right  to  work  would  be  extended  to  cover  a 
minimum of 15 hours per week as of the first year of residence.  

In  terms  of  improved  intra-EU  mobility,  an  objective  that  due  to  its  cross-border  character 
requires  common  rules  at  EU  level,  this  option  would  allow  students  to  apply  to  study  in 
another Member State without the need to leave the territory of the Member State(s) covered 
by the Directive.   

Procedural  safeguards:  time  limits  would  be  introduced  that  oblige  Member  States' 
authorities to decide on applications within 60 days.  In exceptional circumstances, this could 
be extended by an additional 30 days. This would apply to all groups and is considered to be 
proportionate due to the temporary character of their stays in the EU. 

For all groups concerned, this option would include the need for Member States to motivate in 
writing  a  decision  to  reject  an  application  to  issue,  amend,  renew  or  withdraw  an 
authorization.  This  written  notification  should  specify  the  Court  or  administrative  authority 
where  the  person  concerned  may  lodge  an  appeal,  and  the  time  limit  for  Member  States  to 
take decisions. 

In order to ensure coherence with other existing EU instruments in the area of legal migration 
such  as  the  Single  Permit  Directive  and  recent  case-law  on  adequate  levels  of  fees75,  the 

75   Case C-508/10. Judgment delivered on 26.4.2012 

32 

 
 
                                                 
option would include a provision recalling that where Member States charge fees for handling 
applications, the level of such fees should be proportionate. 

5.4  Option  4:  Further  improvement  of  admission  conditions,  rights  also  on  intra-EU 
mobility  and  procedural  guarantees;  labour  market  access  following  completion  of 
studies or research project; extended scope to au-pairs and remunerated trainees 

Under  this  option,  built  in  part  on  Option  3, the  combination  of  provisions  proposed  would 
aim  at  a  higher  degree  of  ambition  in  improving  the  conditions  and  rights  of  the  groups 
covered and would extend the scope of the legislative framework to au-pairs and remunerated 
trainees.  

Admission  conditions:  the  requirements  necessary  to  obtain  long-term  visa  and  residence 
permits  would  be  more  strongly  linked/combined.  While  Member  States  would  keep  the 
possibility to issue long-stay visas or residence permits for stays beyond three months76, they 
should,  in  case  both  would  be  used,  require  only  the  fulfillment  of  admission  conditions 
mentioned in the Directive (so that the conditions remain the same irrespective of the type of 
authorization). This would be without prejudice to additional technical requirements relevant 
to either visa or residence permits. For the Member States that require a visa to enter and stay 
on the territory, in case the third-country nationals' stay would exceed a period of one year, 
the Directive would require the issuance of residence permits. At the same time the Directive 
would  not  require  a  change  in  Member  States'  practices  which  rely  on  the  issuance  of  the 
residence permits abroad and do not involve a visa. Regardless of the practice of the Member 
States in this area, there would be no distinction in the available rights (in terms of both entry 
and  residence  rights)  between  third-country  national  entering  and/or  staying  on  the  territory 
on the basis of a residence permit or a long-stay visa.  

This option would also introduce specific admission conditions for au pairs and remunerated 
trainees. These  new conditions would aim at ensuring  a better defined status,  and thereby a 
better protection for au pairs. They would concern the age range; evidence that the host family 
accepts responsibility for an au pair throughout his/her period of presence in the territory of 
the  Member  State  concerned;  an  agreement  defining  his/her  rights,  and  adequate 
arrangements allowing him/her to attend language courses, and obligations. The inclusion of 
au-pairs is considered to be proportionate in view of their vulnerability being particularly high 
when compared to other groups of third-country nationals. This relates mainly to their work 
being undertaken in a family context, which is under normal circumstances not subject to any 
inspections.  

In order to prevent trainees from being abused as cheap labour, host entities may be required 
to  declare  that  the  trainee  is  not  filling  a  job.  The  inclusion  of  remunerated  trainees  is 
considered to be proportionate as the issues related to trainees are very similar irrespective of 
whether  or  not  they  are  remunerated,  or  whether  or  not  they  come  to  the  EU  as  part  of  an 
intra-corporate transfer, as foreseen by the proposal for intra-corporate transferees. 

76    Due  to  the  legal  basis,  the  patterns  of  stays  of  students,  researchers,  etc.  and  the  various  improvements 
introduced  by  the  Community  Code  on  Visas  (Regulation  (EC)  No  810/2009),  similarly  to  the  existing 
Directives, the scope of the initiative should not cover stays for a maximum of three months. 

33 

 
 
                                                 
The  instrument  would  also  include  a  provision  requiring  Member  States  to  ensure  that  the 
fullest  possible  set  of  regularly  updated  information  is  made  available  (notably  on  the 
internet)  as  regards  admission  criteria,  in  particular  the  scope  of  the  sickness  insurance 
required.  

Rights: The rights of those groups which could be excluded from the Single Permit Directive 
would  be  ensured  as  regards  access  to  goods  and  services  and  the  supply  of  goods  and 
services  made  available  to  the  public.  For  researchers,  more  favourable  treatment  regarding 
branches  of  social  security  including  family  benefits  beyond  the  rights  given  under  the 
provisions  of  the  Single  Permit  would  be  granted.  Generally  in  cases  where  the  relevant 
groups  of  third-country  nationals  would  stay  on  the  basis  of  a  long-stay  visa,  any  new 
legislative instrument would need to provide for equal treatment rights in order for the Single 
Permit Directive to apply mutatis mutandis. 

As  regards  improved  intra-EU  mobility,  an  objective  that  due  to  its  cross-border  character 
requires common rules at EU level, further facilitation and simplification would be introduced 
for  students  and  researchers  (as  well  as  researchers'  family  members).  Students  and 
researchers  could  move  to  another  Member  State  to  continue  or  complete  the  studies  or 
research  project  for  six  months  or  up  to  twelve  months  on  the  basis  of  the  initial  permit. 
Depending on the duration of the studies or of the research project, conditions would differ. 
For  a  period  of  six  months,  information  from  one  Member  State  to  another  would  suffice, 
whereas  for  longer  periods,  resubmission  of  certain  documents  would  be  required.  For 
Erasmus  Mundus  students,  no  specific  information  or  resubmission  would  be  necessary  in 
case  of  mobility  (the  initial  authorization  would  cover  the  whole  period  of  study,  no  matter 
how many Member States this would involve). New mobility provisions could be added for 
remunerated  trainees.  Member  States  would  need  to  set  up  contact  points  for  receiving  and 
transmitting  information  needed  to  implement  intra-EU  mobility.  This  would  follow  the 
example of the contact points already established as part of the Blue Card Directive as well as 
the proposal for a Directive on intra-corporate transferees. 

Regarding access to the labour market of students during their studies, the students would be 
allowed to work for a minimum of 20 hours per week as of the first year of residence, in order 
to  allow  them  more  adequate  possibilities  to  fund  themselves.  A  number  of  Member  States 
already  apply  this  measure,  and  this  option  would  continue  to  allow  Member  States  to  take 
into account the situation of the labour market when deciding about labour market access for 
third-country national students during studies.  

Regarding access to job-seeking, this option would allow students and researchers to stay on 
the territory after finalization of studies/research to identify work opportunities for a period of 
12  months.  This  would  not  be  an  automatic  work  permit,  since  Member  States,  even  in  the 
case of existence of a  job offer,  could still apply the relevant authorization  procedures. The 
introduction  of  a  possibility  to  stay  for  job-seeking  is  considered  to  be  proportionate  as  it 
appears  to  be  an  important  factor  in  the  choice  of  a  destination  country  and  an  issue  of 
common interest both in the context of a declining working-age population and future skills 
needs.  A  number  of  Member  States  already  have  such  provisions  in  place.  12  months  is 
considered to be a proportionate time-limit for the reasons mentioned above and in light of the 
time it takes for a job-seeking process to be successfully completed. 

(cid:57)  Procedural  guarantees:  Time  limits  would  be  introduced  that  would  oblige 
Member States' authorities to decide on applications within 60 days (applying 
to  all  groups),  and  within  30  days  for  Erasmus  Mundus  and  Marie  Curie 

34 

 
fellows. Given the temporary nature of the stays of the groups concerned, this 
is considered to be proportionate. Some groups' stays are limited to 12 months, 
and  having  application  procedures  spanning  more  than  60  days  would  be  a 
disproportionately  long  period  of  time  .  Some  parts  of  the  EU  immigration 
acquis  already  provide  for  time  limits  (for  example  Council  Directive 
2009/50/EC (the" Blue Card Directive").  

As  option  3,  this  option  would  also  include  for  all  groups  concerned  the  obligation  for  the 
Member  States  to  motivate  by  written  notification  any  decision  rejecting  an  application  for 
issuing, amending, renewing or withdrawing an authorization. This written notification should 
specify  the  Court  or  administrative  authority  where  the  person  concerned  may  lodge  an 
appeal, and the time limit for Member States to take decisions. 

This option would also ensure coherence with recent case-law on adequate levels of fees77 by 
recalling  that  where  Member  States  charge  fees  for  handling  applications,  the  level  of  such 
fees should be proportionate. 

6 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

In the absence of reliable quantitative information on all aspects that the proposed initiatives 
could  impact  on,  the  analysis  is  mainly  based  on  a  qualitative  assessment  of  cross-checked 
criteria.  

The following tables analyse the impacts of the retained policy options (Options 2, 3 and 4) 
against  the  baseline  scenario.  Impacts  are  assessed  in  terms  of  overall  economic  impacts, 
social impacts (including impacts on the access of individuals to education and research, on 
employment  and  labour  market  and  on  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity),  external  impacts 
(including  an  assessment  of  the  brain  drain/brain  gain  effects)  and  impacts  on  fundamental 
rights.  Then  an  assessment  has  been  carried  out  of  the  overall  feasibility  of  each  option 
(defined as including transposition and administrative related burden and the financial costs).  

An attempt has been made to indicate the likely strength of the negative or positive impact on 
a scale from one to three (+ for positive impacts, - for negative impacts), with 0 indicating an 
absence of impact.  

Some  elements  of  quantification  at  a  more  general  level  are  presented  in  Annex  III  and  as 
regards administrative financial costs in Annex IV. 

Assessment of impacts   

Table 1 - Assessment of impacts  

77 Case C-508/10. Judgment on 26.4.2012 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Policy Option 2: Increased communication efforts: (in particular in case of researchers), and strengthened 
enforcement of the current rules 

Feasibility 

Difficulty/risks  for  transposition, 
incl. proportionality 

0 

No  difficulties  or  risks  related  to  transposition  are  expected  as 
the  option  does  not  create  any  additional 
legislative 
interventions. Member States would have complete discretion in 
whether and how to provide more transparency and information 
on existing provisions. 

Simplification/administrative 
burden 

Financial impact 

Expected impacts 

0 

0 

No  possibilities  for  simplification  have  been  identified.  The 
administrative burden would be limited and confined to efforts 
needed to implement improved communication activities insofar 
as Member States deem this necessary. 

No  possible  financial  impact  as  different  from  the  expected 
economic impact at EU level has been identified. 

Economic impact at EU level 

+/0 

Social impacts at EU level 

+ 

0 

Better communication and increased transparency on admission 
conditions  would  to  some  extent  attract  more  third-country 
national students and researchers. Consequently, a very limited 
positive economic impact at the national level could be expected 
in  Member  States  that  allow  third-country  national  students 
and/or  researchers  to  stay  on  the  territory  to  look  for  work 
following  finalization  of  their  studies/research  and  where  this 
leads to the issuance of an authorization to work by the Member 
State. The overall positive economic impact at EU level would 
however  be  very  limited.  The  expected  impact  regarding  the 
three other (optional) groups covered by the Students Directive 
would be very limited. 

The  implementation  costs  would  be  limited  as  this  option 
regards  an  improvement  of  already  existing  communication 
measures  and  does  not  introduce  new  measures.  The  costs 
would  vary  among  Member  States  as  some  already  have 
advanced information campaigns in place whereas others would 
need to undertake action in this area. 

Access  of  individuals  to  education  and  research:  More 
transparency  on  existing  rules  will  enhance  access  of  third-
country  nationals  to  opportunities  in  education  and  research  in 
the  EU;  this  applies  to  students,  researchers  and  school  pupils. 
Better  information  and  communication  on  existing  rules  will 
also facilitate the way in which involved organizations (such as 
research organizations, universities, but also those organizations 
involved in activities of student exchange and volunteering) can 
operate. 

Employment  and  labour  market:  This  option  would  put  the 
EU in an increasingly disadvantaged position in attracting talent 
for education and research purposes which will not improve the 
situation  as  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario,  in  particular  in 
those Member States that currently do not have in place systems 
at  national  level  that  go  beyond  the  provisions  of  the  existing 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impacts in third countries 

+ 

0 

+ 

Impacts on fundamental rights 

+  

Directives and that would increase their attractiveness. 

Cultural and linguistic diversity: As under this option, a small 
increase  in  third-country  national  students  and  researchers  (as 
well  as  in  some  cases  volunteers,  school  pupils,  remunerated 
and  unremunerated  trainees  and  au  pairs)  could  be  expected, 
also  the  EU  would  benefit  from  an  increase  in  cultural  and 
linguistic  diversity.  Increased  communication  can contribute  to 
fostering  people-to-people  exchanges  and  strengthened  young 
people’s  learning  mobility,  including  non-formal  learning  in 
another country.   

Brain drain/brain gain: While a small increase in the departure 
of  third-country  national  students  and  researchers  and  other 
groups  covered  by  the  Directive  may  initially  have  a  negative 
impact  on  sending  societies,  the  fact  that  many  of  them  will 
return after their stay in the EU means that they will eventually 
benefit  from  the  knowledge,  skills  and  experiences  that  third-
country nationals  would have  gained  and  acquired  during  their 
stay in the EU. 

For  the  case  of  volunteers,  school  pupils,  remunerated  and 
unremunerated  trainees  as  well  as  au  pairs,  the  impact  in  third 
countries could be broadly positive, as the Directive covers only 
temporary  forms  of  migration,  which  means  that  third-country 
nationals would come back to sending societies. 

This  option  would  have  some  positive,  even  if  limited,  impact 
on the effective exercise of rights, in particular ease the exercise 
of the right to an effective remedy, as awareness of the existing 
rules would increase. 

Policy Option 3: Improvement of admission conditions, rights and procedural guarantees 

Feasibility  

Difficulty/risks  for  transposition, 
incl. proportionality 

- 

Making  the  currently  optional  rules  on  school  pupils, 
volunteers  and  unremunerated  trainees  mandatory  would 
imply  a  transposition  effort  for  those  Member  States  who 
have  not  transposed  the  optional  rules.  Not  taking  into 
consideration  DK,  IE  and  the  UK,  for  each  of  the  three 
groups, half of the remaining Member States have transposed 
the optional rules. For the other half who has not transposed 
the  optional  EU  rules,  the  transposition  effort  depends  on 
whether or  not  they  have  existing  national  rules.  For  school 
pupils  and  unremunerated  trainees,  six  Member  States  have 
national rules, whereas six Member States do not have rules. 
For  school  pupils,  five  Member  States  have  national  rules, 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0 

0 

0 

+ 

+ 

Simplification/administrative 
burden 

Financial impact 

+/- 

Expected impacts 

Economic impact at EU level 

+ 

seven do not. 

Strengthening  the  provisions  granting  visa  as  well  as 
provisions  on  rights  would  entail  some  adjustments  at 
Member  State  level,  however  given  that  what  would  be 
foreseen  already  exists  under  Directive  2005/71,  this  option 
would not present any major transposition difficulties. 

The  extension  of  students’  rights  to  work  at  least  15  hours 
per week rather than ten also seems not to pose transposition 
difficulties, as a number of Member States already has rules 
that would allow this or even go beyond this. 

Binding  limits  for  the  time  to decide on  applications  appear 
to  be  proportionate,  given  that  some  Member  States  would 
already  meet  such  time  limits  in  their  current  practice,  and 
would have significant benefits for the planning process and 
security  of  third-country  nationals  who  applied  for  the 
respective authorizations. The EU Blue Card foresees a time 
limit of 90 days however this concerns an application for the 
purposes of employment, and for periods of up to four years). 

Making  mandatory  the  rules at  EU  level  for  the  groups  that 
are  currently  optional  under  Directive  2004/114  benefits 
mainly  third-country  national  school  pupils,  volunteers  and 
unremunerated trainees, as well as organizations involved in 
such  exchanges,  as  there  would  be  rules  that  apply  for  all 
Member States, and more clarity on the rules. 

The imposition of time limits and the need for Member States 
to provide a written motivation on a decision to issue, renew 
or  withdraw  an  authorization  would  result  in  additional 
administrative  burden 
those  Member  States  which 
currently do  not  have  such  time  limits,  or do not provide in 
writing  the  reasons  for  decisions.  Third-country  nationals 
would derive benefits from these procedural guarantees. 

to 

For  those  education  institutions  that  charge  fees  to  third-
country  nationals,  a  stronger  presence  of  the  latter  may 
increase  their  revenues.  When  no  fees  are  charged,  an 
increased  presence  of  third-country  national  students  may 
require  an  additional  investment,  but  may  also  contribute  to 
creating  a  critical  mass  of  students  to  maintain  or  further 
develop their activities. 

Although quantifying the economic impact remains difficult, 
all  the  elements  identified  point  to  an  overall  beneficial 
nature of students' and researchers' contribution to the EU in 
a  number  of  aspects,  including  innovative  capacity  and 
competitiveness (see also Annex IV). On an overall level, the 
improvement of admission conditions, procedural guarantees 
and  rights  of  these  groups  of  third-country  nationals  would 
increase the attractiveness of the EU as a destination for these 
third-country nationals, meaning that the EU is put in a better 
position  in  competing  for  the  most  talented  individuals  that 
to  economic 
have 

the  highest  potential 

to  contribute 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
development.  For  the  other  groups,  the  main  benefits  lie 
predominantly in non-economic considerations.  

