COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 78 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 77 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION AND POLICY CONTEXT 

Article 79 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) entrusts the EU 
with  the  task  to  develop  a  common  immigration  policy  aimed  at  ensuring  efficient 
management of migration flows and fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally 
in the Member States. 

Directive 2004/114/EC sets out mandatory provisions for the admission of students who are 
third-country nationals. It was left optional to Member States to apply the Directive to school 
pupils,  volunteers  and  unremunerated  trainees.  If  they  meet  the  conditions,  students  are 
entitled to a residence permit and they have certain rights with regard to employment or self-
employment, which allows them to cover part of the cost of their studies and move between 
different  Member  States  to  pursue  their  studies.  Directive  2005/71/EC  provides  for  a  fast-
track  procedure  for  admitting  researchers  from  third  countries  who  have  signed  a  hosting 
agreement  with  a  research  organisation  approved  by  the  Member  State.  The  hosting 
agreement confirms that there is a valid research project, that the researcher has the scientific 
skills to complete it and that he/she has sufficient resources and health insurance. Researchers 
can stay in another Member State as part of their research project, and can teach in accordance 
with national legislation. 

The  Commission  presented  reports  on  the  implementation  of  these  two  Directives  to  the 
European Parliament and the Council in 2011. The reports showed that there were a number 
of  weaknesses  in  the  Directives.  The  existing  Directives,  adopted  by  the  Council  in  simple 
consultation  with  the  European  Parliament,  do  not  address  some  of  the  difficulties  that 
applicants  who  want  to  come  to  the  EU  face,  in  particular  regarding  visas.  The  current 
provisions are not always fully in line with Union programmes including mobility measures 
and provide weak procedural guarantees. They are insufficiently clear or binding, particularly 
for students. The implementation reports therefore concluded that the Directives needed to be 
improved. 

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the policy context of today is very different to 
that in which the Directives were adopted. Human capital is one of Europe’s key assets in the 
context of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the need to ensure smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth.  Immigration  from  outside  the  EU  is one  source  of  highly  skilled  people,  and  third-
country  national  students  and  researchers  in  particular  are  groups  which  are  increasingly 
sought after. 

Any initiative in the area of migration should also be seen in the wider context of the EU’s 
dialogue  and  cooperation  with  third  countries  in  terms  of  its  foreign  policy  objectives  and 
external migration policy, as defined by the renewed EU Global Approach to Migration and 
Mobility (GAMM). Fostering people-to-people contacts and encouraging action on education 
are  important  aspects  of  this  policy  across  the  globe,  especially  in  countries  in  the  EU’s 
immediate neighbourhood and its strategic partners. This provides mutual enrichment through 
the benefits of cultural, social and linguistic exchanges. Events in the southern Mediterranean 
over  the  past  months  in  particular  confirm  the  importance  of  fostering  stronger  people-to-
people contacts and providing opportunities for exchanges, especially for young people. The 
EU also needs to reconcile its objective of promoting the inward mobility of researchers and 
students  with  its  commitment  to  helping  the  developing  countries  affected  to  deal  with  the 
brain drain in critical sectors. 

2 

 
 
PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The  biggest  problem  with  the  two  Directives  relates  to  authorisations  for  third-country 
nationals  to  enter  and  stay  in  the  EU  (long-term  visas  and/or  residence  permits).  Legal 
provisions  are  often  complex  and  unclear.  Procedures  are  lengthy  and  not  always  fairly  or 
consistently  applied.  For  the  groups  for  which  the  immigration  procedure  requires  an 
organisation  to  initiate  and  facilitate  admission  (in  particular  school  pupils,  trainees  and 
volunteers), fragmentation across the EU entails a lot of resources and work. This is because 
several, sometimes divergent frameworks need to be taken into account. 

Although the rights of the third-country nationals concerned have evolved with the adoption 
of the Single Permit Directive, some groups risk not being fully covered by its provisions, due 
to existing limitations. 

Current  provisions  on  immigration  are  not  sufficiently  supportive  of  Union  programmes 
including  mobility  measures  such  as  Erasmus  Mundus  or  Marie  Curie.  This  can  lead  to 
problems with admission procedures and intra-EU mobility. Intra-EU mobility is not only a 
problem  for  the  beneficiaries  of  Union  programmes  including  mobility  measures,  but  more 
generally  for  students,  researchers  and  remunerated  trainees,  as  the  provisions  of  the 
Directives on intra EU-mobility are not sufficiently advanced. 

