Legal migration fitness check : evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives. Annex 2A.
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs
Subjects: Community acquis, EU migration policy, EU policy, European Union, directive (EU), employment policy, foreign national, migration, migration policy, national law, rights of aliens, skilled worker

Legal Migration Fitness Check  

Evidence base for practical 
implementation of the legal 
migration directives 
Annex 2A 

Written by ICF Consulting Services 
Limited 

June 2018 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs 

Unit B.1 – Legal Migration and Integration 

European Commission 

B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Legal Migration Fitness Check  

Evidence base for practical 
implementation of the legal 
migration directives 
Annex 2A 

Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs 
Fitness check on legal migration 

June, 2018 

 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 
may charge you). 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels 

LEGAL NOTICE 

Annex to " Legal Migration Fitness Check Final evaluation report – Supporting study", ICF Consulting 
Services Limited (2018) , finalised June 2018.  

Research carried out 2017. 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 

ISBN  978-92-76-01103-3 

doi: 10.2837/396264 

Catalogue number : DR-02-19-191-EN-N  

© European Union, 2019 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Table of Contents 

1 

Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 

Purpose and scope of Task II .................................................................. 1 
1.1 
1.2  Methodology of Task II ........................................................................... 1 
Structure of the report ........................................................................... 3 
1.3 

2  Phase 1: Pre-application (information) phase .................................................. 3 

2.1  Main findings ......................................................................................... 3 
Findings per main research topic ............................................................. 4 
2.2 

Topic 1.1: Easiness of finding information ...................................... 4 
2.2.1 
 Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies ............................. 6 
Box 1 
Topic 1.2: Information channels and actors providing information ..... 7 
2.2.2 
Topic 1.3: availability of information upon request ........................... 8 
2.2.3 
2.2.4 
Topic 1.4: Content of information provided ..................................... 9 
Statuses on the basis of EU Directives ............................................................ 9 
Equivalent national statuses .........................................................................10 

2.3  Differences between statuses under EU Directives and national equivalent 
statuses ........................................................................................................10 
2.4  Main conformity issues and may clauses ..................................................10 

3  Phase 2: Pre-application (documentation) phase .............................................11 

3.1  Main findings ........................................................................................11 
Findings per main research topic ............................................................11 
3.2 

Topic 2.1: Time required to prepare the application ........................11 
Topic 2.2 Information requirements ..............................................12 
Topic 2.3: User-friendliness of the application forms .......................12 
Topic 2.4: Admission conditions and documentation requirements ....15 
Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies and the Open Public 

3.2.1 
3.2.2 
3.2.3 
3.2.4 
Box 2 
Consultation ...............................................................................................15 
3.2.5 

Attesting highly professional qualifications by professional experience 
20 
Topic 2.5: Recognition of diplomas and qualifications ......................25 
 Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies ............................25 
Topic 2.6: Proof of employment ...................................................26 
Topic 2.7: Pre-integration measures .............................................27 
Evidence from the Open Public Consultation ..................................28 
Evidence from the Open Public Consultation ..................................28 

3.2.6 
Box 3 
3.2.7 
3.2.8 
Box 4 
Box 5 

Key differences between EU Directives and their national equivalents ..........29 
3.3 
3.4  Main conformity issues and may clauses ..................................................29 

4  Phase 3 – Application phase: lodging the application .......................................32 

4.1  Main findings ........................................................................................32 
Findings per main research topic ............................................................33 
4.2 

4.2.1 
Box 6 
4.2.2 
Box 7 
4.2.3 
4.2.4 
4.2.5 
Box 8 
4.2.6 

Research topic 3.1: Easiness of lodging an application ....................33 
Evidence from interviews with migration agencies and the OPC ........34 
Research topic 3.2: authorities involved in the application ...............34 
Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies and the OPC ..........34 
Research topic 3.3: application fees ..............................................35 
Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies and the OPC ..........36 
Research topic 3.4: Time to process applications ............................37 
Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies and the OPC ..........38 
Research topic 3.5: Administrative and financial sanctions ...............38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Research topic 3.6: Applications and delivery of permits in third 

Research topic 3.7: Applications and delivery of permits in Member 
41 
Research topic 3.8: Notification of the decision ..............................41 
Research topic 3.9: Notification of a rejection ................................42 
Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies and the OPC ..........42 
Research topic 3.10: Involvement of third-country nationals if the 

4.2.7 
countries  40 
4.2.8 
States 
4.2.9 
4.2.10 
Box 9 
4.2.11 
employer is the applicant .............................................................................42 
4.2.12 
Research topic 3.11: Appeal procedures ........................................43 
Box 10 Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies ...................................44 
Research topic 3.12: administrative silence ...................................44 
4.2.13 

Key differences between the EU Directives and their national equivalents ....45 
4.3 
4.4  Main conformity issues and may clauses ..................................................46 

5  Phase 4: Entry and travel phase: including acquisition of the necessary entry and 
transit visas .....................................................................................................47 

5.1  Main findings ........................................................................................47 
Findings per research topic ....................................................................48 
5.2 

5.2.1 
5.2.2 
5.2.3 
5.2.4 
5.2.5 
5.2.6 

Research topic 4.1: Entry visas ....................................................48 
Research topic 4.2: entry and re-entry on the basis of the permit ....49 
Research topic 4.3: Entry from visa free countries ..........................50 
Research topic 4.5: requesting the entry visa ................................50 
Research topic 4.5: leaving, transiting and entering without a visa ...51 
Research topic 4.6: Procedures upon arrival ..................................51 

5.3  Differences between the EU Directives and their national equivalents ..........52 
5.4  Main conformity issues and may clauses ..................................................52 

6  Phase 5 – Post-Application phase during which competent national authorities 
deliver the permit .............................................................................................53 

6.1  Main findings ........................................................................................53 
Findings per main research topic ............................................................53 
6.2 

Research topic 5.1: The timeframe for delivering the permit and 
53 
Research topic 5.2: Authorities involved in the permit issuing 

6.2.1 
charges 
6.2.2 
procedure  55 
Box 11 Evidence from the OPC .....................................................................56 
6.2.3 
Research topic 5.3: Difference between non-EU family members of EU 
citizens and non-EU family members of third-country nationals ........................56 
Research topic 5.4: Duration of the first permits ............................56 
6.2.4 
6.2.5 
Research topic 5.5: Involvement of the employer / other parties in the 
delivery of the permit ..................................................................................62 

6.3 
Key differences between the EU Directives and their national equivalents ....62 
6.4  Main conformity issues and may clauses ..................................................63 

7  Phase 6 – Residency phase ..........................................................................63 

7.1  Main findings ........................................................................................63 

Residence permits ......................................................................63 
7.1.1 
Box 12 Evidence from the OPC .....................................................................66 
Changes of status .......................................................................66 
7.1.2 
Access to employment and employment related rights ....................66 
7.1.3 
Equal treatment .........................................................................67 
7.1.4 
7.1.5 
Integration requirements .............................................................67 
Box 13 Evidence from the OPC .....................................................................68 

 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

7.2 

Findings per main research topic ............................................................68 

7.2.1 
7.2.2 
7.2.3 
7.2.4 
7.2.5 
7.2.6 

Topic 6.1: Residence permits .......................................................68 
Topic 6.2: Status changes and naturalisation .................................78 
Topic 6.3: Access to employment and employment related rights .....83 
Access to employment for TCN students ........................................84 
Topic 6.4: Equal treatment ..........................................................84 
Topic 6.5: Integration .................................................................90 

7.3  Main conformity issues and may clauses ..................................................97 

8  Phase 7 – Intra-EU mobility phase .............................................................. 103 

8.1  Main findings ...................................................................................... 103 
Findings per research topic .................................................................. 104 
8.2 

8.2.1 
Research topic 7.1: Conditions and procedures for intra-EU mobility (in 
the second Member State) ......................................................................... 104 
Box 13 Evidence from the OPC ................................................................... 108 
Research topic 7.2: Movement and rights of family members ......... 110 
8.2.2 
Research topic 7.3: Short-term mobility ...................................... 113 
8.2.3 

8.3  Main conformity issues and may clauses ................................................ 114 

9  Phase 8 – End of legal stay, leaving the EU .................................................. 118 

9.1  Main findings ...................................................................................... 118 
Findings per main research topic .......................................................... 118 
9.2 

9.2.1 
9.2.2 
9.2.3 
State 
9.2.4 
9.2.5 
9.2.6 

Topic 8.1: Exploring procedures around leaving the Member State . 118 
Topic 8.2: Examining rights to transfer benefits ........................... 119 
Topic 8.3: Identifying procedures around absences from the Member 
121 
Topic 8.4: Exploring processes for circular migration..................... 124 
Topic 8.5: Reviewing the consequences of overstaying .................. 124 
Topic 8.6: Examining the procedure for those who cannot be returned
125 

9.3  Main conformity issues and may clauses ................................................ 126 

Annex 1 List of interviews ................................................................................ 127 
1.1 List of interviews carried out by national researchers ..................................... 127 
1.2 List of interviews carried out by national researchers ..................................... 130 
Annex 2 EMN resources used ........................................................................... 130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

1 

Introduction 

1.1  Purpose and scope of Task II  

The purpose of Task II is to examine how the Member States have implemented the 
legal migration Directives and to assess the extent to which the EU legal migration 
acquis has been correctly transposed legally and whether the acquis has been 
correctly applied in practice. The present report provides a comparative overview of 25 
Member States1 which apply the EU legal migration acquis. The main aspects of Task 
II include: 

  Assessment of legal implementation of the Directives – undertaken on the 

basis of the conformity studies provided by the Commission  

  Assessment of practical implementation and examining the impact of the 
Directives – carried out on the basis of the set of questions, based on eight 
stages of the legal migration process, provided in Annex II of the ToR.  

Task II covers the following Directives: 

  Directive 2003/86/EC on "Family Reunification” hereafter referred to as FRD 

  Directive 2003/109/EC on "Long term residents" hereafter referred to as LTR 

  Directive 2004/114/EC on "Students", hereafter referred to as SD  

  Directive 2005/71/EC on "Researchers", hereafter referred to as RD 

  Directive 2009/50/EC "EU Blue Card", hereafter referred to as BCD 

  Directive 2011/98/EU 'Single Permit Directive", hereafter referred to as SPD 

The Seasonal Workers and ICT will only be applied from respectively September and 
November 2016 onwards and hence they have not been included in Task II. Similarly, 
the Recast Directive (EU) 2016/801 on “Students and Researchers” has not been 
included as it will only be applicable in 2018.  

1.2  Methodology of Task II  

The study was based on a mixed-method of approach which focussed on answering a 
set of questions provided in the Terms of Reference (ToR). The evidence to be 
collected was in part experiential and in part factual: 

  Experiential questions required migrants, migration agents (organisations 

providing support – often against a fee – to third-country nationals who wish to 
migrate), migrant organisations (e.g. diaspora organisations, NGOs working 
with migrants, etc.), any other organisations somehow engaged in (parts of) 
the migrant organisations and researchers from the study team to express an 
informed qualitative view or judgement on certain aspects of the migration 
process. The experiential questions were answered through three main tools: 

-  Experiential test by (national) researchers; 
-  Survey to migrants and NGOs; 
-  Experiential questions to migration agents / migrant organisations. 

In a majority of cases, experiential questions asked respondents to mark their 
level of agreement with a certain statement on the migration process by 
providing a score from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning strong agreement and 5 meaning 
strong disagreement with the statement. This scoring is also presented in the 
present report. 

1 Please note that France is not included in this version but will be added in the version following 
Commission’s comments.  

June, 2018 

1 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

  Factual questions are focussing on collecting ‘neutral’ information and statistics 
on aspects of the migration process. This information was gathered by the 
national researchers on the basis of desk research and, where information was 
missing, incomplete or ambiguous, through interviews with national 
stakeholders including Member State authorities or agencies or where relevant, 
other organisations/actors at national level (e.g. NGOs and migrant associations 
at national level). 

The methodological approach to Task II consisted of eight steps, as presented in the 
table below. 

Table 1.  Overview of steps to be undertaken during Task II 

Task 

Description 

Step II.1 In-depth review of 
relevant information gathered 
and reviewed under Task I.A 

Step II.2 Preparation of 
structured overview of the 
legal implementation of the 
Directives 

Step II.3.Preparation of 
tailored and pre-completed 
questionnaires 

Step II.4 Stakeholder 
consultation 

Step II.5 Legal migration 
processes survey  

A full review of documentation and other sources mapped and organised 
as part of the literature review in Task I.A, covering both EU and 
national documents. Some additional desk research at national level was 
also included. For this EU synthesis report, specific use has been made 
of European Migration Network (EMN) Studies and other outputs (see 
Annex 2). 

The structured overview was prepared according to the following steps: 

Mapping of relevant provisions by migration phase and research question 
(see Annex 3) 

Mapping and analysis of conformity issues based on TIPIK studies per 
migration phase in the national research (See national research (i) 
questionnaires and (ii) national summaries) 

Comparative overview of conformity issues in Synthesis Report and 
detailed annexes per provision. 

The key factual questions, and large proportion of the experiential 
questions, to be answered as part of Task II have been completed as far 
as possible by national researchers on the basis of desk research, 
complemented with interviews with relevant stakeholders where deemed 
necessary (see Step II.4 below). 

Gaps in the questionnaires were addressed through stakeholder 
consultations, in particular with Member State authorities, migrant 
associations and agents representing migrants wishing to enter the EU. 
The latter two were also asked to respond to a (short) set of experiential 
questions (see Step II.5 below). See Annex 1 for a full list. 

This step initially focussed on obtaining experiential information from 
third-country nationals from a sample of 10 third countries. For this 
purpose, a survey was included in the Open Public Consultation (see 
Task III) and a specific sampling method was used to select the 10 third 
countries. 

However, as it proved to be more useful to examine responses by 
Member State (of destination) rather than by third country of origin, and 
taking into account the low number of responses received to the Open 
Public Consultation from the 10 target third countries, the method was 
adapted to take on board responses from third-country nationals from all 
non-EU countries. 

Step II.6 Delivery of national 
summaries 

Once the data collection process was completed, the national 
researchers prepared Member State summaries reviewing the legal and 
practical implementation of the EU migration acquis. 

Step II.7 Organisation of 
Expert workshop 

An expert workshop was originally planned to obtain expert views and 
suggestions on the key findings from the national summaries to highlight 
in the EU Synthesis Report. Due to time constraints the workshop did not 
take place.  

June, 2018 

2 

 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Task 

Description 

Step II.8 Preparation of EU 
level Synthesis evaluating the 
legal and practical application 
and comparative tables   

Drafting of the present EU-level synthesis report which assesses the 
status of legal implementation and practical application of the Directives 
in the EU. 

Task II also provides input to the assessment of the legal migration acquis in the 
evaluation (Task IV). Finally, Task II should support the Commission’s monitoring of 
the implementation of the legal migration Directives by enabling it to detect cases of 
incorrect application and to take adequate steps to redress them. 

1.3  Structure of the report 

The report follows the methodological framework for Task II report which follows the 8 
migration phases of the migration process from the perspective of the migrants (as set 
out in Annex II of the ToR):  

1.  Pre-application phase during which third-country nationals (and their family 

members) seek information on the application procedure.  

2.  Preparation phase during which third-country nationals (and their family 

members) prepare to lodge their applications.  

3.  Application phase during which third-country nationals (and their family 

members) lodge their applications and their processing.  

4.  Entry and travel phase, including acquisition of the necessary entry and transit 

visas.  

5.  Post-application phase during which competent national authorities deliver the 

residence permit  

6.  Residency phase, includes residence permits, changes of status, access to 

employment, equal treatment and integration  

7.  Intra-EU mobility phase: Travelling in the EU and moving to reside in another 

Member State and arriving in a second Member State.  

8.  End of legal stay, leaving the EU phase 

Each section reflects the findings of the particular phase and is structured as follows: 

  Main findings – overview of main findings and results of the Phase 
  Findings per main research topic  
  Differences between statuses under EU Directives and national equivalent 

statuses (where relevant) 

  Findings on conformity assessment (where relevant) 

2 

Phase 1: Pre-application (information) phase 

2.1  Main findings 

The “Pre-application: Information phase” is the first ‘preparatory’ phase during which 
the third-country nationals and their family members seek information on the 
application procedure before subsequently launching their application. It examines the 
availability and usefulness of information about migration procedures and conditions. 

The bulk of information on the legal migration acquis throughout Member States is 
provided online, via the websites of relevant institutions (ministries, migration offices, 
employment agencies, etc.) but also by relevant NGOs and business associations. 
Hotlines and information desks are also available, but seem to be affected by 
understaffing and administrative capacity of authorities. In their countries of origin, 
third-country nationals mainly have access to online information, as well as 
information provided by embassies and consulates, but the quality and availability of 

June, 2018 

3 

 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

these services vary substantially, depending on the number of representations, their 
capacity and their powers by law. National languages and English prevail as languages 
in which information is given; information upon request is also available, again 
depending on the capacity of institutions.  

Member States generally provide information on all aspects of the application 
procedure and the assessment as to whether information is available and easily 
accessible is relatively positive, meaning that information is comprehensive and can be 
accessed without much trouble, although not always ‘within four clicks’.  

Despite the different modalities Member States have put in place to provide tailored 
information upon request, this was nevertheless easily obtained in the majority of 
Member States and provided in a format with a relative degree of comprehensiveness 
and user-friendliness. However, several significant delays occurred before a response 
was received and some Member State authorities only sent very generic answers to 
specific requests.  

2.2  Findings per main research topic 

2.2.1  Topic 1.1: Easiness of finding information 
Q1a (i). What types of information channels2 on legal migration of 
third-country nationals exist in your Member State (e.g. websites, hot 
line (telephone), leaflets, information desks, others)?  

All Member States have websites providing information on legal migration channels to 
third-country nationals. Some of the websites, like in the Czech Republic and 
Romania, are considered very easy to navigate and obtain required information from. 
However the websites of some Member States3 are more complicated in terms of 
structure, which requires a certain level of computer knowledge and command of the 
Member State language and/or English, since most of the sites have also an English 
version. In others, like Belgium, the multitude of information makes navigation more 
difficult. In this regard, in Estonia and Luxembourg, difficulties are encountered with 
keeping the websites, or their English parts, up to date.  

The websites usually contain information about most types of legal migration statuses 
contained in the Directives and their national equivalents. In Spain and Romania 
significant recent improvements have been noted regarding the provision of online 
information.  

All Member States, with the exception of seven4, also operate hotlines and half5 have 
information desks to provide information regarding the application procedures and 
requirements. In a number of those Member States6, however, no dedicated hotlines 
are available, but rather options to contact authorities by phone via general numbers. 
This, as proven by the experiential questions below, may suggest that information 
given is potentially different or even contradictory, depending on which authority one 
contacts. In Cyprus, only a small number of information points are available within the 
relevant institutions, which in addition are heavily understaffed, which affects the 
extent to which third-country nationals can obtain information and often forces them 
to resort to ‘private’ legal assistance. As indicated in the experiential questions below, 
any attempt to obtain information faced various referrals among different officials and 
long waiting times both on the phone and via personal contact/e-mail correspondence. 

2 Art. 14 of the Single Permit Directive  requires Member States to make available to the general public a 
regularly updated set of information concerning the conditions of third-country nationals’ admission to and 
residence in its territory in order to work there. 
3 BG, CY, LU, MT, PT 
4 CY, EL, FR, HU, PL, RO, SE 
5 BG, CY, DE, ES, FI, HU, IT, NL, PT, RO, SI, SK 
6 EE, LV, SI 

June, 2018 

4 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

In significantly fewer countries the required information can be obtained through email 
communication7 with the authorities or via leaflets8. 

Information also can be obtained from NGOs active in the field of migration: NGOs are 
specifically mentioned as important sources of information in at least eleven Member 
States9, with a varying balance between the numbers of foreigners served by NGOs 
and the State. In some Member States10 they also provide free-of-charge 
consultations in their offices, via phone or email. NGOs however tend to concentrate 
their efforts more on asylum seekers and underprivileged migrants, possibly at risk or 
exposed to human trafficking, etc. The important role of the IOM in providing 
information on legal migration is expressly emphasised in Member States like 
Slovakia, Bulgaria and Poland. Business/investor associations are active in providing 
information, mostly concerning work-related permits, in, among others, Slovakia, 
Bulgaria, Estonia and Greece.  

While the information comes mainly from websites, in every Member State there are 
at least three different channels (such as websites, hot line (telephone), leaflets, 
information desks, etc.) through which the third-country nationals can obtain 
information about legal migration. However, the diversity of information channels also 
can lead to confusion and inaccuracies, because information is not simultaneously 
updated among the different channels and in the different language versions, 
especially when changes to legislation and/or procedures are being introduced. 

Q1 (a) (iv). In which languages is the information available (e.g. 
national language(s) and other languages, such as commonly spoken 
world languages – e.g. English, Spanish, French, Arabic, Hindi, 
Mandarin, Tamil, etc.)?  

In all Member States online information is available in the Member State national 
language and in English. Close to half of the Member States provide the information 
also in French11, Spanish12 and Russian13. Information in languages like Arabic and 
Turkish is available in few countries (Austria, Germany, France, the Netherlands, 
Poland, Sweden). Member States which make information available in most languages 
include the Netherlands14 and Germany15, as well as Portugal, where the hotline (ACM) 
is available in 60 languages.  

Q 1 (a) (iv). Easiness of finding websites and other information 
channels – finding websites/channels and information on them; easy 
access 

According to the experiential research carried out by national researchers, in most 
Member States, it is easy to find websites and other information channels and to 
identify the required pieces of information. Many websites have good search engines 
and/or are clearly structured, although they are often limited to the Member State 
language and English. However, However, according to migrant agencies (see box 
2/1/ at the end of this section) and TCN respondents to the OPC, there are still a 

7 BE, CY, ES, FI, HR, LU, MT, NL, PT, SI 
8 BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, LU, LV, SI, SK 
9 LV, PL, AT, BE, CY, DE, ES, FR, LT, HU, MT 
10 LT, LV, PL 
11 AT, CZ, DE, EL, FI, IT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI 
12 AT, DE, EL, FI, FR, IT, NL, PT, SI, SK 
13 AT, CZ, EE, ES, FI, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SI 
14 Arabic, Bahasa Indonesian, Chinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, 
Spanish and Turkish 
15 Spanish, French, Albanian, Arabic, Bosnian, Indonesian, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Turkish and 
Vietnamese 

June, 2018 

5 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

range of issues with accessing information. 52% (n=191) of non-EU citizens residing 
or having resided in the EU surveyed as part of the OPC agreed only to a small extent 
or not at all that it was easy to find information about legal migration to the EU. 
Similarly, finding information in Greece, Italy, Bulgaria (application forms on the 
Migration Directorate website, which is a sub-site of the Ministry of the Interior) and 
Malta (RD status) is considered more complicated.  The difficulty of obtaining 
information in Bulgaria was confirmed by a Bulgarian-based migrant agency. 
Information is only available upon request (via email or phone), with an average 
response time of two weeks.  

Overall, the NGO websites which provide information about legal migration are 
relatively easy to find. In Austria, the guides for international students and 
researchers are cited as constituting a good practice.  

The information channels of national equivalent statuses are also considered as easy 
to find and to browse, although problems were noted in Belgium, Italy, Latvia, 
Portugal and Spain. In Belgium, for example, the information is limited to the EU LTR 
status and scarce for the national equivalent, while information on the BCD equivalent 
can only be found on the websites of regional authorities and precise details are not 
always easy to find. In Latvia, not all details about national statuses can be found in 
one place.  

With regard to the level of detail of the information, in most Member States receive 
slightly less positive scores, with information channels (and in particular websites) not 
being considered user friendly and/or easy to navigate. Specific complications have 
been identified with finding information in Member States like Greece, Italy, Bulgaria 
and Malta. Information on rights in Malta is available, but accessible only via further 
searches on government websites, while in Bulgaria there are problems with obtaining 
information about admission conditions. In Austria, it is difficult to source information 
specifically about the FRD, while in Belgium users find it difficult to navigate 
throughout the multitude of information. In Cyprus there is also general lack of clear 
and user-friendly information. The information channels in the Czech Republic provide 
very general information only, not tailored to the specific needs of foreigners 
considering to lodge an application. National equivalent statuses receive a slightly less 
positive score than the EU statuses on average and in particular in Belgium, Finland, 
Italy, Latvia, Portugal and Spain. In Finland, where information is often found only on 
the application form itself, and Latvia, where information is scattered, the information 
provided was also deemed as not comprehensive enough. 

Access to information (measured by whether a specific piece of information can be 
accessed in less than four clicks) is considered relatively good, although in Member 
States such as Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland and Spain, more than four clicks where 
needed. In Finland, the websites are not considered as user-friendly as too many sub-
categories appear on the pages, making it a confusing and complicated experience to 
find a specific piece of information. In most of the Member States where equivalent 
national statuses exist, information on migration is also considered to be easily 
accessible. However, not all information needed can be obtained in less than four 
clicks.16   

Box 1  Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies 

A number of migrant agencies (from Belgium, France, Poland) identified the lack of 
having a standardised system in place which provides information on the application 
procedure as one of the main problems which should be addressed by Member State 
authorities. The vast amount of information provided by authorities online is oftentimes 
too technical, incomplete, outdated or misleading (and/or not available in English). While 
clients (i.e. employers) of these respective migrant agencies may in some cases conduct 

16 ES, LV on SD equivalent and FI on RD equivalent 

June, 2018 

6 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

initial web searchers themselves, they tend to refer back to professional services for 
clarifications in order to understand for which route there prospective employee qualifies 
and avoid applying for the wrong category.  Among the countries which provided 
information in a concise and easily accessible manner were primarily Scandinavian 
countries. 