A  call  on  the  Member  States  to  provide  every  facility  to 
third-country  nationals  to  receive  a  relevant  authorisation  in 
combination with fixed time limits to assess applications will 
to some extent further increase the attractiveness of the EU as 
a  destination  for  all  groups  and  increase  the  pool  of  third-
country  national  students  and  researchers78  in  the  EU. 
Consequently,  in  Member  States  that  already  allow  third-
country  national  students  and/or  researchers  to  stay  on  the 
territory  to  look  for  work  following  finalization  of  their 
studies/research  and  where  this  results  in  the  Member  State 
issuing an authorization to work, a positive economic impact 
could be expected. As most Member States do not offer this 
access  to  the  labour  market,  the  overall  positive  economic 
impact at EU level would however be limited. The expected 
economic impact regarding the three other (optional) groups 
would be very limited. Improved access to the labour market 
during 
to  contribute 
economically at this stage as well.  

studies  would  allow 

students 

in 

level, 

costs:  On 

an  overall 

the 
Implementation 
implementation  costs  would  vary  among  Member  States, 
depending  on  the  extent  to  which  they  already  have 
provisions  that  correspond  to  the  ones  foreseen  by  this 
option. The implementation costs would be limited as far as 
some  rights  resulting  from  equal  treatment  are  concerned. 
Additional procedural guarantees would require an additional 
effort on the side of Member State authorities (for example to 
give  reasons 
the  written  negative  decision  on  an 
application).  Costs  will  vary,  depending  on  the  degree  to 
which Member States already transposed rules for the groups 
that are optional under the Students Directive. Even in cases 
where  Member  States  have  not  applied  the  optional  rules, 
national rules exist in some Member States which will limit 
additional  budgetary  efforts.79  Administrative  costs  have 
been calculated to be in a similar range as those foreseen for 
Option  4  (see  below  in  Option  4  and  Annex  IV.  Given  the 
limited availability of reliable data, these calculations should 
be treated with a high level of caution).  

- 

Social impacts at EU level 

+ 

Access  of  individuals  to  education  and  research:  the 
mobility  fostered  by  this  option  could  also  benefit  the 
European  Higher  Education  Area  and  trigger  increased 
coherence  between  national  systems  (supported  by  the 
Bologna Process). 

+ 

Cultural and linguistic diversity: A small positive impact is 
expected as more students and school pupils, volunteers and 
unremunerated  trainees  are  likely  to  come  to  the  EU. 
Improved 
further 
strengthen this aspect. 

intra-EU  mobility  provisions  will 

78   In the case of researchers, only binding time limits will be added under this Option.  
79  There are very limited changes for those Member States who have already transposed one or several of the 
optional groups of the students Directive (for school pupils, BG, CY, CZ, EE, ES, IT, LU, LV, PT, RO, SI 
and SK; (for unremunerated trainees BG, CY, CZ, EE, ES, FR, IT, LU, PT, RO, SI and SK; for volunteers 
CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, HU, IT, LU, PT, RO, SI and SK) 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Impacts in third countries 

0 

Impacts on fundamental rights 

+ 

Brain  drain/brain  gain:  While  an  increased  number  of 
third-country national students, volunteers, school pupils and 
unremunerated  trainees  leaving  their  home  countries  may 
initially  have  a  negative  impact  on  these  societies,  the  fact 
that  many  of  them  would  return  after  their  stay  in  the  EU 
means that these countries would eventually benefit from the 
knowledge, skills and experiences that they have gained and 
acquired during their stay in the EU. 

Option 3 would have a positive impact on a number of rights 
protected  under  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights,  in 
particular the right to work, the right to an effective remedy, 
and  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  (equal  treatment  with 
nationals  in  working  conditions  and  social  security).  These 
options  would  not  impact  on  the  right  to  family  life  of 
students  which  is  not  covered  by  the  proposed  new 
instrument,  however  it  would  impact  positively  on  the  right 
of family life of researchers. 

Policy  Option  4:  Further  improvement  of  admission  conditions,  rights  also  on  intra-EU  mobility  and 
procedural  guarantees;  labour  market  access  following  completion  of  studies  or  research  project; 
extended scope to au-pairs and remunerated trainees. 

Feasibility 

Difficulty/risks  for  transposition, 
incl. proportionality 

- 

0 

- 

A stronger linkage or combination between the requirements 
to  obtain  permits  and  visas  would  require  adjustments  at 
Member  State  level.  Given  that  in  advanced  negotiations  on 
other instruments in the area of legal migration, the approach 
to  leave  it  open  to  Member  States  to  issue  permits  or  long-
stay  visas  in  the  first  year  has  already  been  developed, 
thereby  increasing  Member  States'  flexibility  in  this  area, 
there should not be any major transposition difficulties. 

The extension of students’ rights to work at least 20 hours per 
week  rather  than  ten  seems  not  to  pose  transposition 
difficulties, as a number of Member States already have rules 
that allow this. With this in view, an extension to 20 hours is 
considered  to  be  proportionate,  also  as  otherwise  some 
students  may  struggle  to  be  able  to  fund  themselves  during 
their stay, thereby putting at risk the stay as a whole. 

The possibility for third-country national students to stay on 
the  territory  of  the  Member  State  to  look  for  work  for  a 
limited  period  of  time  after  graduation  is  already  being 
offered  in  a  number  of  Member  States  (up  to  18  months). 
Some of these Member States would have to adjust the time 
period  so  that  it  (at  least)  covers  the  12  months  foreseen  by 
this  option.  Other  Member  States  would  have  to  introduce 
such a possibility  in their legislation and allow the same for 
third-country  national  researchers  who  have  completed  their 
research.  With  regard  to  family  members’  access  to  the 
labour  market,  this  is  already  foreseen  by  many  Member 
States,  hence  transposition  efforts  would  be  limited  to  some 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0 

- 

- 

Simplification/administrative 
burden 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Member States only. 

Binding limits for the time to decide on applications appear to 
be  proportionate,  given  that  some  Member  States  already 
meet  such  time  limits  in  their  current  practice,  and  would 
have significant benefits for the planning process and security 
of  third-country  nationals  who  applied  for  the  respective 
authorizations. Time limits also exist in other recent EU legal 
instruments in the area of legal migration (90 days in the case 
of the EU Blue Card however this concerns an application for 
the  purposes  of  employment,  and  for  periods  of  up  to  four 
years). 

Intra-EU  mobility  provisions  for  beneficiaries  of  EU-funded 
mobility  programmes  should  not  pose  major  transposition 
problems, as a number of Member States appear to be open to 
such an approach. 

Including  third-country  national  trainees  and  au-pairs  in  the 
scope  of  the  EU  legal  framework  would  require  provisions 
for these groups where currently no specific legislation exists, 
and  for  Member  States  where  national  rules  exist,  to  adapt 
these to the EU framework (12 Member States have specific 
rules  on  au-pairs,  13  Member  States  have  rules  on 
remunerated trainees). 

Streamlining  of  procedures  between  different  types  of 
authorizations would benefit Member States, as in particular 
regarding long-stay visa this would lead to an alignment with 
practices  already  applied  by  some  Member  States.  Third-
country  nationals  concerned  would  benefit  through  clearer 
conditions  necessary  to  obtain  the  required  authorization(s).  
Organizations  and  companies  involved  (research  and  higher 
education  institutions,  research  companies  or  companies 
hosting 
trainees,  organizations 
involved in exchange of school pupils, volunteers or au-pairs) 
would  also  benefit  from  streamlined  procedures  regarding 
authorizations, as they either play a key role in the admission 
process themselves, or are providing support to the applicants 
(for example in the form of information). 

third-country  national 

Making  mandatory  the  rules  at  EU  level  for  the  groups  that 
are  currently  optional  under  Directive  2004/114  benefits 
mainly  third-country  national  school  pupils,  volunteers  and 
unremunerated trainees, as well as organizations involved in 
such  exchanges,  as  there  would  be  rules  that  apply  for  all 
Member States, and more clarity on the rules (same as Option 
3). 

Better  linking  EU-funded  mobility  programmes  and  EU 
migration  rules  will  simplify  procedures  for  beneficiaries  of 
such  mobility  programmes.  An  authorization  including  all 
countries  that  would  be  concerned  by  intra-EU  mobility 
would  simplify  and  lighten  the  administrative  burden, 
however  at  the  same  time  require  the  setting-up  of  contact 
points  on Member States covered by the intra-EU mobility 

Introducing rules on remunerated trainees and au-pairs would 
benefit  these  groups  in  Member  States  where  currently  no 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Financial impact 

Expected impacts 

Economic impact at EU level 

- 

- 

++ 

rules exist. 

Procedural  guarantees  in  the  form  of  the  need  for  a  written 
justification  on  Member  States’  decisions  to  reject  to  issue, 
amend,  renew,  or  to  withdraw  an  authorization  will  cause 
additional administrative burden on Member States (same as 
Option 3).  

For  those  education  institutions  that  charge  fees  to  third-
country  national  students,  a  stronger  presence  of  the  latter 
may  increase  their  revenues.  When  no  fees  are  charged,  the 
presence  of  third-country  national  students  requires  an 
additional  investment,  but  may  also  contribute  to  creating  a 
critical  mass of students to maintain or further develop their 
activities (same as Option 3). 

Substantially improved admission conditions should facilitate 
the  access  of  researchers,  students,  unremunerated  and 
remunerated  trainees  (the  latter  newly  added)  to  the EU  and 
thereby significantly increase the attractiveness of the EU as 
a destination for these groups of third-country nationals. The 
skills,  knowledge  and  competencies  they  can  apply  during 
their initial stay will have a positive effect on the stimulation 
of  research  and  development  and  innovative  performance. 
Improved  intra-EU  mobility  provisions  will  allow  for  any 
such  advantage  to  spread  more  widely  across  the  EU.  They 
will support a better flow of knowledge and ideas and lead to 
an intensified cross-border exchange of know-how. 

In  Member  States  where  this  is  not  already  the  case,  the 
introduction  of  a  possibility  for  students  and  researchers  to 
remain  in  the  Member  State  to  seek  employment  upon 
finalization of their studies/research opens up for a new pool 
of  talent  in  these  Member  States  which,  in  cases  where  an 
authorization  to  work  is  granted  by  the  Member  State,  can 
contribute to the EU's growth and competitiveness80. Member 
States  could  make  use  of  this  increased  pool  of  talent  in 
responding  to  the  needs  of  their  respective  labour  markets. 
The  possibility  to  remain  on  the  territory  to  identify  work 
opportunities  would  therefore  amount  to  a  demand-driven 
scenario,  allowing  third-country  nationals  to  work  in  cases 
where  their  skills  are  needed  on  the  labour  market.  In 
particular  in  the  case  of  researchers  who  already  have  an 
institutional affiliation with a particular hosting organization, 
the  option  would  not  exclude  engaging  in  a  working 
relationship  with  the  hosting  organization.  For  the  hosting 
organization,  this  would  mean  that  a  researcher  who  as 
proved his or her added value could continue to be active for 
the  organization.  Access  to  the  labour  market  for  family 
members of researchers can be expected to have a small (due 
to the rather low numbers of researchers coming in under the 
existing  instrument)  positive  impact  economically  in  those 
Member States where this is not already foreseen. 

80  For a selection of OECD countries, one quarter of international students can be assumed to have stayed in the 
respective  countries,  74%  of  which  changed  their  status  for  work  related  reasons;  OECD  Education  at  a 
glance 2011  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 

Social impacts at EU level 

+ + +  

costs:  On 

the 
Implementation 
implementation  costs  would  vary  among  Member  States, 
depending  on  the  extent  to  which  they  already  have 
provisions that correspond to the ones foreseen by this option. 

an  overall 

level, 

In  a  short-term  perspective,  there  would  be  implementation 
costs as far as changes in admission conditions are concerned. 
In a medium- to long-term perspective, Member States could 
however expect to make savings through a more streamlined 
connectedness  between  different  kinds  of  authorizations. 
Initially,  and  on  a  one-off  basis,  additional  implementation 
costs  would  occur  for  Member  States'  Immigration  Services 
(and  for  research  organizations) for familiarising  themselves 
with the obligations associated to the changes in the Directive 
and  for  the  training  of  personnel  of  Member  States' 
Immigration Services in charge of issuing the authorizations.  

The  administrative  costs  associated  to  the  assessment  of 
applications, issuing of permits and notifications of rejections 
would  amount  on  an  annual  basis  to  around  €  23  million 
across  all  Member  States  (except  Denmark),  including  the 
possibility of intra-EU mobility for all students, and not only 
new  arrivals.  Given 
these 
calculations  should  be  treated  with  a  high  level  of  caution 
(see  Annex  IV).  However,  fees  for  the  authorisations  partly 
offset these costs81.  

limited  data  availability, 

in  substantive 

As  regards  the  provision  on  the  rights  deriving  from  equal 
treatment,  the  conditions  that  are  added  to  what  is  already 
covered  by  the  Single  Permit  Directive  are  not  expected  to 
implementation  costs.  Additional 
result 
procedural guarantees will also require an additional effort on 
the  side  of  Member  State  authorities  (for  example  to  give 
reasons  in  the  written  negative  decision  on  an  application). 
Regarding the efforts needed to transpose rules on the groups 
currently  optional  under  the  Students  Directive,  the  same 
considerations as made for Option 3 apply. For au-pairs and 
remunerated  trainees,  as  these  are  not  currently  covered, 
Member  States  that  have  national  rules  would  also  need  to 
bring them in line with the EU legislative framework. 

Social impacts will be further enhanced through introduction 
of  more  advanced  rights  and  an  extension  to  new  groups  of 
migrants:  au  pairs  and  remunerated  trainees.  Facilitated 
access  and  better  provisions  on  intra-EU  mobility  will 
increase  the  possibilities  of  people-to-people  contacts  for  all 
groups.  

81  For researchers  the  average  cost  that  researchers  have paid  for  the  permit  is  €250.  Therefore,  costs  for fees 
would cover € 173,750 in the case of researchers. For students (fees for other groups can be assumed to be in 
a similar range), the fees averaged € 86 for a permit  (all countries except Denmark). Only adding the assumed 
additional 50,000 students to the equation means that the costs for permits would offset € 4.300.000. For more 
information on the assumptions behind these calculations and the calculations themselves, please see Annex 
IV. 

43 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Impacts in third countries 

0 

Impacts on fundamental rights 

++ 

Brain drain/brain gain: While an increased number of third-
country  national  researchers  leaving  their  home  countries 
may  initially  have  a  negative  impact  on  these  societies,  the 
fact  that  many  of  them  will  return  after  their  stay  in  the  EU 
means  that  these  countries  will  eventually  benefit  from  the 
knowledge, skills and experiences that they have gained and 
acquired during in their stay in the EU. 

This  option  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  a  number  of 
rights protected under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in 
particular  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy  through  clearer 
admission  conditions,  the  right  to  work  (improved  access  to 
the labour market) and the right to family life (access to the 
labour market for researchers' family members). 

7 

COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS  

The following table analyses in detail the policy options in terms of relevance, effectiveness 
and efficiency, against the baseline scenario. An attempt has been made to further qualify the 
degree to which options are relevant, effective and efficient on a scale from one to three (+ for 
positive assessment, - for negative assessment), with 0 indicating that the option is considered 
to be neutral to the baseline scenario.  

Table 2 – Relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of options 

Objective 

Assessment  Comments 

Improve 
conditions 
admissions  

the 
of 

0 

+ 

+++ 

Option  2  would  partially  meet  this  objective,  as  compared  to  the  baseline 
scenario  improved  communication  and  information  provision  would  allow 
applicants  as  well  as  institutions  to  be  better  informed  about  document 
requirements  and  possible  redress  mechanisms.  Better  communication  with 
the  authorities  issuing visas  and residence permits  than  is  currently  the  case 
would  also  improve  procedures,  but  only  to  a  limited  extent.  While  better 
provision  of  communication  and  information  will  imply  costs  for  Member 
States as well as the relevant organizations concerned, this would not address 
the real issue at stake, as it would leave unchanged in principle the system of 
obtaining visa and permits. This option is therefore not considered to be cost-
effective. 

Option 3 would improve the admission conditions regarding the facilitation of 
visas, for students and other groups to the extent that they would be equal to 
the ones available to researchers in the baseline scenario. Regarding access to 
information, this option to some extent addresses the issues identified. Option 
3  would  imply  costs  for  Member  States  mainly  through  the  need  for 
transposition  of  optional  rules,  and  by  making  limited  changes  to  existing 
rules. 

Option  4  would  most  effectively  enhance  admission  conditions  through  a 
stronger  linkage/combination  between  the  issuing  of  visas  and  residence 
permits.  Regarding  access  to  information,  this  option  will  most  effectively 
address  the  current  shortcomings  in  information  provision.  While  Option  4 
would imply costs for Member States, by having to transpose optional rules, 
and by making changes to procedures on permits and long-stay visas, some of 
the practices foreseen are already applied by Member States in practice, or are 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Improve 
procedural 
guarantees 

0 

++ 

+++ 

Improve  access 
to 
labour 
market 

0 

+ 

+++ 

0 

0 

++ 

Improve  intra-
EU mobility 

0 

the 
Increase 
coherence 
of 
EU  migration 
rules  with  EU 
mobility 

foreseen in other parts of the legal migration acquis, in particular with regard 
to long-stay visas. The cost-effectiveness would therefore be high. 

Option 2 would not alter any procedural guarantee and therefore not address 
the shortcomings identified.  

Option 3 would bring about important benefits in the form of time-limits for 
handling of the applications, and Member States' motivations on decisions in 
writing.  Member  States  would  incur  costs  through  these  requirements, 
however  as  other  parts  of  the  acquis  in  the  area  of  legal  migration  already 
foresee  such  procedural  guarantees, 
their 
introduction for the groups concerned is high. In this sense, while improving 
the  situation  of  the  groups  concerned  in  relation  to  the  baseline  scenario,  it 
would also bring in line the parts of the EU acquis concerned with the more 
recent EU legislation which already foresees such procedural guarantees.  

the  cost-effectiveness  of 

Option 4 would introduce more ambitious and strict time limits without any 
possibility to extend those limits and apply shorter limits for the assessment 
of applications of Erasmus Mundus/Marie Curie applicants. The option would 
also require Member States to issue motivations for decisions on applications 
in  writing.  The  same  considerations  on  cost-effectiveness  as  for  Option  3 
apply. 

Option 2 would not alter the existing situation. 

Option  3  would  improve  only  the  situation  of  students  during  their  studies. 
Cost-effectiveness  would  be  given  as  many  Member  States  in  their  current 
rules would already address the provisions foreseen under this Option. 