Weaknesses  in  procedural  guarantees  were  also  identified.  One  of  them  is  the  lack  of  any 
provision on time limits within which applications for admission would need to be assessed 
and decided on by Member States. 

In  terms  of  the  labour  market,  there  is  a  lack  of  opportunities  for  graduates  from  third 
countries to identify work opportunities after they graduate, and for researchers to do so after 
finishing their research project. Researchers’ family members are not guaranteed access to the 
labour  market.  Students’  access  is  restricted  during  their  studies,  hampering  their  ability  to 
adequately fund themselves and to make an economic contribution. 

Finally, the personal scope of the current framework is limited. It is optional for school pupils, 
volunteers  and  unremunerated  trainees,  leading  to  wide  variations  in  the  Member  States’ 
coverage of the different groups. Remunerated trainees and au pairs are not covered by any 
EU  legislative  framework,  despite  facing  similar  problems  and  taking  part  in  similar 
exchanges. These groups need to benefit from more protection, especially au pairs, in view of 
their particular vulnerability which is related to the family context in which they work. 

In  2010,  around  220 000  third-country  nationals  came  to  the  EU  for  education  and  study 
purposes and around 7 000 for research purposes. There is no comprehensive quantitative data 
on  the  number  of  incoming  third-country  nationals  who  encounter  the  problems  outlined 
above or the number of third-country nationals who choose a different destination to the EU 
due to such problems. It is clear however that the considerable numbers of those who come 
under  the  current  provisions  are  affected  by  their  shortcomings,  as  long  as  there  are  no 
national provisions that remedy them. The information available on the nature of the problems 
identified, coupled with the substantial number of permits issued annually under the current 
Directives, suggest that the situation needs to be addressed. Taken together, the weaknesses 
identified  may  undermine  the  EU’s  capacity  to  attract  highly  qualified  students,  researchers 

3 

 
 
and  other  groups  of  third-country  nationals  at  a  time  when  other  parts  of  the  world  are 
becoming increasingly attractive for these groups. 

2.  WHAT IS THE EU’S ROLE? 

Article  79  TFEU  explicitly  gives  the  Union  the  task  of  developing  a  common  immigration 
policy,  whilst  leaving  the  Member  States  responsible  for  determining  the  number  of 
immigrants they admit for the purposes of work or self-employment. 

An  efficient  immigration  system  that  attracts  talented  immigrants  needs  a  common  set  of 
admission  conditions  and  requirements.  Intra-EU  mobility  can  only  be  achieved  by 
establishing a common system for all Member States. 

EU  legislation  may  cover  conditions  of  entry  and  residence,  long-term  visas  and  residence 
permits,  the  rights  of  legally  residing  third-country  nationals  and  conditions  governing  their 
intra-EU  mobility  and  residence.  Article  79  (2)  TFEU  provides  that  adoption  of  such 
provisions falls under the ordinary legislative procedure and is decided by the Council and the 
Parliament. 

The  added  value  of  the  current  Directives  has  been  proven  over  the  years  and  the  new 
instrument  would  further  improve  the  situation.  A  transparent  legal  framework,  including 
safeguards  to  ensure  a  genuine  transfer  of  skills,  would  facilitate  international  exchanges 
between the Member States and sending countries. 

EU legislation to clarify rights and conditions of residence would also contribute to a better 
protection of fundamental rights. 

3.  OBJECTIVES 

The main general policy objective is to improve the legal framework applied to third-country 
nationals who want to come and temporarily stay in the EU for more than three months for 
research and study purposes and to acquire experience and/or participate in various activities 
to  increase  their  skills  and  competences,  including  by  being  a  school  pupil,  volunteer, 
unremunerated or remunerated trainee or au pair. 