2.2.2  Topic 1.2: Information channels and actors providing information 

Q1a (ii). Where can third-country nationals get information on entry 
and residence provided by your Member State in their country of 
origin? What types of information channels17 on legal migration of 
third-country nationals exist about your Member State in the country 
of origin (e.g. web-sites, hot line (telephone), leaflets, information 
desks, others)?  

All Member State websites providing information on legal migration of third-country 
nationals can naturally be visited by the third-country nationals from their country of 
origin, provided they have an internet connection, which can in itself be a challenge. 
The information on the websites is generally available in the Member State language 
or in English, so even if the third-country nationals accesses the website from his/her 
country of origin, he/she must have the required basic language skills.  

Information on websites of embassies and consulates varies and often covers only the 
visa/entry regime, since legal migration is usually under the responsibility of internal 
ministries/immigration departments. Cypriot embassies, for example, only provide 
information about short-term visas and none on legal migration. Polish representations 
provide only visa information. In Portugal, information provided online via the website 
of the embassies/consular posts varies (third) country by country: not all 
countries/embassies have websites and the websites of those that do are often not 
working or not regularly updated. In Belgium, visa applications are outsourced to 
private companies, which also provide relevant information.   

If the Member State has an embassy or consulate in the country of origin of third-
country nationals, they can usually obtain information by visiting the embassy or the 
consulate during opening hours. The diplomatic missions also provide information by 
phone or email.  

Leaflets18 and e-mail19 are again of lesser significance, as opposed to websites and 
personal contacts.  

The quality and availability of the information services vary substantially, depending 
on the number of representations, their capacity and their powers by law. In this 
respect, problems are cited in for example Estonia, which has relatively fewer 
embassies throughout the world. Finland has embassies covering more than one 
country and agreements with other EU Member States to provide consular services. 
The availability of information and related services in Austrian diplomatic missions and 
consulates varies depending on the competencies of the representation and on the 
host state and region, while in Italy also different levels and types of information are 
made available depending on the embassy or consulate.  

Q1 (a) (iii). Which actors provide information (e.g. relevant 
Ministries, diplomatic missions, NGOs, others)?  

17 Art. 14 of the Single Permit Directive requires Member States to make available to the general public a 
regularly updated set of information concerning the conditions of third-country nationals’ admission to and 
residence in its territory in order to work there. 
18 ES 
19 FI, HR, PL, PT, SI, SK 

June, 2018 

7 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

In most Member States, the main actors providing information on legal migration are 
the Ministries of Interior or their equivalents, as well as government agencies working 
in the field of migration (migration agencies / offices, educational cooperation 
agencies, employment agencies, integration centres, etc.). As discussed above, 
Embassies and consulates in the countries of origin of the third-country nationals play 
a significant role in providing information as well. Universities constitute a specialised 
source of information for students and researchers.  

There are also a number of NGOs, which provide information on the migration acquis. 
At least in half of the Member States there are active NGOs, which can be contacted 
by the third-country nationals, since most of them provide free-of-charge consultation 
onsite, via phone or email. 

2.2.3  Topic 1.3: availability of information upon request 

Q1(b) (i). Is information provided upon request20, including through 
face-to-face consultation (e.g. information desks) in the national 
administrations (i) in third countries and (ii) in the country of 
destination?  

For all Member States, except for France, information upon request is provided in the 
diplomatic or consular offices in the third countries, via telephone or email.  

Problems reported regarding the general availability of information upon 
request/consultations, mainly cover overall administrative hurdles like long queues at 
information centres (Finland), linguistic barriers and limited opening hours (Belgium), 
delays in receiving of e-mail answers (Cyprus). Malta is the only Member State which 
does not operate an information desk at the relevant institutions (Identity Malta or 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs), although applicants can obtain basic information from the 
clerks at these institutions. 

Quality of information upon request Q1(b)(ii) 

As part of Phase 1, national researchers were asked to send a request for information 
to the responsible authority in their Member State. Following receipt of the 
information, or after three weeks had passed following the request without this being 
followed by a response, they were asked to report on the following: 

a)  whether they received a response/were able to establish contact  
b)  the time taken to receive the response (number of days) 
c)  how satisfied they were with the response – i.e. did it answer the questions 

you posed  

As regards (a), in 21 Member States the responsible authority send a response, while 
in Greece, France, Malta and the Netherlands they failed to do so.  

Concerning the time taken (b) to receive the response, this took on average 3.5 days. 
However, in in Croatia, Italy and Spain the response was received after more than 10 
days. Ten Member States provided the fastest responses21, within one day.  

With regard to the extent to which the responses were considered satisfactory, in just 
over over half of the Member States which provided a response, the researchers 
considered this to adequately answer the question posed. The responses in nine22 
Member States were considered either partially or entirely unsatisfactory. In Spain and 
Portugal, institutions redirected the researchers to another authority for information. 
In Poland the quality of responses varied depending on the authorities contacted, with 
some being exactly to the point, while another official asked for a call instead of 

20  Art. 9 Single Permit Directive requires Member States to provide, upon request, adequate information to the 
third-country national and the future employer on the documents required to make a complete application.  
21 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, FI, HU, LT, RO, SI 
22 BG, CY, CZ, ES, FI, PL, PT, RO, SE 

June, 2018 

8 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

answering the question. In Finland and Romania the information provided lacked 
comprehensiveness. In Finland, many aspects of the specific question were not 
covered, while in Romania the answers only referred to relevant legislative provisions.  

After having submitted the request for information and reviewed the response, the 
national researchers were also asked to assess whether: 

(a) the personalised contact with the competent authorities was useful to obtain 
individualised information; 

(b) the process for obtaining the information was user-friendly. 

The (a) personalised contact was overall considered as useful, although some 
relatively minor issues were identified in four23 Member States. In the Czech Republic, 
for example, the researcher was unable to obtain the information through the Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs and was redirected to the relevant diplomatic mission. A similar 
problem was identified in Portugal, where the researcher did not receive the 
information needed and was directed to another authority. 

As to the process for obtaining information (b), this was considered as user friendly. 
However, in the Czech Republic, the researcher was treated differently depending on 
what language he spoke. When he spoke English, he was redirected six times, while 
when he spoke the national language, he was directly connected. In Poland, the 
researcher encountered difficulties when he attempted to call the competent authority, 
because the lines were either busy or nobody answered. In Spain, the researcher was 
asked to personally visit the police station. 

2.2.4  Topic 1.4: Content of information provided 

Q1d (i). Is information provided on the following admission aspects?  

Statuses on the basis of EU Directives  

In all Member States the information regarding the application procedure is 
provided online. On some websites the information is presented in an overly legalistic 
way, or otherwise difficult to follow for third-country nationals. This is the case for 
example in Cyprus, where foreigners can only infer the procedure and admission 
conditions from the application forms published, in Luxembourg where the procedure 
is not explained clearly enough and Portugal, where only entry requirements are 
listed, without further guidance. In most cases, the procedure is reasonably well 
explained, but the websites do not contain sufficient additional information on 
important aspects such as supporting documents and recognition of qualifications (see 
phase 2). Information on the application procedure can be obtained both in the 
Member States and from the diplomatic missions or consulate offices in third countries 
via e-mail, phone or in person. 

All Member State institutional websites provide information on the conditions for 
admission of the different EU statuses, although missing on a few specific 
statuses in some Member States. For example, Malta provides no application form or 
any specific guidance on the RD, which could be problematic in terms of compliance 
with the Directive. 

Information is given by all Member States about the necessity or not to have an entry 
visa, if the person is a national of a state where a visa is required. Information on visa 
requirements can be mainly found on websites of foreign ministries, embassies and 
consulates. 

Most of the websites have information about the cost of the application (fee), or 
whether the application is free of charge. However, Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Croatia 
and Malta form the considerable group of Member States not providing any 
information on the application fees for the BCD. Application costs vary, depending on 

23 BG, CZ, EL, PT 

June, 2018 

9 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

the Member State and the permit (see for more details Phase X). Although very 
relevant to the application process, none of the Member States ‘notify’ third-country 
nationals they will also have to incur costs for translations and certification of the 
required documents. While this is in part understandable, since these fees are not 
charged by the migration authorities, but by private entities, third-country nationals 
could be made aware that these will have to be incurred.  

In sixteen Member States, the websites24 have information about all applicable 
deadlines, except where, like in Germany, there are no legally set timeframes. In 
France, only information on applicable deadlines related to the Researchers Directive 
and the Long Term Residents Directive is available.  

In twenty Member States25, the websites have information about the rights upon 
admission. The rights upon admission are described on the webpages listing the 
conditions for every status. However the rights are explained in a general way, 
without specifics. The information on rights upon admission is sometimes also handed 
over with the residence document. 

Equivalent national statuses  

No significant differences have been found as to information on admission aspects, 
regarding national equivalent statuses.  

2.3  Differences between statuses under EU Directives and national 

equivalent statuses 

No significant differences were reported between the statuses under EU Directives and 
their national equivalents where such exist.  

2.4  Main conformity issues and may clauses 

A full overview of the provisions of the EU Directives relevant to all migration phases is 
included in Annex 3 to this report. No provisions were found where conformity issues 
occurred in more than five Member States.  

24 BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK 
25 AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 

June, 2018 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

3 

Phase 2: Pre-application (documentation) phase  

3.1  Main findings  

Phase 2 concerns the format, content, supporting documents and user-friendliness of 
the application forms third-country nationals have to submit in order to obtain 
statuses under EU directives, as well as national equivalent statuses.  

Throughout the EU, Member States offer single and/or standardised applications, often 
depending on wider Member State administrative procedures and practice.  

The time required to complete applications seems reasonable and the information 
requested overall relevant. However, application forms are considered difficult to fill in 
and insufficiently user-friendly. National equivalent statuses receive more negative 
average scores, probably due to the fact that EU directive statuses are already more 
standardised due to Member States’ transposition of EU law.  

Application forms are available on paper, as well as in digital format, but a full online 
application can only be made in small number of Member States. Guidance on how to 
fill in the forms is available mainly in person and online.  

The documentation requirements under the different Directives and national statuses 
primarily serve to prove that the key requirements of the status have been met 
(hosting agreements, work contracts/job offers, proof of family relations, etc.), as well 
as provide evidence that the applicant and/or his/her family members will not become 
a burden to Member States’ social and health systems (proof of sufficient resources, 
health insurance, proof of accommodation, etc.). Proof of not being a threat to 
national security is also a common requirement, attested mostly by criminal records. A 
number of national BCD and LTR equivalent statuses seem to offer more favourable 
conditions and thus wider access to potential applicants.      

Recognition of diplomas is a widely posed requirement, especially for work-related 
permits, but its existence and the related guidance are relatively difficult to find. This, 
together with the complex process of recognition itself and the multitude of 
requirements especially concerning regulated professions make recognition one of the 
more burdensome requirements for foreigners. Work-related permits are mainly given 
on the basis of a work contract with job offers being accepted less as proof. Pre-
integration measures are found rarely and mainly concern language knowledge and 
social integration.  

3.2  Findings per main research topic 

3.2.1  Topic 2.1: Time required to prepare the application 

Q2 (a)(ii). Please review the application form(s) and the 
requirements with regard to supporting evidence and estimate: (a) 
the time required to complete the form(s) (in hours) (b) the time 
required to obtain the supporting documents which have to be 
provided together with the application (in days or hours – please 
specify) 

The average estimated time required to complete the forms for Member States is 
between 1 hours and 3 hours, depending on the Member State and the type of 
application. In Belgium, filling in the application is estimated to take less than 1 hour, 
while in Member States such as the Czech Republic and Estonia this would take around 
1 hour and in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany and Greece between 1-3 hours. In Finland, 
up to four or five hours for LTR and FRD applications are required.  

The average time required to obtain the supporting documents which have to be 
provided together with the application is around 3-5 business days, however for the 
work-related permits under the BCD and the SPD it is around 10 business days, 
probably due to the detailed data to be supplied on the employer, the post, and the 

June, 2018 

11 

 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

preparation of work contracts/binding job offers, etc. The assessment does not include 
the procedure for recognition of qualifications, translation and authentication of 
documents, as well as certification of copies, which have to be submitted with the 
application. When translation, authentication and apostille are required, the required 
time may be up to one month.  

Thus, as confirmed by findings of the other experiential questions, Member States 
require a reasonable amount of information, most likely influenced by an overall 
correct transposition of the Directives and their conditions into national legislation, but 
substantial time is spent on collecting the supporting documents and where requested, 
their translation and certification in line with national specific requirements. 

3.2.2  Topic 2.2 Information requirements  

Q 2 (b) (i). Extensiveness of the information required to be filled in in 
the application form   

In most Member States26, the information that applicants need to complete is not 
considered as overly extensive (with an average score of 2.05). The average score is 
worse (>3) in Finland, France, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, indicating that (parts 
of) their application processes are considered to be rather complicated. Spain, Croatia 
and Lithuania follow them closely (score=3). In others, issues occur with regard to 
specific Directives, for example the BCD, RD and SPD in Bulgaria, requiring extensive 
information about employers/research institutions, and the FRD, RD and LTR in 
Finland, including extensive tax and employer information for the LTR and extensive 
information on previous marriages for the FRD. Among the national equivalent 
statuses, SD and RD equivalents receive relatively worse scores.  

Q 2 (b) (ii). Relevance of the information required to be filled in in 
the application form  

Overall, the information to be provided by the applicants in the application form is 
considered to be relevant (based on an average score of 2.1). Finland scores more 
negatively on average, probably due to the extensiveness of information required and 
its varying relevance, while Poland scores most negatively, meaning that a 
considerable amount of the information it requires is considered as not relevant. 
National equivalent statuses score relatively more negatively. There is an issue again 
in Finland with regard to the RD and the equivalent status, requiring a work contract 
or invitation, stating central terms of employment, details of duties, etc.  

Q 2 (c) (iv). Easiness in filling in the application form  

The ease for legal migration applicants to complete application forms throughout the 
Member States is considered positively to neutrally (with a score of around 2.4). 
However, issues have been identified in the Czech Republic, Spain, Finland, Lithuania 
and Luxembourg. In the Czech Republic, the questions in the application are not clear, 
which can lead to misunderstandings, and the format of the application is not 
adequate, because most fields are not long enough to fit in the required information. 
In Lithuania, no guidance is available on how to complete the form and the required 
additional information, like education, previous places of residence and workplaces for 
the LTR and FRD, is considered excessive. In Luxembourg, the application form is only 
available in French. In Finland, the questions are again considered unclear and 
potentially misleading. National equivalents score overall worse than EU statuses (2.7 
against 2.4 for the EU statuses). 

3.2.3  Topic 2.3: User-friendliness of the application forms 

Q 2 (c) (v) (vi). User-friendliness of the application form   

26 AT, CY, DE, EE, HU, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 

June, 2018 

12 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

User-friendliness of the application forms are considered neither very user-friendly, 
nor unfriendly (scored around 2.6), but this topic receives a more negative score than 
the ones above concerning the extensiveness and relevance of the information 
requested and the easiness to complete the form.  

This can in part be explained by the multiple factors defining user-friendliness. For 
example, in Belgium, scoring very low (around 4), relevant information is not always 
easy to find and not displayed in a user-friendly way, with applicants having to 
navigate different complicated websites and information not being easily accessible. 
The average score for the Member States for national equivalents is lower (around 
3.1), which means that the application forms are overall considered not very user-
friendly.  

The Member States’ guidance, provided to complete the forms, is considered not 
good/clear enough despite various online and offline channels, with a score of around 
3.0. Negative scores are found in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 
Spain, Finland, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia, where either no guidance 
appears to be provided or it is provided in an inconsistent / unclear way. Slovakia, for 
example, has two universal forms for respectively lodging an application for a 
residence permit and an application for renewal, but there are no specific instructions 
on what needs to be completed for the different statuses (e.g. BCD, FRD, etc.) which 
means that third-country nationals have to check themselves what information to 
provide and what documentation to attach.  The Member States’ guidance provided to 
complete the forms for national equivalents is considered of similar quality, with a 
score of about 3.0.  

Q2 (a) (i). Does the Member State require the applicant to submit 
one application, or are several applications / steps with different 
authorities required (e.g. for the visa, the permit to work / reside)?  

A single application is most often offered under the LTR (19 Member States27), 
followed closely by the RD (1628), SPD (1429) and SD (1430) which can still however 
cover different elements to be filled in by different actors (e.g. a part for the sponsor, 
a part for the third-country national wishing to migrate and a visa application). No 
major difference were noted between EU and national equivalent statuses.  

Where multiple applications are required, these usually cover the application for the 
status itself, the visa and/or permits to reside / work depending on the status, for 
example: 

  A separate visa application;  
  Application for a work permit could be problematic in some Member States with 
regard to the SPD– e.g. Latvia, where a separate registration of the invitation 
by the employer is required, Romania, where pre-authorisation of the right to 
work is required, Bulgaria, where first the employer has to apply to the 
Employment Agency.  

  Registration with social security schemes (e.g. Spain); 

Evidently, the supporting documents which are to accompany the application are 
generally to be obtained from many different entities, with Cyprus for example 
requiring VAT clearance, Labour Office endorsement of labour contracts, proof of 
revenue of the employer and Romania requiring a preliminary endorsement by the 
Immigration Inspectorate for work-related permits as well as involving educational 
authorities for students and researchers.   

27 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LV, MT, NL, PL. PT, SE, SK 
28 AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SK 
29 AT, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SK 
30 AT, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, MT. NL, PL, PT, SK  

June, 2018 

13 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Q2 (c)(i). Does a standardised application form exist or are there 
separate application forms per Directive/equivalent national status?  

There are separate application forms in seventeen Member States, while in another 
eight31 Member States a standardised application form exists. However, variations 
stand out among countries with otherwise standardised application forms. For 
example, in Croatia there is a standardised application form for the first issuance or 
extension of the approval of temporary stay, approval of permanent stay and business 
permits, but there is a separate form for the application for the issuance of a work 
permit to a foreigner. In Italy, there is a standardised form for all residence permits. 
Lithuania there are two application forms – one for temporary residence permits and 
one for permanent residence permits.   

31 DE, EE, ES, HR, LT, LV, PT, SK 

June, 2018 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Q2 (c)(ii). How can the application form and related guidance be 
obtained? (e.g. in person, by post, online, via letter)  

Despite the fact that all but one Member State32 reportedly allow for online 
applications, full online availability and submission of forms is actually only available in 
four countries, namely Finland, Italy, for some statuses in the Netherlands (linked to 
the possession of a digital identity account) and Romania, although the Member State 
is still working on an approved application system. There are seven33 Member States, 
for which it is explicitly stated that the application forms are available online, with files 
that can be downloaded for printing, but are to be submitted offline. For nineteen34 
Member States it is mentioned explicitly that the application form can (also) be 
obtained by the applicant in person. Guidance is mostly available in person at the 
respective authorities and online on their websites, together with the 
online/downloadable forms. 

The application form can be obtained also via post in Latvia (the option was also 
available in the Netherlands until June 2017). The fact that only one Member State 
offers this possibility may pose practical issues in the other Member States as it makes 
obtaining the application heavily dependent on personal appearance/internet access.  

France is the only country in which the application form and the related guidance can 
be obtained with all the mentioned ways: in person, by post, online or via letter.  

Q2 (c) (iii). In which language(s) is the application form(s) available 
and in which languages can the third-country national fill in the 
forms?   

In all Member States the application form is available in the national language(s) and 
in all but seven35 Member States the form is available in English. Germany seems to 
provide the application form in most languages – German (national), Arabic, Chinese, 
English, French, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. In six36 countries the application form 
is available in Russian and in four37 countries in French. In Hungary and in Latvia it is 
also available in German. 

3.2.4  Topic 2.4: Admission conditions and documentation requirements 

Q2 (d). Which admission conditions apply and what documentary 
evidence is required to prove that the conditions are met?  

Box 2 Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies and the Open Public 

Consultation 

Migrant agencies 

According to interviewed migrant agencies (Poland), the main issue relates to the 
acquisition and authentication of documentary evidence, which can lead to significant 
delays in the processing of an application. The acquisition of specific requested 
documents and their authentication can prove difficult in the country of origin, thus 
impacting the application processing times. The acquisition of birth certificates and the 
authentication of marriage certificates has proven particularly difficult in South Asia 
(India) and Africa.  

32 BG 
33 AT, BG, CZ, FI, IT, NL, SE 
34 AT, BG, CY, CZ, EE, ES, FR, HR, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK 
35 AT, BG, ES, FR, IT, LU, MT 
36 CZ, DE, EE, LT, LV, PL 
37 DE, LV, PL, RO 

June, 2018 

15 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Open Public Consultation 

Non-EU citizens residing or having resided in the EU were asked to list the documents 
requested in the application process. The most common documents that respondents 
(n=191) had to provide were: a valid travel document (82% of respondents), proof of 
educational qualifications (77%), proof of sufficient resources (75%), health insurance 
(73%), documents from the school/higher education institution they were to attend 
(66%), proof of accommodation (59%), job offer / work contract (55%) and bank 
guarantee (48%). 

Q2 (d) (i). Family Reunification Directive  

The bulk of the documentary evidence required under the FRD serves to prove the 
family ties, including marriage certificates, birth certificates, certificates of paternity, 
proof of legal custody, adoption papers and where relevant, death certificates.  

In Spain, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, DNA tests may be required and at least 
in Belgium requests for such tests are made more and more frequently. This raises 
application costs and timelines substantially and could be considered an application 
issue. 

Another practical application issues may occur in Poland, where marriages must be 
recognised by local law, which in most cases excludes, in addition to polygamist and 
purely religious marriages, also same-sex marriages and in Cyprus, where spouses 
should be married for at least one year.  

Spain requires again proof of family relations, etc. as part of the visa application 
process for the family member to enter the Member State. This may place a 
disproportionately high burden on the applicants and is an infringement of the 
obligation to grant family members every facility to obtain visas.  

Originals and/or certified copies, as well as translations into the national language of 
documentation proving family relationship are universally required, although 
exceptions exist like in Slovenia, where the extract from the register of the applicant’s 
country of origin can be in certain cases submitted without translation.  More than half 
of the Member States38 require documentation on family relationship to be submitted 
before an application can be accepted an application, while in the others39 it can be 
added during the processing and review of the application. Six Member States40 
explicitly require interviews with the sponsor and his/her family members, but in 
Member States such as Belgium, Lithuania and Estonia these can be held if considered 
necessary and/or if certain evidence cannot be submitted.  

Proof of sufficient resources is the second most required type of evidence. Member 
States have different approaches to establishing this, ranging from employment 
contracts41, pay slips42 to bank statements43 for a period of 6 to 12 months, tax 
returns44, going back for up to the past 3 years, etc. Practical application issues were 
identified in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Spain, Portugal and Bulgaria, where the 
minimum income is to be proven in absolute figures (e.g. expressed as minimum 
wages/pensions) and not reference amounts. The Netherlands recently decided to 
shorten the period covered by the examination of income from three to one year, but 
the relevant legislative amendments are still to be made.  

38 BE, BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, FR, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE  
39 AT, CZ, ES, HR,IT, FI, FR, LU, NL, SK, SI 
40 CZ, ES, FI, FR, RO, SE 
41 CY, ES, DE, FI, LT, NL, PL 
42 BE, IT, LU, DE, ES, NL, PT 
43 BE, PT, CY, CZ, EE, ES, FI, HU, LT, LU, NL. PT, RO, SI, SK 
44 CY, ES, FI, IT, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI 

June, 2018 

16 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Proof of adequate accommodation is required in all but four Member States45. Member 
States have adopted different approaches to verifying this and determining 
‘adequateness’, ranging from rental contracts, utility bills, declarations of hospitality, 
declarations of consent by the owner of the property, and some more particular types 
of evidence including, for example, a specific report on suitability of accommodation 
issued by the competent body of the Autonomous Community or Local Authority in 
which the sponsor resides in Spain, which seems a rather burdensome process and 
potentially an application issue. Looking at the type of proof required overall in the EU, 
Member States seem to put more emphasis on the availability of accommodation and 
less on its adequateness for the needs of the particular family.  

Private sickness insurance of sufficient coverage/sickness as part of public social 
security coverage for the sponsor and family members, usually for the duration of the 
permit, is required in all but six Member States46.  Notably, in almost half of the 
Member States, the application cannot be lodged without this proof.47 

Pre-integration measures, usually in the form of language diplomas, are required in 
only five Member States48, but are also being planned in Belgium.  

Ten countries49 require proof that the applicant has acquired the required period of 
residence (residence permit of one year or more), while eight50 require proof, optional 
and limited back to two years as per the Directive, that the sponsor has lawfully 
stayed in their territory for a certain period. The low numbers may be explained by 
fact that this information in the other Member State can be obtained directly from 
their administrative databases.  

Fifteen countries require proof of not constituting a threat to public policy or public 
security, while eight51 do not. In some Member States, like Estonia and Finland, the 
applicant needs to state that they have a clean criminal record, while a copy of the 
criminal record (or a certificate stating that this is clean) is required in Cyprus, 
Finland, Czech Republic, Spain. Member States like Croatia and Italy perform active 
security checks, while authorities in countries like Poland and Germany are collecting 
information via official channels, e.g. from law enforcement or judicial authorities. The 
requirement to have a clean criminal record may disproportionally disadvantage 
applicants, as they may have committed a ‘light’ crime in the past, not making the 
applicant a threat to public security.   