Option  4  would  result  in  new  provisions  on  access  to  job-seeking  after 
studies/research,  improve  the  situation  of  students  during  their  studies  to  a 
considerable  degree,  and  allow  researchers'  family  members  access  to  the 
labour  market. While  requiring  Member  States  to  make  transposition  efforts 
(in particular in the case of access to job-seeking after studies/research), the 
combination  of  the  facts  that  other  measures  are  already  being  applied  by  a 
majority of Member States (access to the labour market of family members, 
number of hours that students are allowed to work during studies) and that the 
possibility of job-seeking and access to the labour market has been identified 
as a key component in the EU's attractiveness, cost-effectiveness is ensured. 

Option  2 would  to  a  minor  extent  improve intra-EU  mobility  through  better 
awareness-raising as compared to the baseline scenario. 

Option 3 would provide for more efficient intra-EU mobility possibilities for 
students only, the situation of other groups would remain as is the case in the 
baseline  scenario.  Whereas  rules  would  be  changed,  this  would  be  done  for 
students only, putting into question the cost-effectiveness of this Option.  

Option 4 would introduce the most far-reaching and novel changes on intra-
EU  mobility  provisions  both  for  students  and  researchers  (and  the  latters' 
family  members),  as  well  as  for  remunerated  trainees  (newly  added).  As 
similar rules would apply to all three groups, and as the promotion of intra-
EU  mobility  can  only  be  achieved  through  (enhanced)  EU  rules  on  such 
instances of mobility, this Option is considered to be cost-effective. 

Options  2  and  3  would  only  to  a  minor  extent  address  the  current  problems 
experienced  by  people  applying  to  EU  mobility  programmes  or  willing  to 
move to other Member States than the one they originally entered.  

Option  4  would  be  the  most  effective  option  to  remove  additional 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
programmes  

for 

Provide 
coherent 
provisions 
ensuring 
protection 
remunerated 
trainees  and  au 
pairs 

of 

++ 

0 

++ 

administrative barriers to study/carry out research in different Member States. 
This Option would also result in better framework for faster decision-making 
for  applicants  under  EU  mobility  programmes.  Overall,  it  will  increase  the 
coherence between EU legislative framework and EU funding programmes in 
the  areas  of  higher  education  and  research,  while  implying  only  limited 
additional costs for Member States (mainly related to national contact points). 

Options 2 and 3 would not change the situation of remunerated trainees and 
au pairs compared to the baseline scenario.  

Option  4  is  the  only  option  that  would  increase  the  levels  of  protection  of 
remunerated trainees and au pairs compared to the existing situation. It would 
render  the  current  EU  legal  framework  more  coherent  which  includes 
unremunerated trainees as an optional category. Cost implications occur both 
for those Member States which have to adjust existing national rules as well 
as to those which have to set up new rules, however the benefits of reduced 
costs  for  organizations  involved  would  outweigh  the  costs  that  the 
implementation of this Option would mean for Member States. 

Based on the above table, some preliminary conclusions can be drawn on the overall strengths 
and  weaknesses  of  the  different  options  and  their  overall  effectiveness,  efficiency  and 
relevance in achieving the various objectives while avoiding excessive costs. 

Option 2 

Option  2,  while  addressing  an  important  weakness  of  the  current  framework,  i.e.  better 
informing  on  the  provisions  of  the  current  framework,  would  overall  have  limited  positive 
impacts.  Better  awareness  of  existing  rules  on  admission  and  rights  as  well  as  procedural 
guarantees has its merits mainly in that the groups currently covered would be able to better 
benefit from provisions associated to them. Option 2 would however not change the substance 
of  the  existing  legal  instruments  and  their  weaknesses  would  therefore  persist.  The  overall 
effectiveness  of  the  option  in  relation  to  the  objectives,  the  efficiency  of  the  option  in 
achieving  the  objectives  and  the  relevance  are  thus  considered  to  be  neutral  to  the  baseline 
scenario and consequently not cost-effective. 

Option 3 

Compared to option 2, Option 3 has a better potential to achieve the various objectives. 

Regarding  admission  conditions,  it  would  be  a  step  forward  with  regard  to  issuing  visas 
and/or  permits.  Positive  impacts  could  be  expected  mainly  for  students  and  to  some  extent 
also  with  respect  to  school  pupils,  volunteers  and  unremunerated  trainees.  There  would 
however be very limited benefits linked to time-limits for researchers and no benefits for the 
groups which are currently not covered by the Directive.  

As  for  increasing  the  coherence  of  EU  migration  rules  with  EU  mobility  programmes, 
from  EU 
Option  3  would 
scholarships/fellowships. Significant improvements and new procedures would be introduced 
would  apply  both  at  the  level  of  admission  and  intra-EU  mobility.  While  this  option  would 

situation  of  applicants  who  benefit 

improve 

the 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
make a difference for the groups concerned, it would nevertheless only cover a small share of 
third-country national students and researchers, most of whom do not fall under such funding 
programmes.  

With respect to improving procedural guarantees, Option 3 would introduce binding time-
limits  for  handling  an  application  which  would  increase  transparency  and  improve  time 
planning  for  potential  applicants.  This  would  constitute  a  significant  step  forward  as 
compared to the current situation where different deadlines apply, varying from one Member 
State to another.  

With  respect  to  the  improvement  of  access  to  the  labour  market,  Option  3  would 
significantly  improve  the  current  situation  of  students  through  increasing  the  minimum 
threshold of working hours and lifting the possibility of limiting access to labour market in the 
first year of residence.  

Concerning intra-EU mobility, Option 3 would improve legal certainty and planning security 
for student stays by explicitly allowing students to apply for mobility from within the territory 
of  the  Member  State.  In  this  option,  there  would  however  be  no  specific  solutions  for 
researchers nor other categories of third-country nationals. These new provisions would also 
improve to some extent the functioning of EU mobility programmes.  

Option 4 

Option  4  has  the  best  potential  to  achieve  the  various  objectives.  Regarding  admission 
conditions, Option 4 would have significantly larger positive impacts on the accessibility of 
the  EU  not  only  for  the  groups  covered  by  the  Option  3  but  in  addition  for  au  pairs  and 
remunerated trainees. In addition, the changes introduced by Option 4 would provide a much 
greater degree of clarity regarding the requirements to be fulfilled under the different elements 
of the admission procedure and the way they are linked to each other.  

Regarding  the  coherence  of  the  EU  legal  framework  and  EU  mobility  programmes, 
Option 4 would cover not only the beneficiaries of EU funding programmes but would apply 
improved  provisions  to  all  groups  concerned,  making  a  significant  step  forward  in  terms  of 
intra-EU  mobility  provisions.  With  respect  to  procedural  guarantees,  Option  4,  by 
introducing  stricter  time-limits  than  Option  3,  would  further  enhance  the  advantages  the 
potential  applicants  gain  through  this.    Both  options  foresee  equal  solutions  to  improve  the 
right  of  legal  redress  and  right  to  information  for  the  groups  covered  by  the  options 
concerned.  

With respect to the improvement of access to job-seeking and the labour market, Option 
4,  while  increasing  the  minimum  threshold  for  students  even  further,  would  in  addition 
significantly  increase  the  attractiveness  of  the  legal  framework  for  students  and  researchers 
through allowing them to stay on the territory of the Member State to look for a job following 
completion  of  their  studies/research.  This  EU-wide  possibility  would  increase  the  overall 
attractiveness of the EU as a destination for students and researchers and have a particularly 
positive  impact  in  cases  where  such  a  stay  results  in  the  Member  State  issuing  an 
authorization to work. Member States would thus have an increased pool of talent that they 
could use to respond to the needs of their respective national labour markets.  

Concerning  intra-EU  mobility,  Option  4  would  not  only  improve  the  legal  certainty  and 
planning security for student stays , but also introduce new solutions aiming to address in the 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
most  efficient  way  the  possibility  for  students  and  researchers  to  fully  reap  the  potential  of 
studying  and  research  opportunities  in  different  Member  States  without  lengthy  application 
procedures  and  admission  decisions.  It  would  also  address  crucial  problems  with  respect  to 
mobility  of  Erasmus  Mundus  students  through  introducing  provisions  which  will  not  put  at 
risk the continuation or delays in the exercise of their mobility track as foreseen under the EU 
scholarship.  This  option  would  also  introduce  provisions  on  the  mobility  of  remunerated 
trainees, currently not addressed, and opening new possibilities for this group of third-country 
nationals. 

Finally, Option 4 is the only one which meets the objective of providing coherent provisions 
ensuring  protection  of  au  pairs  and  remunerated  trainees.  It  foresees  a  coherent  set  of 
admission conditions and rights ensuring that the objective of training and au paring in the EU 
are  not  compromised.  Common  EU  rules  regarding  definitions  of  au  pairs,  conditions  of 
entry, obligations in terms of cultural / linguistic activities, accommodation etc. would support 
vulnerable au pairs in protecting their rights and ensuring that the aim of au pair programmes, 
cultural exchange, is achieved. Common rules would create clarity and would thereby make 
monitoring  of  the  au  pair  placement's  objectives  and  the  respect  of  rights  and  obligations 
easier. 

Preferred Option 

The  analysis  of  problems  and  comparison  of  options  suggest  that  there  are  a  number  of 
problems that cannot be solved by improved communication efforts only.  

Albeit having the lowest implementation costs among the different options, Option 2 only has 
the potential to meet the objectives to a very limited extent. The real issues at stake remain 
largely  unresolved.  Against  this  background,  Option  2  is  considered  to  be  the  least  cost-
effective option. 

Option 3 has a higher level of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency compared to Option 2. 
However,  Option  4  has  the  highest  overall  relevance,  effectiveness  and  efficiency.  While 
implying  the  higher  implementation  costs  as  compared  to  the  other  options,  such  costs  are 
considered  to  be  proportionate  to  the  objectives  and  necessary  to  allow  for  the  most 
substantial benefits to materialize. The costs implied are matched by the positive impacts and 
gains  to  be  made.  Against  this  background,  Option  4  is  considered  to  be  the  most  cost-
effective option. 

The  main  disadvantages  of  legislative  changes  would  be  the  costs  involved.  Member  States 
will  have  to  make  modifications  to  their  legislative  frameworks,  mainly  concerning 
authorisations  to  enter  and  stay,  intra-EU  mobility  and  time-limits  to  handle  applications. 
However Option 4 appears to be the most cost effective option to meet the key objectives, and 
brings about significant positive impacts. These costs would be relatively limited, and some 
Member  States  are  already  implementing  some  of  the  provisions  foreseen.  An  improved 
legislative  framework  would  also  decrease  the  relevant  groups'  time  spent  on  complex, 
lengthy and costly procedures. 

Instrument chosen 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Since  the  issues  identified  are  similar  for  both  Directives,  and  in  order  to  provide  for  more 
coherence  and  clarity  of  the  EU  rules,  the  most  effective  way  to  implement  the  preferred 
option would be to combine the two Directives in a single legislative instrument. This would 
be carried out through a recast of both Directives, bringing together in a single legislative act 
both Directives and proposing new substantive changes.  

8 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

8.1 

Indicators 

The  main  existing  indicator  is  the  number  of  third-country  nationals  coming  to  the  EU  for 
education and study purposes. However, attributing changes in these numbers in the future to 
particular factors is not easy, as several factors can determine the attractiveness of the EU for 
the  relevant  groups,  one  of  them  being  immigration  rules.  Moreover,  there  is  a  number  of 
national schemes for the entry and residence of the third country national groups concerned 
by the future proposal, whose entries are not recorded under the existing Directives.  

The proposal will include an obligation for the Commission to report on the implementation 
of the new Directive by the Member States to Parliament and the Council three years after the 
deadline for transposition. In addition, the report could look into the effects of the Directive. 
The reporting exercise may contain policy recommendations, where appropriate. 

The  proposal  will  contain  an  obligation  for  the  Member  States  to  report  annually  to  the 
Commission the relevant statistics, such as on the number of residence permits issued for the 
purposes  indicated  in  the  Directive  for  the  first  time  or  renewed  and  the  residence  permits 
withdrawn disaggregated by a number of criteria.     

In parallel, the Commission will continue its enforcement efforts verifying the compliance of 
transposition  measures  with  the  Directive  and  the  timing  thereof,  launching  infringement 
procedures where necessary.   

Table 3 – Possible indicators 

Objectives 

Possible indicators 

Improve 

1. 
conditions  

admission 

Development  of  the  numbers  of  third-country  national  students,  researchers, 
school pupils, volunteers, remunerated and unremunerated trainees and au pairs 
compared to figures recorded so far under the two Directives. 

Numbers  of  third-country  national  students,  researchers,  school  pupils, 
volunteers  and  trainees  who  experience  problems  in  the  process  of  being 
admitted to the EU while meeting the conditions to obtain a permit or long-stay 
visa  against  the  total  number  of  third-country  national  students,  researchers, 
school pupils, volunteers and trainees. 

49 

 
 
 
 
2.  Increase  coherence  of 
EU  migration  rules  with 
EU mobility programmes  

Participation  in  EU  programmes  promoting  mobility,  measured  through  the 
numbers  of  participants  as  well  as  the  numbers  of  applicants  to  such 
programmes, and development of these figures over time. 

Improve  procedural 

3. 
guarantees  

Time  taken  by  Member  States  to  assess  and  decide  on  applications  to  be 
admitted,  measured  against  currently  applied 
limits.  Numbers  of 
unsuccessful  applications  compared  to  successful  applications  (measured  both 
before and after a possible redress). 

time 

4.  Improve  access  to  job-
seeking  and  the 
labour 
market 

Numbers of third-country national students and researchers who stay in the EU 
for  employment-seeking  purposes  measured  against  the  overall  numbers  of 
third-country national students and researchers. 

Numbers of third-country national students and researchers who stay in the EU 
for  employment-seeking  purposes,  and  obtain  the  necessary  authorization  to 
work,  measured  against  the  overall  numbers  of  third-country  national  students 
and researchers. 

Number of third-country national students who work during studies, compared 
to overall number of third-country national students. 

Number of hours (measured by hours per week) that students work during their 
studies. 

Number of family members of third country national researchers coming to the 
EU. 

Number  of  family  members  of  third  country  national  researchers  joining  the 
labour market. 

Improve 

5. 
mobility 

intra-EU 

Numbers of instances of intra-EU mobility that third-country national students, 
researchers (and their family members) and trainees undertake during their stay 
in  the  EU,  measured  against  total  numbers  of  third-country  national  students, 
researchers and trainees. 

Numbers  of  third-country  national  students,  researchers  and  trainees  who 
participate in EU-funded mobility programmes who move between EU Member 
States,  measured  against  overall  numbers  of  third-country  national  students, 
researchers and trainees who participate in EU-funded mobility programmes.  

Numbers of third-country national au pairs and remunerated trainees coming to 
the EU under an EU legislative framework. 

6.  Provide  for  coherent 
provisions 
ensuring 
protection  of  au  pairs  and 
remunerated trainees 

8.2  Monitoring 

The  Students  and  Researchers  Directive  are  currently  being  monitored,  alongside  the  other 
existing Directives in the area of immigration, through an expert group of representatives of 
the Member States and the Commission (Contact Committee), as well  as the Committee on 
Immigration and Asylum (CIA). In particular in the Contact Committee, issues concerning the 
transposition and application of the Directives are discussed. The new Directive would also be 
subject  to  monitoring  in  the  Contact  Committee  and  the  CIA.  These  structures  ensure  an 
efficient  information  flow  between  the  Commission  and  national  authorities  on  how  the 

50 

 
 
directive  is  implemented  and  are  intended  to  help  anticipate  and  resolve  problems  more 
effectively. 

8.3 

Transposition 

The  time  limit  for  transposition  of  the  new  Directive will be two years  after adoption. Two 
years  appears  to  be  an  adequate  period  for  transposition  of  the  Directive  into  national  law 
since most of the legal provisions already exist under the currently applicable Directives on 
students and researchers. A more significant effort will be needed for cases where no specific 
rules exist at present. 

51 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I QUANTITATIVE RESULTS FROM CONSULTATION SURVEY 

1461  responses  were  received  in  total.  The  consultation  closed  on  23  August  2012.  Please 
note that not all questions were compulsory and therefore the absolute numbers responding to 
any specific question varies.  

Researchers 

  A very large majority of respondents (91%) thought that the attractiveness of the EU as a 

destination for researchers should be improved. 

  The biggest issues in relation to EU rules for non-EU researchers coming to the EU were 
seen to be visas (mentioned by 69%) and residence permits (66%). Lack of clarity around 
hosting  agreements  and  insufficient  time  limits  on  application  decisions  were  also 
mentioned by around a quarter of respondents. 

  When  presented  with  a  list  of  possible  actions82  to  improve  the  current  rules  on 
researchers,  almost  all  receive  very  high  levels  of  support,  with  between  82%  and  90% 
saying each action is important83. Between 45% and 59% of all respondents also thought 
each action was 'very important'. 

  Making it easier for researchers who have permission to be in one Member State to go to 
another  Member  State  for  their  research  received  the  highest  support  (90%  said  it  was 
important),  followed  by  setting  time  limits  on  application  decisions  and  increasing 
synergies with mobility programmes such as Marie Curie (87% and 86% respectively) and 
automatic issuing of visas once the residence permit conditions are fulfilled (86%).  

  When asked about the future of the hosting agreement non-EU researchers conclude with 
recognized institutions, the majority of respondents (59%) felt that this mechanism should 
be  retained,  but  more  guidance  should  be  given  on  its  form  and  content.  Slightly  more 
(23%)  thought  that  the  hosting  agreement  should  stay  as  it  is,  than  that  it  should  be 
replaced completely (17%). 

  Regarding the status of PhD students as students or researcher, most people (45%) felt that 
they should be treated as researchers. Slightly over three in ten (35%) felt that it should be 
left up to national authorities to decide depending on circumstances. 

  A very large majority (94%) thought that researchers should be allowed to remain in the 

EU for a time to look for work after the end of their research project. 

  Similarly, most respondents felt that it should be possible to apply for research residence 

permits from both outside and inside the EU (87%). 

82    Automatic  issuing  of  visas  if  conditions  for  residence  are  fulfilled;  procedural  safeguards/time  limits  on 
decisions; access to labour market; intra-EU mobility; synergies of migration rules with EU programmes on 
mobility eg. Marie Curie, facilitation of stays for less than 3 months 

83 "Important" is defined, throughout this document, as  including  those who replied "fairly important, important 

and very important" 

52 

 
                                                 
Students 

  As with researchers, a very large majority (87%) thought that the attractiveness of the EU 

as a destination for students should be improved. 

