COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly skilled employment
Date: 2016-06-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, foreign national, free movement of workers, labour law, migrant worker, occupational migration, recognition of vocational training qualifications, residence permit, skilled worker, work permit

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 7.6.2016  SWD(2016) 194 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly skilled employment {COM(2016) 378 final} {SWD(2016) 193 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 
Impact assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Revised 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 (“EU Blue Card”) 

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed and why is it a problem at EU level? 
The  EU  faces  increasing structural  skills  shortages  and  mismatches  in  certain  key sectors  (e.g.  ICT,  engineering, 
healthcare) often requiring a high level of skills. The EU will also face demographic challenges in the next decades 
with a rapidly ageing population, a progressively shrinking labour force and an increasing old-age dependency ratio. 
This jeopardises the growth, innovation capacity and competitiveness of the EU while it competes with other major 
economies to attract talent: currently, 48 % of non-European low-educated migrants choose a European destination 
while 68 % of the high-educated prefer a non-European OECD destination. 
In 2009, the ”EU  Blue Card” Directive (BC) was adopted to make the EU a more attractive destination  for foreign 
highly skilled workers (HSW) and contribute to strengthening its knowledge economy. However, the EU continues to 
fail  to  attract  and  retain  sufficient  numbers  of  HSW1  under  both  national  schemes  and  the  BC  across  Member 
States2 in international comparison3. The main problems include: 
 - the structural shortcomings of the BC: restrictive admission conditions (e.g. high salary threshold), limited intra-EU 
mobility  and  low  level  of  harmonisation  (Member  States  have  leeway  on  central  aspects)  leading  to  poor 
'marketability'; 
-  the  structural  shortcomings  of  parallel  national  schemes  for  HSW:  while  they  can  be  better  adapted  to  the 
specificities  of  national  labour  markets,  significant  variations  across  Member  States  show  that  only  few  can  be 
considered  to  be  relatively  successful  while  by  their  nature  they  cannot  offer  intra-EU  mobility,  identified  as  an 
important element of attractiveness, leading to inefficient (re)allocation of labour force across the EU. 
This results in different and parallel applicable sets of rules and procedures for admitting HSW to the EU, leading to 
a complex and inefficient EU immigration system which fails to be able to effectively and promptly respond to rising 
demands for HSW and offset labour and skill shortages. In addition, the EU fails to admit other talented and highly 
skilled third-country nationals (TCNs)4. However, many factors affecting the EU’s attractiveness for HSW lie outside 
of  the  scope  of  migration  policy,  including  living  standards,  career  opportunities,  welfare  and  tax  systems, 
languages, the level of wages etc. 
What is this initiative expected to achieve? 
The general objectives are to: (1) attract and retain highly skilled TCNs in order to contribute to enhancing the EU’s 
competitiveness  and  addressing  the  consequences  of  demographic  ageing,  and  (2)  to  offset  skill  shortages  via 
better labour force (re)allocation through increased inflows, occupational and intra-EU mobility. 
The  specific  objectives  are  to:  (1)  create  a  well-functioning  EU  immigration  system  for  highly  skilled  TCNs,  (2), 
increase the number of highly skilled TCNs admitted based on demand, (3) harmonise and simplify the admission of 
highly  skilled  TCNs,  (4)  promote  integration  of  highly  skilled  TCNs  and  their  families  with  favourable  residence 
conditions  and  rights,  (5)  improve  possibilities  for  intra-EU  mobility,  and  (6)  develop  the  BC  brand  and  the 
attractiveness of the EU as a destination for highly skilled TCNs. 
What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)? 
Currently,  the  EU’s  Member  States  act  as  individual  players  in  attracting  HSW  and  the  numbers  of  HSW  permits 
issued  are  low.  The  EU  value  added  of  a  well-functioning  Blue  Card  is  providing  one,  transparent,  flexible  and 
streamlined scheme for HSW, that can better compete with schemes of traditional  immigration  countries, such as 
US, Canada and Australia, by pooling efforts together, offering tangible intra-EU mobility rights, making use of the 
wider labour market, and marketing the EU globally with an attractive and clear EU brand. 

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, why? 
Three Policy Option Packages (POPs) have been assessed: 
-  POP1:  a  very  inclusive  scheme  that  extends  the  BC  significantly,  also  to  some  medium-skilled  workers,  by 
introducing salary and qualifications as alternative conditions, with limited additional rights; 
-  POP2:  a  scheme  that  modifies  the  admission  conditions  and  rights  and  stays  focussed  on  HSW  with  3  sub-
options: (a) a more inclusive, flexible and  adaptable scheme for a wider group of HSW that facilitates procedures 
and grants more rights and intra-EU mobility, (b) a more selective scheme for the "top" HSW that grants even more 
rights and mobility, and (c) a two-tier scheme combining (a) and (b). 
- POP3: a selective standard EU-wide BC with (high) uniform salary threshold and extensive facilitation and rights, 
including full mobility.  