Eight Member States52 require a certificate for medical examination. The exact 
supporting documents requested usually consist of a medical certificate, often 
attesting that the applicant is not carrying any diseases which might endanger public 
health, mainly focussing on tuberculosis. Actual medical examinations, instead of just 
certificates, may also be part of the procedure53.    

The translation of relevant documents is required by all Member States, mostly in the 
national language although some54, may also accept documents in English and, more 
rarely, in other languages. The frequent requirements of translation by sworn 
translators and certification by apostille may pose an administrative and financial 

45 FI, HR, NL, SL 
46 FI, FR, NL, PT, SE, SK 
47 AT, CZ, ES, FI, FR, IT, LU, NL, PT, SE, SL, SK 
48 AT, DE, FR, IT, NL 
49 AT, BE, EL, ES, FR, IT, MT, PL, NL, RO 
50 AT, CY, CZ, ES, FR, HR, NL, RO 
51 BG, FI, FR, HU, IT, MT, RO, SE 
52 BE, CY, CZ, ES, IT, LU, NL, RO 
53 CY, IT, LV, NL 
54 DE, EL, EE, FI, LU, NL, SE 

June, 2018 

17 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

burden on the applicant. Notably, in Estonia, the applicant verifies supporting 
documentation just by signing his/her application.   

All required documentation should be submitted together with the application either 
initially, or after a deadline given by authorities. An exception is Germany, where 
authorities have some level of flexibility as to what documentation to accept, so 
unavailable documents may be substituted by other relevant proof.  

The FRD quota system in Austria is based on the derogation provided in Article 8 of 
the Directive. If the threshold is reached in the year where the application is lodged, 
the decision to extend the granting of the residence permit, up to a period of 
maximum three years, is communicated to the person and the applicant is informed 
about his/her actual ranking. After that period family reunification takes place.  

June, 2018 

18 

 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Q2 (d) (ii). EU Blue Card Directive  

Besides Cyprus, where EU Blue Cards have not been issued, all reviewed Member 
States but Spain require a work contract or a binding job offer (see also section 2.1.6 
below). Spain requires proof of (future) income.  

Proof of sickness insurance is also required in the majority Member States, with only 
seven not explicitly requiring this55. As a work-related permit, BCD pre-supposes a 
work contract/job offer, under which health insurance will be provided, so public 
statutory/private insurance should only cover the period before starting/out of work.  

Around half of the Member States under examination56 require proof of not being a 
threat to national security. Certificates of a clean criminal record are mostly required, 
while other Member States may also undertake investigations themselves, such as 
Germany obtaining information via official channels and Croatia performing security 
checks.  The requirement to provide proof of address on the country’s territory, with 
just five57 Member States not having such a requirement.  

Proof of fulfilment of conditions for regulated professions not required by four Member 
States58. The type of proof to be provided varies between Member States. Spain, for 
example, requires accreditation of training and, where appropriate, formal recognition 
of the professional qualifications required to practice the profession, while in Finland 
the requirement is present just for the healthcare sector, where permission to practice 
medicine must be obtained from the national authorities. The majority of countries 
also require proof of qualifications also for unregulated professions, while just four 
Member States do not request this documentation59. Italy is considered to apply 
stricter requirements towards foreigners’ qualifications, requiring both higher 
professional qualifications and these qualifications to be relevant in order to be 
admitted as highly qualified worker - which may pose a practical issue.   

Most of the Member States require an application for visa or a visa, if the person is a 
national of a state where a visa requirement exists, or a document proving that the 
person resides legally in the country, while eight60 of them do not require such 
documents.  Thirteen61 Member States require a valid residence permit or national 
long-term visa, where needed.  

With regard to work contracts/job offers, accreditations of qualifications and statutory 
sickness insurances originating from national entities/authorities, the translation 
requirements for the BCD are of markedly lesser significance than the other EU 
statuses. Still, certified translations are required when documents are not in national 
languages (English is sometimes accepted), as well as originals and copies of the 
documents for consultation by authorities. All documents have to be submitted either 
initially, or after a deadline given by authorities. 

55 FI, FR, IT, LU, NL, RO, SK 
56 AT, CZ, DE, EE, EL, HR, LT, LU, LV, PL, PT, SI, SK 
57 EL, FI, NL, SE, SL 
58 AT, HU, IT, ES 
59 AT, DE, ES, SE 
60 EE, HU, LT, LV, NL, PL, SL, SK 
61 BE, CZ, ES, FI, FR, HU, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SK 

June, 2018 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

3.2.5  Attesting highly professional qualifications by professional experience 

62 

Austria, Estonia, France, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden are the countries that 
offer the possibility for migrants to prove that there are highly qualified only by professional 
experience.  

In Austria the procedure take 2 months, third-country nationals have to submit documents that 
show the content and the level of requirements of the professional activity and the responsible 
institutions for the assessment and the decision making process are the universities. In Estonia 
the procedure takes also 2 months, third-nationals applicants have to submit the documents 
evidencing at least five years of work experience or submit an assessment of competent 
institution or resolution of a competent body regarding the acknowledgement of higher 
professional qualification. Then, the Police and Border Guard Board are responsible for the 
assessment and the final decision. The French procedure can take up to 3 months. The applicant 
can submit his/her resume or any other document proving his/her work experience of at least 5 
years at a comparable level and the  foreign labour service within the Regional Directorate for 
Business, Competition, Consumer Affairs, Labour and Employment will approve or not the work 
permit. The procedure takes up to 3 months also in Greece and the applicant, must provide all 
necessary documents attesting, at least five years of professional experience of a level 
comparable to higher professional qualifications and which is relevant in the occupation or sector 
specified in the work contract. Then, the Directorate of Migration Policy of the Ministry of Interior 
and Administrative Reform will make the final decision.  

In Lithuania, the draft law providing for such a procedure has been adopted by the Parliament. 
However, the practical procedures are to be developed by the relevant ministries so no further 
information exist at this moment. In Luxembourg the procedure takes up to 3 months as well. 
The applicant must provide all the relevant documents that can prove this professional experience 
and the Minister in charge of Immigration is responsible for the assessment and the decision 
making process. The duration of the Swedish procedure is not fixed since the number of EU Blue 
Cards issued has been very small. Applicants have to hand in relevant work certificates and the 
Swedish Migration Agency assesses and decides for the Blue Card.  

Q2 (d) (iii) Equivalent national status to EU Blue Card Directive   

Out of the twelve63 Member States, considered to have a national equivalent BCD 
status, nine64 require a valid work contract or binding job offer.  Belgium, Sweden, 
and Portugal, while requiring this under the BCD, do not require this documentary 
evidence for their national status. Obtaining national equivalent status is reported to 
be expedited in Malta, while in other Member States having such status the deadlines 
similar to those for the BCD. 

In addition, in Austria, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden the 
income threshold for the national status is lower than the one for the BCD or non-
existent, which means that often the national status is more attractive to both third-
country nationals and their sponsors. Estonia, however, has a higher income threshold 
for its ‘top specialist status’, but requires no proof of professional qualifications or 
labour market test. Italy does not require evidence of professional qualifications 
either. 

However, BCD equivalent statuses throughout the Member States have more 
unfavourable stipulations in a number of aspects. By way of example, in Estonia, ‘top 
specialists’ are not allowed any periods of unemployment. Malta only allows contracts 
under the KEI scheme for three consecutive years. 

62 The information is based on the EMN Ad-Hoc Query ‘Attesting highly professional qualifications by 
professional experience,  Requested by LT EMN NCP on 1st July 2016 
63 AT, BE, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, IT, LT, MT, NL, SE 
64 DE, EE, ES, FR, IT, LT, MT, NL, SE 

June, 2018 

20 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Six Member States require attestation of fulfilling conditions for regulated 
professions.65 A little under half of the countries66 require proof of higher qualifications 
for unregulated professions. Notably, in contrast to the BCD status, six countries67 
require proof of sickness insurance.  

Q2 (d) (iv) Students Directive (2004/114/EC) 

While all Member States require a valid travel document, four Member States68 have 
stipulated a minimum length of validity of these documents.  

Parental authorisation for minors is also generally required, with in just five69 Member 
States this is not a requirement. Although parental authorisation is not a requirement, 
in Hungary, the application must be signed by the legal representative of the minor 
applicant, while in Poland an application is to be submitted by the parent(s) or 
guardian(s) appointed by the court who stay legally in the territory of Poland.  

Proof of sickness insurance is required by all but four Member States70, but the time 
limits for providing such proof vary. In the Netherlands, for example, third-country 
nationals are required to take out health insurance within four months after a positive 
decision on their application for a residence permit, while in Slovakia sickness 
insurance shall be provided upon 30 days after collecting residence permit and in the 
Czech Republic, in the event of positive decision upon an application, a health 
insurance is presented as from the date of entry. In contrast, countries like Austria, 
Bulgaria and Germany require health insurance to be submitted with the application. 

Translation is again of lesser significance since student documents are usually issued 
by a national entity. Nevertheless, all documents in a foreign language must be 
officially translated. Documents must be submitted either initially, or afterwards, after 
a deadline posed by authorities (see exceptions for health insurance above).  

Regarding students, acceptance in a higher education institution is required in all 
Member States, as well as evidence of means of subsistence via declarations by 
sponsors/parents/higher education institutions, bank statements, etc. Notably, only 
four Member States require sufficient knowledge of the language of the course and six 
require evidence of paid fees71.  

Out of the 18 Member States which also apply the SD to pupils, eight72 require proof 
of age. All 16 countries require evidence of acceptance by a secondary education 
establishment, which can consist of a statement from the school or relevant state 
authority, a certificate of acceptance from the education institution, etc. Three 
Member States do not require evidence of participation in a recognised pupil exchange 
scheme programme73, while five74 do not require evidence that the organisation 
accepts responsibility for the pupil. Proof of accommodation throughout the pupil’s 
stay proves to be another key requirement, with just four Member States not explicitly 
requiring this75.  

65 BE, DE, ES, FR, MT, PT 
66 BE, ES, FI, FR, MT, PT 
67 AT, DE, EE, ES, LT, MT 
68 BE, CY, ES, SI 
69 HU, IT, NL, PL, SI 
70 BE, EL, NL, SK 
71 BG, CY, ES, PL, PT, SE 
72 AT, CY, HR, IT, LU, PT, RO, SE 
73 PT, SE, SL 
74 DE, LT, PT, SE, SL 
75 LT, PT, SE, SL 

June, 2018 

21 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Seventeen Member States76 require some form of proof of not constituting a threat to 
public policy or public security. 

Of the 17 Member States having transposed the SD for trainees (Greece has only done 
so partially) only two77 are not requiring a signed training agreement. The required 
documents can consist of a declaration/confirmation by the organisation, a liability 
declaration, or a contract of traineeship for the position of a trainee. In Poland, a 
training contract with an officially acknowledged professional training company or 
institution is required. In some cases, the German Federal Employment Agency must 
approve that there are no German candidates or candidates from a privileged country 
(such as an EU country). Again, almost all Member States, with the exception of 
Sweden, require evidence of sufficient resources to cover subsistence, training and 
return travel costs. The required documents can include bank statements of the 
applicant or statements by the bank that sufficient funds are available, income 
declarations of the parents or legal guardian, etc. In Cyprus a personal bank 
guarantee to cover the applicant’s repatriation expenses or a bank guarantee by the 
public/private business organisation is also required, which may be rather burdensome 
and potentially an application issue. Depending on the Member State, the minimum 
amount which is considered “sufficient” ranges between 400 and 850 EUR per month. 
No country was found to require evidence of basic language training.  

SD volunteer provisions have been transposed by 15 Member States, and all require a 
voluntary service agreement, while two thirds require evidence that the volunteer 
organisation accepts full responsibility for the volunteer. No Member State was found 
to require a basic introduction to the language, history and structure of the Member 
State.   

Q2 (d) (v). Equivalent national status to Students Directive  

Austria, the Czech Republic and Spain have equivalent SD national statuses.  

In Austria an application for visa D is required instead of proof that have been 
accepted by an establishment of higher education to follow a course of study.  

In Czech Republic and Spain a certificate of Study or similar document is required.  

All three Member States require evidence of sufficient resources, valid travel 
documents, sickness insurance and medical examination, as well as proof of not 
posing a threat to public security while requirements like evidence of paid fees and 
parental authorization are posed by just some of them. For example, Austria does not 
require proof of acceptance to an educational institution and evidence of paid fees, 
which should in theory make obtaining the national equivalent status a lot less 
burdensome than the SD status. 

None requires sufficient knowledge of the language of the course, which is a 
significant difference with the EU status, although for the latter only four Member 
States require this in practice.  

Q2 (d) (vi). Researchers Directive  

In the case of the RD, all Member States require a hosting agreement with a research 
organisation, while only eight Member States require a certified copy of the 
researchers’ qualifications78, as they are presumed to be verified by the hosting 
agreement. Proof of sufficient monthly resources is required by almost all Member 
States, with the exception of four79, to be proven by bank statements going back 6 
months, confirmation of a sufficient amount of money being available on the bank 

76 AT, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, HR, LT, LU, LV, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK 
77 BG, LV 
78 BG, ES, FR, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL 
79 CY, CZ, ES, LU 

June, 2018 

22 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

account of the third-country national and/or confirmation from the research 
organisation. Half of the Member States require a statement of financial responsibility 
by the research organisation. The written statement usually includes that the research 
organisation shall cover all possible costs related to the stay of the researcher, while 
Member States like Cyprus, Belgium, Hungary, Lithuania have also included the 
Directive’s option that the research organisation is liable for the applicant’s living and 
repatriation expenses in the event that he remains in country unlawfully. About a third 
of Member States do not have a sickness insurance requirement for researchers80, as 
they are often covered by statutory healthcare, and even less require proof of not 
constituting a threat to public security81, usually criminal records, while one third of 
Member States require certificate of medical examination for not carrying diseases of 
danger to public health82.  

Notably, as mentioned above, Malta does not provide neither an application form nor 
specific guidance on the RD, which is may be considered a de facto infringement of 
the Directive.  

Again, in comparison with the FRD, translation requirements are of lesser significance 
as many of the documents – hosting agreement (covering) subsistence costs and 
health insurance – originate from a national entity and are in the national language. 
All documents are required upon the submission of the application or within a deadline 
stipulated by authorities.  

Q2 (d) (vii). Equivalent national statuses to Researchers Directive  

Only four Member States have an equivalent national status – Austria, Spain, Finland 
and Italy. All of them require a valid travel document, but only Spain requires a 
hosting agreement with a research organisation, which, in the other Member States 
mentioned, means a significant facilitation of obtaining the status compared to the EU 
Directive. Austria and Spain require a certified copy of the third-country national’s 
qualifications – a university diploma or higher educational degree, which makes the 
process in Finland and Italy even less burdensome. Austria, Spain and Finland require 
evidence of sufficient monthly resources, usually proven by bank statements covering 
the last 6 months, confirmation of sufficient amount of money being available on the 
bank account of the third-country national and/or confirmation from the research 
organisation. Austria and Spain require sickness insurance, while Finland and Italy do 
not. Thus, in the small group of Member States offering RD national equivalents, this 
status seems to be easier to obtain. 

Q2 (d) (viii). Long-term Residence Directive  

Seventeen Member States83 require proof of legal and continuous residence in the 
Member State for five years immediately prior to the submission of the application, 
while only eight84 Member States do not explicitly require continuous residence. 
Lithuania is considered to be overly strict when assessing possible interruptions of the 
stay, considering even a gap of several days between temporary permits due to late 
application for renewal an interruption. This may pose a practical issue in applying the 
LTR.  

All Member States require evidence of stable and regular resources which are 
sufficient for the third-country national to maintain himself/herself and the members 
of his/her family, which are proven through bank statements, employment contracts, 
tax certificates, etc. Cyprus, which used to exclude domestic workers from the LTR 

80 BE, CY, EL, FI, LU, LV, NL, SK 
81 BG, FI, HU, IT, RO, SE 
82 BE, CY, CZ, EL, ES, LU, NL, RO 
83 AT, BE, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK 
84 BG, CZ, FI, HU, LU, LV, SE, SL 

June, 2018 

23 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

due to the limited duration of their successive contracts/visas, changed its legislation 
as a result of CJEU case-law85, but now in practice excludes them by deciding that 
they are not fulfilling the resources requirement. This shows the significance of the 
resources requirement as an instrument to apply the Directive provisions in a less or 
more restrictive way. 

All Member States require sickness insurance, with exception for six Member States86.  

Half of the MS87 require compliance with integration conditions. As evidence for this 
are accepted, for example, proof of basic knowledge of the countries’ languages – 
level A2 in Greece and Latvia, ‘basic knowledge’ of the German language in Germany, 
Estonian language proficiency, national language and basic principles of Constitution of 
Lithuania, any document proving integration into Luxembourg society, completion of 
Maltese language and integration courses and completion of a civic integration course 
in the Netherlands.   

Two thirds of Member States require proof of not constituting a threat to public policy 
or public security, usually attested by criminal records while nine Member States88 do 
not. Several practical issues were raised in Luxembourg where an additional 
requirement exists that the person should not threaten the country’s international 
relations, which is considered to be vague and excessive. Some of the Member States 
collecting the required information ex officio, while others require 
statements/declarations of a clean record by the third-country national, a police 
clearance certificate, etc.  

Luxembourg, as well as Malta, may also refuse applications which are not 
accompanied by proof of adequate accommodation. 

A number of Member States require other documentary evidence such as valid 
passport, photos in passport format, certificates of good conduct, payment of the 
application fees, letters of incitation, employment contract, social security registration, 
rental agreement, etc., while only five89 Member States do not require additional 
documents.  

Translations of documents not originating from a national entity is required as well as 
some form of authentication. All documents should be submitted either initially with 
the application or later upon a deadline, given by authorities. 

Q2 (d) (ix). Equivalent national statuses to Long-term Residence 
Directive  

Despite the significance given to national LTR equivalent statuses for categories like 
persons of the country’s origin, investors, persons of particular importance, only 
twelve90 Member States have an equivalent national status and most of them, with 
exception of six91, do not require proof of legal and continuous residence in the 
Member State for five years immediately prior to the submission of the application, 
which makes proving continuous residence at least for the eligible categories of 
applicants significantly less stringent than under the EU LTR status and access to the 

85 State Secretary van Justitie V Mangat Singh, Court of Justice of the European Union case C-502/10, 18 
October 2012 
86 FI, IT, LT, LV, NL, SE 
87 CY, DE, EE, FR, HR, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PT 
88 BG, FI, FR, HU, LT, LV, MT, SE, SK 
89 AT, LV, NL, SE, SK 
90 BE, BG, DE, ES, FI, HR, HU, LT, LV, NL, PT, SL 
91 BE, DE, ES, FR, NL, PT 

June, 2018 

24 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

status – potentially wider. Hungary, for example, requires three years of continuous 
residence. 92 

All Member States, with the exception of Belgium and Spain, require evidence for 
stable and regular resources which are sufficient for the third-country national to 
maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family, which are proven through 
bank statements, employment contract, etc.  

Only seven93 Member States require sickness insurance, as long term residents are 
usually already benefiting of the same rights as nationals, thus making the 
requirement less strict that under the LTR status.  

Six of the Member States94 in this group require compliance with integration 
conditions, while the others do not, which is a similar proportion in comparison with 
the LTR status conditions.  

All Member States require proof of not constituting a threat to public policy or public 
security, usually by criminal records, while only four95 Member States do not.  

3.2.6  Topic 2.5: Recognition of diplomas and qualifications 

Q2 (e) (i). Is the recognition of diplomas and qualifications a 
condition for obtaining a permit?  

Box 3  Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies 

Difficulties regarding the recognition of diplomas and qualifications were encountered in 
some Member States, including Germany and Italy, were certain types of diplomas and 
qualifications are not recognised by the national curricula. 

The recognition of diplomas as a condition for admission, which is referred to in the 
BCD, RD and SD, is explicitly applied in most Member States96 for the BCD in six 
Member States97 for the RD and in five Member States 98 for the SD.  

For equivalent national statuses to the BCD, the recognition of diplomas is a condition 
in Germany and Poland. For other national statuses this requirement is not applicable, 
which may make the application process significantly less burdensome. 

Recognition generally involves a number of agencies (e.g. academic information 
centres) and, in the case of regulated professions, professional chambers and a 
verification / validation process to check that the foreigners’ qualifications match 
national requirements (e.g. equivalence of professional qualifications in Portugal and 
Germany). This is usually a lengthy and burdensome process. By way of example, the 
decision on recognising qualifications for regulated professions is issued by the 
Ministry of Education in Slovakia. 

For the BCD and the equivalent national statuses of BCD, the required documents are 
generally a university diploma or proof of higher educational status, which must be 
translated and verified. Special attention is given to the requirements of the Member 
States and respective professional communities in the case of the intention to perform 
work in a regulated profession like law and medicine.  

92 Additional information about this topic can be found in EMN Ad-Hoc Query ‘National residence permits of 
permanent or unlimited validity’ requested by COM on 8th September 2016 
93 AT, DE, ES, FR, HU, SI, HR for some statuses 
94 DE, FR, HR for some statuses, LV, NL, PT 
95 BG, FI, FR, LV 
96 AT, BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 
97 BG, ES, IT, LT, MT, NL 
98 BG, EE, EL, LT, RO 

June, 2018 

25 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

In a number of Member States, researchers’ qualifications must also be translated and 
verified99 under the RD, while for the others they are ‘proven’ by the hosting 
agreement. These can include university diplomas or proof of higher educational 
status, or work-related documents. 

For SD, the required documents can include a diploma from high school or equivalent, 
which also must be translated and verified in the few cases recognition is explicitly 
required100.  

In terms of difficulties encountered, for example, third-country national doctors and 
nurses in Poland have reported difficulties with the recognition of their diplomas. The 
recognition procedure is considered by third-country nationals a costly and long 
process, requiring significant savings. Recognition is managed by medical universities, 
which each determine different rules and conditions.  

Most of the application forms and related guidance in the Member States do not 
contain information on the requirement to have recognition of qualification and the 
related process, with the exception of six101 Member States for the BCD, Estonia for 
the SD, Czech Republic and Slovenia for the SPD. When information is available it can 
be found on the web pages of authorities, processing the application. By way of 
example, in Malta the application form for the BCD and the SD contains information 
relating to requirement to have the recognition of qualification but it does not contain 
guidance on the procedures.  

Q2 (e) (iii) (iv). Information on recognition of diplomas and 
qualifications 

The availability and accessibility of information on the condition of recognition of 
diplomas in application forms and related information channels is assessed rather 
negatively (a score of 2.8). Issues have been identified in the Czech Republic, Italy, 
Lithuania, Portugal and Slovakia, Belgium and Estonia, where indications are either 
missing, or not clear enough (e.g. the authorities responsible for recognition are not 
mentioned), or information is insufficient. National statuses are assessed even more 
negatively, with a score of around 3.3, although recognition is less often an explicit 
requirement for these statuses. The above Member States are indicated as 
problematic for national equivalents as well. 

Most Member States provide inadequate guidance on the procedures for obtaining 
recognition of diplomas (a score of about 4.0, which is among the most negative 
scores obtained for the performance of Member States regarding their legal migration 
acquis obligations). This applies specifically for the Czech Republic (information only 
provided upon request), Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. There are 
some issues due to unclear guidance in Belgium (explanations not always clear), 
Bulgaria (indications only in relevant laws), Estonia, Malta, Slovenia and Spain as well. 
Guidance for national equivalent statuses’ is still considered unsatisfactory, although 
slightly better than for the EU statuses (a score of around 3.7).  

3.2.7  Topic 2.6: Proof of employment 

Q2 (f) (i). For the employment-related permits (based on Directives 
and equivalent national statuses), does the Member State accept an 
application on the basis of a job offer, or only on the basis of a 
contract?  

99 BG, EL, ES, IT, LT, MT, NL 
100 BG, EE, EL, LT, RO 
101 CZ, DE, EE, MT, RO, SL 

June, 2018 

26 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

In a significant number of Member States102 a signed contract of a duration at least 
one year is required for employment-related permits, however in seven103 Member 
States both a binding job offer and a signed contract are accepted under the BCD and 
in five Member States both are accepted under the SPD104, while only five105 Member 
States require only a job offer both for BCD and SPD. The work contract and/or job 
offer are required to include the salary, the duration of the contract and the main 
obligations of the third-country national.  The job offer, accepted in four Member 
States,106 also needs to include the salary for the BCD and those national statuses for 
which also a minimum salary is required.  

3.2.8  Topic 2.7: Pre-integration measures 

Q2 (h) (i). Does the Member State apply any pre-integration 
measures, specific integration conditions / requirements, or an 
integration test?  

Only Austria and Cyprus appear to apply pre-integration measures. In Austria, a 
certain level of language knowledge is required, albeit with exceptions (if the third-
country national has not yet completed 14 years at the time of application). In order 
to prove this, applicants have to present a language diploma or course certificate 
which states that they have achieved level A1 (basic knowledge) of the Common 
European Framework of Reference for Languages. The third-country national can take 
the test in one of the following institutions: Austrian Language Diploma German, 
Goethe-Institut e.V., Telc GmbH, Austrian Integration Fund (ÖIF). The price depends 
on the institution and has to be paid by the third-country national. 

In Cyprus for the purposes of the long term residence permit, applicants must submit 
proof of adequate knowledge of the English language at level A2. For those not 
possessing certificates, exams are held twice a year. Cyprus is considered to provide 
very little information on the required language skills. The Ministry of Education makes 
announcement in the press about the two dates, when the exam is held. The price is 
25 EUR and has to be paid by applicants. 