  Visas  and  residence  permits  (mentioned  respectively  by  70%  and  66%  of  respondents) 
were  seen  as  the  key  issues  relating  to  rules  for  non-EU  students  coming  to  the  EU.  
Around five in ten also mentioned overly restrictive access to the labour market (51%) and 
insufficient  synergies  between  migration  rules  and  EU  mobility  programmes  such  as 
Erasmus Mundus  mentioned by 39% of respondents). 

  Almost  all  possible  policy  actions  to  improve  the  EU  rules  for  students84  were  seen  as 
important  by  eight  in  ten  or  more  (83%-88%).  The  only  exception  to  this  was  allowing 
students  to  be  accompanied  by  their  families,  which  was  seen  as  important  by  slightly 
fewer people (64%). 

  The  policy  actions  that  received  the  most  support  were  to  make  it  easier  for  students  to 
move  to  other  EU  states  and  to  set  a  time limit  for  Member  States  to  take  a  decision  on 
allowing students to come to the country (88%), followed by the automatic issuing of visas 
if  conditions  are  fulfilled  (86%),  increasing  synergies  with  EU  mobility  programmes 
(86%), , allowing greater access to labour market (85%) and facilitating access and stay for 
periods below 3 months (83%). 

In  terms  of  actions  beyond  changing  the  rules,  all  three  options  provided,  fast-track 
procedures,  assistance  in  filling  out  applications  and  better  information  provision  all 
received the support of over half of respondents. 

  A  large  majority  (94%)  of  respondents  thought  students  should  be  allowed  to  study  in 
another  Member  State  without  requiring  a  new  residence  permit.  Of  this,  over  a  third 
(37%)  thought  that  students  should  only  be  allowed  to  move  for  a  limited  time,  e.g.  a 
semester. When asked about the number of hours students are allowed to work per week, 
views  were  mixed.  25%  felt  that  the  current  threshold  of  10  hours/week  should  be 
maintained,  while  more  than  seven  in  ten  either  thought  the  number  of  hours  should  be 
increased (42%) or that there should be no threshold (30%). Only 3% thought the threshold 
should be less than 10 hours. 

  A  very  large  majority  (90%)  felt  that  students  should  be  allowed  to  stay  in  the  EU  for  a 

time after graduation to look for work. 

  Similarly,  most  respondents  felt  that  it  should  be  possible  to  apply  for  student  residence 

permits from both outside and within the EU (79%). 

84    Automatic  issuing  of  visas  if  conditions  for  residence  are  fulfilled;  procedural  safeguards/time  limits  on 
decisions; access to labour market; family reunification; intra-EU mobility; synergies of migration rules with 
EU programmes on mobility eg. Erasmus Mundus; facilitation of stays for less than 3 months 

53 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
School pupils, volunteers and unpaid trainees 

  71% thought that the attractiveness of the EU as a destination for school pupils should be 
improved, 74% thought the attractiveness for volunteers and unpaid trainees (73%) needed 
to be improved. 

  Visas and residence permits were again seen as the biggest issues for all three groups. It 
should  be  noted  that  compared  to  the  questions  on  researchers  and  students,  a  smaller 
number of respondents answered these questions. 

Statistics tables85 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

Type of respondent 

Student 

Member of academia, teacher 

Researcher (less than 4 years 
postgraduate research experience) 

Educational establishment (eg. 
university department) 

Post Doc Researcher (or more 
than 4 years postgraduate 
research experience) 

NGO 

Research organisation 

Other 

Public authority 

Volunteer 

International organisation 

Consultant 

Company 

Trainee  

29% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

11 % 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

School pupil 

0% (0,07%) 

85 Throughout the document, the figures were rounded to whole numbers. 

54 

 
 
                                                 
Gender 

Female 

Male 

Country of citizenship – top 20  

44% 

56% 

Turkey 

Germany 

United Kingdom 

Italy 

India 

France 

Uruguay 

Brazil 

China 

Spain 

Ukraine 

Iran 

Russia 

Portugal 

Ireland 

United States 

Austria  

Mexico 

Albania 

Belgium 

13 % 

6% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country of citizenship – top 5 non-EU   

Turkey 

India 

Uruguay 

Brazil 

China 

13 

4% 

4 

3% 

3% 

Country of citizenship – top 5 EU 

Germany 

United Kingdom 

Italy 

France 

Spain 

RESEARCHERS 

6% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

Do you think the attractiveness of the EU as a destination for researchers should be 
improved? 

Yes 

No 

N=125286 

91% 

9% 

What do you see as the main issues in relation to non-EU researchers coming to the EU 
and the main problems/shortcomings in the current EU rules on researchers? You may 
choose more than one option listed below.  

Visas 

Residence permits 

Insufficiently  clear  definitions  regarding  the  legal 
quality and format of hosting agreements 

69% 

66% 

32% 

Insufficiently  binding  time  limits  for  deciding  on  an 

27% 

86 N = total number of respondents who replied to that question 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
application  

Insufficiently  uniform  way  of  updating  and 
publishing the list of research organisations  

Other 

N=1198 

20% 

12% 

Which of the following actions could improve the current rules on researchers coming to 
the EU? Please rank actions in order of importance. You may rank as many or as few 
options as you wish. 

Once the conditions for the residence permit are fulfilled the entry visas are issued (if 
needed) 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1380 

2% 

5% 

23% 

13% 

50% 

8%87  

Set a time limit for the Member State to take a decision on whether to give a researcher 
permission to come to the country  

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1380 

3% 

6% 

21% 

20% 

46% 

4% 

87 Due to a technical problem with this question on-line, respondents were obliged to answer "no opinion" for 
each subsection of the question, even if they did not want to answer this part of the questionnaire, in order that 
the questionnaire could be submitted. In processing the data, if "no opinion" responses were submitted for all 
the  subsections,  this  was  considered  as  a  non-reply  to  this  question  and  deducted  from  the  total  number  of 
responses. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Allow researchers more access to the labour market during their period of research (not 
just teaching) 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1380 

3% 

10% 

17% 

21% 

45% 

4% 

Make it easier for researchers who have permission to come to a Member State to go to 
another Member State for their research 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1380 

2% 

6% 

13% 

17% 

59% 

3% 

Increase synergies between EU migration rules with EU programmes on mobility (eg. 
Marie Curie) 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1380 

1% 

5% 

15% 

19% 

53% 

7% 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Further facilitate access and stay of researchers for stays below 3 months 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1380 

3% 

7% 

19% 

20% 

44% 

7% 

What other actions (including non-legislative actions) could help to facilitate access of 
non-EU researchers to the EU? Please include any examples of relevant best practice 
which you are aware of.  

Fast-track procedures 

Assistance  from  relevant  authorities  in  filling  in 
the required applications 

Better  provision  of  information  (e.g.  on  the 
conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to be 
admitted as a researcher) 

Other 

N=1380 

58% 

61% 

66% 

5% 

Under the current EU rules, non-EU researchers conclude a 'hosting agreement' with a 
recognized research institution before they are allowed to enter and reside in a Member 
State. In your view, should any revision of the current rules: 

Keep the hosting agreement mechanism as it is 

Keep  the  hosting  agreement,  but  modify  it  by 
giving  more  detailed  guidance  on  its  form  and 
content 

23% 

59% 

Replace the hosting agreement mechanism 

17% 

N= 1021 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Currently non-EU nationals pursuing a PhD are treated in different ways, i.e. sometimes 
they are seen as students, sometimes as researchers (working under a work permit). In 
the future instrument: 

All non-EU PhD candidates should be treated in 
the same way, i.e. as students. 

All non-EU PhD candidates should be treated in 
the same way, i.e. as researchers. 

Depending  on  the  specific  situation  of  the  non-
EU  PhD  candidates  (e.g.  depending  on  if  they 
study  full-time  or  while  working  for  a  private 
company), it should be left to national authorities 
to decide on their status. 

N=1130 

In your opinion, the new rules should: 

Include specific measures for researchers coming 
under 
financed 
programmes for mobility (e.g. Marie Curie) 

framework 

of  EU 

the 

20% 

45%] 

35% 

33% 

Target all non-EU researchers without distinction 

67% 

N=1070 

Should researchers be allowed to stay in the EU once they have completed their 
research? 

Yes,  a  temporary  extension  should  be  given  to 
enable researchers to start a new research project, 
engage in other work or establish a company. 

No, researchers should not be allowed to remain 
in the EU to look for work after the end of their 
research project. 

94% 

6% 

N=1143 

Currently applications for residence permits for non-EU researchers should normally be 
made when the applicant is outside the EU. Under new rules: 

Applications should continue to have to be made 
from outside of the EU 

should  be 

Applicants 
to  make 
applications from outside of and from within the 
EU 

allowed 

13% 

87% 

N=1106 

60 

 
 
 
 
STUDENTS 
Do you think that the attractiveness of the EU as a destination for students should be 
improved? 

Yes 

No 

N= 1270 

87% 

13% 

What do you see as the main issues in relation to non-EU students coming to the EU and 
the main problems/shortcomings in the current EU rules on students? You may choose 
more than one from the options listed below.  

Visas 

Residence permits 

Insufficient procedural safeguards (time-limits to 
assess an application, rights of appeal) 

Overly restrictive access to labour market  

Lack  of  provisions  on  the  possibility  for  the 
students to be joined by their families 

Difficulties with intra-EU mobility 

Unclear rules on sickness insurance 

Insufficient  synergies  between  migration  rules 
and  EU  programmes  on  mobility  (eg.  Erasmus 
Mundus) 

Other 

N=1198 

70% 

66% 

35% 

51% 

28% 

35% 

29% 

39% 

5% 

Which of the following actions could improve the current rules on students coming to 
the EU? Please rank actions in order of importance. You may rank as many or as few 
options as you wish. 

Once the conditions for the residence permit are fulfilled the entry visas are issued (if 
needed) 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

2% 

5% 

21% 

14% 

61 

 
 
 
 
Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1390 

51% 

7% 

Set a time limit for the Member State to take a decision on whether to give a student 
permission to come to the country 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1390 

3% 

5% 

20% 

19% 

49% 

4% 

Allow greater labour market access to students during their period of study 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1390 

3% 

10% 

20% 

22% 

43% 

2% 

Allow students to be accompanied by their families when they come to the EU 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1390 

12% 

19% 

23% 

15% 

27% 

4%  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
Make it easier for students to move between different EU Member States once they have 
been admitted to one of the Member States as students 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1390 

2% 

7% 

18% 

19% 

51% 

2% 

Increase synergies with EU programmes on mobility (eg. Erasmus Mundus) 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1390 

2% 

6% 

18% 

21% 

47% 

6% 

Facilitate access and stay of students for stays below 3 months 

Not at all important 

Slightly Important 

Important 

Fairly Important 

Very Important 

No opinion 

N=1390 

4% 

8% 

20% 

20% 

42% 

10% 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What other actions (including non-legislative actions) could help to facilitate access of 
non-EU students to the EU? Please include any examples of relevant best practice which 
you are aware of.  

Fast-track procedures 

Assistance  from  relevant  authorities  in  filling  in 
the required applications 

Better  provision  of  information  (e.g.  on  the 
conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to be 
admitted as a student) 

Other 

N=1143 

In your opinion, the new rules should: 

Include  specific  measures  for  students  coming 
financed 
under 
programmes for mobility (eg. Erasmus Mundus) 

framework 

of  EU 

the 

69% 

67% 

69% 

4% 

31% 

Target all non-EU students without distinction 

69% 

N= 1110 

Do you think that students admitted into one EU Member State should be allowed to 
move and study in another Member State without requiring a new residence permit? 

Yes 

Yes, but for a limited time, e.g. one semester 

No 

N=1169 

58% 

37% 

6% 

Under the current rules students must be allowed to work at least 10 hours per week. In 
your opinion:  

This threshold should be maintained 

This  threshold  should  be  decreased  to  less  than 
10 hours per week 

There  should  be  a  threshold,  but  it  should  me 
more than 10 hours 

There should be no limit on the number of hours 
students are allowed to work 

N=1147 

25% 

3% 

42% 

30% 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
Should students be allowed to stay in the EU once they have completed their studies in 
order to look for work? 

Yes,  they  should  be  allowed  to  stay  to  identify 
work opportunities in the EU. 

No, students should not be  allowed to remain in 
the EU to look for work after graduation. 

90% 

10% 

N=1158 

Currently applications for residence permits for non-EU students should normally be 
made when the applicant is outside the EU. Under new rules: 

Applications  should  continue  to  be  made  from 
outside  of  the  EU,  with  Member  States  having 
the  possibility  to  allow  them  to  be  made  from 
within the EU 

should  be 

Applicants 
to  make 
applications from outside of and from within the 
EU 

allowed 

21% 

79% 

N=1114 

SCHOOL PUPILS 

Do you think that the attractiveness of the EU as a destination for school pupils should 
be improved? 

Yes 

No 

N=740 

71% 

29% 

What do you see as the main issues in relation to non-EU school pupils coming to the EU 
and the main problems/shortcomings in the current EU rules on pupils? 

Visas 

Residence permits 

Difficulties  in  giving  relevant  information  for  a 
visa application well in advance of school pupils' 
arrival 

National rules on sickness insurance 

Insufficient  clarity  on  what  constitutes  a 
"recognised  organisation"  operating  a  secondary 
education programme 

Other 

N=568 

68% 

63% 

55% 

32% 

44% 

6% 

65 

 
 
 
VOLUNTEERS 

Do you think that the attractiveness of the EU as a destination as a destination for 
volunteers should be improved? 

Yes 

No 

N=690 

74% 

26% 

What do you see as the main issues in relation to non-EU volunteers coming to the EU 
and the main problems/shortcomings in the current EU rules on volunteers? 

Visas 

Residence permits 

Difficulties  in  giving  relevant  information  for  a 
visa  application  well  in  advance  of  volunteers' 
arrival 

National  rules  on  sickness  insurance  and  other 
types of insurance cover (eg. accident insurance, 
3rd party liability insurance, etc) 

Insufficient clarity on what constitutes a State or 
EU  scheme  operating  a  voluntary  exchange 
programme 

Issues with formal recognition or certification of 
the volunteering activity 

Other 

N=548 

UNPAID TRAINEES 

76% 

68% 

50% 

36% 

46% 

47% 

5% 

Do you think that the attractiveness of the EU as a destination for unpaid trainees 
should be improved? 

Yes 

No 

N= 668 

73% 

27% 

What do you see as the main issues in relation to non-EU unpaid trainees coming to the 
EU and the main problems/shortcomings in the current EU rules on unpaid trainees? 

Visas 

Residence permits 

Other 

N=541  

81% 

73% 

7% 

66 

 
 
ANNEX II NUMBERS OF RESIDENCE PERMITS TO THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONAL STUDENTS AND 

RESEARCHERS 

Remunerated activities reasons: Researchers – first permits 

GEO/TIME 
European Union (27 countries) 
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 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

4.389
96

6.242
0

: 

: 

45

39
7
169
16
501
1.925
35
0
3
1

: 

: 
: 

: 

: 

33
0
864
151
11

5
10

478

: 

: 

61
783
94
15
166
31
390
2.243
118
0
1
2
14
35
0
1.305
143
11

: 
: 

: 

: 

8
10

812

: 

: 

7.056
154

0
860
129
15
89
23
488
2.271
336
0
7
5
15
34
0
1.485
228
69
0
12
8
5

823

7.610
145
0
0
737
167
18
111
28
447
2.075
353
0
3
0
26
22
0
1.616
184
317
0
8
17
9
510
817

: 

Special values: 

0 less than half the final digit shown and greater than real zero  

: not available  

Source of Data: Eurostat (online code: [migr_resocc]) 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Students: All educational reasons 

GEO/TIME 
European Union (27 countries) 
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 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

455.702
6.743
1.168
4.220
19.279
29.985
339
12.538
1.449
21.665
52.226
28.609
4.023
346
447

7.760
202
8.850
2.853
6.145
4.344
2.969
246
449
4.441
11.695
222.711

: 

504.384
7.222
1.623
4.142
6.406
31.345
383
12.263
1.489
22.068
58.738
32.634
5.407
212
422
96
4.234
191
9.944
3.233
7.066
4.302
3.541
666
334
3.949
13.968
268.506

510.295
5.695
1.492
5.153
6.068
30.035
399
13.653
1.323
24.864
65.538
25.676
2.698
296
422
150
3.995
157
10.510
3.735
9.098
5.414
3.265
628
353
4.433
13.972
271.273

491.721 
4.035 
1.058 
4.988 
6.115 
27.568 
395 
15.131 
1.297 
35.037 
64.794 
30.260 
1.907 
459 
297 
291 
4.067 
136 
10.701 
5.031 
7.876 
6.478 
3.179 
1.038 
403 
5.370 
6.766 
247.044 

Special values: 

0 less than half the final digit shown and greater than real zero  

: not available  

Source of Data: Eurostat (online code: [migr_resedu]) 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III – QUANTITATIVE ASPECTS OF IMPACT ANALYSIS 

A key assumption in the assessment of impacts is the positive contribution that students and 
researchers (be they from the EU or elsewhere) make to innovative capacity, competitiveness 
and growth (in the case of students mainly following graduation). An increase in the EU high-
educated  labour  share  by  1%  and  a  similar  decrease  in  the  medium-educated  share  would 
results in a positive impact on productivity in the long-run ranging from 0.35% (Slovakia) to 
0.82%  (Italy)  88.  Higher  education  graduates  from  the  EU  have  significantly  higher  rates  of 
employment  than  those  with  less  advanced  levels  of  qualification,  and  have  fared 
comparatively  better  during  the  economic  crisis.  At  the  end  of  2010,  the  average 
unemployment  rate  among  graduates  in  the  EU  was  5.4%,  compared  to  an  overall 
unemployment rate of 9.3%89. 