Specific objectives were identified in light of the problems outlined above: 

• 

to  improve  the  conditions  of  admission  by  better  linking  obtaining  the  relevant 
authorisations and improving decision-making processes for these authorisations; 

•  making provisions clearer and binding for the other groups they apply to; 
• 

to  strengthen  the  link  between  provisions  on  Union  programmes  including  mobility 
measures such as Erasmus Mundus and Marie Curie Fellowships; 
to improve procedural guarantees, such as time limits for decisions on applications; 
to improve access to seek employment and the labour market, both for students during 
their studies as well as to give researchers and students the possibility to remain on the 

• 
• 

4 

 
 
 
 
territory under certain conditions after finishing their studies or research to identify job 
opportunities; 
to facilitate intra-EU mobility; 
to  set  out  coherent  provisions  ensuring  the  protection  of  au  pairs  and  remunerated 
trainees. 

• 
• 

4.  POLICY OPTIONS 

Four policy options were considered. 

Option 1 (baseline). No change in the current situation 

This policy option would leave a number of problems unsolved. Independently of each other, 
the Member States would continue to implement different measures with regard to admission 
conditions, in particular visas. There would still be a lack of clarity and transparency on these 
aspects,  and  potential  applicants  and  organisations  would  have  to  continue  taking  all  the 
current different frameworks into consideration. Conditions for exercising intra-EU mobility 
(in particular for students) would remain restrictive, while remunerated trainees would not be 
covered at all by EU legislation. They would therefore continue to face obstacles and have to 
rely on national legislation, which differs from one Member State to another. With a view to 
the proposal for a Directive on intra-corporate transferees (currently being negotiated with the 
Council  and  Parliament)  which  also  includes  intra-EU  mobility  provisions  for  trainees,  the 
continued non-existence of such provisions for trainees coming to the EU outside of an intra-
corporate transfer would lead to inconsistencies in the EU legal framework for this group. The 
lack of coherence between Union programmes including mobility measures and immigration 
rules would also continue, as would the risk of some groups not being fully covered by the 
provisions on equal treatment rights in the Single Permit Directive. 

While some Member States have made further changes to their legislative frameworks on the 
implementation  of  the  provisions  on  students  and  researchers,  others  have  not.  This  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.  The  openness  of  the  EU 
towards  third  countries  would  therefore  not  materialise,  as  advocated  in  important  policy 
frameworks  such  as  the  current  Directives,  the  European  Research  Area  and  the  European 
Higher Education Area. 

Option  2.  Communicating  more  (in  particular  in  the  case  of  researchers)  and  better 
enforcing the current provisions 

This  option  includes  better  provision  of  and  access  to  information  to  make  the  current 
provisions clearer so that they are better applied. More could also be done to raise awareness 
of  the  best  practices  of  Member  States  in  admitting  and  protecting  groups  currently  not 
covered by Directive 2004/114/EC, i.e. au pairs and remunerated trainees. A more systematic 
exercise  of  ensuring  that  Member  States  understand  and  respect  their  obligations  under  the 
Directives would be carried out. 

5 

 
 
Option 3. Improving admission conditions, rights and procedural guarantees 

This  option  mainly  includes  improvements  for  students,  school  pupils,  volunteers  and 
unremunerated trainees, as it puts admission conditions for these groups (facilitation to obtain 
a  visa)  comparable  to  those  that  apply  to  researchers.  It  would  make  provisions  for  the 
currently optional groups of school pupils, volunteers and unremunerated trainees mandatory. 
Member  States  would  be  obliged  to  grant  every  facility  to  obtain  the  necessary  visas  to  a 
third-country  national  (students  and  other  groups)  who  has  submitted  an  application  and 
meets  the  admission  conditions.  Changes  would  also  be  made  to  procedural  guarantees, 
mainly  by  introducing  time  limits  that  oblige  Member  States’  authorities  to  decide  on  an 
application  within  60  days.  This  is  considered  proportionate  due  to  the  temporary  nature  of 
these stays. In exceptional circumstances, the time limit could be extended by 30 days. This 
option would also extend students’ right to work to cover a minimum of 15 hours per week 
from the first year of residence. To ensure coherence with EU instruments on legal migration 
such as the Single Permit Directive and recent case law on adequate fees, this option would 
also  include  a  provision  recalling  that  if  Member  States  charge  fees  for  processing 
applications, such fees should be proportionate. 