Germany and the Netherlands have introduced pre-integration measures under the 
FRD. In Germany, applicants are required to follow a language course (if basic 
language requirements are not met), with certain exemptions, followed by a test. 
Relevant information on the requirements is provided by the Member State. The tests 
are (usually) conducted by the Goethe-Institut or other official partners in the country 
of origin. A1 level of the Common European Framework for Languages has to be 
reached, meaning that the person must have passed one of the following language 
examinations: "Start Deutsch 1" run by the Goethe Institut or telc GmbH, "Grundstufe 
Deutsch 1" forming part of the Austrian Language Diploma (Österreichisches 
Sprachdiplom (ÖSD) or "TestDaF" run by the TestDaF-Institut e.V. Costs differ 
between different institutions and countries, but they are usually below 100 EUR.  

In the Netherlands, information on the civic integration examination abroad as a pre-
integration measure is provided on the IND website and in information leaflets. The 
Civic Integration Abroad Test takes place at a Dutch embassy or consulate in the 
country of origin or country of legal residence. It examines speaking skills, reading 
skills and knowledge of the Dutch society. Since 2011, the language level has been 
increased from A1 minus to A1 of the Common European Framework of Reference. 
When the family member does not pass the exam, s/he will not be granted an entry 
visa (MVV). The Civic Integration Abroad Test costs 150 EUR per full exam, but it is 

102 BG, CY, CZ, EL, FR, HR, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI and IT only for the SPD 
103 BE, DE, EE, ES, HU, IT, LT 
104 AT, DE, ES, HU, LT 
105 AT, FI, LV, SE, SK 
106 AT, Fi, LV, SK 

June, 2018 

27 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

also possible to pay for the modules separately. In order to prepare for the 
examination, a self-study package is available in 16 languages which can be ordered 
from this website for 25 EUR. The digital package can also be downloaded for free. 
The total costs depend on the number of times an applicant needs to pass the test and 
include the costs of travel to embassies and costs for accommodation for the purpose 
of taking the exam. Pre-integration requirements in the Netherlands are generally 
considered too demanding, especially as they constitute a specific ground for refusing 
the statute. 

Croatia and Portugal have pre-integration measures for the LTR statuses.  In Croatia, 
a third-country national is required to prove his/her knowledge of Croatian language 
and Latin writing. The information regarding the content of the exam is available 
online, in Croatian. The exam is taken at the police station/police department where 
the third-country national submitted his/her application for long-term residence. There 
is no fee for taking the exam. The applicant passes the exam if he/she has scored 
more than 65% of the maximum number of points. 

In Portugal, an attestation of elementary knowledge of the Portuguese language is 
required. 

Box 4 Evidence from the Open Public Consultation 

The Open Public Consultation confirmed that only a handful of Member States apply pre-
integration measures: 2% (n=188) of non-EU citizens looking to migrate to the EU had 
to take part in a –pre-departure integration activity as a prerequisite for a successful 
application.. 

Q2 (h) (iv) (v) (vi). Information on pre-integration measures  

The information provided on pre-integration measures is overall considered as clearly 
indicated and accessible, as the average score for the Member States having such 
measures in place is 2.3 both the EU and national equivalent statuses (including the 
BCD equivalent status in Austria, the BCD and RD equivalent statuses in Italy and the 
LTR equivalents in Latvia, the Netherlands and Portugal). In the Netherlands, the 
information is specifically indicated on the application form and also on the 
Immigration and Naturalisation Service website, while Portugal provides the 
information on other relevant information channels like websites.  

The ease of finding information about pre-integration measures is rated less positively, 
with an average score for the Member States of around 2.5, although national 
statuses receive a more positive rating (2 on average).    

Where Member States apply pre-integration tests, information on these is considered 
to be easy to find for both the EU statuses and their national equivalents (with an 
average score of respectively 2.1 and 2). 

Box 5 Evidence from the Open Public Consultation 

2% (n=188) of non-EU citizens looking to migrate to the EU mentioned that it was 
difficult to obtain information on the pre-integration activities and conditions and that 
they had to pay for the integration courses themselves. The most common pre-
integration measures respondents participated in include integration programmes, 
language courses, civic education courses and integration tests 

Q2n(i) (ii). Does the Member State apply any other pre-departure 
conditions and/or measures? If the Member State applies pre-
departure conditions and/or measures (see Q3n(i) above), what 

June, 2018 

28 

 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

documentation is required to prove compliance and are any costs 
involved? 

Most of the Member States do not apply any other pre-departure conditions or 
measures. Belgium requires proof that persons are not subject to expulsion or an alert 
on the Schengen Information system. Austria applies a credit/point system where the 
applicants receive points for fulfilling certain criteria for the BCD. 

Austria applies its credit system (see above) also for its BCD national equivalent. In 
Belgium, the national security requirement (see above) applies also for its BCD 
equivalent.  

The above are additional assessments by authorities, with no costs for applicants.  

3.3  Key differences between EU Directives and their national 

equivalents 

An important difference between the requirements of the BCD and the equivalent 
national statuses concerns the lack or reduced minimum income requirements are 
applied in the latter in in Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, which seems to 
result in a higher use of the national equivalent status. In Sweden for example, 
income requirements under the national status are much lower and make no 
difference between low- and high-skilled workers. The rights enjoyed under the 
national status are the same than those offered under the BCD, which means that few 
labour migrants choose to use the Blue Card given that the national legislation is more 
favourable. There are, however, a few cases where national equivalent statuses have 
introduced higher salary requirements (e.g. top specialists in Estonia).  

Another important difference seems to be that application forms for the national 
equivalent statuses are considered to be more difficult and less user friendly to fill in. 
This may be a result of the relative harmonisation of documentation introduced by the 
EU legal migration acquis.  

Finally, and in notable difference to the EU status, LTR national equivalents seem to 
require continuous residence in a relatively small number of Member States. 

3.4  Main conformity issues and may clauses 

A full overview of the provisions of the EU Directives relevant to all migration phases is 
included in Annex 3 to this report. Table 2 below presents the provisions which most 
Member States (> 5)107 failed to transpose correctly. The extent to which these have 
led to practical application issues has been described above. 

107 In this and the following tables presenting the conformity issues, it was decided to only show those 
provisions for which a minimum of five Member States encountered issues, to illustrate where a provision may 
have been more ‘problematic’ to implement in general. 

June, 2018 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Table 2.  Overview of most common conformity issues 

Directives and relevant provision 

FRD 

Article 7 

1. When the application for family reunification is submitted, the 
Member State concerned may require the person who has submitted 
the application to provide evidence that the sponsor has: 

(a) accommodation regarded as normal for a comparable family in the 
same region and which meets the general health and safety standards 
in force in the Member State concerned; 

(b) sickness insurance in respect of all risks normally covered for its 
own nationals in the Member State concerned for himself/herself and 
the members of his/her family; 

(c) stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain 
himself/herself and the members of his/her family, without recourse 
to the social assistance system of the Member State concerned. 
Member States shall evaluate these resources by reference to their 
nature and regularity and may take into account the level of minimum 
national wages and pensions as well as the number of family 
members. 

Art.15 (3) In the event of widowhood, divorce, separation, or death of 
first-degree relatives in the direct ascending or descending line, an 
autonomous residence permit may be issued, upon application, if 
required, to persons who have entered by virtue of family 
reunification. Member States shall lay down provisions ensuring the 
granting of an autonomous residence permit in the event of 
particularly difficult circumstances. 

LTR 

Article 7 

Acquisition of long-term resident status 

1. To acquire long-term resident status, the third-country national 
concerned shall lodge an application with the competent authorities of 
the Member State in which he/she resides. The application shall be 
accompanied by documentary evidence to be determined by national 
law that he/she meets the conditions set out in Articles 4 and 5 as 
well as, if required, by a valid travel document or its certified copy. 
The evidence referred to in the first subparagraph may also include 
documentation with regard to appropriate accommodation. 

*Art.4 – Duration of residence and Art.5 – Conditions 

No of 
MS 

MS 

5 

BE, BG, ES, 
MT, NL 

5 

CZ, ES, HR 
HU, IT 

5 

CY, ES, HR, 
RO, SE 

Table 3 below presents an overview of the may clauses relevant to Migration Phase 2 
and the Member States which did not transpose these.  

June, 2018 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Table 3.  Overview of Member States not transposing may clauses 

Directives and relevant provision 

FRD 

Article 7 

1. When the application for family reunification is submitted, the 
Member State concerned may require the person who has 
submitted the application to provide evidence that the sponsor has: 

(a) accommodation regarded as normal for a comparable family in 
the same region and which meets the general health and safety 
standards in force in the Member State concerned; 

MS 

No MS 
not 
transp
osed 

10 

CY, CZ, EL, FI, 
HR, HU, LV, NL, 
RO, SI 

(b) sickness insurance in respect of all risks normally covered for its 
own nationals in the Member State concerned for himself/herself 
and the members of his/her family; 

11 

(c) stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain 
himself/herself and the members of his/her family, without 
recourse to the social assistance system of the Member State 
concerned. Member States shall evaluate these resources by 
reference to their nature and regularity and may take into account 
the level of minimum national wages and pensions as well as the 
number of family members. 

5 

Art. 7(2) Member States may require third country nationals to 
comply with integration measures, in accordance with national law. 

16 

Art 15(1) Not later than after five years of residence, and provided 
that the family member has not been granted a residence permit 
for reasons other than family reunification, the spouse or unmarried 
partner and a child who has reached majority shall be entitled, 
upon application, if required, to an autonomous residence permit, 
independent of that of the sponsor. Member States may limit the 
granting of the residence permit referred to in the first 
subparagraph to the spouse or unmarried partner in cases of 
breakdown of the family relationship. 

10 

BG, CY, CZ, 
EL,FR, HR, HU, 
LV, PT, SE, SK 

CY, EL, HU, LV, 
RO 

CZ, EE, ES, FI, 
FR, HR, HU, LU, 
LV, MT, PL, PT, 
RO, SE, SI, SK 

AT, BE, HR, IT, 
LT, LU, LV, NL, 
SI, SK 

BCD 

Art. 5 

2. Member States may require the applicant to provide his address 
in the territory of the Member State concerned. 

8 

ES, FI, HR, IT, 
LT, PT, SE, SI 

June, 2018 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

4 

Phase 3 – Application phase: lodging the application 

4.1  Main findings 

In all Member States reviewed, applications can be lodged in person in country or, in a 
lower number of Member States, in their diplomatic representations. Some application 
issues have been identified with regard to the accessibility to the application 
procedure, for example when the applicant has to appear more than once in person as 
part of the application process in third countries where this can only be done centrally, 
or where consulates are far away. Problems arise also when short deadlines for 
personal appearance are involved. 

Member States in which multiple authorities108 are involved in processing the 
applications slightly outnumber those where just one authority109 is involved. In eight 
Member States, an application issue has been identified due to the partial or non-
transposition of the SPD and the need for applicants to apply for their work and 
residential permits separately. Especially when multiple authorities and/or multiple 
steps are involved in the application process, around half of the national researchers 
consider that the necessary steps and authorities which need to be contacted are not 
very well explained and not easy to follow by third-country nationals in terms of what 
concrete steps to take.  

In terms of fees charged, these vary greatly between the Member States, also 
proportionally, when considering the fees as a share of the mean monthly gross 
earnings each Member State. In some Member States110, the excessive fees could 
constitute an application issue. Eight Member States111 charge other obligatory fees, 
but these are overall minor. 

Most Member States112 have put in place legally applicable deadlines within which to 
process applications. In several countries, these deadlines may exceed those set in the 
Directives, constituting a possible application issue. The actual number of days 
required to process applications usually complies with the Directives’ deadlines, with 
some exceptions. None of the Member States except one impose financial sanctions if 
an applicant does not meet a given deadline, and most inform the applicants that their 
application is incomplete, giving them a new deadline. Failure to meet the latter 
usually does lead to a rejection or cancellation of the application.  

Only in three Member States113 it is possible to lodge any application and receive a 
permit in the third country, while in eight others114 this is only allowed for some 
statuses. When permits are received on the territory of the Member State, varying 
entry visa regimes apply.  

Applicants are usually notified of the authorities’ decision in writing via post, in the 
Member States’ national languages, mostly via a single administrative act with 
reasoning. Even when the employer is the main applicant, the third-country national is 
usually also informed. Various judicial review mechanisms are in place, either in the 
Member State or in the third country, mostly through a legal representative or by 
sending the appeal to the respective embassy/consulate which forwards it to relevant 
authorities.   

108 AT, BE, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, SE, SI 
109 BG, CY, EE, EL, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK 
110 Please see Annex 2 Task II for the exact amounts of fees charged per MS 
111 AT, BE, CY, FI, IT, LT, MT, PL 
112 At, BG, CZ, EE, EL, Fi, FR, HR, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK 
113 CY, HR, SI 
114 EE, LT, PL, RO, MT, FI, SE, SK 

June, 2018 

32 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Administrative silence exists as concept in a little over half of the reviewed Member 
States and, in half of those cases, it is construed as tacit rejection, which can be 
appealed.   

Various degrees of difference are observed between EU directive statuses and national 
equivalents, mainly in terms of conditions for their award. With regard to the 
application procedure, in nine of the reviewed Member States (Austria, Bulgaria, the 
Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and 
Slovakia) with parallel national schemes115, no major discrepancies were found 
between the EU Directives and their national equivalent statuses. In the remaining 13 
Member States some differences have been noted. While in Hungary, the national 
statuses appear to offer less favourable conditions and rights with regard to the 
admission procedure (clean criminal record for national LTR status as opposed to the 
LTR), another group of Member States seems to be offering more favourable 
conditions, as noted in Croatia, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain 
and Sweden. The national equivalents to the LTR status in Croatia, Germany and 
Spain, for example, are generally wider in terms of personal scope, since they include 
an additional list of categories of third-country nationals, not covered by the LTR, who 
can lodge an application and acquire status. In Croatia, the uninterrupted legal 
residence for five years is not a requirement to obtain the national long-term 
residence status. Portugal also has a more favourable national equivalent of the LTR, 
including a much shorter deadline to decide on a permit request. 

4.2  Findings per main research topic 

4.2.1  Research topic 3.1: Easiness of lodging an application 

Q3a. How can TCNs lodge an application (e.g. the diplomatic mission 
in the capital / in the consulate of the Member State in the third 
country, via post, online, in person)?  

In all Member States reviewed, the application can be lodged in person, either in the 
Member States (if the application can also or only be made by a sponsor or family 
member), or in the embassy or consulate of the third country. A full online submission 
(i.e. the necessary information is entered and submitted online) can be made in six 
Member States 116 – as opposed to making available downloadable application forms 
(see also Phase 2 above) - while in seven Member States it is possible to lodge an 
application via post.117 Lithuania also allows a legal representative to lodge an 
application. Slovenia requires third, -country nationals to always present themselves 
in person for fingerprints, without which the application cannot be submitted. Latvia 
and Sweden are the Member States which offer most application options. There are no 
significant differences between the EU and national equivalent statuses. 

Some potential application issues have been identified with regard to the 
accessibility to the application procedure, for example when the applicant has to 
appear more than once in person as part of the application process in third countries 
where this can only be done centrally, or where consulates are far away (e.g. Austria). 
In the Czech Republic, third-country nationals face difficulties when trying to make 
appointments with the diplomatic missions, as well as inconsistencies in the 
interpretation of the type of documents to be sent along with the application by visa 
processing offices, which could lead to unjust rejections. Spain reported on problems 
encountered because of forms only being available online, making it impossible for 
applicants without internet access to obtain these. Whilst hampering the effectiveness 
of the application procedure, these do not constitute a de facto infringement. 

115 Luxembourg and Poland do not have parallel national schemes 
116 FI, FR, LV, NL, RO, SE. 
117 BG, CY, LU, LV, MT, SE, SI 

June, 2018 

33 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Box 6 Evidence from interviews with migration agencies and the OPC 

The majority of migration agencies interviewed in EU Member States stated that their 
clients did not experience significant difficulties when lodging an application. The 
easiness of online applications/submission via email was emphasised in case of the 
Netherlands, Germany and was mentioned in case of Croatia as a forthcoming tool. 
More difficulties were observed by migrant agencies in third countries. These 
difficulties often arose from the physical proximity of embassies. In some countries 
applicants had to travel significant distances to submit the application e.g. Brazil and 
Nigeria. 

According to the OPC, with regard to the application procedure, the non-EU citizens 
residing or having resided in the EU were asked about the means they were able to 
apply for a permit and whether it was easy or difficult to apply. Over 60% of 
respondents (n=189) indicated that they were not able to apply online118. However, 
the majority of respondents (71%) (n=188) said that they were able to apply from 
their country of residence, outside the EU119 and over 50% (n=161) indicated that 
their permit was issued when they were still outside the EU120.  

4.2.2  Research topic 3.2: authorities involved in the application 

Q3c. Are different Member State authorities involved in the 
processing of lodged applications and for issuing the permit(s)? 

In 10 Members States one authority is responsible,121 whilst in 15 Member States, 
different Member State authorities are involved in the processing of applications122 
going up to five different authorities in Malta and four in France, Lithuania and 
Germany. However, in many cases the number of authorities is dependent on the type 
of status applied for. In Austria, for example, if a person does not intend to work, only 
one authority is involved.  

The authority receiving the application is either the migration authority / agency or the 
diplomatic mission in the country of the third-country national, depending on who can 
lodge the application. In many cases the second authority involved is either the one 
responsible for the issuing of the visa, where this is necessary, and/or the one 
subsequently delivering the permit to stay. Other types of authorities often quoted 
include the employment office (for work permits), education agencies (e.g. for 
students), as well as border guards / law enforcement units. Some Member States 
also make use of external service providers to accept applications (e.g. Hungary and 
Czech Republic). 

In the majority of cases, third-country nationals lodge the application with a single 
authority (i.e. only one step), although in a few Member States, once having received 
a favourable decision, they need to pick up (and sometimes request) the residence 
permit with another authority than the one where they lodged the application (see 
also Phase 3 below). When the permit is only provided upon arrival in the Member 
State, the third-country national also, where applicable, has to apply for a visa. 

Box 7 Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies and the OPC  

A migrant agency in Germany explained that three different authorities are involved in 
the process: diplomatic missions in the country of origin, immigration offices and 

118 Question 41: Were you able to apply online?  
119 Question 42: Were you able to apply from your country of residence, outside the EU?, Question 43: If you applied from 
outside the EU, was your permit issued when you were still outside the EU?  
120 Country of residence of respondents: BE, CZ, DE, FR, NL, SE 
121 BG, CY, EE, EL, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK 
122 AT, BE, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, SI, SI 

June, 2018 

34 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

employment services. This makes the process more time consuming. Based on their 
experience communication among the authorities is difficult. This finding is also in line 
with the experience of stakeholders from other Member States. Similar problems were 
mentioned in Poland and the Netherlands. 

According to the OPC, during the application process, open-ended contributions123 
(n=32) point to a lack of clear and practical information coming from official sources 
on inter alia the different types of visa, the expected processing times, mandatory 
insurance, and the types of documents that need to be provided and notarised.  

Q3 (b). Only if the application process involves multiple steps and/or 
authorities, please review all the steps that the applicant has to 
follow and rate your agreement with the following statements as 1: 
Strongly agree; 2: Agree; 3: Neither agree/nor disagree; 4. Disagree; 
5. Strongly disagree and if needed, please provide briefly some 
details to explain your scoring. If applicable, please distinguish 
between statuses per Directive and equivalent national status. 

Especially when multiple authorities and/or multiple steps are involved in the 
application process, around half of the national researchers consider that the 
necessary steps and authorities which need to be contacted are not very well 
explained and not easy to follow by third-country nationals in terms of what concrete 
steps to take (e.g. Bulgaria, Italy and Spain). Others mention that the user-
friendliness of the information, e.g. in terms of amount of detail and / or the language 
used is not adequate, in particular for people with lower education levels (e.g. Cyprus 
and Estonia). Others judge the information to be insufficient and/or incomplete (e.g. 
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia and Finland), or difficult to find (Slovakia for parts of 
the BCD). Where a difference was made between Directives, the SD and LTR are the 
Directives receiving a lower than 2.5 score by most national researchers. Although 
much less often examined, national statuses receive a slightly lower score than EU 
statuses. Member States given the ‘best’ scores (i.e. 1 or < 2) are Finland, Romania 
and Sweden. 

Related to the above, the overall application process is considered to be too complex 
in Italy, involving multiple applications, steps and authorities, although guidance is 
currently being developed. In Latvia, it is not clear who can lodge the application, i.e. 
the sponsor or the family member, leading to legal uncertainty. In Slovakia, there are 
issues in relation to the BCD and the availability of information to the applicant. The 
necessary steps and authorities which have to be contacted by the applicant are not 
well explained since the outset and the applicant needs to find all information by 
themselves – on recognition of diploma/educated, application process, etc. 

4.2.3  Research topic 3.3: application fees 

Q3d.(i). How much are the application fees, by Directive and 
equivalent national statuses? 

Figure 1. below presents respectively the highest and the lowest application fees 
charged by the Member States as a share of the monthly gross earnings in that 
Member State. As can be seen from the graph, in one Member State (Bulgaria), the 
highest application fee charged corresponds to more than 50% of the monthly gross 
earnings, while in four more Member States these represent between 25-50% of the 
monthly earnings. The lowest fees charged still, in one Member State (Romania) 
represent between 25-50% of the monthly earnings and in another five between 10-
24%.  

123 Question 75. Do you have any views that you would like to share in the consultation?  

June, 2018 

35 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

A practical issue arises from the fact that the high application fees charged may 
create an impediment to the enjoyment of the Directives, in the sense that they 
potentially could act as a deterrent. This goes against the provisions in the SPD, SWD, 
ICT and S&RD stipulating that the fees “shall not be disproportionate or excessive” 124. 
In Belgium, for example, it was noted that the fees had recently been increased to 
200 euro for the FRD. Cyprus is reported to require €200 from family members under 
the FRD, which is considered relatively excessive. 

Figure 1.  Highest and lowest application fees as a share of mean monthly average 

earnings in Member States 

Q3d (ii). Are there other obligatory fees?   

Other obligatory fees charged by the authorities processing the applications were 
specifically identified in five of the reviewed Member States125. In Austria, for instance, 
there are additional obligatory costs of “personalisation” (photography and signature) 
amounting to € 20. Italy also applies small additional fees for the electronic residence 
permit and for the procedure at the post offices as well as a standard administrative 
fee of € 16.Lithuania charges fees for processing the temporary residence permits, 
while in Malta a fee is collected when the applicant submits his/her biometric data. 

In the remaining Member States126, some consular taxes or communal taxes may 
nevertheless apply, like in the case of Belgium where applicants must pay an 
obligatory fee of about 20€ to the consular service. 

Although not a fee charged by authorities, in Cyprus the most significant costs relate 
to the fees charged by the agents who applicants often need to hire to help prepare 
the paperwork, as this is a very time-consuming, bureaucratic and complex process.  

4.2.4  Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies and the OPC 

Overall the migrant agencies did not raise significant concerns in relation to the 
application fees. In most cases the costs range between EUR 100-500. Additional costs 

124  Disproportionate  administrative  fees  have  been  subject  of  earlier  CJEU  rulings,  such  as  case  C-508/10, 
where the court ruled that the Netherlands had failed to fulfil its obligations under the LTR by charging third-
country national applicants “excessive and disproportionate administrative charges which are liable to create 
an obstacle to the exercise of the rights under the LTR”. 
125 AT, IT, LT, MT, PL 
126 BE, BG, CZ, CY, FI, FR, DE, EE, EL, HR, HU, LU, LV, NL, PT, RO, SI, SK 

June, 2018 

36 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRQ3(d)(i) Highest MS application fee as a % of mean monthly gross earnings >50%25%-50%10%-24%<10%No informationIEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRQ3(d)(i) Lowest MS application fee as a % of mean monthly gross earnings 25%-50%10%-24%<10%No information 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

for TCNs come from translating diplomas, medical certificates and travel to and from 
the diplomatic missions to submit the application. This was mentioned as an issues for 
instance in case of Russia and Brazil. Only in case of the United Kingdom and the 
Netherlands were relatively high application fees mentioned by the agencies. 

In the OPC, almost 60% of Profile 2 respondents (n=191) agree to a small extent or 
do not agree at all that the costs of current immigration and residence procedures in 
the EU are reasonable, while around  40% of the respondents from this category said 
that they agreed to a (very) large extent. 

With regard to cost of submitting an application, the average cost is around 700 Euro 
(n=160)127 the cost to obtain recognition of qualifications is on average 350 Euro 
(n=88)128. 

4.2.5  Research topic 3.4: Time to process applications 

Q3e (i). Does the Member State have a legally applicable deadline to 
process applications (from receipt until notification of a decision)? 

Seventeen of the Member States129 reviewed have put in place a legally applicable 
deadline to process applications under all relevant Directives.  The table below 
provides an overview of the number of days set for the processing of applications. 
Germany has no such deadlines in place, only a stipulation that a remedial legal action 
can be taken after three months have passed. This could pose an application issue 
especially in view of the deadlines as stipulated in the Directives.  Six others only have 
these for certain Directives.130 In 14131 of the Member States with a legally applicable 
deadline for all or some Directives, the timeframe for processing applications from 
receipt of the application until notification of the decision is published and considered 
easily available for reference to the applicants. The average number of days set for 
processing applications in the Member States which apply deadlines is 86 days. 
Member States allow themselves most time for processing applications under FRD 
(152 days on average), still lower than the nine months prescribed as maximum in the 
Directive, while applications under the SD and the BCD have much shorter deadlines. 
Among the countries with the shortest deadlines for processing of applications are 
Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovenia whereas the countries which allow themselves the 
longest processing periods include Member States like Luxembourg, where all 
Directive deadlines seem to be exceeded, and Italy, which could be contrary to the 
SPD and FRD deadlines and could be in breach of the SD and RD relevant provisions. 
The LTR deadlines seem to be exceeded in countries like Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, 
Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal. National equivalent statuses, where available, do 
not present significant discrepancies with EU Directive deadlines.  