Benefits of tertiary education can also be seen in returns on investment, both at private and 
public level. Across the EU, the annual median net income of workers with tertiary education 
is 21,700 Euro, compared to 14,700 Euro for a worker with upper secondary education, and 
12,700  Euro  for  a  worker  with  a  qualification  below  upper  secondary  level90.  On  average 
across  OECD  countries,  investment  in  tertiary  education  more  than  pays  off  both  as  far  as 
returns on  investment  on the individual and the public level are concerned. On average, the 
gross  earnings  premium  for  an  individual  with  a  tertiary  degree  exceeds  USD  300,000  for 
men  and  USD  200,000  for  women  across  OECD  countries.  The  net  public  return  on  an 
investment  in  tertiary  education  is  USD  91,000  for  men,  almost  three  times  the  amount  of 
public  investment91.  In  countries  where  third-country  national  students  pay  higher  fees  than 
nationals, the return on the amount of public investment can be even higher.  

In the case of researchers there are no additional statistics or calculations that would show the 
impact  that  (an  increase  in  the  number  of)  researchers  would  have  on  these  growth  or 
competitiveness.  While this is a strong evidence base for the benefits of tertiary education in 
general, it is not possible to precisely calculate the (economic) benefit that could be expected 
through  the  improvement  of  the  EU  immigration  rules  for  the  respective  groups.  This  is 
because  the  rates  of  those  students  and  researchers  staying  or  wishing  to  stay  following 
graduation/completion  of  research  is  not  known,  neither  is  the  length  of  the  (desired)  stay. 
The  above-cited  figures  presume  a  continued  presence  of  a  graduate  in  a  given  territory, 
however in the case of third-country national students this cannot be automatically assumed. 
The figures therefore need to be interpreted with an additional note of caution.  

As regards the impact on education systems, evidence shows that the internationalisation of 
tertiary education is not only an advantage for individuals and the public in terms of returns 
on investment, but also for education systems themselves, in particular for smaller and/or less-
developed  education  systems.  According  to  the  OECD,  the  internationalisation  of  tertiary 
education  may  allow  countries  to  focus  limited  resources  on  educational  programmes  with 
potential  economies  of  scale  or  to  expand  participation  in  tertiary  education  despite 

88  D’Auria, F., Pagano, A.M Ratto, M. and Varga, J. (2009), in Commission staff working document: Progress 
towards the common European objectives in education and training. Indicators and benchmarks 2010/2011. 
89  European  Commission  staff  working  document  (SEC  (2011)  1063  final),  20  September  2011:  Recent 

developments in European higher education systems 

90    Commission  staff  working  document:  Progress  towards the  common  European  objectives  in  education  and  

training. Indicators and benchmarks 2010/2011. Data from Eurostat SILC 2007. 

91  OECD Education at a glance 2011, p. 158 

69 

 
                                                 
bottlenecks  in  providing  it,  and  therefore  to  improve  the  cost-efficiency  of  their  education 
systems92. 

In addition, the fees that in particular third-country national students need to pay for studying 
in the EU can be presumed to partly make up for this. In the majority of EU Member States, 
students  have  to  pay  fees  in  principle,  and  in  several  cases  third-country  national  students 
have to pay  higher fees than EU  nationals93. According to the OECD, countries that charge 
their international students the full cost of education reap significant trade benefits.94  

92  OECD Education at a glance 2011, p. 319 
93  Eurydice, Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe: Funding and the Social Dimension, 2011; Austria 
for    example  charges  average  tuition  fees  for  students  who  are  not  citizens  of  the  EU  or  the  European 
Economic Area (EEA) that are twice as high as the fees charged for citizens of these countries (in case of 
public  institutions).  Similar  policies  are  found  in  Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Poland  (only  for  public 
institutions),  the  Slovak  Republic,  Slovenia,  the  UK,  Denmark  and  Sweden  (from  OECD  Education  at  a 
glance  2011);  OECD  Education  at  a  glance  2011,  Indicator  B5  –  "How  Much  Do  Tertiary 
Students Pay and What Public   Subsidies Do They Receive?". 

94  OECD Education at a glance 2011, p. 324. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX IV - ASSESSMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR OPTIONS 3 AND 4 

Familiarisation/training 

Implementation costs for familiarisation with the obligations associated to options 3 and 4 (including training the personnel of MS Immigration 
Services) have been calculated for all Member States except Denmark: In the absence of comparable information about the number of staff in 
charge of issuing authorisations in MSs, the following estimations have been made. The calculations should be interpreted with a high degree of 
caution. 

Option 3 

For option 3, an average of 4 senior officials (director, deputy directors and heads of unit) per MS would need to familiarise themselves with any 
modified and new obligations (assumption: 8 working hours, for an estimated total of 32 working hours per MS). An average of 40 officials per 
MS would be involved in training about the obligations (assumption: 8 hours of training, for an estimated total of 320 hours per Member State; 
the number of officials has been estimated on the same basis as was the case for highly-skilled workers under the impact assessment for the Blue 
Card Directive (SEC(2007) 1403). The costs have been differentiated depending on whether or not countries already make use of the optional 
rules  under  Directive  2004/114  or  not.  Eleven  Member  States  have  not  yet  made  use  of  the  optional  rules,  hence  additional  costs  have  been 
assumed, even if national rules exist for the respective groups. 

Table 1  Familiarisation/training costs Option 3 

Proposal  on  conditions  of  entry  and  residence  for  third  country  national  students  and  researchers,  school  pupils, 

volunteers, remunerated and unremunerated trainees, au pairs (EU except DK) 

Tariff

(€ per hour)

Time 
(hour)

Price
(per 
action or 
equip)

Freq 
(one-off)

Nbr 
of 
entities

Total nbr
of 
actions

Total 
cost

Regulatory
origin
(%)

No  

Type of obligation 

Description  of  required 
action(s) 

Target group 

i

e

i

e

Int  EU  Nat 

Reg 

1 

on 
Provisions 
rights, 
authorisations, 
guarantees, 
procedural 
intra-EU  mobility,  and 
labour market access 

Familiarising  with  the  new 
obligations on students 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

–

23

32

736

1

26

26

19.136

  100% 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
on 
Provisions 
rights, 
authorisations, 
procedural 
guarantees, 
intra-EU  mobility,  access 
to  job-seeking  and  labour 
market access 

Training  members 
and 
employees  about  the  new 
obligations on students 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

Provisions 
on 
authorisations,  rights,  and 
procedural guarantees 

Familiarising  with 
newly 
provisions 
pupils, 
unremunerated trainees 

on 
volunteers 

the 
obligatory 
school 
and 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

Provisions 
on 
authorisations,  rights,  and 
procedural guarantees 

Training  members 
and 
employees about the newly 
obligatory  provisions  on 
school  pupils,  volunteers 
and unremunerated trainees

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

–

–

–

23

320

7.360

1

26

26

191.360

  100% 

23

23

72

1.656

1

11

11

18.216

100% 

600

13.800

1

11

11

151.800

100% 

Familiarisation/training 

costs (€)

380.512

2 

3 

4 

Option 4 

For option 4, an average of 6 senior officials (director, deputy directors and heads of unit) per MS would need to familiarise themselves with any 
modified and new obligations (assumption: 12 working hours, for an estimated total of 72 working hours per MS). An average of 50 officials per 
MS would be involved in training about the obligations (assumption: 12 hours of training, for an estimated total of 600 hours per Member State; 
the number of officials has been estimated on the same basis as was the case for highly-skilled workers under the impact assessment for the Blue 
Card Directive (SEC(2007) 1403). The costs have been differentiated depending on whether or not countries already make use of the optional 
rules  under  Directive  2004/114  or  not.  Eleven  Member  States  have  not  yet  made  use  of  the  optional  rules,  hence  additional  costs  have  been 
assumed, even if national rules exist for the respective groups. For remunerated trainees and au-pairs, no matter whether or not national rules 
exist, familiarisation and training costs have been calculated for all 26 MSs. 

72 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2  Familiarisation/training costs Option 4 

Proposal  on  conditions  of  entry  and  residence  for  third  country  national  students  and  researchers,  school  pupils, 

volunteers, remunerated and unremunerated trainees, au pairs (EU except DK) 

Tariff

(€ per hour)

Time
(hour)

Price
(per 
action or 
equip)

Freq 
(one-off)

Nbr 
of 
entities

Total nbr
of 
actions

Total 
cost

Regulatory
origin
(%)

No  

Type of obligation 

Description  of  required 
action(s) 

Target group 

i

e

i

e

Int  EU  Nat 

Reg 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

on 
Provisions 
rights, 
authorisations, 
guarantees, 
procedural 
intra-EU  mobility, 
et 
access  to  job-seeking  and 
labour market access 

on 
Provisions 
rights, 
authorisations, 
procedural 
guarantees, 
intra-EU  mobility,  access 
to  job-seeking  and  labour 
market access 

Familiarising  with  the  new 
obligations on students and 
researchers 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

Training  members 
and 
employees  about  the  new 
obligations on students and 
researchers 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

Provisions 
on 
authorisations,  rights,  and 
procedural guarantees 

Familiarising  with 
newly 
provisions 
pupils, 
unremunerated trainees 

on 
volunteers 

the 
obligatory 
school 
and 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

on 
Provisions 
authorisations,  rights,  and 
procedural guarantees 

Training  members 
and 
employees about the newly 
obligatory  provisions  on 
school  pupils,  volunteers 
and unremunerated trainees

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

Provisions 
authorisations, 
intra-EU  mobility 
procedural guarantees 

on 
rights, 
and 

Familiarising  with  the  new 
obligations on  remunerated 
trainees 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

Provisions 
authorisations, 
intra-EU  mobility 
procedural guarantees 

on 
rights, 
and 

Training  members 
employees 
remunerated trainees 

and 
about 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

–

–

–

–

–

–

23

72

1.656

1

26

26

43.056

  100% 

23

600

13.800

1

26

26

358.800

  100% 

72

1.656

1

11

11

18.216

100% 

600

13.800

1

11

11

151.800

100% 

36

828

300

6.900

1

1

26

26

26

21.528

100% 

26

179.400

100% 

23

23

23

23

73 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 

8 

on 
Provisions 
authorisations,  rights,  and 
procedural guarantees 

Familiarising  with  the  new 
obligations on au-pairs 

Provisions 
on 
authorisations,  rights,  and 
procedural guarantees 

Training  members 
employees about au-pairs 

and 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 

–

–

23

23

36

828

300

6.900

1

1

26

26

26

21.528

100% 

26

179.400

100% 

Familiarisation/training 

costs (€)

973.728

Implementation costs for both options 

Implementation  costs  for  processing  applications  have  been  assumed  to  be  the  same  for  both  options  for  the  types  of  work,  as  no  reliable 
information exists on the change of the current system with permits to one allowing for both permits and long-stay visa. The total number of 
working hours for processing an application and issuing a decision/an authorisation has been estimated to 12 working hours, with additional time 
being added to account for administering cases of intra-EU mobility (adding 8 working hours) for students, and 16 working hours for researchers 
(combined for immigration authorities and research organizations), with no extra costs for mobility provisions as these are already existent for 
researchers. 
The frequency of the action has been associated to a presumed increase of 10% of successful applications which in terms of additional numbers 
among  the  respective  groups  could  be  considered  an  optimistic  scenario.  For  researchers,  a  10%  increase  would  mean  an  additional  695 
researchers (up from 6,945 to 7,640), equalling on average an additional 26 researchers per Member States. For third-country nationals coming to 
the  EU  for  study  and  education  purposes  (students,  school  pupils,  volunteers  and  unremunerated  trainees),  a  10%  increase  would  mean  an 
additional  50,000  third-country  nationals  (up  from  500,000  to  550,000),  equalling  on  average  an  additional  1,923  third-country  nationals  per 
MS). It is assumed that 10% of all third-country national students would make use of intra-EU mobility provisions (50,000). Groups that would 
be  added  under  Option  4  are  currently  partly  covered  under  national  rules.  As  adding  them  to  the  Directive  will  not  in  itself  automatically 
increase the numbers, no separate quantification has been added in terms of implementation costs for these groups. Given that each application 
for a permit, whether or not it will be successful in the end, has to be submitted, and given that for unsuccessful applications an additional burden 
can be expected due to potential complaints, the costs have been assumed to be equal for all applications.  The hourly tariffs of Member States' 
personnel are estimated to be Euro 23, based on EU average hourly labour costs in public administration (NACE L), extracted from Eurostat. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3 Administrative costs researchers (for Options 3 and 4) 

Proposal on conditions of entry and residence of third-country highly skilled workers 

Tariff

(€ per hour)

Time 
(hour)

Price
(per 
action or 
equip)

Freq 
(per 
year)

Nbr 
of 
entities

Total nbr
of 
actions

Total 
cost

Regulatory
origin
(%)

No
. 

1 

3 

Type of obligation 

Description  of  required 
action(s) 

Target group 

i

e

i

e

Int  EU  Nat 

Reg 

Application for individual 
authorisation 
or 
exemption  

Processing 
application/Producing  new 
data 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 
research 
institutions 
(applications) 

–

and 

Application for individual 
authorisation 
or 
exemption 

Issuing permit/decision 

–

MS 
Immigration 
Services-Intra  EU 
mobility 

23

23

12

276

26

26

695

186.576

  100% 

4

92

26

26

695

62.192

100% 

Administrative costs 

researchers (€)

248.768

75 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 Administrative costs students, school pupils, volunteers, and unremunerated trainees; (Option 4 with remunerated trainees and au-pairs) 

i

8

4

4

4

Time 
(hour)

Price
(per 
action or 
equip)

e

Freq 
(per 
year)

Nbr 
of 
entities

Total nbr
of 
actions

Total 
cost

Regulatory
origin
(%)

Int  EU  Nat 

Reg 

184

1,923

26

50,000

9.199.632

  100% 

92

1,923

26

50,000

4.599.816

100% 

92

2,115

26

50,000

4.600.000

100% 

92

2,115

26

50,000

4.600.000

100% 

Administrative costs students, school 
pupils, volunteers and 

unremunerated trainees (€)

22.999.448

Proposal on conditions of entry and residence of third-country highly skilled workers 

Tariff

(€ per hour)

No
. 

Type of obligation 

Description  of  required 
action(s) 

Target group 

i

e

1 

3 

4 

5 

Application for individual 
authorisation 
or 
exemption  

Processing 
application/Producing  new 
data 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 
(applications) 

Application for individual 
authorisation 
or 
exemption 

Issuing permit/decision 

MS 
Immigration 
Services 
(applications) 

–

–

Application for individual 
authorisation 
or 
exemption 

Processing data 

Application for individual 
authorisation 
or 
exemption 

Submitting information 

–

MS 
Immigration 
Services-Intra  EU 
mobility 

–

MS 
Immigration 
Services-Intra  EU 
mobility 

23

23

23

23

76 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex V: Overview of national immigration rules and flows of third-country national 
au-pairs and remunerated trainees; volunteers, school pupils and unremunerated 
trainees; students' access to job-seeking or the labour market following graduation 

Third-country national au pairs 

Number  of  au-pairs  (EU-national  and  third-country  national  au-pairs)  hosted  in  each 
Member  State  in  the  last  three  years  (2009,  2010,  2011).  Many  EU  au  pairs  are  not 
counted in the figures as their registration is not compulsory or a work permit is not 
needed. 

Year

Member State 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

2009

-

420

-

2010

-

462

-

2011

-

425

-

No information

No information

No information

-

5,364 

-

5,240

-

5,080

No information

No information

No information

No information

No information

No information

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

75

(6,000)

-

No information

No information

No information

-

-

-

-

41

1,321 

-

-

-

-

-

-

54

1,376

-

-

71

-

-

-

84 (1 EU)

1,181

-

-

No information

No information

No information

190

200

134

77 

 
 
SK 

SI 

UK 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Immigration  regulations  in  each  Member  State  specific  to  third-country  national  au-
pairs. 

Member 
State 

Immigration  regulations  (admission  conditions,  need  for  a  work  permit, 
maximum duration of stay, rights granted, permitted duties, etc.) 

AT 

a.  Permit/VISA 

-  Residence permit 

b.  General conditions (accommodation, insurance, number of children, info on 

host family, job agencies…) 
-  An authorised job agency located, 
-  Au pair not previously listed as au pair in Austria for longer than a year 

in the last five years 

-  Registration with the legal social insurance (ASVG).  
-  Free board and lodging  
-  Host  family  to  pay  for  private  insurance  and  participation  in  language 

courses and cultural events. 

-  Get part of the family life of the host family (at least one parent with a 

child) 

c.  Age 

-  Au pair not younger than 18 and not older than 28 

d.  Length 

-  Confirmation  initially  issued  for  six  months,  possibly  extended  for  a 

maximum of six months under certain criteria. 
e.  Working conditions (pocket money, working hours) 

-  The wage of Au Pairs employed from 1 January 2012 is at least 376.26 

euro (monthly subsistence payment).  

-  Weekly working time of 20 hours 
-  help with the household chores including child care 

f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

-  Get  to  know  the  country  and  people  of  Austria  and  shall  deepen  the 
knowledge of German acquired in their home countries with the help of 
the host family,  

-  Proof a minimum of German knowledge (school lessons or one semester 
of  study  or  a  language  course)  before  the  start  of  the  employment  by 
presenting  a  school  report  or  other  certificate  in  German  or  English 
translation. 

BE 

a.  Permit/VISA 

-  national passport valid for at least 1 year,  
-  a certificate a good conduct and behaviour,  
-  a medical certificate  
-  work permit B. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b.  General conditions (accommodation, insurance, number of children, info on 

host family, job agencies…) 
-  Finished secondary school. In case the au pair applies before obtaining a 
secondary education diploma, a certificate by the school, stating that the 
au  pair  is  currently  finishing  the  last  year  of  secondary  school  is 
sufficient; 

-  Well accommodated, private bedroom; 
- 

Insurance  for  the  au  pair  throughout  the  entire  duration  of  the  stay  to 
cover illness, hospitalisation and accidents; 
-  At least have one child under the age of 13; 
-  Certificate of good conduct for all (residing) adult family members; 
-  No valid work permit issued for another au pair. 

c.  Age 

-  Au pair between 18 and 26 years of age, with an additional condition 

that the au pair receives a work permit before turning 26 

d.  Length 

-  May not exceed 1 year 
- 

It can be renewed once, in so far as the period does not exceed 1 year 

e.  Working conditions (pocket money, working hours) 

-  At least 450€ per month, to be put 

in a specific bank account for the au 

pair 

-  One day off per week minimum, and one full week-end off per month; 
-  Not have previously obtained a work permit of any kind in Belgium; 
-  Not allowed to take any other work in Belgium than that of au pair; 
-  Change of host family possible once, in so far as the total period does 

not exceed 1 year and all other conditions are met. 

f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

-  Basic knowledge of the language of the guest family or commit to follow 

an intensive language course immediately after arrival in Belgium; 

-  Attend  a  course  regularly.  The  school  attended  by  the  au  pair  must 
provide a 3-month certificate, proving that the au pair has completed the 
course; 

The common rules for residence and work permit regimes are valid also for au-
pairs. In their case the residence periods are not calculated for the period needed 
for grating a long-term residence status. 