Option 4. Further improving admission conditions, rights relating to intra-EU mobility 
and procedural guarantees; offering students and researchers access to job-seeking after 
finishing their studies or research project; extending scope to au pairs and remunerated 
trainees 

This option aims to be more ambitious in improving the conditions and rights of the groups 
covered. It would extend the scope of the legislative framework to au pairs and remunerated 
trainees  and  introduce  specific  admission  conditions  to  ensure  better  protection  for  those 
third-country  nationals.  Including  au  pairs  under  the  scope  of  the  Directive  is  considered 
proportionate in view of their vulnerability, which is relatively high compared to that of other 
groups of third-country nationals. This is mainly because they work in a family context which 
under  normal  circumstances  is  not  subject  to  inspections.  Including  remunerated  trainees  is 
considered reasonable as the issues related to trainees are very similar whether or not they are 
remunerated, or whether or not they come to the EU as part of an intra-corporate transfer, as 
stipulated in the proposal for a Directive on intra-corporate transferees. 

Member  States  would  have  the  possibility  to  issue  long-stay  visas  or  residence  permits.  If 
both types of authorisations are issued, they should require only the fulfilment of admission 
conditions mentioned in the Directive (so that the conditions remain the same irrespective of 
the  type  of  authorisation).  If  third-country  nationals  stay  for  more  than  one  year,  Member 
States issuing long-stay visas would have to issue residence permits after the first year. Intra-
EU  mobility,  which  requires  common  provisions  at  EU  level  due  to  its  cross-border  nature, 
would be made easier and simplified for researchers and their family members, students, and 
introduced  for  the  first  time  for  remunerated  trainees.  Specific,  more  favourable  provisions 
would apply to the beneficiaries of Union programmes including mobility measures such as 
Erasmus  Mundus  or  Marie  Curie.  Following  the  example  of  the  contact  points  established 
under the Blue Card Directive and the proposal for a Directive on intra-corporate transferees, 
Member States would need to set up contact points for receiving and transmitting information 
needed to implement intra-EU mobility. 

6 

 
 
Regarding equal treatment rights, this option would allow more favourable treatment of third-
country  national  researchers  regarding  branches  of  social  security  including  family  benefits 
beyond  the  rights  given  under  the  provisions  of  the  Single  Permit.  It  would  also  ensure  the 
access  to  goods  and  services  made  available  to  the  public  to  those  groups  which  under  the 
Single Permit could be excluded from this access. 

As  is  already  the  case  in  some  Member  States,  students  would  have  the  right  to  work  for  a 
minimum of 20 hours per week from the first year of residence to enable them to better fund 
themselves and contribute to the Member State’s economy. Member States would be allowed 
to  continue  taking  the  national  labour  market  into  account.  After  finishing  their  studies  or 
research, students and researchers would be allowed to stay on the territory for 12 months to 
find a job. A number of Member States already have such provisions in place. Given the time 
it  takes  for  a  job-seeking  process  to  be  successfully  completed,  12  months  is  considered  a 
proportionate  time  limit.  With  regard  to  procedural  guarantees,  Member  States’  authorities 
would  have  to  decide  on  applications  within  60  days  for  all  groups  and  within  30  days  for 
Erasmus  Mundus  and  Marie  Curie  fellows.  Like  option  3,  this  option  would  also  include  a 
provision  recalling  that  if  Member  States  charge  fees  for  processing  applications,  such  fees 
should be proportionate. 

5.  ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

The impact of policy options 2, 3 and 4 was assessed against the baseline scenario in terms of 
their relevance and effectiveness in achieving key objectives, their feasibility (difficulty of or 
risks  for  transposition  including  proportionality,  administrative  burden/simplification  and 
financial  impact),  their  economic,  social  and  external  impacts  and  their  impact  on 
fundamental  rights.  While  the  analysis  of  the  likely  impacts  of  the  policy  options  includes 
some quantitative elements, it is mainly based on a multi-criteria qualitative assessment. 