While for a number of countries actual data on the ‘real’ number of days to process an 
application is not available in the public domain, according to estimates by national 
researchers from 11 Member States132 with set deadlines, the “real” average number 
of days required for completing the processing of applications does not vary 

127 Question 29. How much did it cost you to prepare and submit your application (including application fees, 
costs to obtain/translate documents, certification, etc.)? 
128 Question 30. If applicable, how much did it cost you to obtain recognition of your qualifications? 
129 AT, BG, CZ, EE, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK 
130 BE has set time deadline for BCD, FRD and LTR 
CY has set time deadline for  BCD, FRD, LTR and SPD 
EL for all Directives except SPD. 
FI has set time deadline for BCD, FRD, LTR and SPD. 
MT has set time deadline for BCD,FRD, LTR and SPD. 
SE for BCD and SPD.  
131 AT, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, HU, IT, LU, LV, NL, PT, RO, SK 
132 CZ, EE, EL, FI, HR, LV, MT, PL, RO, SE, SK  

June, 2018 

37 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

significantly from the number of days stipulated. However, somewhat justified 
criticisms of the lengthy periods taken to process applications are reported in for 
example Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden (FRD), Greece (FRD).  

A practical issue has been identified in Finland as no provisions are made for 
situations in which the Immigration Services do not process applications within the 
legal timeframes. Austria has not set any deadline to decide on SD and RD 
applications, which may in practice mean that the Member State do not meet the 
criterion in the Directives that the processing time required should not hamper the 
applicants’ studies/research.  

Box 8 Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies and the OPC 

A migration law firm from the Netherlands highlighted that the time to process 
application in case of the Blue Card directive depends on the company sponsoring the 
future employee. In case of well-known sponsors the process takes up to two weeks 
or even less while in case of lesser known sponsors the waiting time can be prolonged. 
The longest waiting time to process an application was cited in Poland, where it takes 
around 6 months for a request to be processed. 

With regard to time it took for applying, for 38% of Profile 2 respondents (n=190) to 
the OPC, it took from one to four weeks to prepare their application and for further 
33% it took from one to three months. Around 20% needed more than three months 
and only 6% prepared their application in less than a week. The waiting time for 
answer after submitting an application is usually between one and three months for 
over 40% of respondents. Only 23% received an answer within four weeks. 

4.2.6  Research topic 3.5: Administrative and financial sanctions 

Q3f (i). Does the Member State impose any administrative or 
financial sanctions if the applicant fails to comply within a given 
deadline (e.g. if the applicant fails to provide information / 
documentation on time, after having lodged an application?) 

When the information or documents supplied in support of the application are 
inadequate, 18 of the reviewed Member States133 do not impose any administrative or 
financial sanctions if an applicant fails to provide additional information or documents 
within a given deadline for, while six apply some form of sanction134, although most 
refer to rejection or rejection of the application. Only Luxembourg applies a financial 
sanction (25 EUR – 250 EUR) for those who fail to apply for a residence permit within 
three months following their arrival in Luxembourg, which is generally equivalent to 
between 1.35 and 13.5 gross hourly earnings. 

In the majority of countries (18 Member States135) a failure to comply within a given 
deadline can lead to cancellation or rejection of the application (e.g. if an applicant 
does not send additional supporting documents on time).  In five Member States136 
non-compliance with a deadline on the part of the applicant does not lead to 
cancellation or rejection of the whole application. In some countries, like Slovenia, the 
decision whether to cancel/reject the application depends on the specific 
circumstances of each case.  

A possible application issue has been identified in Poland with regard to the very 
short deadline (seven days) set for a person to appear in person before the competent 
authority, when s/he has sent an application by mail or when a “formal defect” in the 

133 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, LT, LV, NL, RO, SE, SI, SK 
134 HU, IT, LU, MT, PL, PT 
135 AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, HR, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SK 
136 BE, EL, IT, PT, SE 

June, 2018 

38 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

application has been noted (e.g. a wrong form, lack of photos, invalid travel 
documents). Failing to appear can lead to the application not being considered, which 
means a practical end to the application process and a need to submit an application 
again. Seven days is a very short period especially if the applicant has to travel and/or 
needs to make other arrangements, such as taking time off work, childcare, etc.  

Q3o. Does the Member State inform third-country nationals when 
their application is incomplete, and what is the subsequent process? 

Twenty-three of the reviewed Member States137 notify third-country nationals when 
their application is incomplete. The process in all these countries includes contacting 
the third-country nationals, specifying the missing documentation that they need to 
provide and usually setting a new deadline. The latter ranges from seven days in 
Poland, to up to a maximum of 90 days in Slovak Republic.  

Some Member States, like the Czech Republic, are more flexible as to the deadline for 
submitting further documents: the general deadline is 30 days but if the missing 
document requires a period longer than this to be collected, the deadline for 
submitting the missing documentation can be extended based on request by the 
applicant. In others however, the deadline seems short, for example seven days in 
Poland and 10 days in Portugal and Lithuania, which might be difficult to meet 
especially if, for example, the missing or incomplete documents need to be specifically 
requested and/or certified. 

Q3f (ii). Does a failure to reply within a deadline lead to cancellation 
or rejection of the application138 (e.g. in circumstances where the 
competent authority asks for additional information and/or 
documentation and provides a deadline for the response)? 

In most of the Member States139 that inform third-country nationals when their 
application is incomplete, with the exception of Austria, Belgium and Germany, the 
competent authority reviewing the applications sets a new deadline which is also 
communicated to the applicant. Member States usually also temporarily suspend the 
application process until all required new documentation has been received. In some 
countries, the decision to suspend the procedure depends on how incomplete the 
application is (e.g. Sweden). The failure to reply within a given deadline leads to 
cancellation/rejection of the application in the majority of Member States (20) under 
review140.  

A possible application issue has been identified with regard to incomplete 
applications in Malta. Maltese authorities often refuse to accept incomplete 
applications or reject them without any notification in writing, which means that 
applicants are rarely aware of the status of their application. Given that the “real time” 
required for processing of applications in Malta can take up to 183 days for the LTR, 
this is problematic, as it means that applicants may wait for a long time before finding 
out that their application was rejected already at the start of the process for being 
incomplete. 

137 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 
138 This question relates to first applications only. The Single Permit Directive allows the competent authority 
to reject the application, if the additional information or documents are not provided within the deadline set. 
139 BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 
140 AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI (but depending on the 
case), SK 

June, 2018 

39 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

4.2.7  Research topic 3.6: Applications and delivery of permits in third 

countries 

Q3g (i). Is it possible for the applicant to make the applications in the 
third country and receive the residence permit whilst still in the third 
country? 

In three of the reviewed Member States141 it is possible for applicants under all 
statuses to both lodge their applications in the respective third country and 
subsequently receive their residence permit whilst still on the territory of the third-
country. This is done through the respective diplomatic and consular representations, 
which usually send the application to the respective authorities in-country and receive 
from them the decision, which is handed to the applicant.  

In eight other Member States142, this is an option for certain statuses only. In Estonia, 
for instance, except for the LTR permit, when completing the residence permit 
application form, the applicant is requested to indicate in which of Estonia’s foreign 
missions they want to receive the residence permit card. After the final decision is 
made, the applicant is notified of it and the residence permit card is printed within 30 
days from this notification. The card is subsequently sent by diplomatic post to the 
chosen foreign mission. In the case of Romania applications under the BCD and SPD 
can be lodged in a third-country and the residence permit can be delivered there too, 
while it is not possible to make applications under any of the other Directives outside 
Romania’s territory. 

141 CY, HR, SI 
142 EE, LT, PL, RO, MT, FI, SE, SK 

June, 2018 

40 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

4.2.8  Research topic 3.7: Applications and delivery of permits in Member 

States 

Q3h. If the application for the residence permit can only be done or 
delivered on the territory of the Member State, is an entry visa 
required? Is there a facilitated process for this? 

Broadly three different approaches have been identified: 

  In Estonia and Sweden, an entry visa is not required for any of the statuses. 

  A second, small group, of Member States143 allow visa-free entry on their 

territory depending on the status granted. Greece has a general requirement 
for an entry visa and only applies an exception to applications under FRD, 
whereas Spain applies this exception to the BCD. 

  A larger group of Member States require an entry visa for all statuses and do 

not apply any exceptions144. Of these, only three Member States145 have set up 
a facilitated process for obtaining an entry-visa for all types of statuses, while 
Portugal has a facilitated process for students and, since recently, for 
researchers, and Italy has one for researchers.  

The FRD, RD and BCD all require Member States to “grant such persons every facility 
for obtaining the requisite visas”. The lack of a facilitated process raises questions as 
to whether Member States have correctly applied the relevant provisions of the 
Directive in practice.  

4.2.9  Research topic 3.8: Notification of the decision 

Q3i (i). How is the applicant informed of a decision (e.g. in writing via 
post, in writing via email, in person, other please specify)? 

In 22 Member States146 the most commonly used way to inform a third-country 
national that a decision on their application has been made is in writing, via post. In 
Cyprus, Croatia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Slovakia, the decision is 
only communicated this way. Other Member States 147 also have the option to inform 
third-country nationals of the outcome of their application by email or in person148.  

Italy does not seem to use the above more ‘conventional methods’ of informing 
applicants and instead notifies them by SMS and/or through publication of the relevant 
information on the dedicated section of the website of Italian National Police.  

Austria may have an application issue with respect to the SPD, as it only informs its 
diplomatic and consular representations, which are under no explicit obligation to 
issue a written communication to the applicant and the legal quality of the notification 
is considered unclear.  

Q3i (ii). For notifying the applicant of a decision, does the Member 
State issue one or more administrative acts/decisions? 

In the majority of the reviewed countries (21)149, the competent Member State 
authorities issue only one administrative act for notifying the applicant of a decision. 
In three Member States150, this will depend on the status applied for. In the case of 

143 BE, EL, ES, PT, SK 
144 AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO 
145 BG, MT, NL 
146 BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 
147 AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, FI, LT, LV, MT, PT, RO, SE 
148 AT, BG, DE, EL, ES, FR,  LT, LV, PL, PT, SE, SI 
149 AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 
150 BG, CY, FI 

June, 2018 

41 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Bulgaria, for example, there are two decisions under the FRD, a family reunification 
decision and a residence permit), while in relation to the Students Directive and the 
Researchers Directive, one administrative act is issued. Only in Spain, in reference to 
all Directives, for an applicant to be notified, the relevant Spanish state authority will 
issue multiple administrative acts regardless of the nature of the application. 

4.2.10 Research topic 3.9: Notification of a rejection 

Q3k (i). In case of a rejection of the application, are the reasons for 
the rejection provided in writing and in which language? 

All 25 reviewed Member States151 provide reasons for it in writing in case of a rejection 
of the application, most often with reference to the relevant provisions in the national 
law. Criticisms are expressed with regard to the ‘substance’ of the rejection decisions, 
for example in the cases of Malta and Greece, as they are considered to insufficiently 
set out the reasons and grounds for rejection.  

In 23 Member States152 applicants are informed in the Member State’s national 
language, although five of these153 also have the option to provide information in 
English, and one in Russian. Cyprus only informs applicants of a rejection in English. 
In Greece, however, even if the reasons for rejection are briefly provided only in 
Greek, these could be translated in another language verbally upon request by the 
applicant. 

Box 9 Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies and the OPC 

A majority of interviewed stakeholders agreed that reasons for rejection are clearly 
explained. Exceptions were mentioned by a Brazilian law firm, a Nigerian consulting 
company and a Russian migrant agency who argued that reasons for rejection are not 
always clear for their clients. 

Out of the total number of OPC Profile 1 respondents (n=32), only two indicated that 
their application was rejected and both of them mentioned that they were notified in 
writing. One of the respondents had the application rejected because the documents 
presented did not provide the required evidence. They suggested that reasons for the 
rejection were not at all clearly explained, but they had the opportunity to appeal the 
rejection. The other respondents had the application rejected because they did not 
fulfil conditions for admission related to a specific category 
(student/researcher/worker/family member etc.) and the documents presented did 
not provide the required evidence. They specified that the reasons for the rejection 
were clearly explained, but they did not have the opportunity to appeal the rejection 

4.2.11 Research topic 3.10: Involvement of third-country nationals if the 

employer is the applicant 

Q3k (ii) (previously Q3m). If the applicant is the employer rather 
than the third-country national (e.g. this is possible in case of the 
Blue Card and the Single Permit Directive), is the third-country 
national at all involved in the application process? And is s/he 
notified of the decision? 

In 18 Member States154, even when the application is lodged by the employers, the 
third-country nationals are still involved in the process, in particular with regard to 

151 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 
152 AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 
153 EE, ES, FI, RO, SE 
154 AT, BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK 

June, 2018 

42 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

providing the information and documents required for admission. With the exception 
of the Netherlands, they are also informed of the decision, just as the employer is.  

4.2.12  Research topic 3.11: Appeal procedures 

Q3k (iii). Which appeal procedures are available to applicants against 
a negative decision? If the third-country national and/or his/her 
family are (still) based in the third country, how can these be 
accessed? 

All Member States have appeal procedures in place. Appeal procedures against the 
initial rejection of the application vary in the different Member States – they can 
involve a judicial review of the administrative act which rejected the application before 
the competent administrative court (e.g. Austria), or appeal before the relevant 
executive bodies, including Ministries (e.g. Belgium), Immigration offices (e.g. 
Germany), specialised immigration appeal committees (e.g. Croatia), Migration 
agencies (e.g. Sweden), police and border guard boards (e.g. Estonia) or consular 
authorities (e.g. Hungary). 

In at least ten Member States155 arrangements have been reported that would permit 
the lodging of an appeal in case the third-country national and/or their family are still 
based in the third country. In some countries, like Cyprus and Lithuania, it is explicitly 
indicated that applicants do not need to be physically present in the country, but a 
lawyer representing them can file the appeal in the administrative court on their 
behalf. In other Member States such as Finland, for example, the third-country 
national can appeal in writing to the relevant embassy/consulate in the third country 
or, like in Slovenia, by post to the Member State’s appeal body. In Portugal, even if 
the person was in the Member State at the time they filed the application, but abroad 
when the rejection decision is received, they can appeal in writing before an embassy 
or a consular service abroad.  

An application issue raised by researchers in Austria, Finland and Belgium concerns 
the overall effectiveness of the appeal procedure. In Austria, applicants often seek to 
lodge a new application rather than submitting an appeal, as the procedure is 
considered as too lengthy and costly. This undermines the effectiveness of both the 
application and the appeal processes. In Finland, the initial appeal of a rejection 
involves a fee of €250 which is only reimbursed if the negative decision is reversed in 
court.  Moreover, the majority of rejected applicants do not consider an appeal as a 
viable option, as the waiting times for a court decision in Finland are long - from 
several months to years. Lengthy and ineffective appeals are reported also in Belgium.  

Q3 (k). Please review information on appeals in case of an (initial) 
rejection of the application and rate your agreement with statement 
below. 

When it comes to the extent to which sufficient information is available to applicants 
on the appeal process against a negative decision, only Poland, Romania and Sweden 
were considered to provide all the information that third-country nationals need to 
know on how to appeal. While the average estimate of the sufficiency of information 
among all reviewed Member States is generally neutral, meaning neither good nor 
bad, seven Member States156 received very low scores (between 4 and 5) 
characterising information as being incomplete, inadequate and/r difficult to access.  

155 For example, BE, CY, DE, EL, FI, LT, LU, MT, NL, SI 
156 EE, EL, IT, LT, LU, MT, SI 

June, 2018 

43 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Related to the above, Slovakia identified a general difficulty that TCNs experience 
when writing an appeal, which is probably found in other Member States too: as 
decisions are issued in Slovak language only and the appeal has to be based on the 
provisions of Act no. 71/1967 Coll. on Administrative Procedure, applicants often have 
to hire support to write a successful appeal in Slovak. 

Box 10 Evidence from interviews with migrant agencies 

Interviewees provided mixed views regarding the appeal procedures. In case of the 
Czech Republic the consulate will immediately reject an application if a document is 
missing. Applicants can then return and complete the application based on the 
guidance provided. On the other hand both of the interviewed Nigerian consultancies 
stated that only a small minority of rejected applicants appeal (around 15%) due to 
the high costs associated with the procedure. 

4.2.13  Research topic 3.12: administrative silence 

Q3l (i). Does the concept of administrative silence exist in the 
Member State and if yes, what are the consequences (e.g. if no 
reaction has been received from the relevant authority, is its silence 
to be understood as a tacit rejection of the application)? 

Administrative silence exists in 14 of the reviewed Member States157 and in all of them 
the concept is regulated in the law. In Germany, however, it is only applied in some 
special administrative proceedings and not in immigration proceedings. In eight158 of 
the 14 countries, administrative silence is construed as a tacit rejection of the 
application.  

In Belgium, however, when processing deadlines are set by law, the legal effects of 
not respecting these time limits include the obligation for the decision to be positive 
(this applies to the LTR, the BCD and FRD).  

Q3l (ii). Where the concept exists (i.e. if the answer to question 
Q3l(i) above is Yes), what are the redress procedures against 
administrative silence? Are applicants informed of this redress 
procedures and how? 

Redress procedures against administrative silence vary between Member States and 
can include administrative or judicial reviews of the tacit rejection, the invalidation of 
applications, injunctions or a financial penalty. 

Out of the Member States where such procedure is available, administrative and 
judicial review is in place in Bulgaria; appeal or administrative court procedure is 
available in Croatia, and in Luxembourg there is also recourse to the administrative 
tribunal. In Slovenia, depending on whether administrative appeal of a decision is 
allowed, the applicant can either turn to the higher administrative body, which may 
extend the deadline for decision or resolve the matter itself, or initiate an 
administrative dispute with the Administrative Court, which may decide on the matter, 
instruct the administrative body on how to resolve it or order the service of the 
decision, if it has not been served.   

In Greece, there is an invalidation application which can be only launched after the 
expiry of a time limit of 4 months and which not only contests the tacit rejection of the 
single permit application but opens the possibility for any future negative act of the 
competent authorities to be contested autonomously.  

157 AT, BE, BG, DE, ES, FR, HR, IT, LU, MT, NL, PT, SI, SK 
158 BG, EL, ES, FR,HR, IT, LU, SI 

June, 2018 

44 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

In Italy, after 60 days from the deadline for the authority to answer, the applicant can 
send a formal injunction to the competent Questura (law-enforcement agency), which 
includes a request to issue a decision and to explain the reasons for the delay within 
30 days. In case of silence, the applicant can appeal the tacit rejection before the 
competent Administrative Court.  

LTR, SPD and BCD cases of administrative silence in Malta automatically pass to the 
Immigration Appeals Board, while FRD cases are reviewed by civil courts and SD and 
RD have no practical remedy.  

In the Netherlands, applicants can send a notice of default to which the authorities 
have two weeks to respond, otherwise a penalty payment automatically starts. If the 
authority has still not decided within the two weeks, the applicant may then directly 
appeal to court, which can specify a deadline for decision and can also impose a 
penalty payment, if the deadline is not respected.  

In Slovakia, the higher administrative body may issue the required decision if the 
matter of the case allows for that. 

In Greece, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, the applicants are informed that redress 
procedures are available. In Luxembourg and the Netherlands, although more 
extensive information on the redress procedures is not proactively offered to third-
country nationals, they can find the available procedures on the relevant website or 
can ask for more information over the phone. In France, up to a certain extent, the 
applicants can ask for grounds of rejection.  

4.3  Key differences between the EU Directives and their national 

equivalents 

With regard to the application procedure, in nine of the reviewed Member States 
(Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, 
Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia) with parallel national schemes159, no major 
discrepancies were found between the EU Directives and their national equivalent 
statuses. In these Member States, the application phase is similar for all Directive 
permits and their national equivalent statuses, which offer similar rights and 
conditions. In the remaining 13 Member States some differences have been noted: 

In Hungary, the national statuses appear to offer less favourable conditions and rights 
with regard to the admission procedure. For example, in order to be granted the 
national settlement permit, which is the national equivalent of the LTR, the applicant 
needs to provide proof of a clear criminal record from the country of origin. This can 
pose a significant challenge depending on the third country. No such requirement is in 
place for applications under the LTR. 

Another group of Member States seems to be offering more favourable conditions, as 
noted in Croatia, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. 
The national equivalents to the LTR status in Croatia, Germany and Spain, for 
example, are generally wider in terms of personal scope, since they include an 
additional list of categories of third-country nationals, not covered by the LTR, who 
can lodge an application and acquire status. For instance, in Spain these categories 
include foreigners who are of Spanish origin and have lost their Spanish nationality; 
foreigners who have contributed markedly to the economic, scientific and cultural 
progress of Spain, or the projection of Spain abroad; a stateless person, a refugee or 
a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, found in Spanish territory who has been granted 
the respective status in Spain; a resident who upon reaching the age of majority has 
been under the tutelage of a Spanish public entity during the immediately preceding 
five years in a row; and a resident of absolute permanent disability or major disability 
pension beneficiary. In Croatia, the uninterrupted legal residence for five years is not 

159 Luxembourg and Poland do not have parallel national schemes 

June, 2018 

45 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

a requirement to obtain the national long-term residence status. In addition, in order 
to obtain the status, certain categories of third-country nationals in the Alien Act do 
not need to satisfy the conditions related to sufficient resources to maintain 
themselves, health insurance and the knowledge of Croatian language and the Latin 
alphabet. 

Portugal also has a more favourable national equivalent of the LTR, including a much 
shorter deadline to decide on a permit request (90 working days compared to six 
months for the EU status) and application fees which are about 25% lower than those 
specified for the LTR. When it comes to the national Scheme for Scientific research 
and highly qualified individuals, the BCD’s equivalent in Portugal, the law also sets a 
shorter deadline (66% shorter) for a decision on a residence permit application, the 
fees are again 25% lower than those charged for the BCD and there is no requirement 
for a wage threshold. 

Although there are no substantial difference in the Netherlands between the EU 
Directives and their equivalents, applications for the national “highly skilled migrant” 
status can be submitted online via the recognised sponsor portal, something which is 
not offered as part of the BCD. The portal facilitates the application process. 

4.4  Main conformity issues and may clauses 

A full overview of the provisions of the EU Directives relevant to all migration phases is 
included in Annex 3 to this report. Table 4 below presents the provisions which most 
Member States (> 5) failed to transpose correctly. The extent to which these have led 
to practical application issues has been described in Section 4.2 above. 

Table 4.  Overview of most common conformity issues 

Directives and relevant provision 

FRD 

Article 13 (1) As soon as the application for family reunification has 
been accepted, the Member State concerned shall authorise the entry 
of the family member or members. In that regard, the Member State 
concerned shall grant such persons every facility for obtaining the 
requisite visas. 

SPD 

Art. 1. This Directive lays down: 

(a) a single application procedure for issuing a single permit for third-
country nationals to reside for the purpose of work in the territory of a 
Member State, in order to simplify the procedures for their admission 
and to facilitate the control of their status 

Article 4  Single application procedure 

1. An application to issue, amend or renew a single permit shall be 
submitted by way of a single application procedure. Member States 
shall determine whether applications for a single permit are to be 
made by the third-country national or by the third-country national’s 
employer. Member States may also decide to allow an application 
from either of the two. If the application is to be submitted by the 
third-country national, Member States shall allow the application to be 
introduced from a third country or, if provided for by national law, in 
the territory of the Member State in which the third-country national 
is legally present. 

No of 
MS 

MS 

5 

5 

8 

EL, ES, RO, 
SI, SK 

BG, DE, EL, 
LU, LV 

BG, EL, ES, 
IT, LT, LV, 
PL, PT 

BCD 

June, 2018 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Directives and relevant provision 

Art. 7 (1) [...] The Member State concerned shall grant the third-
country national every facility to obtain the requisite visas. 

No of 
MS 

6 

MS 

DE, EE, ES, 
FR, LU, PL 

Table 5 presents an overview of the may clauses relevant to Migration Phase 4 and the 
member States which did not transpose these.  

Table 5.  Overview of most common conformity issues 

Directives and relevant provision 

MS 

No MS 
not 
transp
osed 

SD 

Article 20 Fees Member States may require applicants to pay fees 
for the processing of applications in accordance with this Directive. 

6 

 DE, IT, LT, LU, 
MT, NL 

RD 

Art. 14 -3. Member States may accept, in accordance with their 
national legislation, an application submitted when the third-
country national concerned is already in their territory. 

SPD 

Article 4  Single application procedure 

1. An application to issue, amend or renew a single permit shall be 
submitted by way of a single application procedure. Member States 
shall determine whether applications for a single permit are to be 
made by the third-country national or by the third-country 
national’s employer. Member States may also decide to allow an 
application from either of the two.  

BCD 

8 

5 

DE, ES, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, PL, RO 

BE, DE, IT, LU, 
MT 

Art. 10 (3) By way of derogation from paragraph 2, a Member State 
may accept, in accordance with its national law, an application 
submitted when the third-country national concerned is not in 
possession of a valid residence permit but is legally present in its 
territory. 