No information 

No specific legislation  
a.  Permit/VISA 
b.  General conditions (accommodation, insurance, number of children, info on 

host family, job agencies…) 
-  activity in a family where the mother tongue is German  

c.  Age 

-  Au pair under age 25 

d.  Length 

-  Activities up to 1 year 

e.  Working conditions (pocket money, working hours) 
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

-  basic knowledge of the German language 

79 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

 
 
DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

a.  Permit/VISA 

- 

residence  permit  for  a  max  of  24  months,  but  no  longer  than  au  pair 
period 

-  not equal to work permit 
-  not previously have stayed in Denmark as an au pair with different host 

families for more than one year 

-  not previously have held a Danish residence permit 

b.  General conditions (accommodation, insurance, number of children, info on 

host family, job agencies…) 
-  not have the same nationality as one or more members of the host family 
-  not be related to one or more members of the host family 
-  not be married, have been married or currently be living with a partner 
-  not have any children 
-  completed the equivalent of nine years of schooling 
-  not  previously  have  had  two  or  more  au  pair  stays  in  other  Western 

countries 

-  host family of at least one parent and one child under 18 living at home 
-  at least one parent must be a Danish citizen (not valid for EU citizens or 

- 

those having lived in DK for a long period) 
fill in and sign the au pair contract developed by the Danish Agency for 
Labour Retention and International Recruitment 

-  not have other au pairs 
-  pay trip home if resident of a country outside Europe 
-  provide with appropriate care if au pairs falls ill  
- 

take  out  three  types  of  insurance:  for  work-related  injuries,  covering 
leisure  time  and  accidents,  and  covering  the  costs  of  you  returning  to 
your homeland in case of death or serious illness or accident 

c.  Age 

-  between 17 and 29 (both years included) at the time of application  

d.  Length 

-  Activities up to 1 year 

e.  Working conditions (pocket money, working hours) 

-  Contribute to the household by carrying out chores related to the family's 
daily housekeeping, such as babysitting, cleaning and washing clothes.  

-  daily chores for three to five hours per day, six days per week, 
-  one full day off every week 
-  Not take on responsibilities related to personal care or sick care of adult 

members of the host family 

-  minimum monthly allowance of DKK 3,150  
- 
free food and lodging (private bedroom) 
- 
risk of deportation for working illegally in Denmark.  
- 
risk of fine or imprisonment also for the host family 

f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

-  working knowledge of Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, English or German 
- 
sufficient  time  to  follow  language  courses  and  pursue  cultural  and 
professional interests 

No information 

- 

Working for a family in exchange for stay and being maintained by that family 

80 

 
FI 

FR 

while  improving  one's  professional  and  linguistic  skills  shall  be  regulated  in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in international agreements concerning 
au-pair placements 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  General rules on residence permits for work purposes are applied; 
-  A residence permit must be applied for before coming to Finland. 

b.  General conditions (accommodation, insurance, number of children, info on 

host family, job agencies…) 
-  Live in the host family like a family member 
-  Not related to the host family  

c.  Age 

-  Aged between 17 and 30 years 

d.  Length 

-  Up to 1 year 
-  Extension not allowed 

e.  Working conditions (pocket money, working hours) 

-  Pay  for up-keeping with light  domestic work, but not a full-time child-

minder or housekeeper; 

-  Not worked as an au pair before, in Finland or in another country. 

f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

- 

Interested  in  the  Finnish  or  Swedish  language  and  the  Finnish  culture, 
and studied them beforehand 

a.  Permit/VISA 

-  “Student” visa  
-  This  long-stay  visa  equivalent  to  a  residence  permit  (visa  long  séjour 
valant titre de séjour = VLS-TS) can be issued for a maximum of twelve 
months and can be renewed. 

b.  General conditions (accommodation, insurance, number of children, info on 

host family, job agencies…) 
-  Medical  certificate  issued  less  than  3  months  before  the  placement 

stating general state of health  

-  Proof of the level of studies should also be provided.  
-  Written  agreement  between  the  au-pair  and  the  host  family  to  be 
approved by the Direction régionale des entreprises, de la concurrence 
et  de  la  consommation,  du  travail  et  de  l’emploi  (DIRECCTE)  prior  to 
the entry of the third country national in France or during the first week 
after arrival. 

-  Board and lodging shall be provided by the reception family 
-  The  host  family  has  to  pay  employers'  general  social  security 

contributions. 

c.  Age 

-  Aged from 18 to 30 years (stagiaires aides-familiaux) 

d.  Length 

-  From three months to one year. It can be extended up to 18 months. 

e.  Working conditions (pocket money, working hours)  
-  Working time cannot exceed 5 hours per day. 
-  One full day-off per week, at least one Sunday a month  
-  Pocket money between 75 and 90 times the guaranteed minimum which 
corresponds to 3.44 € (that is between 261.75 and 314.10 € per month)

f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

81 

 
 
HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

-  Enrol to specialized French language courses for foreigners in France. 

General admission and residence rules apply to them with that exemption if they 
to  perform  work  for  or  under  the  direction  and/or  supervision  of  others,  for 
remuneration,  under  contract  for  employment  relationship  they  shall  be 
authorized for the purpose of gainful employment. 

No information 

This category falls within regulations provided for by paragraph 1 of article 27 
of  the  Consolidation  Act  on  Immigration  of  1998,  encompassing  all  workers 
which are not contemplated by the annual entry quotas. 

The employer has the responsibility to address the Single Desk for Immigration 
at the Prefecture of the province where the work should be carried on. The same 
employer,  in  case  he/she  knows  the  employee  to  hire,  needs  to  apply  for  a 
specific  authorization  to  employed  “au  pair”  work  as  per  the  art.  27  comma  1 
letter r. 

General  rules  regarding  temporary  residence  permit  and  work  permit  are 
applied. The work permit and the temporary residence permit are usually issued 
for the period of one year. 

The  young  persons  who  are  reception  as  au-pair  must  have  been  hired  with  a 
working  contract  in  the  terms  and  conditions  establish  by  Title  II  of  the  First 
Book of the Labour Code. 

http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/textescoordonnes/codes/code_travail/Code_du_
Travail.pdf 

to 
Theoretically,  au-pairs  could  enter  as  employed  persons  according 
Immigration Law and Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No.553 “Work Permits 
for Third-country Nationals”. 
a.  Permit/VISA 
b.  General conditions (accommodation, insurance, number of children, info on 

host family, job agencies…) 
-  national  situation  in  respect  of  surpluses  or  shortages  in  the  given 

- 

occupation and sector;  
the employer’s history and situation in terms inter alia of recruitment and 
redundancy patterns;  

-  business investments and contractual commitments; 
- 

skill level, relevant experience and overall suitability for the position in 
question are also taken into account  

-  home-based carers are at present not subject to a labour market test 
-  medical certificate  
-  carers for children, a clear case for the need to recruit foreign nationals  
- 

take out a private health insurance, not required for home-based carers, 
for  persons  working  with  persons  with  disability  and  persons  needing 
constant care 

c.  Age 
d.  Length 
e.  Working conditions (pocket money, working hours) 
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 
a.  Permit/VISA  

82 

 
-  Valid passport  
-  No previous stay in the Netherlands on a residence permit  
-  Most third country nationals need a provisional residence permit to enter 

NL 

b.  General conditions (accommodation, insurance, number of children, info on 

host family, job agencies…) 
-  Health insurance with cover in the Netherlands  
-  Not-married status  
-  No risk to public order  
-  No duty of care or responsibility for the actual care of one’s own family 

members (children or parents, for instance)  

-  Undergo an examination for tuberculosis in the Netherlands  
-  No previous work for the same family abroad  
-  Host family to support the au pair during the stay in the Netherlands  
-  Minimum of 2 persons in the host family 
-  Declaration of awareness signed by both parties 
-  Sufficient income to support themselves and the au pair 
-  Sign a sponsor declaration  

New regulations since October 1, 2012 

-  The au pair may not pay a sum of money, for example as a registration 
fee  and/or  a  mediation  fee  and/or  a  fee  for  following  a  course  in 
preparation  of  the  stay  in  the  Netherlands  (prescribed  by  the  au  pair's 
own government) to a (Dutch or foreign) mediation agency or exchange 
organisation,  that  in  total  exceeds  10%  of  the  maximum  amount  a  host 
family is allowed to pay an au pair each month as pocket money.  

-  The au pair is not allowed to pay a sum of money as a security deposit 
(or  bond)  to  a  (Dutch  or  foreign)  mediation  agency  or  exchange 
organisation.  

-  The au pair is not allowed to conclude a contract with a host family or a 
(Dutch or foreign) mediation agency or exchange organisation pursuant 
to which  the au pair is  obliged to pay money or a penalty by way of a 
sanction  for  failing  to  comply  with  one  or  more  provisions  of  this 
contract. 

-  The au pair is not allowed to perform activities for persons who require 
more specialised care, which requires specific skills. These duties are not 
light domestic activities. 

c.  Age 

-  over age of 18 but no older than 25  

d.  Length 
e.  Working conditions (pocket money, working hours) 

-  Only carry out light domestic work to assist the host family  
-  Max of 8 hours' work per day and a max of 30 hours per week;  
-  2 days off per week  
-  Daily schedule for the au pair 
-  The maximum amount allowed to pay now stands at 340 euros per 

month 

f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

PL 

No specific legislation. 

83 

 
 
PT 

RO 

SE 

SK 

SI 

UK 

There  are  no  national  immigration  regulations  specifically  addressed  to  third 
country  national  au-pairs.  They  could  be  admitted  in  the  country  with  a 
temporary stay visa, valid for four months and for multiple entries, extended up 
to one year 

No information 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  Valid passport 

b.  General conditions (accommodation, insurance, number of children, info on 

host family, job agencies…)  
-  Not bring any children 

c.  Age  

-  between 18-30 years old 

d.  Length 
e.  Working conditions (pocket money, working hours)  

-  Written  job  offer  from  a  family  in  Sweden,  indicating  doing  light 

housework for no more than 25 hours per week, 

f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

-  Certificate of admission to studies in Swedish  
-  Definite interest in or use for Swedish language studies 

No immigration regulations are set specifically to TCN au-pairs (conditions of 
admission, stay and employment) nor rights and obligations. 

No specific legislation. 

Third-country  national  au  pairs  come  to  the  UK  through  Tier  5  of  the  Points 
Based  System.  Places  are  available  for  citizens  of  Australia  (32,500  places), 
New Zealand (10,000) Canada (5,000) Japan, Monaco and Taiwan (1,000 each) 
- Republic of Korea (500) for stays long up to 24 months. No switch possible to 
other types of permits. 

Third-country  national  remunerated  trainees,  volunteers,  school  pupils  or  unremunerated 
trainees 

a) Number of EU nationals and third-country nationals hosted in each Member State in 
the last three years (2009, 2010, 2011). 

Year 

2009

2010 

2011

Member State 

AT 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

BE 

-

-

2

- 

- 

- 

-

-

4

1,708

1,831 

2,023

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

BG 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

ES 

FI 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

FR 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils  

HU 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

267

-

-

11

5

-

-

- 

200 

- 

- 

26 

9 

- 

- 

- 

192

-

-

12

21

-

-

-

No information

No information 

No information

-

-

N/A

- 

- 

N/A 

-

-

N/A

No information

No information 

No information

27

11 

-

6

-

-

-

-

-

-

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

11

-

7

-

-

  171

-

-

- 

482

957 

973

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

85 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-

-

-

  -

-

-

- 

 
 
 
 
 
 
IE 

IT 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

LT 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

LU 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

LV 

5.  remunerated trainees + 
6.  unremunerated trainees 
7.  volunteers  
8.  school pupils 

MT 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

NL 

1.  remunerated trainees + 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers + 
4.  school pupils 

PL 

PT 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

4 

4 

48 

7 

5 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

326 

149 

- 

29 

299

-

128

-

52

-

8

4

109

11

3

20

  -

-

-

- 

 380 

182 

  -

41

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

 5 

5 

8

6

-

-

-

-

-

432

145

-

37

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  school pupils 

RO 

SE 

1.  remunerated trainees 
2.  unremunerated trainees 

+ 

3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

SK 

1.  remunerated trainees + 
2.  unremunerated trainees 
3.  volunteers  
4.  school pupils 

SI 

UK 

129

1994

56 

2754 

14

3569

No information

No information 

No information

-

-

419

14

2

-

- 

- 

765 

2 

27 

27 

  -

-

535

6

47

35

Immigration  regulations  in  each  Member  State  specific  to  third-country  national 
unremunerated (u) and remunerated (r) trainees. 

Member 
State 

Immigration  regulations  (admission  conditions,  need  for  a  work  permit, 
maximum duration of stay, rights granted, permitted duties, etc.) 

AT (u+r) 

BE (u+r) 

There  are  no  specific  regulations.  Third-country  national  remunerated  or 
unremunerated trainees may obtain other residence titles or a national Visa D. 

a.  Permit/VISA 

-  national passport valid for at least 1 year,  
-  a certificate a good conduct and behaviour,  
-  a medical certificate  
-  work permit B. 
b.  General conditions 

-  Copy of degree has to be submitted  

c.  Age 

-  under age 30 

d.  Length 

-  up to 1 year  
-  Exceptions  (longer  than  12  months;  older  than  30  years)  possible  in 
individual cases (scientific research), but  to be approved by the Minister 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE (u+r) 

DK 

EE 

EL (r) 

e.  Working conditions  

It has to be on-the-job training (combination training – work) 

- 
-  Training full-time and remuneration not less than the legal minimum  
-  Contract  has  to  be  translated  in  mother  tongue  of  applicant  or  other 

language that (s)he understands 

f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

No specific legislation on third-country national remunerated trainees. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 

No specific legislation on third-country national remunerated trainees. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 

No specific legislation on third-country national remunerated trainees. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  general visa regulations 
-  permit  granted  for  2  years  if  the  training  programme  lasts  2  years  or 

more 

b.  General conditions 

-  Mandatory approval of the German Federal Labour Office  

c.  Age 

-  under age 30 

d.  Length 

-  up to 1 year  
-  Exceptions  (longer  than  12  months;  older  than  30  years)  possible  in 
individual cases (scientific research), but  to be approved by the Minister 

e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

N/A 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  Entry Visa 
-  Residence permit 

b.  General conditions 

-  Certificate of acceptance to training programme 
-  Health insurance 
-  Social security obligations 

c.  Age 
d.  Length 

-  6 + 6 months  
e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

ES 

FI (u+r) 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 
g.  Permit/VISA 
h.  General conditions 
i.  Age 
j.  Length 

-  No longer than 18 months (internship is a part of an agreement between 

88 

 
FR (r) 

states or of a non-governmental organisation’s exchange programme) 
-  No  longer  than  a  year  (Trainee  must  hold  university  degree  and 

transferred to Finland within a company to work as a trainee) 

-  No  longer  than  18  months  (aged  between  18  and  30  years,  studying 
Finnish or Swedish at a university outside Finland, or the internship is in 
a field matching a trainee’s studies or qualifications) 

k.  Working conditions  
l.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  “trainee” long-stay visa equivalent to a residence permit, whose validity 

period depends on the training duration 

b.  General conditions 

-  Tripartite training agreement to be signed between the trainee, the higher 
education  institution  or  the  employer  established  abroad,  and  the 
company in France and to be approved by the Prefect of the department 
in which the training will take place 

-  Proof  of  sufficient  financial  resources,  corresponding  to  the  monthly 
French government scholarship (615 euros, for training periods that are 
part  of  degree  programs)  or  to  the  minimum  monthly  wage  (for 
employees of a company abroad). 

c.  Age 
d.  Length 

-  6 months (for professional training),  
- 
-  12 up to 18 months (for employees of a company abroad). 

the duration of the programme (if training part of a degree programme)  

e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 

HU (r) 

General admission and residence rules apply also to remunerated trainees 

IE 

IT (u+r) 

No information 

Remunerated  trainees  are  not  contemplated  by  the  annual  entry  quotas  but  are 
required  to  apply  to  the  Single  Desk  for  Immigration  for  the  issuance  of  the 
compulsory work authorization. The so-called contract of apprenticeship is very 
common  among  this  category  and  implies  a  combination  of  remunerated  work 
and  training.    It  is  a  real  employment  contract  of  fixed  duration  (essentially 
regulated  by  Articles  47-53  of  the  Legislative  Decree  no.  276/2003)  and  is 
characterized by a mixed cause (because the work is compensated not only with 
remuneration  but  also  through  the  training  that  the  employer  is  obliged  to 
provide).  

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 

The  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Policies  has  decided  on  the  maximum 
amount of foreign citizens to be admitted for study purposes: 

-  5,000  to  follow  vocational  training  courses  for  recognition  of  a 
qualification or certification of skills acquired for periods not exceeding 
24 months; 

89 

 
 
 
LT (u+r) 

LU (r) 

LV (r) 

-  5,000  for  conducting  trainings  and  orientation  activities  promoted  by 
authorised  organisers  envisaged  by  art.  2  paragraph  1  of  the  Decree  of 
the Ministry of Labour and Social Policies of 25th March 1998, n. 142, 
depending on the completion of a training course. 

a.  Permit/VISA 

-  Residence permit (submitted abroad) 
-  Work permit (r) 
b.  General conditions 

-  Training agreement 

c.  Age 
d.  Length 

-  Up to 1 year 
e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

Remunerated  trainees  are  considered  as  "salaried  workers"  and  subject  to  the 
conditions  foreseen  by  article  42  of  the  Law  of  29  August  2008  on  free 
movement of persons and immigration.  