While  option  2  would  have  some  positive  impacts,  these  would  mainly  relate  to  a  better 
awareness of current provisions such as admission conditions, and the benefits that could be 
reaped from this as it might attract more students and researchers to the EU. As the current 
legal  instruments  would  not  be  changed,  their  weaknesses  would  persist.  As  access  to  the 
labour market for these third-country nationals would not be improved, this option would put 
the EU in an increasingly disadvantaged position for attracting talent for study and research 
purposes. The impact on the three other (optional) groups covered by Directive 2004/114/EC 
would be very limited. The economic impact and administrative burden of this option would 
be  limited  and  confined  to  efforts  needed  to  implement  improved  communication  activities 
insofar as Member States deem this necessary. 

Option 3 would facilitate the access of students, school pupils, volunteers and unremunerated 
trainees  to  the  EU.  It  would  thus  have  some  positive  impacts,  mainly  of  a  social  nature.  It 
would  allow  students  to  apply  for  mobility  from  within  the  territory  of  a  Member  State, 
thereby increasing intra-EU mobility and strengthening the cultural and linguistic diversity of 
the  EU.  Provisions  on  equal  treatment  would  strengthen  students’  rights  and  align  them 
further with those of EU citizens. This option would increase the EU’s pool of students and 
researchers who are third-country nationals. Some of them may subsequently contribute to the 
EU’s economic growth and development if a Member State issues the necessary authorisation 

7 

 
 
 
to work. Improved access to the labour market during studies would allow students to more 
adequately  fund  themselves  and  contribute  to  the  economy  during  their  studies.  The 
introduction  of  binding  time  limits  for  processing  applications  would  increase  transparency 
and enable potential applicants to plan ahead. The transposition efforts and costs would vary 
between Member States, depending on the extent to which they already have provisions in the 
areas  concerned,  and  whether  or  not  they  have  transposed  provisions  for  groups  that  are 
optional  under  Directive  2004/114/EC.  The  additional  procedural  guarantees  would  entail 
more work, for example in situations where the Member State authority must provide reasons 
for rejecting an application in its written decision. 

Option 4 would have the most significant positive economic impacts. This is because it would 
allow  students  and  researchers  to  stay  on  a  Member  State’s  territory  for  12  months  after 
finishing their studies or research to identify job opportunities. In Member States where they 
currently cannot do so, this would open up a new pool of talent that could contribute to the 
EU’s  growth  and  competitiveness  if  the  Member  State  decides  to  issue  the  necessary  work 
permit. This would create a demand-driven situation, allowing third-country nationals to work 
if their skills are needed on the national labour market. Some Member States would have to 
introduce this possibility, while others would have to adjust it so that it (at least) corresponds 
to  12  months.  Substantially  improved  admission  conditions  should  facilitate  the  access  of 
researchers  and  students  whose  skills,  knowledge  and  competencies  already  during  their 
initial  stay  will  have  a  positive  effect  on  the  stimulation  of  research  and  development  and 
innovative  performance.  Improved  provisions  on  intra-EU  mobility  will  allow  any  such 
advantage to spread more widely across the EU. Including au pairs and remunerated trainees 
under  this  option  would  strengthen  the  protection  of  these  vulnerable  groups  of  immigrants 
who are often subject to abuse. 

A  stronger  link  between  the  requirements  to  obtain  permits  and  visas  would  imply 
adjustments  at  Member  State  level  but  there  should  not  be  any  major  difficulties  with 
transposition. Implementing these provisions would cost more in the short term, in particular 
as  far  as  changes  in  admission  conditions  are  concerned.  However,  in  the  medium  to  long 
term Member States could expect to make savings through a more streamlined link between 
different  kinds  of  authorisations.  Introducing  and  applying  procedural  guarantees  will  entail 
additional costs. 

6.  COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

Option  2  would  address  a  significant  weakness  in  the  current  framework  (provision  of 
information).  Overall  however,  it  has  limited  positive  impacts,  as  it  would  not  change  the 
substance of the current legal instruments. Their other weaknesses would therefore persist. 

Option 3 would be a step forward in improving admission conditions with regard to issuing 
visas  and/or  work  permits.  It  would  have  positive  impacts  mainly  for  students  and  to  some 
extent school pupils, volunteers and unremunerated trainees. Very limited benefits would be 
derived from time limits for researchers and no benefits for the groups currently not covered 
by  either  of  the  Directives.  Option  4  would  have  significantly  greater  positive  impacts  on 
access to the EU, not only for the groups covered by the Directives but also for au pairs and 
remunerated trainees. The changes introduced by option 4 would make the requirements to be 

8 

 
 
 
fulfilled at the different stages of the admission procedure and the way they are linked to each 
other much clearer. 