9 

Art. 10 (4) By way of derogation from paragraph 2, a Member State 
may provide that an application can only be submitted from outside 
its territory, provided that such limitations, either for all the third-
country nationals or for specific categories of third-country 
nationals, are already set out in the existing national law at the 
time of the adoption of this Directive. 

19 

BG, CY, ES, FR, 
IT, LU, RO, SE, 
SI 

AT, BE, BG, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, ES, 
FI, FR, HR, HU, 
IT, MT, NL, PL, 
PT, RO, SK 

5 

Phase 4: Entry and travel phase: including acquisition of 
the necessary entry and transit visas  

5.1  Main findings 

The entry and travel phase addresses the requirements that third-country nationals 
need to fulfil in order to enter and re-enter the country of destination, as well as to 
travel to other Member States, including when a permit is issued in a Schengen state. 
It examines the steps and procedures to obtain entry visas (where necessary), the 

June, 2018 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

procedures and conditions to enter and travel across the EU Member States, as well as 
the procedures that apply upon arrival in the country of destination.  

Most Member States have some timeframes for granting entry visas to applicants who 
do not yet hold a valid permit to enter the Member State. Application problems may 
arise where there are no such timeframes, or where they are regulated by general 
administrative law. If timeframes are too long or missing, Member States may be held 
in violation of their obligation to facilitate the issuing of visas to legal migration 
applicants160. In Member States with different timeframes for the different statuses, 
SD/RD applicants benefit from shorter deadlines. Visas are usually to be requested by 
third-country nationals themselves and, where other persons can request them, these 
are mainly the employers also applying for the work-related permit. All reviewed 
Member States allow TCNs in possession of a valid permit and valid travel document 
to enter and re-enter the country on the basis of the permit. Each Schengen state also 
does that in relation to the others. Few Member States impose entry requirements on 
TCNs from visa free countries, and those that do mainly refer to general requirements 
such as valid travel documents, a justifications for the reasons of entry and stay and 
proof of sufficient resources. In particular the latter may overlap with the 
requirements of the Directives and thus mean an unnecessary burden for the 
applicant. 

After entering the Member States, third-country nationals are often required to 
register with other authorities, including for example with local authorities, police, 
social security bodies, etc.  

5.2  Findings per research topic 

5.2.1  Research topic 4.1: Entry visas 

Q4 (a) (i) If applicants do not yet hold a valid permit before entering 
the Member State (i.e. if your response to question 3h is Yes), has 
the Member State put in place a set timeframe for granting an entry 
visa, from the moment of application?  

Eight Member States161 do not foresee any particular timeframe for the granting of an 
entry visa if the applicant does not yet hold a valid permit before entering the Member 
State. In Germany, for instance, there is no set timeframe although the Code of 
Administrative Court Procedure stipulates that a decision on the application for 
carrying out an(y) administrative act should be taken within a suitable period. As the 
law does not specify what a suitable period is, an entry visa is usually granted within 
three months. Similarly in Austria the general Act on Administrative Procedures 
requires that the authorities decide within six months, which is usually respected, 
which leaves doubt as to whether the State has complied with its obligation to 
facilitate the granting of visas. Exceptionally, for the BCD and its national equivalent 
status, the decision has to be made within eight weeks.  

Eleven Member States162 have put in place set timeframes for issuing an entry visa 
from the moment of the application. In Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg and 
Romania, there is a general time limit for the issuing of visas which applies to all 
statuses, with the timeframe in those Member States ranging from 15 days in Bulgaria 
and Latvia to 90 days in Luxembourg, which can be considered fairly long for those 
statuses for which some form of visa facilitation is required. Other Member States 
(e.g. Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal) have put in place different timeframes for 
visas depending on the status. For example, Greece issues visas to SD applicants 
within 20 days, while BCD applicants may have to wait for 90 days. RD applicants in 

160 Specified in the preambles of the SD and SPD preambles and stipulated in the BCD and RD 
161 BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE, LT, MT, SK 
162 AT, BG, ES, HU, IT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO 

June, 2018 

48 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Portugal can obtain a visa within 30 working days, while the deadline for BCD and SD 
applicants is 60 working days. SD and RD applicants in the Netherlands are granted 
visas within 60 days, while deadlines for BCD, FRD and SPD applicants are 90 days. 
Member States within this group thus seem to be offering a higher degree of visa 
facilitation to SD/RD applicants.  

5.2.2  Research topic 4.2: entry and re-entry on the basis of the permit 

Q4 (b)(i) Does the Member State allow third country nationals who 
hold a valid permit and valid travel document to enter and re-enter 
their national territory only on the basis of the permit?     

All reviewed Member States, except from France, allow third-country nationals who 
hold a valid permit and a valid travel document to enter and re-enter their national 
territory only on the basis of the permit163, although some conditions apply, which are 
more related to how long third-country nationals are allowed to stay outside the 
Member State. In Cyprus, for example, re-entry is no longer allowed if the third-
country national has stayed more than three months outside the Member State. In 
Lithuania, third-country nationals must declare their departure when leaving the 
Member State for a period exceeding six months. In the Netherlands, third-country 
nationals can freely enter and re-enter the national territory, but they are not allowed 
to move their main residence in the country. 

163 An explicit requirement of the BCD and required under the SPD for Schengen countries. 

June, 2018 

49 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Q4 (b) (ii). For Schengen Member States only: If the permit is issued 
in a Schengen Member State (and notified to the Commission in line 
with Article 39(1)(a) of the Schengen Border Code), is the person 
allowed to travel to other Schengen Member States only on the basis 
of the permit and valid travel document?  

All twenty-one Member States which are also Schengen Member States164 allow third-
country nationals to travel to other Schengen countries only on the basis of a permit 
issued on their territory and a valid travel document. The remaining four Member 
States (BG, CY, HR and RO) are not Schengen members. 

The long-term visa has the same effect as a residence card with regard to free 
movement on the Schengen territory. Accordingly, third-country nationals are 
authorised to travel to another Schengen State for a total period not exceeding three 
months in a six-month period, starting from the date of their first entry on to the 
Schengen territory. They must also have their valid travel documents as the residence 
card is proving the person’s legal basis for staying in a Schengen Member State but is 
not a travel document. 

5.2.3  Research topic 4.3: Entry from visa free countries 

Q4 (c) (i). Does the Member State impose any specific entry 
requirements to third-country nationals of a visa-free country?  

The majority of the reviewed countries165 do not impose any specific entry 
requirements to third-country nationals of a visa-free country. Nevertheless, in 
Bulgaria, long-term visa requirements apply, as the visa-free regime is relevant for 
short-term stays only. Italy applies some general requirements for all third-country 
nationals wishing to enter its territory, including a valid travel document, justification 
of the reasons for entering Italy and the conditions of one’s stay, sufficient resources 
to cover the whole duration of the stay and for return to the country of origin or for 
the transit and, lastly, not being a threat to public order, national security or public 
health. Malta is similar to Italy in this regard, with three specific requirements to all 
statuses – possessing a valid passport, submitting documents on the purpose and the 
conditions of the planned visit in Malta and a proof of sufficient means of support both 
for the period of the planned visit and for return. In both Member States, these 
requirements duplicate the admission conditions of the EU migration statuses. 

A further general requirement imposed by Portugal is that the third-country national 
must submit a Declaration of Entry to the relevant authority within three days of 
entering Portuguese territory, unless he/she stays in a tourist accommodation 
establishment. 

5.2.4  Research topic 4.5: requesting the entry visa 

Q4 (a) (iii). If the main applicant is the employer (as is the case in 
e.g. the Single Permit and the EU Blue Card Directives), who requests 
the initial entry visa?  

If the main applicant is the employer, as is the case in the SPD and the BCD, Latvia 
and Cyprus require the employer to request the entry visa. In ten of the reviewed 
Member States166 the third-country national is expected to apply for the entry visa. In 
Spain, either the third-country national or their legal representative can request the 
visa. 

164 AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK 
165 AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SE, SI, SK 
166 AT, BE, BG, DE, HU, IT, LU, PT, RO, SE 

June, 2018 

50 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

In Greece, Croatia and the Netherlands, the person allowed to submit a visa 
application depends on the migration status: in both Member States, only the third-
country national can apply for a visa under the SPD, whereas both the employer and 
the third-country national are allowed to request a visa under the BCD. 

Q4 (a) (iv). Are there any other situations in which the main 
applicant (who is not the person who wishes to migrate) is involved 
in requesting the entry visa?   

In the Netherlands, under the RD, SD and FRD, the sponsor is responsible for 
requesting the long-term visa, which serves to enter the Member State too, as well as 
the residence permit on behalf of the third-country national wishing to migrate.  

5.2.5  Research topic 4.5: leaving, transiting and entering without a visa 

Q4 (d) (i). If your Member State delivers residence permits to 
applicants in the third country and does not require a visa to enter 
the national territory, do third-country nationals encounter any 
obstacles in practice to leave the third country, transit and/or enter 
the Member State.  

In most Member States167 which deliver residence permits to applicants in the third 
country and which do not require them to have a visa to enter the national territory, 
third-country nationals do not encounter any obstacles in practice to leave their 
countries of origin and to enter the Member State. However, in Estonia, cases have 
been reported in which it took more than 30 days for the residence card to arrive at 
the Estonian foreign mission, which could be considered as a barrier to leaving the 
third-country.  

When it comes to transiting, again, only in a few Member States168 practical difficulties 
are encountered by third-country nationals. In Spain, the long and complicated 
process for acquiring an airport transit visa is seen as an impediment. Nationals 
needing airport transit visa must apply for it in person or through a duly accredited 
representative at the Spanish Diplomatic Mission or Consular Post of the district where 
they legally reside. The deadline for processing airport transit visa applications is 15 
calendar days, to be extended to up to 30, or even 60, calendar days in specific cases, 
especially when a more detailed examination is necessary. Airport transit visas must 
be collected personally or via an authorised representative at the respective authority 
where the application was made within a month after notification of issuance. There 
are no obstacles posed by Estonia, but border guards of transit countries are reported 
to sometimes create obstacles.   

5.2.6  Research topic 4.6: Procedures upon arrival 

Q4 (e) (i). Which procedures does your Member State apply upon 
arrival on the national territory?  

Twenty of the reviewed Member States169 require the third-country national to register 
with the competent local authority upon arrival on their national territory, 16170 
require registration with local security institutions and 12171 require registration with 
healthcare providers. Austria, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands 
and Romania, for example, may ask for registration with all three institutions listed 
above, depending on the migration status. In addition to registering with the local 
authority, the social security institutions and the healthcare providers, Latvia also 

167 AT, EL, FI, FR, HR, LT, LU, LV, NL, RO, SE, SI 
168 EE, ES 
169 AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI 
170 AT, CY, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK 
171 AT, BE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, LV, NL, PT, RO, SK 

June, 2018 

51 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

requires third-country nationals to be duly registered by their employer with the State 
Revenue Authority. Cyprus, the Netherlands and Poland also apply additional 
procedures, such as registration with immigration authorities (e.g. Cyprus), 
registration with the Tax and Customs Administration (e.g. the Netherlands) and an 
obligation for persons who arrive as family members to submit their fingerprints and 
pick up their residence card (e.g. Poland).  

In Bulgaria, the foreigner or national accommodating the migrant is required to 
declare the address at which s/he will reside upon entering the country. Moreover, the 
physical or legal persons providing accommodation to foreigners should also register 
them with the Ministry of the Interior. In Hungary, foreigners should only register with 
the regional office of the immigration authority at the time of delivering the residence 
permit. 

5.3  Differences between the EU Directives and their national 

equivalents 

Regarding the entry and travel phase, in most of the countries which have national 
equivalent statuses in place, there are no substantial differences at the level of 
legislation and practice between them and the Directives. The entry and travel phase 
is usually the same for all kinds of permits and national statuses offer the same rights 
and conditions as the EU Directives. There are only slight differences observed in the 
Netherlands and Portugal. In the Netherlands, for instance, the maximum decision 
period for long stay visa applications required for the EU Blue Cards is 90 days 
whereas for the national permits this period can be extended with another 90 days. 
The EU Blue Card Directive thus offers more favorable conditions and rights. In 
Portugal, the Blue Card Directive is slightly less advantageous than its national 
equivalent status as it sets about a 50% longer deadline for a decision on a BCD visa 
request compared to Portugal’s equivalent status. 

5.4  Main conformity issues and may clauses 

A full overview of the provisions of the EU Directives relevant to all migration phases is 
included in Annex 3 to this report. Table 6 below presents the provisions which most 
Member States (> 5) failed to transpose correctly. The extent to which these have led 
to practical application issues has been described above. 

Table 6.  Overview of most common conformity issues 

Directives and relevant provision 

No of MS 

MS 

Researchers Directive 

Article 14 (4) The Member State concerned shall grant the 
third-country national who has submitted an application and 
who meets the conditions of Articles 6 and 7 every facility to 
obtain the requisite visas. 

5 

BE, DE, EE, 
PL, RO 

Table 7 presents an overview of the may clauses relevant to Migration Phase 4 and the 
member States which did not transpose these.  

Table 7.  Overview of Member States not transposing may clauses 

Directives and relevant provision 

Single Permit Directive 

No MS not 
transposed 

MS 

Article 4  Single application procedure 

4 

BE, DE, IT, MT 

1. An application to issue, amend or renew a single permit 
shall be submitted by way of a single application procedure. 
Member States shall determine whether applications for a 

June, 2018 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Directives and relevant provision 

No MS not 
transposed 

MS 

single permit are to be made by the third-country national or 
by the third-country national’s employer. Member States may 
also decide to allow an application from either of the two.  

6 

Phase 5 – Post-Application phase during which competent 
national authorities deliver the permit 

6.1  Main findings 

The majority of Member States do not have a set timeframe to deliver the permit 
following the notification of the positive decision on the application. Where there is a 
set timeframe, the deadlines are generally respected, and, in some cases, the real 
average number of days to deliver the permit is even lower that the timeframe 
allowed.  

Around half of the Member States apply additional charges in addition to the 
application fee for the issuing of the permit, but these are minor, most often 
concerning charges for administrative acts and/or specific features of the permit. 

Usually, different authorities are involved in the application and permit issuing 
procedure, however, in many cases the number of authorities depends on the type of 
status applied for. In several cases, the number and type of authorities involved in the 
issuing of permit are different from those involved in the application procedures. The 
main authorities involved in the permit issuing procedure are often either the 
migration authority or the diplomatic mission in the country of the third-country 
national, or the local police office. Serious application issues have been identified as a 
result of the non-or partial transposition of the Single Permit Directive, requiring those 
falling under the Directive to introduce different requests and/or follow multiple steps. 

In the majority of the Member States, there is a difference between non-EU family 
members of EU citizens and non-EU family members of third-country nationals, the 
former group receiving more favourable treatment. 

Regarding the duration of the first permit, some application issues have been 
identified as a result of conformity issues or partial transposition of the BCD, the FRD, 
the SD and LTR as indicated in more details in the sections below. 

When the main applicant is the employer, only one Member State requires in the case 
of the Single Permit Directive his/her involvement in the delivery of the permit, as the 
decision will be submitted to the employer directly. 

6.2  Findings per main research topic 

6.2.1  Research topic 5.1: The timeframe for delivering the permit and 

charges 

Q5 (a) (i). Does the Member State have a set timeframe to deliver the 
permit following the notification of the decision?  

As shown in in the figure below, 15 Member States172 do not have a set timeframe to 
deliver the permit following the notification of the positive decision on the application. 
The Member States which require the lowest number of days for the delivery of the 
permit are Lithuania (10 days) and the Netherlands (14 days), followed by Italy (20 
days). Five Member States173 have indicated a timeframe of 30 days, while Latvia has 

172 AT, BE, CZ, DE, EL, FI, HU, LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK  
173 BG, CY, EE, ES, HR 

June, 2018 

53 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

the longest with 65 days. Where Member States have a set timeframe, this is 
generally made public to applicants. 

Overall, the deadlines set are respected, and, in some cases, the real average number 
of days to deliver the permit is even lower that the timeframe allowed. The only 
exception is Italy, for which the time needed to deliver the permit after the notification 
can range between 90 and 290 days. This is potentially a practical issue as the 
residence permit is often needed for accessing other public services – in Italy it is 
required for administrative procedures to access healthcare, public employment 
services and social security registration, as well as to make use of private services 
such as banks and utilities (see also section 7, Research topic 6.1). 

Similar practical issues have been identified in a few Member States174 with regard 
to the lack of timeframe. For example, in Belgium, third-country nationals are 
provided with a temporary document while waiting to receive the residence permit; 
however, this document does not allow them to apply for a work permit, for which 
they need the residence permit. This can be an issue, if the permit is delivered after a 
long period of time. 

Q5 a (ii). Does the Member State apply any additional charges (in 
addition to the application fee) for the issuing of the permit? 

While 12 Member States175 do not apply any additional charges in addition to the 
application fee, 13 Member States176 charge for the act of issuing and / or delivering 
the permit and for the biometric features on the permit, for the loss of the permit, or 
other general administrative charges are added. These charges vary across the 
Member States from a minimum of around 10 euro in Croatia and Poland to a 
maximum of around 200 euro in Portugal (for the issuance of a new permit). 

Exemptions are admitted in certain Member States, for instance in Bulgaria for 
foreigners under conditions of reciprocity or in case of loss of the permit, or in Croatia 
for foreign nationals who are volunteers or apply for the purpose of education and 

174 BE, EL, DE 
175 CY, CZ, EE, EL, FI, HU, IT, LU, MT, NL, SE, FR 
176 AT, BE, BG, DE, ES, HR, LT, LV, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK 

June, 2018 

54 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRQ5(a)(i) Timeframesset by MS to deliver the permit following the notification of the decisionNot indicated (NI)Morethan 60 days30 days -60daysLess than 30 daysNo timeframe has been set 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

training. While minors are exempted from the payment of fees in Lithuania and Latvia, 
in Austria the charges for minors are even higher (50 EUR instead of 20 EUR). 

6.2.2  Research topic 5.2: Authorities involved in the permit issuing procedure 

Q5 b (i). How many and which national authorities are generally 
involved in the application and permit issuing procedure? Does this, 
in terms of the number of and type of authorities involved, differ from 
the procedure laid down in legislation? 

In eight Members States one authority is responsible for both processing the 
application and issuing the permit,177 whilst in 14 Member States178, different 
authorities are involved in the application and permit issuing procedure, going up to 
four different authorities in Germany, Spain and Luxemburg. However, in many cases 
the number of authorities depends on the type of status applied for. In Austria, for 
instance, if a person does not intend to work, only one authority is involved. 

In nine Member States179 the number and type of authorities involved in the issuing of 
permit are different from those involved in the application procedures. The authorities 
involved in the application procedure are often either the migration authority/agency 
or the embassy/consulate in the country of the third-country national. In many cases 
the second authority involved is either the one responsible for the issuing of the visa 
(where this is necessary), and/or the one subsequently delivering the permit to stay. 
Other authorities involved include employment/labour ministries and law enforcement 
units. 

The authorities involved in the permit issuing procedure are often either the migration 
authority/agency or the embassy/consulate in the country of the third-country 
national, or the local police office. Other types of authority often quoted include 
education institutions (e.g. for students and researchers), the employment office (for 
work-related permits), as well as border guards / law enforcement units, social 
insurance and health authorities, which often are consulted as part of the application 
process.  

In three Member States,180 practical arrangements differ from the procedure laid down 
in national legislation. For instance, in the Netherlands, the national legislation 
provides that the Minister of Security and Justice issues the residence permits, but in 
practice it is the Immigration and Naturalisation Office (IND) that issues residence 
permits under the responsibility of the Minister. 

Related to the above, the overall application and post-application process is 
considered to be too slow and complex in Italy, involving multiple applications, steps 
and authorities, although in the post-application phase only one authority is involved. 
In Spain, the involvement of different authorities is often problematic as the same 
documentation may be subject to a different assessment. Similarly, in Luxemburg, the 
three-step procedure could raise concerns as regards the single procedure, single 
application and single decision principles underlying the SPD. 

Moreover, in Poland, the entire post-application phase, including the issuance of the 
decision, is conducted in the national language, and this is considered to be an issue 
for applicants with limited understanding of Polish, as the decision often contains 
further instructions on the next steps in the procedure and/or the deadline for appeal. 
A similar issue has been identified in Czech Republic, where applicants might have to 
bring official interpreter at own cost. 

177 BE, BG, EE, HR, PL, PT, RO, SK 
178 AT, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FI, HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, SE, SI 
179 CZ, DE, FI, HU, IT, LT, LV, MT, SI 
180 FI, LT, NL 

June, 2018 

55 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Box 11 Evidence from the OPC 

About one third of third-country nationals residing or having resided in the EU (34%, 
n=178)181 mentioned that they had to contact one authority to apply and 31%182 had to 
contact two authorities.  

6.2.3  Research topic 5.3: Difference between non-EU family members of EU 
citizens and non-EU family members of third-country nationals 

Q5 (c) (i). Does your Member State make a difference between non-
EU family members of EU citizens, and non-EU family members of 
third-country nationals with regard to obtaining the permit? 

The FRD includes the conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification of 
non-EU family members with third-country nationals who are legally residing in the 
EU. In case of non-EU family members who want to reunite with EU citizens, national 
rules apply.  

Eight Member States183 make no distinction between non-EU family members of EU 
citizens and non-EU family members of third-country nationals, while in 17 Member 
States184 there is a difference between the two situations.  

The differences mainly concern conditions, procedures, duration of the permit, 
application fees and documents in support of the application and, based on the 
responses of the national researchers, it seems that rules and requirements are 
overall less rigid for non-EU family members of EU citizens. 

For instance, in Croatia, the non-EU family members of third-country nationals have to 
prove the purpose of the temporary residence, that they have sufficient resources to 
support themselves and that they have a health insurance, whereas non-EU family 
members of EU citizens do not have to prove this. In Poland, family members of third 
country nationals are obliged to apply for a residence permit, while non–EU family 
members of EU citizens receive resident cards  (which is given almost “automatically” 
upon request) for a period of five years, or less if the intended stay is shorter.  In the 
Czech Republic, non-EU family members of third country nationals have to obtain 
biometrical residency permits, whereas non-EU family members of EU citizens only 
need “a national type of permit in a form of a passport book".  

In other countries, such as in Hungary and Cyprus, procedures and fees are different, 
whilst in Finland, non-EU family members of third country nationals do not need to 
apply for a residence permit; instead they need to register their residence and apply 
for an EU residence card, while they keep their rights to employment. 

In Austria the main difference is related to the exemption from the quota requirement 
for non-EU family members of EU citizens.  

6.2.4  Research topic 5.4: Duration of the first permits  

Q5 (d) (i). Which are the different durations of the first permits 
delivered to third-country nationals, per Directive? 

The duration of the first permit delivered to third-country nationals varies significantly 
across Member States. The figures below show the differences with regards to the 
maximum duration of the permit, for each Directive. 

181 Third-country nationals residing in AT, BE, CZ, DE, ES, IT, FI, FR, PL, PT, RO, LV, MT, NL, NO, SE 
182 Third-country nationals residing in BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, NL, PL, PT, LV, SE 
183 DE, HU, EE, EL, LT, LV, NL, SE 
184 Except DE, EE, EL, LT, LV, NL, SE 

June, 2018 

56 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

June, 2018 

57 

 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Duration of residence permits under the BCD 

Figure 2.  Maximum duration of first residence permits  

for EU Blue Card 

According to the Blue Card Directive, 
the standard period of validity of the 
Blue Card should be between 1 and 4 
years. If the work contract covers a 
period of less than one year, the Blue 
Card is to be issued (or renewed) for 
the duration of the work contract plus 
three months185.  

As shown in Figure 2, all Member States 
apply a maximum duration of the first 
permit. In Bulgaria and Portugal, the 
maximum duration is 1 year, whilst in 
nine Member States186 the maximum 
period is 2 years. In Lithuania and 
Poland, the maximum duration is 3 
years, while in five Member States187 4 
years, going up to 5 years in Spain and 
Latvia. 

An application issue has been identified 
in Cyprus, where the shortest maximum 

duration of the permit is only three months.  

Duration of residence permits under the FRD 

The duration of the first permit based on family reunification often depends on the 
permit of the sponsor – i.e. it is of the same validity and cannot exceed the validity of 
the permit of the sponsor188. This is the case in six Member States as indicated in the 
Figure below. In the majority of Member States, there is a limit for the maximum 
duration which is 1 year in five Member States189; 2 years in Czech Republic and 
Portugal; 3 years in Poland; 4 years in Finland and 5 years in six Member States190. In 
Estonia and Sweden, the validity for spouses depends on how long their marriage 
lasted. In Estonia, if the marriage has lasted less than three years, the residence 
permit can be granted for up to one year. However, if the marriage has lasted at least 
three years, then the resident permit can be granted for up to three years.  

In eight cases191, application issues have been identified as a result of problems 
with the transposition of the FRD, requiring a validity of residence permits of at least 
one year. These issues could point to an infringement of the related Directive, both 
form a viewpoint of legal conformity and practical application. 