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  Temporary residence permit  
-  Work permit  
b.  General conditions 

-  been enrolled as a secondary school pupil; 
-  been invited to take part in an internship programme; 
-  been invited to undergo in-service training; 
-  been invited to undergo vocational training 

c.  Age 
d.  Length 

-  Up to 1 year 
e.  Working conditions  

Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

MT 

NL (u+r) 

- 
a.  Permit/VISA  

-  Valid passport  
-  Work permit  
b.  General conditions 

-  Health insurance with cover in the Netherlands  
-  Engaged in studies at an educational institution outside the Netherlands 
-  No risk to public order  
-  No duty of care or responsibility for the actual care of one’s own family 

members (children or parents, for instance)  

-  Examination for tuberculosis in the Netherlands (this obligation does not 
apply to aliens having the nationality of Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, 
Monaco,  New  Zealand,  Suriname,  United  States  of  America  and 
Switzerland) 

c.  Age 
d.  Length 
e.  Working conditions  

90 

 
PL 

PT (u) 

RO 

SE 

SK (u+r) 

-  must  be  working  for  a  Dutch  company  as  part  of  a  compulsory  work 

placement 

f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses)  

- 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 

Does not apply Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  Work permit p to 1 year 

b.  General conditions  

-  prove the purpose of stay,  
-  clear criminal record,  
- 
financial means 
-  accommodation 

c.  Age 
d.  Length 
e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

SI 

UK 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on unremunerated trainees. 

- 

Immigration  regulations  in  each  Member  State  specific  to  third-country  national 
volunteers. 

Member 
State 

Immigration  regulations  (admission  conditions,  need  for  a  work  permit, 
maximum duration of stay, rights granted, permitted duties, etc.) 

AT 

a.  Permit/VISA 

- 

residence title for persons in social services 

b.  General conditions 

-  adequate means of subsistence 
-  accommodation according to local standards  
-  public security considerations  
- 

- 

service not under the scope of the Aliens‘ Employment Act, it is carried 
out at a non-commercial, non-party and charitable organisation,  
service  non-commercial,  the  organisation  accommodating  the  person 
provides  a  letter  of  indemnity,  and  the  educational  character  of  the 
service is given. 

c.  Age 
d.  Length 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

-  up to 1 year, not renewable 

e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

Category  subject  to  the  common  law,  i.e.  the  law  of  15.12.1980  and  the  royal 
decree  of  8.10.1981  regarding  the  residence  and  the  law  of  30  April  1999  and 
the  royal  decree  of  9.06.1999  regarding  the  employment.  The  sole  purpose  of 
working  as  a  volunteer  will  never  be  accepted  to  obtain  residence  right  in 
Belgium (no financial resources). 

No specific legislation for volunteers. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 

This  occupation  does  not  require  the  consent  of  the  German  Federal  Labour 
Office. 

Not bound by the Directive. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 

- 

a.  Permit/VISA 

- 

residence permit for the purpose of voluntary service 

b.  General conditions 

-  Signed agreement 

c.  Age 
d.  Length 

-  up to 1 year, not renewable 

e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 

Not bound by the Directive. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  VISA for volunteering 

b.  General conditions 

-  Admission to volunteer programme 
-  Special agreement between parties 

c.  Age 

-  Between 20 and 30 

d.  Length 
e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 

92 

 
 
 
 
LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

Temporary residence permit for up to 1 year 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  Temporary residence permit 
-  a valid travel document,  

b.  General conditions 

-  Agreement between parties  
-  an application,  
-  a photo,  
-  documents certifying sufficient financial means,  
-  documents on intended place of residence (address), 
- 
- 
c.  Age 

 x-ray examination, 
 state duty payment 

-  Between 20 and 30 

d.  Length 

-  Up to 1 year 
e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

No  specific  legislation.  Permit  for  up  to  a  year  within  a  program  under  the 
European Voluntary Service. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  a valid passport,  
-  no previous stay in the Netherlands on a residence permit 

b.  General conditions 

-  health insurance with cover in the Netherlands  
-  unmarried status  
-  no duty of care or responsibility for the actual care of one’s own family 

members (children or parents, for instance)  

-  no risk to public order  
-  undergo  an  examination  for  tuberculosis  in  the  Netherlands  (this 
obligation  does  not  apply  for  nationals  from  Australia,  Canada,  Israel, 
Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, Suriname, United States of America and 
Switzerland)  

-  not allowed to pay a sum of money as a security deposit (or bond) to a 

(Dutch or foreign) mediation agency or exchange organisation  

-  not  allowed  to  perform  activities  for  persons  who  require  more 

specialised care, which requires specific skills 

-  Those who do not participate in a program in the context of the European 

- 
- 

Voluntary Service are obliged to stay in a host family. 
the family must consist of a minimum of 2 persons  
the exchange organisation must sign a sponsor declaration and it must be 
approved by the ‘Nederlands Jeugd instituut’ 

c.  Age 

-  Between 15 and 25 

d.  Length 

-  Up to 1 year 

93 

 
 
PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SK 

e.  Working conditions 

-  no previous work for the same host family abroad 

f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

- 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 

Does not apply Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  Work permit p to 1 year 

b.  General conditions  

-  prove the purpose of stay,  
-  clear criminal record,  
- 
financial means 
-  accommodation 

c.  Age 
d.  Length 
e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

SI 

UK 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on volunteers. 

Not bound by the Directive. 

 Immigration  regulations  in  each  Member  State  specific  to  third-country  national 
school pupils. 

Member 
State 

Immigration  regulations  (admission  conditions,  need  for  a  work  permit, 
maximum duration of stay, rights granted, permitted duties, etc.) 

AT 

g.  Permit/VISA 

- 

residence permit 
h.  General conditions 

-  adequate means of subsistence 
-  accommodation according to local standards  
-  public security considerations  
-  enrolled in a public school, a private school under public law, a statutory 
school under public law or they are pupils in a certified, non-scholastic 
educational institution.  

-  underage  pupils  have  to  provide  proof  of  the  care  of  an  adult  with 

authorized residence in Austria.  

-  pupils are not entitled to family reunification. 

i.  Age 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

j.  Length 

-  The  residence  permit  may  only  be  prolonged  if  the  pupil  provides 
evidence of successful study. In circumstances beyond the third-country 
national’s control or which are inevitable or unforeseeable, a stay permit 
may be prolonged despite unsuccessful study. 

k.  Working conditions  
l.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

There is an exemption of the obligation to obtain a labour permit with respect to: 
students who have not yet reached the age of eighteen, who are recruited with 
indentures  or  with  an  agreement  regarding  alternating  training,  recognized  by 
the  competent  authority  (no  legal  residence  is  required!);  students  who  legally 
stay  in  Belgium  and  who  are  recruited  with  indentures  or  with  an  agreement 
regarding alternating training, recognized by the competent authority. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 

Same  regulations  as  set  out  in  the  regulations  governing  university  study 
purposes. 

Not bound by the Directive. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 

Relating to school pupils, national migration law does not include rules on the 
entry of stay of such categories 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 

- 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 

The  rules  of  the  Act  II  of  2007  on  the  Admission  and  Right  of  Residence  of  Third-Country 
Nationals and Government Decree 114/2007 (V. 24.) Korm. on the Implementation of Act II of 
2007  on  the  Admission  and  Right  of  Residence  of  Third-Country  Nationals  are  governed  to 
trainees, volunteers and school pupils. 

Not bound by the Directive. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  VISA for reasons of study 

b.  General conditions 

- 

recognized  secondary  education  programme  in  the  framework  of  an 
exchange  scheme  managed  by  an  officially  recognized  organisation  as 
per national legislation  

c.  Age 

-  Between 14 and 17 

d.  Length 
e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

95 

 
 
 
LT 

LU 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 

- 

Directive 2004/114 applies to school pupils. Those are additional provisions. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  VISA for reasons of study 

b.  General conditions 

-  admission  to  a  secondary  education  institution  and  technical  high 
schools recognized secondary education programme in the framework of 
an exchange scheme managed by an officially recognized organisation as 
per national legislation  

-  parental authorization if not 18 years old  
-  proof  of  its  participation,  either  in  an  exchange  program  establish  by  a 
bilateral framework or a European program in the field of education and 
long learning formation  

-  proof  that  the  exchange  organization  is  responsible  for  the  applicant 
during  all  the  time  of  its  stay  especially  in  relation  with  the  stay  and 
return expenses 
is hosted by a selected family or a reception structure during all the time 
of  its  stay,  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  the  exchange  program  in 
which the applicant participates  

- 

-  health insurance 

c.  Age 

-  Between 14 and 21 

d.  Length 

-  Up to 1 year 
e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses)  

LV 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  Temporary residence permit 
-  a valid travel document,  

b.  General conditions 

-  Agreement between parties  
-  an application,  
-  a photo,  
-  documents certifying sufficient financial means,  
-  documents on intended place of residence (address), 
-  x-ray examination, 
- 
state duty payment 
- 
for  minors,  there  should  be  permission  from  parents  submitted  and 
information  indicated  on  a  physical  person  who  will  be  responsible  for 
the child during his stay in Latvia 

c.  Age 
d.  Length 

-  For the length of the study 

e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

96 

 
 
MT 

NL 

- 
a.  Permit/VISA 
-  Permit 
-  valid passport,  
-  no previous stay in the Netherlands on a residence permit 

b.  General conditions 

-  health insurance with cover in the Netherlands  
-  unmarried status  
-  no duty of care or responsibility for the actual care of one’s own family 

members (children or parents, for instance)  

-  no risk to public order  
-  examination for tuberculosis in the Netherlands (this obligation does not 
apply for nationals from Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Monaco, New 
Zealand, Suriname, United States of America and Switzerland)  

-  not allowed to pay a sum of money as a security deposit (or bond) to a 

(Dutch or foreign) mediation agency or exchange organisation  

-  not  allowed  to  perform  activities  for  persons  who  require  more 

- 
- 
- 

specialised care, which requires specific skills 
the family must consist of a minimum of 2 persons  
sign a sponsor declaration 
the exchange organisation must sign a sponsor declaration and it must be 
approved by the IND 

c.  Age 

-  Between 15 and 25 

d.  Length 

-  Up to 1 year, within a program under the European Voluntary Service 

e.  Working conditions 

-  no previous work for the same host family abroad 

f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

- 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 
a.  Permit/VISA 

-  Residence  permits  are  not  granted  for  studies  at  primary  and  lower-
secondary  level,  with  the  exception  of  lower-secondary  education  at 
boarding schools, arranged before arrival 

b.  General conditions 

-  Before the permit can be granted, a letter from the relative organisation 
is required, alongside confirmation of admission and information on the 
organisation’s contact person in Sweden  
If under 18, permission is required from their legal guardian, as minors 
lack legal competence and are therefore not eligible to apply themselves 

- 

-  For other forms of study such as upper-secondary studies:  
-  Means of support for the study period  
-  Studies must be full-time  
- 
c.  Age 
d.  Length 

intention to leave Sweden upon completion of the study period 

97 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

 
-  Up to 1 year 
e.  Working conditions  
f.  Language (knowledge proof, courses) 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 

Applies Directive 2004/114 on school pupils. 

Not bound by the Directive. 

SK 

SI 

UK 

Third-country  national  students'  access  to  job-seeking  and/or  the  labour  market  following 
graduation (selected Member States) 

Member State 

Description 

AT 

BE 

CY 

DE 

EE 

After completion of studies, graduates can, if they wish to stay in Austria and obtain a 
“Red-White-Red  Card”  (providing  access  to  the  labour  market  with  a  specific 
employer), obtain a written confirmation for further 6 months on the legality of their 
stay with the possibility to apply for the “Red-White-Red Card” in subsequence.  This 
confirmation, which is a right to residence sui generis, is provided for the purpose of 
job search and cannot be prolonged. 

Students are obliged to leave the Member State following their studies.  

International students are permitted to stay if they are offered a job, PhD position or if 
they want to engage in self-employment.  

International students cannot apply for relevant work permits and authorisation to stay 
without  leaving  Cyprus  following  completion  of  study.  Students  can  only  remain  if 
they are employed for research purposes. 

Third-country  nationals  can  apply  for  transfer  from  student  to  other  migration 
statuses, with students applying for asylum status in many instances.  

After  graduation,  international  students  can  be  issued  with  a  graduate  job  seeker 
permit for 18 months. Self-employment is included. Another type of permit (worker, 
researcher, highly qualified person).  

International students are not entitled to social benefits.  

International Student is required to immediately leave the Member State and has no 
right to stay after the end of the study period and find a job.  

International  students  can  stay  if  they  continue  existing  working  in  the  same  job 
during the period of studies. In such a case, they can apply for a residence permit for 
working. In order to obtain such a permit, it is required that the employee is paid a 
remuneration that is approximately 1.5 times higher than the average salary.  

Self-employment requires capital (€ 16 000) or investment (€65 000).  

98 

 
 
 
 
Member State 

Description 

EL 

FI 

FR 

IE 

Applicants  for  residence  permit  for  working  as  well  as  for  business  fall  under  the 
immigration quota which is established annually and is approximately 1 000 persons 
per year.  

Third-country nationals who have completed their studies are not allowed continuing 
residing in Greece, after the completion of their studies.  

An  international  student  who,  after  graduation,  is  offered  work  can  apply  for  a 
residence permit extension for the purpose of employment.  

An  international  student  may  also  be  issued  a  job  seeking  permit  for  six  months. 
Applications for job seeking permits are rare. A temporary residence permit is issued 
for a six month period.  

International students can also apply for self-employment.  

International students are not entitled to social support.  

Scheme  established  enabling  the  issue  of  temporary  residence  authorisations  for  six 
months, non-renewable if the third-country national has graduated with a qualification 
that is at least equivalent to a Master’s Degree course and they wish to complement 
their studies with some initial professional experience.  

An  international  student  may  be  allowed  to  stay  to  seek  a  job  for  six  months.  The 
authorisation  enables  the  student  to  work  at  any  job  up  to  the  limit  of  60%  of  the 
official work week.  

At  the  end  of  the  six  month  period,  a  graduate  who  has  a  job  or  an  offer  of 
employment related to the qualification obtained and which is remunerated at a full-
time  monthly  rate  of  at  least  1.5  times  the  minimum  monthly  wage  is  permitted  to 
remain  in  France  to  further  the  professional  activity.  In  this  case,  the  individual  is 
exempt from eligibility requirements based on the employment situation in France. If 
the employment contract is lower than 1.5 times the minimum wage, the individual is 
subject to the labour market test.  

International students are not entitled to unemployment support.  

Irish  Third  Level  Graduate  Scheme  provides  for  international  students  in  degree 
courses or above to remain in the Member State for one year (Level 8) or six months 
(Level 7) following the completion of their studies. This scheme aims to facilitate the 
ease of transition for international graduates to the labour market.  

Following the expiration of the one year allowance, students must then transfer onto 
an employment permit or Green Card permit. Applicants can remain in Ireland during 
the duration of the application process.  

Students remaining in Ireland on the scheme are entitled to work 40 hours per week.  

IT 

Conversion  of  the  permit  to  study  in  permit  for  work  purposes  occurs  only  when 

99 

 
Member State 

Description 

envisaged in the annual flow decrees and within the scheduled quantitative limits. 

LV 

Third-country national students are not offered the opportunity to remain in the state 
for the purposes of seeking employment following the completion of studies.  

In case a third-country national wants to apply for a residence permit for employment, 
based  on  an  employment  contract,  the  potential  employer  must  register  a  vacancy 
with  the  State  Employment  Agency.  The  applicant  must  apply  for  the  registered 
vacancy  within  a  month.  Following  this,  the  employer  has  the  right  to  request  a 
'sponsorship' for a third-country national and submit the necessary documents. When 
the  sponsorship  has  been  approved  by  the  Office  of  Citizenship  and  Migration 
Affairs, the third-country national has the right to submit the necessary documents to 
apply for a temporary residence permit. If the applicant is to be employed based on a 
contract  for  work-performance,  a  vacancy  with  the  State  Employment  Agency  does 
not have to be registered.  

Together  with  a  temporary  residence  permit,  a  work  permit  is  issued  to  the  third-
country national, without which he or she has no right to work. The work permit gives 
the right to work at one employer in a definite, specific position. If the third-country 
national,  having  received  a  temporary  residence  permit,  loses  the  job  position,  the 
residence permit and work permit are annulled, and they must leave Latvia, due to the 
fact  that  a  third-country  national  who  has  entered  Latvia  for  the  purposes  of 
employment,  cannot  become  an  employment  seeker  and  receive  the  respective  state 
allowances. In separate cases, if the individual has found another employer, they may 
apply  for  a  new  residence  permit  without  leaving  the  Republic  of  Latvia.  Note:  no 
reference was found about whether the above includes self-employment. 

Students cannot stay after graduation except when they change the grounds for arrival 
to alternative ones.  

The possibility to extend the period after graduation when students are allowed to stay 
and seek employment for up to six months is being considered.  

International  student  can  stay  in  the  Member  State  after  graduation  for  a  first 
professional  experience.  However  the  application  must  be  submitted  before  the 
expiration of their residence permit.  

A salaried worker residence permit can be authorised for a maximum of 2 years if the 
applicant  has  obtained  their  higher  education  diploma,  wishes  to  complete  their 
education with first professional experience, the economic activity is related to their 
study  and  they  are  in  possession  of  a  work  contract  that  is  declared  vacant.  The 
individual does not need to leave Luxembourg in order to file the application.  

No extra period for job seeking or other purposes is granted to international students. 

LT 

LU 

NL 

International students can apply to stay in the Member State following completion of 
their studies.  

A  temporary  residence  permit  can  be  applied  for  which  will  give  the  international 

100 

 
Member State 

Description 

student the opportunity to seek a job for a maximum period of one year after having 
completed  their  studies.  The  international  student  is  permitted  to  work  during  this 
time to earn a living and is not required to have a work permit.  

If the international student finds a job with a gross annual salary of at least €26 931, 
they  are  eligible  for  a  regular  residence  permit.  This  wage  criterion  is  lower  for 
graduated international student migrants than for other highly educated migrants.  

Self-employment  is  also  possible,  with  international  student  needing  to  apply  for  a 
residence permit to work on a self-employed basis.  

Graduates can apply for the right to stay in Poland on the basis of a residence permit 
for a specified period of time on the grounds of being employed, running economic 
activity  or  marriage  to  a  Polish  citizen.    When  there  are  no  such  grounds,  the 
foreigner must leave Poland. 

International students can stay if they want to enter the labour market.  

The permit to engage in professional activities is temporary, valid for a period of one 
year  and  renewable  for  successive  periods  of  two  years.  Foreign  nationals  who  are 
enrolled in the employment centres can apply for jobs, enjoying the following rights: 
the  right  to  efficient  and  personalised  service;  right  to  information,  especially  with 
regard  to  training  facilities  and  job  offers,  socio-economic  means,  professions  and 
labour  and  employment  conditions,  social  benefits,  employment  market  and  social 
employment market.   