Regarding equal treatment, compared to the other options, only option 4 would allow more 
favourable  treatment  of  third-country  national  researchers  regarding  branches  of  social 
security including family benefits beyond the rights given under the provisions of the Single 
Permit. It would also ensure the access to goods and services made available to the public to 
those groups which under the Single Permit could be excluded from this access. 

Regarding  intra-EU  mobility,  only  the  conditions  for  students  would  be  improved  under 
option  3.  Option  4  would  also  improve  the  conditions  for  researchers  and  their  family 
members  as  well  as  for  remunerated  trainees  and  make  specific  provisions  for  the 
beneficiaries of Union programmes including mobility measures. 

With  regard  to  procedural  guarantees,  introducing  binding  time  limits  for  processing  an 
application under option 3 would increase transparency and enable potential applicants to plan 
ahead. The stricter time limits proposed under option 4 would further increase the advantages 
potential applicants gain. 

With  regard  to  improving  access  to  the  labour  market,  option  3  would  significantly 
improve  the  current  situation  of  students  by  increasing  the  minimum  number  of  working 
hours and removing the possibility of limiting access to the labour market in the first year of 
residence.  Option  4  would  further  increase  the  minimum  number  of  working  hours  for 
students.  It  would  also  make  the  legal  framework  significantly  more  attractive  for  students 
and researchers by allowing them to stay on the territory of a Member State to find a job and 
by granting researchers’ family members access to the labour market. 

Only  option  4  achieves  the  objective  of  providing  coherent  provisions  to  ensure  that  au 
pairs  and  remunerated  trainees  are  protected.  It  envisages  a  coherent  set  of  admission 
conditions and rights ensuring that the objective of training and au paring in the EU are not 
compromised. 

Preferred Option 

The analysis and comparison of the options suggest there are problems that cannot be solved 
by better communication alone and that the Directives therefore need to be updated. 

Although  it  has  the  lowest  implementation  costs,  option  2  only  has  limited  potential  to 
achieve  the  objectives.  The  real  issues  at  stake  remain  largely  unresolved.  Option  2  is 
therefore regarded as the least cost-efficient option. Option 3 is more effective and efficient 
than option 2. 

However,  option  4  is  the  most  effective  and  efficient  overall.  While  it  costs  more  to 
implement  than  the  other  options,  the  implementation  costs  are  considered  proportionate  to 
the objectives and necessary to allow for the most substantial benefits to materialize. 

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 

9 

 
 
be done by recasting both Directives, merging them in a single legislative act and proposing 
substantive changes. 

7.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Currently, the main indicator is the number of permits granted to third-country nationals who 
come to the EU for research or educational and study purposes. Under the new instrument, an 
effort could be made to better distinguish between the different groups, including remunerated 
trainees and au pairs, regardless of whether they come to the EU under a permit or long-stay 
visa. Recording the number of authorisations granted would enable monitoring of the situation 
over time. To better assess their intra-EU mobility, the number of beneficiaries of EU-funded 
mobility  programmes  could  be  recorded  separately.  Statistics  could  also  be  developed  to 
monitor the number of students and researchers who look for a job, compared to the overall 
number who are third-country nationals and who obtain the necessary work permit. The time 
Member States take to decide on applications would be recorded and compared with the time 
limits currently in force. 

As  with  any  EU  legal  instrument,  the  Commission  is  responsible  for  ensuring  that  Member 
States apply the Directive(s) correctly and on time. In the area of migration, the Commission 
communicates with the Member States through the Contact Committee on Migration. This is 
a  forum  for  discussion  to  help  anticipate  problems  and  solve  them  more  effectively,  in 
particular during the implementation period. 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  verify  that  transposition  measures  comply  with  the 
Directive and that Member States transpose it on time. It will launch infringement procedures 
if  necessary.  The  proposal  will  include  an  obligation  for  the  Commission  to  report  to  the 
European Parliament and the Council evaluating the application of the new Directive by the 
Member States five years after the deadline for transposition. The report could also cover the 
effects of the Directive and it may contain policy recommendations. 

10