185 Article 7(2) of the BCD 
186 AT, CZ, EL, FI, HR, IT, RO, SE, SI 
187 DE, HU, LU, NL, SK 
188 Art 13 (3) FRD 
189 AT, BE, BG, LT, SI 
190 ES, HU, LU, NL, RO, SK 
191 BG, EL, ES, HU, PL, RO, SE, SI 

June, 2018 

58 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRQ5(d)(i) Maximum period of duration of firstresidence permits for TCNs (BCD)Not applicable (NA)/ Not indicated (NI)Unlimited5 years or moreMore than 2 years but less than5 years2 years or lessLinked to the duration of the contract 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Figure 3.  Maximum duration of first residence permits  

for Family Reunification 

In Bulgaria, according to 
national law, family members 
are granted a continuous 
residence permit of up to one 
year. This could be considered 
non-compliance issue which also 
affects the practical application 
of the Directive, as family 
members of third-country 
nationals who have been 
granted a continuous or 
permanent residence permit are 
in practice obliged to apply for 
residence permits each year, 
which poses a significant 
administrative and financial 
burden on them. In several 
Member States,192 the fact that 
the duration of the residence 
permit of the family member 
depends on the duration of the 
permit of the sponsor is also 

problematic, as in practice the length could be less than a year.  

Duration of residence permits under the SD 

Figure 4.  Maximum duration of first residence permitfor Student Directive 

First residence permits based 
on the SD are issued for the 
duration of the study period in 
five Member States, as 
indicated in Figure 4. In Italy 
the duration of the permit is 
one year, as there is a 
verification of the progress of 
studies every year (at least one 
exam has to be passed in the 
first year and at least two 
exams in the following ones), 
until 3 years after the legal 
duration of the course of study 
and 1 more year after the end 
of studies. In Sweden, even if a 
student has been accepted to 
several years of studying, 
he/she can usually only get a 

residence permit for one year at a time. In the majority of Member States193 the 
maximum duration of the first permit cannot be more than two years, while in Poland  

192 EL, ES, HU, PL, RO, SE, SI 
193 AT, EL, CY, BG, HR, PT, ES, LU, CZ, SI, HU, BE, DE, FI, LT  

June, 2018 

59 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRQ5(d)(i) Maximum period of duration of firstresidence permits for TCNs (FRD)Not applicable (NA)/ Not indicated (NI)Unlimited5 years or moreMore than 2 years but less than5 years2 years or lessLinked to the duration of the sponsor'sresidence permitIEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRQ5(d)(i) Maximum period of duration of firstresidence permits for TCNs (SD)Not applicable (NA)/ Not indicated (NI)Unlimited5 years or moreMore than 2 years but less than5 years2 years or lessLinked to the duration of the studies 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

it can be up to 3 years and in the Netherlands and Slovakia 5 and 6 years 
respectively. Several Member States194 offer more favourable provisions, offering 
permits with a duration of more than one year.  

Duration of residence permits under the RD 

Figure 5.  Maximum duration of first residence 

permits for Researchers Directive 

According to the Researcher Directive195, 
the duration of the permit should be at 
least one year or if the duration of the 
project is less of one year, the first 
permit should correspond to the 
duration of the project. 

First permits delivered to third-country 
nationals based on the RD are issued for 
the duration of the research/project in 
five Member States, as shown in Figure 
5. The maximum period is 3 months in 
Cyprus, 1 year in six Member States196, 
2 years in another six Member States197, 
3 years in Poland, and 5 years in three 
Member States198.  

194 CZ, DE, ES  
195 Art 8 RD 
196 BG, FI, HR, MT, PT, SI 
197 AT, CZ, EE, ES, LT, SK 
198 HU, NL, RO 

June, 2018 

60 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRQ5(d)(i) Maximum period of duration of firstresidence permits for TCNs (RD)Not applicable (NA)/ Not indicated (NI)Unlimited5 years or moreMore than 2 years but less than5 years2 years or lessLinked to the duration of the project 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Duration of residence permits under the LTR 

Figure 6.  Maximum duration of first residence permits 
 for Long-term residents Directive 

According to the LTR Directive, 
the status as long-term resident 
should be permanent. Member 
States have to issue a long-term 
resident's permit to long-term 
residents which should be valid at 
least for five years199.   

As shown in Figure 6, with regard 
to LTR, the residence permit is 
issued for an indefinite period in 
seven Member States. While in 
12 Member States the duration is 
5 years, in Romania, the 
maximum period is 10 years for a 
family member of a citizen and 5 
years for stay in Romania for 
other purposes provided by law. 

Some application issues have 
been identified in Finland and 
Lithuania, where the maximum 
duration is 1 year, and in Czech Republic, where it is 2 years (although the status is 
permanent). 

Duration of residence permits under the SPD 

With regard to the SPD, in the majority of Member States200 the duration is less or 
equal to 2 years. In three Member States, the duration depends on the duration of the 
work contract and also varies depending on the particular permit. 

199 Art 8 LTD 
200 CZ, LT, EE, HR, PT, RO, NL, SI, CY, IT, ES 

June, 2018 

61 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRQ5(d)(i) Maximum period of duration of firstresidence permits for TCNs (LTR)Not applicable (NA)/ Not indicated (NI)Unlimited5 years or moreMore than 2 years but less than5 years2 years or less 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Figure 7.  Maximum duration of first residence permits for Single Permit Directive 

6.2.5  Research topic 5.5: Involvement of the employer / other parties in the 

delivery of the permit 

Q5 (e) (i). If the main applicant is the employer (see your response to 
Q3k (ii) in Phase 3), does the Member State in any way require 
his/her involvement in the delivery of the permit? 

When the main applicant is the employer, only one Member State, Croatia, somewhat 
requires in the case of the SPD his/her involvement in the delivery of the permit, as 
the decision will be submitted only to the employer, who then is expected to notify the 
applicant.  

In the remainder of the Member States, the third-country national (or his/her 
statutory representative) has to collect the residence permit in person.  

Q5 (e) (ii). Are there any other situations in which the main applicant 
(who is not the person who wishes to migrate) is involved in the 
delivery of the permit?   

In five Member States201, the main applicant who is not the person who wishes to 
migrate is involved in the delivery of the permit. This can be a person authorised to 
collect the permit on behalf of the migrant, such as a caretaker or a legal 
representative, or a sponsor in case of family reunification. 

6.3  Key differences between the EU Directives and their national 

equivalents 

Overall, there are no significant differences between the EU Directives and their 
national equivalents in the Residency phase (Phase 5). 

The main differences that have emerged at the level of legislation as well as in terms 
of practical application concern the duration of residence permits and the fees:  

  In Austria and Italy, the duration of the residence permit for the BCD is shorter 

in national equivalent statuses.  

201 CY, LT, PL, RO, SI 

June, 2018 

62 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRQ5(d)(i) Maximum period of duration of firstresidence permits for TCNs (SPD)Not applicable (NA)/ Not indicated (NI)Unlimited5 years or moreMore than 2 years but less than5 years2 years or lessVaries depending on the status 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

  In Portugal, the fees for issuing LTR and BCD permit documents are higher 

(about 20%) than in the case of their national equivalents. 

6.4  Main conformity issues and may clauses 

A full overview of the provisions of the EU Directives relevant to all migration phases is 
included in Annex 3 to this report. Table 8 below presents the provisions which most 
Member States (> 5) failed to transpose correctly. The extent to which these have led 
to practical application issues has been described in section 6.2 above. 

Table 8.  Overview of most common conformity issues 

Directives and relevant provision 

FRD 

No of 
MS 

MS 

Article 13  Entry and residence of family members 

10 

(2) The Member State concerned shall grant the family members a 
first residence permit of at least one year's duration. This residence 
permit shall be renewable. 

BG, EL, ES, 
HU, LU, PL, 
RO, SE, SI, 
SK 

Table 9 presents an overview of the may clauses relevant to Migration Phase 5 and the 
Member States which did not transpose these.  

Table 9.  Overview of most common conformity issues 

Directives and relevant provision 

LTD 

Article 13 More favourable national provisions 

Member States may issue residence permits of permanent or 
unlimited validity on terms that are more favourable than those laid 
down by this Directive. Such residence permits shall not confer the 
right of residence in the other Member States as provided by 
Chapter III of this Directive. 

MS 

No MS 
not 
transp
osed 

8 

AT, CZ, IT, LU, 
PL, PT, SI, SK 

7 

Phase 6 – Residency phase  

The residence phase begins after the third-country national is already on the territory 
of the Member State and has obtained the residence permit. The residency phase 
includes a number of aspects, as follows: 

  Residence permits: format, use and renewals; 
  Changes of status and naturalisation; 
  Access to employment and self-employment; 
  Equal treatment; 
  Integration requirements.  

7.1  Main findings 

7.1.1  Residence permits 

Residence permits can be used by permit holders in all Member States as a proof of 
identity and legal residence in a number of situations, including to access public and 
private services as well as for short-term stay in other EU Member States. The periods 

June, 2018 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

of renewal and the renewal fees differ significantly across Member States and across 
statuses.  

Third-country nationals are required to renew their residence documents within a 
specified timeframe prior to expiry of the permit, ranging from 3-6 months prior to 
expiry to 60 days after the expiration of permit. In some Member States, failure to 
renew and/or provide information and documents on time or after a request by the 
authorities will result in refusal for the permit to be renewed and the applicant will be 
obliged to leave the Member State. A possible application issue has been identified in 
Malta in particular with SPD holders who are not allowed to apply for a new permit in 
case they change employer. Other Member States, such as Estonia, the Netherlands 
and Spain, allow for a ‘tolerance’ period also after the period has expired.  

Most Member States require the renewal to be submitted in person only, while in a few 
Member States, there are options to submit via post, e-mail and online. In 14 Member 
States202, there are no administrative or financial sanctions if the applicant fails to 
comply with a renewal deadline. However, most commonly, failure to comply with this 
deadline results in illegal stay. In six Member States203, there is an administrative 
sanction and in five others States204, failure to renew the permit leads, in addition to 
the situation of irregularity which may lead to a return decision, also to financial 
sanctions.  

With regard to availability and access to information for renewals, in the Czech 
Republic information provided to third-country nationals lacks clarity and is 
insufficient and they often also receive misleading/incorrect information from the 
Immigration Authority officers. 

Finally, several application issues were identified with regard to renewal which were 
not specifically covered by the questions listed in the Terms of Reference. These are 
therefore summarised below, per Directive.  

The renewal of status of a FRD permit, could be affected by the way Member States 
are practically applying the provisions of the FRD, in particular regarding grounds for 
refusal. There have been a number of complaints and extensive case law of the ECJ on 
this matter which has framed very strictly the grounds for rejection. Art. 6(2) and Art. 
17 of the FRD stipulate that Member States may withdraw or refuse to renew a 
residence permit on grounds of public policy or public security or public health and 
when taking a decision based on this article, Member States shall consider the severity 
of the offence and shall take due account of the person's family relationship. In 
Lithuania, Slovenia and Sweden some problems have been identified in the 
interpretation of these provisions. 

  Refusals based on grounds on public policy, security and health: In 

Lithuania, Slovenia and Sweden, there are can be practical problems with 
regard to Art. 6(2) and Art. 17 of the FRD which stipulates that Member States 
may withdraw or refuse to renew a residence permit on grounds of public 
policy or public security or public health and when taking a decision based 
on this article, Member States shall consider the severity of the offence and 
shall take due account of the person's family relationship. In these Member 
States, these provisions serving as a procedural safeguard to limit the 
discretion of the responsible authorities, have not been (completely) 
transposed. In Slovenia, additional grounds for refusal on the basis of public 
security have been introduced, significantly broadening the scope for refusals,  
including “there are reasons to assume that the alien will not voluntarily depart 
after the expiry of the permit; there are reasons to assume that the alien will 

202 BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, HR, IT, LV, LU, RO, SK, SE 
203 AT, DE, HU, FR, NL, MT  
204 FI, LT, PL, PT, SI  

June, 2018 

64 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

not abide by the legal order of the Republic of Slovenia; if in the process of 
issuing a first residence permit it is found out that there are serious reasons for 
considering that an alien may be during his/her residence in Slovenia a victim 
of trafficking in human beings; if there are reasons to believe that the alien will 
not be residing in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia.” This broad scope 
does not comply seem to be in line with the restrictive interpretation of the 
Directive. In Lithuania, the statement of a threat to national security issued by 
the State Security Department is not disclosed to the third-country national, 
therefore even during the judicial procedure s/he is not able to provide any 
arguments against that statement and defend himself/herself. In Sweden, the 
renewal of the residence permit under Art. 6(2) may be refused if the family 
member has been engaged in any type of criminal activity. This goes beyond 
the possibility of refusing a residence permit on the basis of public order and 
security and gives rise to conformity concerns 

  Refusals based on sickness and disability: In Germany and Spain, with 

regard to Art 6(3) refusals on the ground of sickness and disability, there is 
no provision prohibiting non-renewal cases on grounds of illness or disability. 

  Refusals based on financial resources: In Malta, holders of FRD permits 

have been refused renewal on the basis of the fact that they do not satisfy the 
financial resources threshold following the birth of a child. The financial 
threshold being applied is that of the average wage in Malta. Subsequently, 
both permit holder and child are requested to leave the country without regard 
to the respect for family unity. In Spain, renewals can be refused on the 
ground of ‘violations of obligations on taxation and social security as grounds to 
withdraw the permit’. 

With regard to LTR, the following application issues have been identified: 

  In Cyprus, a prerequisite for renewal is the submission of a criminal record 

certificate which, although no longer mentioned in the legislation, appears as a 
precondition in the checklist of required documents on the website of the 
immigration department. 

  In Lithuania, the safeguard provisions in Art. 6(1) have not been transposed 
which concern an obligation to consider the severity or type of offence against 
public policy or public security, or the danger that emanates from the person 
concerned. 

  In Luxembourg, although the renewal is considered ‘automatic’205,  in order to 
renew the permit, the third country national is required to produce a certified 
copy of his/her valid passport, the evidence that he/she has resided 
continuously in the territory and a recent extract from his/her judicial record.206  

With regard to residence permits issued to students, in Belgium, national law 
provides for the possibility to refuse the renewal of the residence permit in case the 
length of studies is deemed excessive. In practice, many foreign students have no 
choice but continue studying and renew their residence permit in order to stay in 
Belgium while looking for a job at the same time. It is unclear whether the current 
provision complies with the SD but the situation should change with the transposition 
of the S&RD which allow students to remain on the territory for nine months at the 
end of their studies in order to look for a job. With regard to residence permits issued 
to students, in Poland, national law permits a refusal of extension or withdrawal of 
the approval of the research institute accepting foreigners in the case where the 

205 The Immigration Law205 states that the residence card of a long term resident is valid for 5 years after 
which it is ‘renouvelable de plein droit sur demande’. This formulation would imply that the card is renewed 
automatically. 
206 Règlement Ducal du 5 septembre 2008 sur les formalités administratives, Article 14 

June, 2018 

65 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

research organisation fails to notify the Voivode of any events which could hinder the 
performance of the agreement on accepting the foreigner in order to implement a 
research project. This sanction has not been provided for in the Directive. 

Box 12 Evidence from the OPC 

Issues encountered by third-country nationals residing or having resided in the EU when 
renewing or replacing their residence permit  include long procedure (69%, n=178)207; 
insecurity due to delay in receiving new permit, after the first one had expired (64%, 
n=179)208; many documents required (63%, n=179)209; high costs of permit (40%, 
n=176)210; (v) loss of job (24%, n=159)211; getting their qualifications recognised 
(23%, n=164)212; new labour market tests (15%, n=158)213; and health reasons (10%, 
n=157)214.  

7.1.2  Changes of status 

In the vast majority of Member States, third-country nationals are allowed to change 
status, provided that the conditions for the new status are satisfied. In most Member 
States215, in order to change status, third-country nationals must meet the same 
eligibility conditions and submit the same application along with required documents 
as in the case of those applying for the first time and there is no facilitated procedure. 
The main difference in terms of procedure is that the applicant does not need a visa 
and the application can be submitted on the territory of the Member States, whereas 
for some statuses, the first time applicants are subject to submission at the diplomatic 
mission/representation in the country of origin.  

A practical obstacle reported by the majority of Member States is that it is difficult to 
find publically available information and understand the conditions and requirements 
for status change. Belgium reported that while status change is possible in most 
cases as long as the admission conditions are met, in practice status change does not 
occur very often as third-country nationals face practical and administrative obstacles. 
Cyprus reported that a change of status from one permit to another is discretionary 
and in most cases not permitted, except where permit holders meet the criteria for the 
LTR permit. In Germany, changes to certain statuses are not allowed. This includes 
changes from family to national statuses covered by the SPD and status from a 
residence permit on study purposes to the LTR or equivalent national status to the 
LTR. 

7.1.3  Access to employment and employment related rights 

The right to access to employment is indicated on the residence card in 19 Member 
States216, in line with the SPD, which requires residence permits issued in accordance 
with Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 to indicate the information relating to the 
permission to work irrespective of the type of the permit. In those Member States 
where this is not in place, they have not complied in practice with the SPD provision. 

207 Country of residence: AT, BE, DE, FR, ES, IE, PL, SE 
208 Country of residence: AT, DE, CH, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, HU, IE, IT,  PL, LT, LV, MT, NL, LU, SE 
209 Country of residence: AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU,  IE, IT,  PL, MT, NL, SE, SK, LT, UK  
210 Country of residence: AT, BE, BG, CH, CZ,  DE, EE, ES,FI, HU, HR,  IE, IT, LU, LV, NL, PT, SE, SK,UK 
211 Country of residence: BE, DE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IT, LT, MT, NL, RO, SE 
212 Country of residence: At, BE, CZ, ES, FR, HR, HU,  IT, LU,  PL. RO, SE    
213 Country of residence: AT, BE, DE, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, PL, SE 
214 Country of residence: BE, DE,  IT, LT, LV, PL,  SE 
215 AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, HR, LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SE  
216 AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, HU, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK. 

June, 2018 

66 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

7.1.4  Equal treatment 

Four of the examined Directives (LTR, RD, BCD, SPD) include provisions on equal 
treatment of TCNs with respect to nationals of the Member States, covering a number 
of aspects, including, inter alia, working conditions, freedom of association, social 
security benefits, education, recognition of academic and professional qualifications, 
tax benefits, access to goods and services and advice services. The FRD and SD do not 
include provisions on equal treatment. However, equality is ensured by the SPD in 
certain circumstances, for example if third-country nationals, falling within the scope 
of the FRD and SD, are authorised to work.  

The main problem identified with equal treatment rights is that some are not 
(explicitly) guaranteed which may lead not only to uncertainty for TCNs but also to 
exclusion of TCNs from certain equal treatment rights that are guaranteed by the EU 
acquis. This is most often the case with regard to social security benefits and access to 
public goods and services.  In some Member States217, the issues concern access to 
social security benefits whereby third-country nationals do not have access to certain 
social security benefits for example family benefits.  

In several Member States218, the issues concern access to social protection, 
whereby third-country nationals do not have access to certain social benefits (see 
details in section below). 

In some Member States, access to public services is not explicitly granted (see details 
in section below). For example, in Slovenia, only those with LTR status can apply for 
non-profit rental housing, rental subsidies and housing loans under public scheme.  

7.1.5  Integration requirements 

Two Directives (FRD and LTR) stipulate that Member States may require compliance 
with integration ‘measures’ (FRD) and ‘conditions’ (LTR). The Directives do not define 
integration ‘measures’ and ‘conditions’. According to the Commission’s guidelines on 
the FRD219, Member States may impose a requirement on family members to comply 
with integration measures under Article 7(2), but this may not amount to an absolute 
condition upon which the right to family reunification is dependent. The Directives do 
not define integration ‘measures’ and ‘conditions’. Integration ‘measures’ (or pre-
integration measures) could refer to measures conducted in the immigrant’s country 
of origin, including language courses, ‘adaptation’ and civic orientation courses, 
including courses on history and culture of the country of origin220. In contrast, 
integration ‘conditions’ as laid down in the LTR refer to evidence of integration in the 
host society. 

Integration requirements and measures differ significantly across Member States. In 
12 Member States221, there are mandatory integration requirements, while in the 
remaining Member States, integration measures (such as language and integration 
courses) are voluntary. In five of these222, the mandatory integration requirements 
only concern applicants for long-term residence, who need to demonstrate 
integration through knowledge of national language(s) and knowledge about society 
and culture of the country. For example, in Greece, in order to obtain a long-term 
residence permit, the applicant need to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the Greek 
language, history and civilization. This can be demonstrated through the following 
means: document of graduation from Greek school or university; certificate of 

217 LV, SI, EE 
218 BE, CY, HU, LV, PL, SI  
219 COM(2014) 210 final 
220 IOM (2009), Stocktaking of international pre-integration measures and recommendations for action aimed 
at their implementation in Germany  
221 AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, EL, FI, HR, IT, LU, MT, NL 
222 CY, EL, HR, LU, MT 

June, 2018 

67 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

attainment in Greek of at least B1 level and special certificate of sufficient knowledge 
of the Greek language and elements of Greek history and civilization.   In   Belgium, 
Germany and the Netherlands, not attending the integration and language courses 
may also result in a financial fine. Refusing to participate in the planning (30 days) or 
not attending the scheduled planning session (15 days) or refusal or failure to 
participate in the planned activities (60 days) will result in the withdrawal of social 
benefits for a number of days 

Box 13 Evidence from the OPC 

25% of non-EU citizens residing or having resided in the EU (n=190) indicated that while living 
in the EU, they had to comply with certain integration conditions / measures which could affect 
their residence status, or the renewal/extension of their permit. 52%223 of them (n=46) stated 
that it was easy to find information on the pre-integration measures / conditions. Seventy three 
per cent (n=41) had to attend language courses224, 27% had to take an integration test225, 17% 
had to participate in an integration programme226, 12% had to attend civic education courses227 
and 20% indicated that they had to comply with other types of conditions/measures228. Other 
OPC respondents, including NGOs, believe that non-EU workers are treated the same as EU 
nationals when it comes to access to publicly-available goods and services, access to education 
and vocational training, advice services provided by employment offices and freedom to join 
organisations representing workers or employers, including benefits conferred by these 
organisations. Overall, over 40% of respondents also think that non-EU workers are treated the 
same when it comes to contribution and access to social security benefits, tax benefits and 
working conditions. Less respondents (31%) believe that non-EU workers are treated the same 
as EU nationals regarding recognition of qualifications. 

7.2  Findings per main research topic 

7.2.1  Topic 6.1: Residence permits 

Q6a (i). Does the Member State use the format as set out in 
Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 for residence permits?  

All Member States use the format as set out in Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 for 
residence permits. The permits issued by Member States include biometric data as per 
the Regulation.  

Q6a (ii). What is the legal value of the residence permit?  

In 23 Member States229, the residence permit has a constitutive nature (i.e. the 
possession of a valid residence document creates legal assumption that the residence 
is legal). In Belgium and Malta, the residence permit has a mere declaratory value 
(i.e. it only attests to the fact that the conditions attached to the right of residence by 
EU/national law were satisfied at the date of issue). In Austria, while the long-term 
residence permit is declarative, other residence permits have a constitutive nature 

Q6a (iii). Does the residence permit give the right to the third-country 
national to move freely on the whole territory of the Member State?  

223 Country of residence: AT, BE, CZ, DE, ES,  FR, IT, LV, NL, SE 
224 Country of residence: AT, BE, DE, EL, ES, HR, HU, IT, LV, NL, PL, SK, SE 
225 Country of residence: AT, BE, BG, DE, FR, LV, NL, SE 
226 Country of residence: BE, BG, DE, FR, PL, LT 
227 Country of residence: ES, IT, FR, NL, LT  
228 Country of residence: CZ, FR, SE 
229 AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK 

June, 2018 

68 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

In all Member States, the residence permit gives the right to the third-country national 
to move freely on the whole territory of the Member State230.  

Q6a (v) Are residence permits required as a legal document for other 
administrative procedures?  

In some cases, residence permits are required as legal documents for other 
administrative procedures (e.g. to provide proof of identity) as provided in Table 10 
below. Regarding access to education, the residence permit may be specifically 
required in 15 Member States. In some Member States (e.g. Germany, Poland, 
Portugal and Romania), Third-country nationals are required to provide a proof of 
identity which is generally the passport. If the passport is not available, in some 
circumstances, the residence card can be provided as a proof of identity. In Belgium, 
the residence permit is not required for primary education but only for higher 
education. In Spain, it is not mandatory in the case of minors.  

Regarding access to healthcare, the residence permit may be required in 15 
Member States. The residence permit is required for the issuance of the healthcare 
card as reported by four Member States231. In some Member States (e.g. Austria, 
Cyprus, Italy and Spain), it is not required for emergency healthcare.  

In 21 Member States, the residence permit is required in order to register with the 
public employment services, such as for example as a job seeker. In 19 Member 
States, the residence permit is required in order to open a bank account. In some 
Member States, the required documents will depend on the banks232. In Finland, the 
banks should not be allowed to discriminate against persons with foreign IDs, but in 
practice banks may require also the passport, the residence permit and proof of 
address in Finland.  

In order to complete the social security registration, in 16 Member States, third-
country nationals may be required to provide their residence permit as a proof of 
identity and residence. In Germany, the residence permit is not required as a person 
who has a job automatically registers in the social security if he/she that job is of a 
certain scale. In Finland, this information is available in the population registration 
system.  

In 14 Member States, the residence permit is required in order to obtain a utility 
subscription. In Austria, Germany and Poland, this will depend on the provider. In 
the Czech Republic, it may happen that some providers refuse to provide utility 
subscription to third-country nationals even if they have a residence permit. The 
residence permit is also required for a fixed telephone subscription in 19 Member 
States. In Cyprus, Czech Republic and Poland (for landlines), the requirement to 
present the residence permit depends on the provider. In Poland, for a mobile phone 
subscription, the third-county national must present passport and residence card valid 
for at least two years as the shortest subscription period is two years. In Finland, if 
the person has a bank account and a Finnish identification code (obtained at the time 
of registering with the Finnish Population Registration), there should be no problem 
obtaining a telephone subscription without the residence permit. Problems may arise if 
attempting to obtain a mobile phone before having obtained a bank account.  