International students can engage in self-employment.  

Can  stay  if  an  application  is  lodged  with  the  competent  authority  for  a  subsequent 
residence  permit  for  a  different  purpose  prior  to  expiry  of  period  for  which 
authorisation is granted.  

Opportunity to obtain a personal work permit valid for three years provided that that 
(a) they attended the final year of their studies in Slovenia and gained at least higher 
education) and find an employer or become self-employed within two years after the 
completion of their studies or (b) they completed a research programme and find an 
employer or become self-employed within one year. 

The  work  permits  allow  employment,  self-employment  or  work  for  any  employer. 
This may be extended once for a year if the third-country national has been employed 
or  self-employed  during  the  last  six  months  prior  to  the  application  and  as  such 
registered in the social security system.  

The permit can be re-issued for a period of three years under the same conditions as 
the first one.  

Can stay if they have a job or an employment offer.  

At present, students from third countries are not allowed to stay after the completion 
of their studies and seek employment. The only possibility for an international student 

101 

PL 

PT 

SI 

SE 

SK 

 
Member State 

Description 

is to try to obtain an employment permit during studies, and apply for a change of the 
purpose  of  temporary  residence  from  study  or  special  activity  to  employment 
purposes after the completion of studies. However according to the Migration Policy 
Action  Plan  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family  of  the  Slovak 
Republic  for  the  Period  2012–13,  one  of  the  measures  foreseen  would  enable 
international  students  who  have  successfully  completed  their  studies  at  a  secondary 
school  or  higher  education  institution  to  stay  for  a  period  of  three  months  after  the 
completion of studies and seek employment.  

UK 

Graduates  with  a  skilled  job  offer  with  a  minimum  salary  of  £20,  000  from  an 
employer accredited by the UKBA may stay and work under a Tier 2 visa.  

International graduates may also be eligible for a Tier 1 (graduate entrepreneur) visa. 
With such a visa, the graduate is granted leave for 12 months which may be extended 
for a further 12 months. The graduate may work at their business and up to 20 hours a 
week  in  other  work  to  support  themselves.  The  standard  visa  requirements  must  be 
met  and  they  must  have  access  to  a  minimum  of  £50  000.  The  number  of  places  is 
limited to 1 000 per year.  

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex VI: Glossary of key terms 

Au pair 

A  third-country  national  temporarily  received  by  a  family  in  the  territory  of  a 
Member  State  in  exchange  for  light  housework  and  to  take  care  of  children  in 
order  to  improve  his/her  linguistic  skills  and  his/her  knowledge  of  the  host 
country; 

Authorisation 

A residence permit issued by the authorities of a Member State allowing a third-
country national to stay legally on its territory, in accordance with Article 1(2)(a) 
of Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 or a long-stay visa 

Brain drain 

The loss suffered by a country as a result of the emigration of a (highly) qualified 
person.  

Brain gain 

The benefit to a country as a result of the immigration of a highly qualified person. 

of 

Charter 
fundamental 
rights 

Reaffirms,  with  due  regard  for  the  powers  and  tasks  of  the  Union  and  for  the 
principle  of  subsidiarity,  the  rights  as  they  result,  in  particular,  from  the 
constitutional  traditions  and  international  obligations  common  to  the  Member 
States,  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and 
Fundamental  Freedoms,  the  Social  Charters  adopted  by  the  Union  and  by  the 
Council of Europe and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union 
and of the European Court of Human Rights. 

Committee 
on 
Immigration and 
Asylum (CIA)  

A  European  Commission  led  expert  group  aimed  at  facilitating  an  informal 
exchange  of  views  between  Member  State  administrations  and  the  Commission 
services on political and legal issues related to migration, border and asylum. 

Community 
preference 

Cultural 
diversity 

Dependant 

Educational 
establishment 

Employment 

EU 
programmes 

mobility 

EU  immigration 
Portal (EUIP) 

The  preference  given  by  a  Member  State  to  workers  who  are  nationals  of  other 
Member  States  over  workers  who  are  nationals  of  third  countries  in  regard  to 
access to their labour market. 

Diverse  forms  of  culture  across  time  and  space  which  is  embodied  in  the 
uniqueness  and  plurality  of  the  identities  of  the  groups  and  societies  making  up 
humankind and is a source of exchange, innovation and creativity. 

Any  person  who  is  granted  entry  and  residence  by  a  Member  State  to  stay  with 
their  family  member  (i.e.  the  person  referred  to  as  ‘sponsor’  in  Directive 
2003/86/EC)  and  who  has  explicitly  filed  an  application  for  reasons  of  family 
reunification. 

A  public  or  private  establishment  recognised  by  the  host  Member  State  and/or 
whose courses of study are recognised in accordance with its national legislation or 
administrative practice on the basis of transparent criteria for the purposes set out 
in this Directive 

Exercise  of  activities  covering  whatever  form  of  labour  or  work  regulated  under 
national law or established practice for and under the direction and supervision of 
an employer 

EU funded programmes promoting mobility of third country nationals to the EU 

A website with hands-on information for foreign nationals interested in moving to 
the EU acting as a first point of entry for up-to-date, practical information on EU 
and national immigration procedures and policies.  

103 

 
European 
Migration 
Network (EMN) 

A  body  established  by  Council  Decision  2008/381/EC  that  serves  to  meet  the 
information  needs  of  Union  institutions  and  of  Member  States’  authorities  and 
institutions,  by  providing  up-to-date,  objective,  reliable  and  comparable 
information on migration and asylum, with a view to supporting policymaking in 
the European Union in these areas. It also serves to provide the general public with 
information on these subjects. 

Family member  Generally,  persons  married  to  a  migrant,  or  having  a  relationship  legally 
recognised as equivalent to marriage, as well as their dependent children and other 
dependants who are recognised as members of the family by applicable legislation. 

Family 
reunification 

the  context  of 

In 
the  Family  Reunification  Directive  2003/86/EC  (and 
2003/109/EC,  Long-Term  Residents),  a  third-country  national,  as  specified  in 
Article 4 of said Directive and in accordance with the transposition of this Article 
4 into national law in the Member State concerned, who has entered the EU for the 
purpose of Family Reunification. 

The establishment of a family relationship which is either: 

(a)  the  entry  into  and  residence  in  a  Member  State,  in  accordance  with 
Council  Directive  2003/86/EC,  by  family  members  of  a  third-country 
national  residing  lawfully  in  that  Member  State  ("sponsor")  in  order  to 
preserve  the  family  unit,  whether  the  family  relationship  arose  before  or 
after the entry of the sponsor;  

(b) between an EU national and third-country national established outside 
the EU who then subsequently enters the EU. 

First  Member 
State 

The Member State which first grants a third-country national an authorisation on 
the basis of this Directive 

Global 
Approach 
Migration 
Mobility 
(GAMM) 

to 
and 

The  external  dimension  of  the  European  Union’s  migration  policy  which  brings 
together migration, external relations and development policy to address migration 
in  an  integrated,  comprehensive  and  balanced  way  in  partnership  with  third 
countries. 

Long-stay Visa   An  authorisation  issued  by  a  Member  State  as  provided  for  in  Article  18  of  the 
Schengen  Convention  or  issued  in  accordance  with  the  national  law  of  Member 
States not implementing the Schengen acquis in full 

Member State 

A EU Member State bound by the Directive 

School pupil 

Students 

A  third-country  national  admitted  to  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  to  follow  a 
recognised  programme  of  secondary  education  in  the  context  of  an  exchange 
scheme  operated  by  an  organisation  recognised  for  that  purpose  by  the  Member 
State in accordance with its national legislation or administrative practice; 

A  third-country  national  accepted  by  an  establishment  of  higher  education  and 
admitted to the territory of a Member State to pursue as his/her main activity a full-
time course of study leading to a higher education qualification recognised by the 
Member  State,  including  diplomas,  certificates  or  doctoral  degrees  in  an 
establishment of higher education, which may cover a preparatory course prior to 
such education according to its national legislation 

104 

 
 
Remunerated 
trainee 

A third-country national admitted to the territory of a Member State for a training 
period  in  return  for  which  he/she  receives  remuneration  in  accordance  with  its 
national  legislation  and  whose  temporary  presence  in  the  territory  of  a  Member 
State  is  closely  connected  with  increasing  his/her  skills  and  qualifications  in 
his/her chosen profession 

Remuneration  

The payment, whatever the form it takes, received in consideration for the services 
performed and being considered under national legislation or established practice 
as a constituent element of an employment relationship 

Research 

Researcher 

Creative  work  undertaken  on  a  systematic  basis  in  order  to  increase  the  stock  of 
knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this 
stock of knowledge to devise new applications 

A  third-country  national  holding  an  appropriate  higher  education  qualification, 
which  gives  access  to  doctoral  programmes,  who  is  selected  by  a  research 
organisation for carrying out a research project for which the above qualification is 
normally required 

Research 
organisation 

Any public or private organisations which conducts research and which has been 
approved for the purposes of this Directive by a Member State in accordance with 
the latter's legislation or administrative practice 

Third-country 
national 

Any  person  who  is  not  a  citizen  of  the  European  Union  within  the  meaning  of 
Article 20(1) of the  TFEU 

Unremunerated 
trainee 

A third-country national admitted to the territory of a Member State for a training 
period without remuneration in accordance with its national legislation 

Voluntary 
service 

Volunteer 

A programme of activities of practical solidarity, based on a scheme recognised by 
the State or the Union, pursuing objectives of general interest 

A third-country national admitted to the territory of the Member State to follow a 
recognised voluntary service scheme 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 

Treaty  of  Lisbon  amending  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Community,  signed  at  Lisbon,  13  December  2007,  OJ  C  306  of  17.12.2007.  For 
the  Treaties  see:  OJ  C  83  of  30.3.2010,  http://eur-
consolidated  version  of 
lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 83 of 30.3.2010 

D’Auria,  F.,  Pagano,  A.M  Ratto,  M.  and  Varga,  J.  (2009),  cited  from  Commission  staff 
working  document:  Progress  towards  the  common  European  objectives  in  education  and 
training. Indicators and benchmarks 2010/2011,  

Cedefop (2012) Briefing Note - Europe’s skill challenge 

CEDEFOP  (2010)  Skills  supply  and  demand  in  Europe:  Medium-term  forecast  up  to  2020, 
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/Files/3052_en.pdf 

European Commission, Towards a job rich recovery, Communication From The Commission 
To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee 
And The Committee Of The Regions, SWD(2012) 90-100 final 

European Commission, European Economic Forecast Spring 2012 

European Commission, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011 

European Commission, Staff Working Document 20 September 2011: Recent developments 
in European higher education systems, SEC (2011) 1063 final. 

European Commission, Commission staff working document: Progress towards the common 
European objectives in education and training. Indicators and benchmarks 2010/2011. 

European  Commission,  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and 
the  Regions: 
"Communication on migration", Brussels, 4.5.2011, COM(2011) 248 final;  

the  Committee  of 

European  Commission,  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: "The Global 
Approach to Migration and Mobility", Brussels, 18.11.2011, COM(2011) 743 final. 

European  Commission,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament, 
the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions: "Communication on migration", Brussels, 4.5.2011, COM(2011) 248 final. 

European  Commission,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament, 
the  council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions:  A  Reinforced  European  Research  Area  Partnership  for  Excellence  and  Growth 
COM(2012) 392 final 

European  Commission,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament, 
the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 

106 

 
Regions:  "A  dialogue  for  migration,  mobility  and  security  with  the  southern  Mediterranean 
Countries", Brussels, 24.5.2011, COM(2011) 292 final. 

European  Commission,  Commission  Work  Programme  (CLWG)  2012,  15.11.2011, 
COM(2011) 777 final; initiative nr. 67. 

European Commission, Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application 
of  Directive  2004/114/EC  on  the  conditions  of  admission  of  third  country  nationals  for  the 
purposes  of  studies,  pupil  exchange,  unremunerated  training  or  voluntary  service,  28 
September 2011, COM(2011)587  

European Commission, Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application 
of Directive 2005/71/EC on a specific procedure for admitting third country nationals for the 
purposes of scientific research, 20 December 2011, COM(2011)901  

European Commission, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011 

European Commission, Communication from the Commission "Supporting growth and jobs – 
an  agenda  for  the  modernisation  of  Europe's  higher  education  systems",  20.9.2011, 
COM(2011) 567 final 

European  Commission,  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  establishing  "Erasmus  For  All",  The  Union  Programme  for  Education,  Training, 
Youth  and  Sport,  Brussels,  23.11.2011,  COM(2011)  788  final,  2011/0371  (COD);  Brussels, 
30.11.2011; COM(2011) 809 final 

European  Commission,  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council establishing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 
(2014-2020), 2011/0401 (COD) 

European Commission, An Agenda for new Skills and Jobs, 2010 

European  Commission,  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of 
an intra-corporate transfer COM (2010) 378  

European Commission, Proposal for a Council decision on the position to be adopted by the 
European  Union  within  the  ACP-EC  Council  of  Ministers  concerning  the  transitional 
measures applicable from the date of signing to the date of entry into force of the Agreement 
amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the African, Caribbean and 
Pacific  States,  of  the  one  part,  and  the  European  Community  and  its  Member  States,  of  the 
other  part,  signed  in  Cotonou  on  23  June  2000  as  first  revised  in  Luxembourg  on  25  June 
2005, COM (2010) 279 

European Commission, Report of the Committee on Culture and Education of 7 July 2008 on 
the  proposal  for  a  decision  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  an 
action  programme  for  the  enhancement  of  quality  in  higher  education  and  the  promotion  of 
intercultural  understanding  through  co-operation  with  third  countries  (Erasmus  Mundus), 
COM(2007)0395 – C6-0228/2007 – 2007/0145(COD) 

European  Commission,  Communication  on  Policy  Plan  on  Legal  Migration,  Brussels, 
21.12.2005, COM(2005) 669 final. 

107 

 
European Commission, Policy Plan on Legal Migration, SWEC(2005)1680 

European Court of Human Rights, Niedzwiecki v. Germany, 58453/00, 25 October 2005. 

European  Higher  Education  Area    (2012)  Mobility  for  Better  Learning  Mobility,  Strategy 
2020  for  the  European  Higher  Education  Area  (EHEA);  EHEA  Ministerial  Conference, 
Bucharest 
2012, 
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/%281%29/2012%20EHEA%20Mobility%20Strategy.pdf  

GHK, External Study, "Impact Assessment on au pairs and possible amendments to Directive 
2004/114", Specific Contract JLS/2009/EVAL/FW/0002/A1 Framework Service Contract No 
JLS/2009/A1/001, March 2011 

ICMPD  report,  External  Study,  LOT  2:  Assess  the  implementation  and  impact  of  the 
"Scientific  Visa"  package  (Researchers  Directive  2005/71/EC  and  Recommendation 
2005/761/EC), November 2011 

European  Council,  Council  conclusions  on  the  modernisation  of  higher  education.  3128th 
Education, Youth, Culture And Sport Council meeting, Brussels, 28 and 29 November 2011 

European Council, Council conclusions on the Eastern dimension of youth participation and 
mobility, 3128th Education, Youth, Culture And Sport Council meeting Brussels, 28 and 29 
November 2011 

European  Council,  Conclusions  on  Innovation  Union  for  Europe,  3049th  Competitiveness  Council 
meeting, Brussels, 26 November 2010 

European Council, Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry 
and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, OL 
L 155 of 18.6.2009 

European Council, Recommendation of 12 October 2005 to facilitate the admission of third-
country nationals to carry out scientific research in the European Community (2005/762/EC); 
OJ L L 289 of 3.11.2005 

European  Council,  Directive  2005/71/EC  of  12  October  2005  on  a  specific  procedure  for 
admitting  third-country  nationals  for  the  purposes  of  scientific  research,  OJ  L  289  of 
3.11.2005 

European Council, Recommendation to facilitate the issue by the Member States of uniform 
short-stay visas for researchers from third countries travelling within the Community for the 
purpose of carrying out scientific research, 28 September 2005  (2005/761/EC); OJ L 289 of 
3.11.2005. 

European  Council,  Directive  2004/114/EC  of  13  December  2004  on  the  conditions  of 
the  purposes  of  studies,  pupil  exchange, 
admission  of 
unremunerated training or voluntary service, OJ L 375 of 23.12.2004 

third-country  nationals  for 

European  Council,  Council  Directive  2003/109/EC  of  25  November  2003  concerning  the 
status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, OJ L 16 of 23.1.2004 

108 

 
European  Council,  Council  Directive  2003/86/EC  of  22  September  2003  on  the  right  to 
family reunification, OJ L 251 of 03.10.2003,  

European Migration Network, Ad Hoc Query on students from states outside the EU ad-hoc 
query no. 273 and 313. http://emn.intrasoft-intl.com/  

European Migration Network, Ad Hoc Query on admission of students, ad-hoc query no. 313, 
http://emn.intrasoft-intl.com/  

European  Parliament  and  of  European  Council,  Directive  2011/98/EU  of  of  13  December 
2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside 
and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country 
workers legally residing in a Member State, OJ L 343 of 23.12.2011 

European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  Regulation  (E)  No  810/2009    of  13  July  2009 
establishing a Community Code on Visas, OJ L 243, 15.9.2009  

Eurostat website 

Eurostat SILC 2007 

Eurydice, Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe: Funding and the Social Dimension, 
2011 

OECD (2012) Working Party on Migration, DELSA/ELSA/WP2(2012)2, Current and future 
skills of the workforce: the demography of educational attainment and the role of migration, 
§§ 41, 45. 

OECD (2011) Education at a glance 2011 

Sachverständigenrat  deutscher  Stiftungen  für  Integration  und  Migration  (2012)  Mobile 
Talent? The Staying Intentions of International Students in Five EU Countries 

Stenum,  H  and  Dahl,  H.M.  (2011)  "Abused  Domestic  Workers  in  Europe;  the  case  for  au 
pairs", 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201110/20111020ATT29946/201110
20ATT29946EN.pdf, report requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Women's 
Rights and Gender Equality, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studies.html. 

Council Regulation (EC)  No  1030/2002 of 13 June 2002 laying down  a uniform  format for 
residence permits for third-country nationals, OJ L 157 of 15.6.2002. 

109