1 The current overall inflow of HSW to EU25: 23 419 in 2012, 34 904 in 2013 and 38 774 in 2014.  
2 In 2014: 13 852 Blue Cards (less in previous years) – almost 90% by 1 Member State – and about 25 000 national HSW permits.  
3 The US labour force is around two-third the EU's, yet it admits around 200 000 skilled labour migrants yearly. 
4 TCN innovative entrepreneurs, service providers and highly skilled beneficiaries of international protection and asylum applicants. 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
In addition, three horizontal policy options (POs) have been assessed, as complementary or self-standing : 
- PO-A: non-legislative action (stronger cooperation, better promotion, faster recognition of qualifications etc.);  
- PO-B: extension of scope to innovative entrepreneurs; 
- PO-C: extension of scope to highly skilled beneficiaries of international protection or asylum seekers. 
The preferred option is POP2 (sub-option a) together with PO-A. In addition, PO-C has been identified as feasible 
with a limited positive impact, and left for political consideration. 
What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option? 
Most economic stakeholders consider the status quo not satisfactory and non-legislative measures as insufficient. 
More flexibility in admission conditions and swifter procedures, more harmonisation and enhanced intra-EU mobility 
are generally seen favourably by economic actors. On the other hand, most governmental actors (MS governments 
and administrations in particular) do not consider a revision of the BC desirable and prefer to keep parallel national 
schemes. On the scope of the changes, views are split, particularly as regards extension to medium-skilled workers, 
as  well  as  to  other  categories  of  migrants.  Even  those  favouring  EU-wide  rules  on  entrepreneurship  or  service 
providers  generally  consider  that  a  separate  targeted  instrument  would  be  more  appropriate.  Stakeholders'  views 
are split as regards extension to categories of migrants having applied for or received international protection.  
C. Impacts of the preferred option 
What are benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)? 
The  preferred  option  would  have  a  positive  economic  impact,  as  a  higher  availability  of  HSW  in  the  EU  would 
contribute to growth and competitiveness, and is well suited for addressing labour and skills shortages and retaining 
young talent (lower salary threshold for shortage occupations and recent graduates).  
It has a high potential for increasing the numbers of HSW and their occupational and intra-EU mobility and would 
allow reacting more swiftly and easily when skills shortages and better opportunities arise elsewhere. The necessary 
trade-off  between  flexible  admission  conditions  and  extensive  rights  is  well-balanced  in  the  preferred  option.  It 
combines a high level of inclusiveness, substantial flexibility for Member States to adapt to their national situation, 
and a high substitution potential for parallel national schemes, with further facilitation of procedures, a higher level of 
rights, further facilitation of intra-EU mobility and a high level of harmonisation.  
The  benefits  would  be  evenly  spread  across  Member  States  as  the  scheme  would  allow  for  national  adaptation. 
Social  impacts  would  be  mostly  positive,  as  EU  citizens  would  benefit  from  the  overall  economic  growth,  and  a 
potential displacement effect is expected to be very limited, if any at all. HSW falling under the scheme would enjoy 
more extensive rights and third countries would benefit from brain gain, circular migration and remittances. The non-
legislative actions of PO-A would have only limited effect alone, but, if combined, they would reinforce the positive 
impact of POP2(a) and make the scheme more visible to HSW and employers, thereby strengthening the BC brand. 
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)? 
There  would  be  some  initial  administrative  costs  for  Member  States  to  introduce  the  new  scheme  and  replace 
parallel national schemes. A certain risk of brain drain exists for third countries, yet there are and there will remain 
provisions in the BC to mitigate it. The displacement effect vis-à-vis domestic and EU workforce is expected to be 
very limited 
How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? 
Through a more attractive and inclusive BC, companies of all sizes and structures will be able to profit from easier 
recruitment of HSW and from access to a larger pool of HSW within the EU. SMEs in particular benefit from a more 
inclusive  (lower  salary  threshold)  and  simpler  admission  scheme,  as  they  have  limited  resources  to  invest  in 
recruitment  efforts.  A  system  of  'recognised  employers'  may  inherently  favour  larger  companies,  which  is  why 
specific adjustments in favour of SMEs are necessary to keep the admission criteria and costs reasonable. Allowing 
gradual transition from employment to entrepreneurship promotes the creation of small, innovative businesses. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
There  would  be  some  initial  administrative  costs  for  Member  States,  as  possible  existing  schemes  would  be 
replaced  by  the  BC,  requiring  some  training  and  information  provision.  However,  these  costs  are  expected  to  be 
quickly offset by the simpler, easily administrable scheme. While higher numbers of applicants would increase the 
overall administrative costs, the per-unit cost would decrease due to economies of scale and efficiency gains by a 
simplified system. In addition, these costs would be largely offset by fees and, indirectly, by the economic benefits 
for the host society and increased tax revenue. 
Will there be other significant impacts? 
With a more inclusive BC there would be a positive effect on fundamental rights, as more people would be included 
in the advantageous family reunification rules and mobility scheme of the BC.  
Proportionality? 
The  preferred  option  does  not  raise  issues  in  terms  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality,  as  it  builds  on  the  current 
scheme, greatly enhancing its capacity to attract talents and highly skilled workers. It enhances harmonisation while 
leaving the necessary leeway for Member States to adapt to national circumstances and policy preferences. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed? 
The  Commission  will  present  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  a  report  on  the  implementation  and 
functioning of the EU Blue Card three years after the transposition deadline, and every three years thereafter.