Table 10.  Residence permits required for administrative procedures  

Administrative procedures 

No. of 
MS 

Member States 

230 In Germany, territorial limitations may only be applicable for TCN in possession of a residence permit on 
humanitarian grounds or in possession of a tolerance permit (Duldung) for reasons of public interest. 
However, residence permits on humanitarian grounds are outside scope of the present study.   
231 AT, CY, FI and PT 
232 (e.g. CZ, HU, PL, PT, RO) 

June, 2018 

69 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Administrative procedures 

No. of 
MS 

Member States 

Access to education 

Access to healthcare 

Registration with public employment 
services (PES) 

Social security registration 

Open a bank account 

Utility subscription 

Fixed telephone subscription 

15 

15 

21 

16 

19 

14 

19 

AT, BE,233 BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, LT, LV, 
MT, NL, RO  

AT, BE, BG, EE, EL, ES, FR,  HU, IT, LT,LV, MT, NL,  
PT, RO  

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FR,  HU, IT, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK  

AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, 
PT, RO, SI  

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, 
LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, RO  

AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, RO, 
SK  

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, IT, LT, LV, 
MT, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK  

Q6a (iv). If the Member State applies the Schengen acquis in full) 
Does the Member State allow third-country nationals holding 
residence permits from other Member States applying the Schengen 
acquis (together with a valid travel document) to enter and move 
freely within its territory? 

All Member States members of the Schengen area allow third-country nationals 
holders of a Schengen visa to enter and move freely for a short term stay – i.e. for 90 
days within the period of 180 days. In Portugal, the holder of a residence permit 
issued by another Member State that enters Portuguese territory coming from another 
Member State must submit a declaration of entry234 to the Immigration and Border 
Service (SEF) within three days. This requirement is waived if the third-country 
national stays in a tourist accommodation establishment.  

As a ‘nearly’ Schengen member, Bulgaria accepts residence permits issued in 
Schengen states as valid entry documents, while Schengen countries might not accept 
Bulgarian ones. 

Q6b (i). What are the different periods of duration of residence permit 
renewals per status (first permit durations are covered under Phase 
5)? 

Renewal periods of the residence permits vary significantly across Member States and 
also across different statuses. In some Member States (e.g. AT, BE, IT), the duration 
of the renewal is the same as the duration of the first permit, while in others there is a 
fixed maximum duration. 

233 For higher education only  
234 Declaração de Entrada  

June, 2018 

70 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

According to Art. 7(2) of the EU Blue 
Card Directive Member States shall set 
the validity of the EU Blue Card 
between one and four years. If the 
work contract covers a period less than 
this period, the EU Blue Card shall be 
issued or renewed for the duration of 
the work contract plus three months. 
Renewal of the EU Blue Card is usually 
the duration of the duration of the work 
contract plus 3 months. In addition to 
this, in most Member States, there is a 
maximum duration of renewal235. In 
Cyprus and Lithuania, the maximum 
renewal duration is 1 year. In seven 
Member States236, the maximum period 
of renewal is 2 years. In Bulgaria and 
Slovenia, this period is 3 years, while in 
six Member States this maximum 
period is 4 years237. In Austria238 and 
Germany, the renewal most often leads 
to a permanent settlement permit of 
unlimited validity.

235 BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, ES, FI, HR, HU, IT, LY, 
LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 
236 CZ, ES, FI, HR, IT, PT, RO and SE 
237 BE, EE, HU, Lu, LV, NL, SK; Belgium - 
renewable for another 13 months (unless 
the work contract is shorter) and then 3 
years 
238  In  Austria,  initial  renewal  of  two  years, 
after  two  years  Blue  Card  holders  may 
obtain an unlimited Red-white-red plus after 
two years of residence and a working period 
of 21 months 

June, 2018 

71 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRBlue CardNot applicable (NA)/ Not indicated (NI)Unlimited5 years or moreMore than 2 years but less than5 years2 years or lessLinked to the duration of the contract 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Art. 13(2) of the Family Reunification 
Directive stipulates the family members 
a first residence permit of at least one 
year's duration and shall be renewable, 
while Art. 13 (3) provides that the 
duration of the permit shall in principle 
not go beyond the date of expiry of the 
residence permit held by the sponsor. 
The renewal duration of a permit based 
on family reunification usually 
depends on the permit of the sponsor – 
i.e. it is of the same validity and cannot 
exceed the validity of the permit of the 
sponsor. This is the case in eight 
Member States239. In the majority of 
Member States, there is a limit for the 
maximum validity of the renewal which 
is 1 year in four Member States240; 2 
years in five Member States241; 3 years 
in five Member States242; 4 years in 
two Member States243 and 5 years in 
two Member States244. In Austria, 
family members usually obtain an 
unlimited Red-white-red plus card.  In 
Estonia and Sweden, the validity for 
spouses depends on how long their 
marriage lasted. In Estonia, if the 
marriage at the time of requesting 
renewal has lasted less than three 
years, the residence permit can be 
extended by maximum one year at a 
time. However, if the marriage has 
lasted at least 3 years, then the 
resident permit can be extended for up 
to 3 years at a time.  

According to Art. 12(1) of the Student 
Directive, a residence permit shall be 
issued to the student for a period of at 
least one year and renewable if the 
holder continues to meet the 
conditions. If the study is less than one 
year, the residence permit shall be 
issued for the duration of the studies. 
Renewals of permits based on the 
Students Directive are issued for the 
duration of the course in eight Member 
States245. In Lithuania and Sweden, the 
permit can be extended to 6 months 
(and up to 13 months in Sweden). In 

245 BE, CY, EE, EL, IT, LV, PL, RO 

239 EE, ES, HR, IT, LU, MT, RI and SI 
240 BE, BG, CY, MT 
241 CY, LT, PT, SE (*however, validity is 
permanent for those who lived together for more 
than two years in their home country), SI 
242 CZ, DE, EL, HU, PL 
243 FI, LV 
244 NL, SK 

June, 2018 

72 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRFamily ReunificationUnlimited5 years or moreMore than 2 years but less than5 years2 years or lessLinked to the duration of the sponsor'sresidence permitIEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRStudentDirective5 years or moreMore than 2 years but less than5 years2 years or lessLinked to the duration of the studies 
 
                                           
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

seven Member States246, the permit 
can be extended annually or the 
duration of the study if this is less than 
1 year, while this period is 2 years in 
five Member States247. In Poland, the 
maximum renewal period is 3 years 
and in Slovenia it is 5 years.  

According to Art. 8 of the Research 
Directive stipulates that Member States 
shall issue a residence permit for a 
period of at least one year and shall 
renew it if the conditions are still met. 
If the research project is scheduled to 
last less than one year, the residence 
permit shall be issued for the duration 
of the project. Renewals of permits 
based on the Research Directive are 
issued for the duration of the 
research/project in 6 Member States248. 
The maximum period is 1 year in 7 
Member States249; 2 years in 3 Member 
States250; 3 years in Poland and the 
Slovak Republic; 4 years in Finland and 
5 years in four Member States251. The 
residence permit based on the RD is 
not renewed in Lithuania. 

246 AT, BE, ES, FI, HR, PT, SI  
247 CZ, DE, HU, LU and MT 
248 BE, DE, EL, IT, LV, SE 
249 AT, BE, CY, ES, HR, LU, SI  
250 CZ, PT, MT 
251 EE, HU, NL, RO 

June, 2018 

73 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRResearchDirectiveNot renewable5 years or moreMore than 2 years but less than5 years2 years or lessLinked to the duration of the project 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

According to Art. 8(2) of the Long-
term residence Directive, “The 
permit shall be valid at least for five 
years; it shall, upon application if 
required, be automatically renewable 
on expiry.” With regard to LTR, the 
residence permit is issued for an 
indefinite period and does not need to 
be renewed in 8 Member States252. In 
13 Member States253, it needs to be 
renewed every 5 years and in the 
Czech Republic every 2 years. The 
short duration in the latter is not 
conform with the Directive. In 
Romania, renewal of residence permit 
is up to total period of 10 years for a 
family member of a Romanian citizen 
and up to 5 years for stay in Romania 
for other purposes provided by law. 

With regard to the SPD, in most 
Member States, the renewal duration 
depends on the duration of the work 
contract and also varies depending on 
the particular permit.  

252 BE, CY, DE, EE, FI, SE, SI, SK  
253 AT, BE, EL, ES, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, 
PL, PT 

June, 2018 

74 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRLong-term residentsNot applicable (NA)/ Not indicated (NI)Unlimited5 years or more2 years or lessNot subject to renewal (i.e. the permit is permanent) 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Q6b (ii). How much are the fees for renewal of the residence permit?  

The figures below present respectively the highest and the lowest fees for renewals of 
residence permits charged by the Member States as a share of the mean monthly 
gross earnings in that Member State. As can be seen from the graph, similarly to the 
application fees for initial permits, in one Member State (Bulgaria), the highest fees for 
renewals charged corresponds to more than 50% of the mean monthly gross earnings, 
while in Greece these represent between 25-50% of the monthly earnings. The vast 
majority of Member States apply the lowest fees corresponding to less than 10%as a 
share of mean monthly gross earnings. 

Figure 8.  Fees for renewal as a share of mean monthly gross earnings in the Member 

State 

Q6b (iii). Does national or EU law impose a direct or indirect 
requirement to renew a valid residence document?  

June, 2018 

75 

IEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRQ6(b)(ii) Highest MS renewal fee as a % of mean monthly gross earnings >50%25%-50%10%-24%<10%No informationIEUKSEFIEELTLVBENLDEPLFRLUPTESCZSKSIATHUROBGMTCYELITHRQ6(b)(ii) Lowest MS renewal fee as a % of mean monthly gross earnings 10%-24%<10%No information 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

In all Member States, with the exception of Hungary, third-country nationals are 
required to renew their residence documents within a specified timeframe prior to 
expiry of the permit. For example, in Austria this timeframe is 3 months prior to 
expiry until expiry, while in the Netherlands, renewal needs to be requested 3-6 
months before the permit expires. 

In some Member States, there is a tolerance period after the residence permit has 
expired – for example, in Estonia, this period is 90 days or 183 days, depending on 
the status and 90 days in Spain. In Italy, this period is 60 days after the expiration of 
the permit. Following this ‘tolerance period’, the third-country national is usually 
issued a return decision as their stay becomes illegal due to failure to renew their 
permit. In Italy, if the third-country national does not receive an expulsion order, s/he 
may still submit a renewal application after this latter deadline, without any sanctions 
or other negative consequences on his/her application. 

In Austria, following the request for renewal, the person receives a certificate about 
the new application which allows further residence, even if the old permit expired. In 
exceptional cases renewal applications may be filed after expiry. With regard to the 
LTR, in some Member States (e.g. BE, DE, FI) where the permit is indefinite, there is 
no need to renew the permit.  

Q6b (v). How can TCNs lodge an application for renewal (e.g. via post, 
online, in person)?  

In 14 Member States254, the application for renewal can only be submitted in person. 
In most of these Member States255, applications are available online as downloadable 
and printable documents. In Belgium the application can also be made online in some 
places, although it is not a common practice. In Finland, the application can be lodged 
both electronically256 and on paper (via post or in person with copies of the documents 
needed). However, regardless of the mode of submission, the applicant must visit 
either the embassy abroad or the Immigration Services service point in person in 
order to show original documents and to submit biometrical data for the residence 
permit card. Similarly, in Slovenia, application forms are available online, may be 
downloaded, printed out, filled in and sent to the competent authorities by post. The 
applicants, however, shall be summoned by the competent authorities to provide their 
fingerprints, since without fingerprints an application for renewal shall be deemed 
incomplete.  

In addition to those Member States, that allow submission only in person or those 
which allow submission via post but require physical presence for the biometric data 
(FI and SI), in only a few countries the application can also be submitted via post 
(CZ, EE257, IT, LU, SE); e-mail (EE258) and online (NL, RO and SE). 

Table 11.  Possibilities for launching an application for renewal of residence permit 

Ways of lodging 
application 

No. of 
MS 

Member States 

In person 

Online 

22 

7 

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, LV, 
LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK  

BE, EE, ES, FI, NL, PL, RO, SE 

254 AT, BG, CY, EE, EL, FR, HR, HU, LT, LV, MT, PT, PL, SK 
255 e.g. AT, BG, CY, CZ, FI, MT 
256 In Finland, the EnterFinland electronic platform allows the submission of an electronic 
application to which copies of the needed documents in electronic form are attached to.  
257 if less than 5 years have passed from capturing of fingerprints, otherwise it has to be submitted in person 
258 ibid 

June, 2018 

76 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Ways of lodging 
application 

No. of 
MS 

Member States 

Post 

E-mail 

6 

1 

CZ, EE, FI, IT, LU, SI, SE 

EE 

Q6b (vi). Which Member State authority/ies is/are involved in the 
renewal process?  

All Member States, with the exception of Bulgaria, apply a single procedure for 
renewals. Depending on the type of permit, there could be more than one national 
authority involved. The third-country nationals usually approaches one authority 
responsible for the renewal and this authority usually may consult other relevant 
national authorities. For example, in Poland, the main institution considering 
applications is the Voivode (regional authorities) competent for the third-country 
national's place of residence. The Voivode receives the application and issues a 
decision. However, the prior to taking the decision, the Voivode is obliged to ask the 
commander of the Border Guard, the commander of Regional Police, the Chief of the 
Internal Security Agency, and if necessary also other bodies, to share information on 
whether the entry and stay of the foreigner in the territory of Poland may pose a 
threat to national defence or national security or public safety and order. In other 
cases, such as for example in Slovakia, in relation to Single Permit Directive, when 
application for renewal is lodged, the migration authority consults with the labour 
office for confirmation on the possibility to fill the vacant job position. In the vast 
majority of cases, the authorities which process and issue the renewals are the same 
as those issuing the first permit, but in general the number of other authorities 
involved in this process is lower than for first applications. 

Q6b (vii). Does the Member State impose any administrative or 
financial sanctions if the applicant fails to comply within a given 
deadline in case of renewal of the permit? 

In 14 Member States259, there are no administrative or financial sanctions if the 
applicant fails to comply with a renewal deadline. However, most commonly, failure to 
comply with this deadline results in illegal stay, with the related consequences.  

In five Member States260, there is an administrative sanction for failure to renew 
application. In Austria, Germany, Hungary and Malta, if an applicant fails to renew 
their permit and/or provide information and documents on time or after a request by 
the authorities then the renewal will be refused and they will be obliged to leave the 
Member State.  

In five Member States261, failure to renew the permit leads, in addition to the situation 
of irregularity which may lead to a return decision, also to financial sanctions. In 
Finland, if the application is not submitted or submitted very later, it can be 
considered to constitute an offence against the Aliens Act and can be subject to a fine. 
The fine is not a fixed sum, but depends, firstly, on the judged severity of the offence 
and, secondly, on the income and family size of the third-country national262. In 

259 BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, HR, IT, LV, LU, RO, SK, SE 
260 AT, DE, HU, NL, MT  
261 FI, LT, PL, PT, SI  
262 However, it must be noted that the implementation instructions of the Immigration Services (5.6.2014; p. 
29) advice that late applications are to be treated and decided on normally, except for the requirement to stop 
working and except in case the applicant has clearly resided outside Finland for so long that the application 
must be considered as a new residence permit application (in which case the higher first-time permit fees 
apply 

June, 2018 

77 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Portugal, if the applicant fails to apply for the renewal of the permit within the legal 
deadline (up to 30 days before the expiry date of the permit), that constitutes a 
violation of the law punishable with a fine of € 75 to € 300263. Furthermore, if the 
third-country national fails to inform the competent authority of changes in their 
situation (marital status, address) there are financial sanctions of 45 to 90 EUR (which 
is reduced to half in case of voluntary payment). In Slovenia, irregular residence is 
punishable with a fine in the amount of 800–1200 EUR. 

7.2.2  Topic 6.2: Status changes and naturalisation  

Q6c (i). What kind of status changes are allowed in the Member State?  

In the vast majority of Member States, third-country nationals are allowed to change 
status, provided that the conditions for the new status are satisfied. Procedures are 
generally the same as for first time applicants. Only a few Member States have 
adopted a more restrictive position, allowing changes only for specific categories (LU, 
SE) or imposing additional restrictions (CZ, LV), such as the need to have spent a 
certain period of time in the country with another permit (CZ) or having graduated 
from university (LV)264.  Moreover, some Member States have ad-hoc procedures in 
place that can be applied on a case-by-case basis (BE, CY), e.g. in the context of 
(rejected) asylum seekers265. A practical obstacle reported by the majority of Member 
States is that it is difficult to find publically available information and understand the 
conditions and requirements for status change. Only a number of Member States 
provide migrants with specific information on the requirements they have to meet and 
the procedures they have to follow (CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, IE, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK)266 .  
Belgium reported that while status change are possible in most cases as long as the 
admission conditions are met, in practice these changes do not occur very often as 
third-country nationals face practical and administrative obstacles. Cyprus reported 
that a change of status from one permit to another is discretionary and in most cases 
not permitted, except where permit holders meet the criteria for the LTR permit. In 
Germany, changes to certain statuses are not allowed. This includes changes from 
family to national statuses covered by the SPD and status from a residence permit on 
study purposes to the LTR or equivalent national status to the LTR. 

Q6c (ii). Are the procedures and conditions applied for status changes 
different from those applied to first time applicants?  

In the majority of Member States267, in order to change status, third-country nationals 
must meet the same eligibility conditions and submit the same application along with 
required documents as in the case of those applying for the first time and there is no 
facilitated procedure. The main difference in terms of procedure is that the applicant 
does not need a visa and the application can be submitted on the territory of the 
Member States, whereas for some statuses, first time applicants are obliged to submit 
or appear before the diplomatic mission/representation in the country of origin. In six 
Member States268, there are certain differences in the procedures and/or conditions 
when applying for a status change. For example, in Slovenia, third-country nationals 
who apply for a status change do not need to prove the medical record that s/he does 
not suffer infectious disease and do not need to attach criminal record if such 
document was provided in the previous application procedure. In Hungary, some 

263 Currently, SEF is not applying the financial sanction if the TCN has requested an appointment to apply for 
renewal of the permit before the expiry date of the residence permit.  
264 Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed Study 2015, p.12. Changes in immigration status and purpose of 
stay: an overview of EU Member States’ approaches.  
265 Ibid. 
266 Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed Study 2015, p.25. Changes in immigration status and purpose of 
stay: an overview of EU Member States’ approaches. 
267 AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, HR, LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SE  
268 CZ, FR, HU, IT, LU, SK 

June, 2018 

78 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

status changes are interpreted as renewals and thus, the application fee is lower – i.e. 
10.000 HUF (instead of 18.000 HUF)269.  

With regard to status changes from family reunification permits to any other 
autonomous permit, conditions vary across Member States. According to Art.15(1) of 
the Family Reunification Directive, “Not later than after five years of residence, and 
provided that the family member has not been granted a residence permit for reasons 
other than family reunification, the spouse or unmarried partner and a child who has 
reached majority shall be entitled, upon application, if required, to an autonomous 
residence permit, independent of that of the sponsor. Member States may limit the 
granting of the residence permit to the spouse or unmarried partner in cases of 
breakdown of the family relationship.” 

They usually require a certain minimum period of residence of uninterrupted stay after 
which the family member can apply for long-term/permanent settlement which is 
considered as ‘autonomous’ – after three years (e.g. CZ, EE) or five years (LU, LV). 
For spouses in Estonia, family members can apply for another status even after the 
marriage has been terminated. However in the Czech Republic, in case the sponsor 
has deceased, a change of residency permit to another type is only permitted if on the 
date of death of the sponsor, the residency permit holder has been residing in the 
Czech Republic at least 2 consecutive years, which could be considered as a rather 
strict approach. In some Member States (e.g. LU, SK), proof of stable and sufficient 
resources independent from the sponsor is needed in order to obtain an autonomous 
permit, while in other Member States (e.g. NL), there are integration conditions which 
need to be met. 

With regard to status change from student to salaried work/independent activity, this 
is only permitted after the student successfully completes their higher education. In 
the majority of Member States, the student can obtain a residence permit to look for a 
job for six months270. In Italy, third-country nationals with student permits are 
required to change status and apply for a residence permit for employment reasons 
before their permit expires, if they start working or if they work more than 20 hours 
per week or 1040 hours per year. In Estonia and Luxembourg, there is a simplified 
procedure for students in order to obtain an authorisation to stay for salaried persons, 
such as an exemption from a labour market test and from having to meet certain 
salary thresholds. Belgium and Cyprus reported that in practice changing status from 
a student status is very difficult.   

With regard to status change from Blue Card or other temporary work permits to long-
term residence permits, this is possible in all Member States, provided that the 
conditions are met. In Cyprus, however, the quota for Blue Cards has been set to 0 
and effectively, no Blue Cards are issued at present. 

Q6c (iii). In which circumstances are third-country nationals required 
to apply for a change of status (e.g. change of employer or 
occupation)?  

In general, all Member States require a change of status if the circumstances and 
reasons for stay for the applicant change and this is not covered by the permit already 
issued. The changes can be permitted on specific legal grounds. All Member States 
allow changes for family reasons (i.e. other immigration statuses), education, and/or 
remunerated activities271.  Remunerated activities are proportionally speaking the 

269 Status changes from the following statuses (i) Blue Card, (ii) Residence Permit for the Purpose of Family 
Reunification, (iii) Residence Permit for the Purpose of Studies, (iv) Residence Permit for the Purpose of 
Scientific Research or (v) Residence Permit issued in a Single Procedure to Long-Term Residence Permit 
(both directive based one and national equivalent one) are considered as new status applications. 
270 E.g. AT, LT, LV, SE 
271 Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed Study 2015, p.17. Changes in immigration status and purpose of 
stay: an overview of EU Member States’ approaches. 

June, 2018 

79 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

most frequently occurring status change, followed by educational reasons272. The 
education and research statuses are by default temporary, i.e. they end when the 
education / research activity ends. Therefore, if someone wants to stay in the Member 
State after the end of their studies, a change of status is always required. As noted 
above, in the majority of Member States, students are allowed to stay for 6 months 
following the end of their studies to seek employment. 

As regards statuses for the purpose of work, the requirements in the event of 
changing the employer or occupation differ across Member States. In some Member 
States (e.g. Cyprus, Malta and Italy), if the third-country holds a permit that allows 
them to work, s/he only needs to notify/request a permission to change employer, but 
does not require a change of status.  In contrast, in other Member States, third-
country nationals are required to change the permit. For example, in Belgium, in 
most cases if a third-country worker changes employer, s/he must apply to a new 
work permit since work permit B which is issued most commonly is limited to a 
specific employer. Yet in other Member States, such as Finland and Estonia, change 
of status is only necessary in case of change of employment if in another sector than 
that authorised by the permit.  

Q6c (iv). For applications for long-term residence, how shall proof of 
continuous and regular residence be presented?  

For the issuance of a long-term residence permit, the following evidence can be 
presented as a proof of continuous and regular residence: 

  Previous residence permits issued in the Member State (AT, BE, BG, EE, PL, PT, 

RO, SK) 

  The applicant’s passport (e.g. entry/exit stamps) (CY, CZ, EE, ES, HU, LT, NL, 

PL, PT) 

  Tickets (e.g. plane tickets) (PL) 
  Health insurance coverage (CZ, LT) 
  Proof of financial resources (EL, LU, MT) 
  A lease agreement (CZ, HR) 
  A copy of the house purchase contract or verified lease contract (EL, HR) 
  Proof of sufficient knowledge of the official language(s) (EL) 
  Ex-officio/registered in a national register (HU, LT, SE, SK) 
  Ex-officio/registered in a municipal office (BG, IT, SI) 
  Work contract or certificate from an employer (LT, PT) 
  Social security registration (LU) 
  Other documents proving the applicant's integration (e.g. certificate of 

language courses, club member card, testimonial evidence) (LU) 

Most of these are easy to provide or are obtained ex officio by the competent 
authorities, but some types of evidence, such as travel tickets may not necessarily be 
kept by the applicant over the five year period. Also, documents to prove ‘integration’ 
leave a certain level of discretion to the authorities.  

Q6c (iv). Does the Member State impose any administrative or 
financial sanctions if the applicant fails to comply within a given 
deadline for requesting a status change e.g. if the applicant fails to 
submit an application for a status change on time, see Q6b (iii) and 
Q6b (vi) above, or fails to provide information / documentation on 
time, after having lodged an application?  

Similarly to the renewal of permits (see question Q6b (vii)), in the vast majority of 
Member States273, there are no administrative or financial sanctions if the applicant 

272 Ibid.  
273 BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FI, IT, HR, LT, LV, NL, RO, PT, SE, SK  

June, 2018 

80 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

fails to comply with any requirements around status change. However, failure to 
respect deadlines may lead to the rejection of the application. For example, in the 
Netherlands, when documentation/information is missing the IND will send a query to 
the third-country national third-country nationals stating what must still be sent within 
a 14-day deadline. When third-country national do not respond to this letter in time 
the application will be considered inadmissible which can lead to residence 
consequences. A residence gap has consequences for subsequent procedures such as 
applications for long-term residence and Dutch citizenship for which a consecutive 
number of years is required.  

Administrative sanctions are in place in eight Member States whereby failure to notify 
of the changed conditions for residence will result in rejection of the application. For 
example, in Luxembourg, when authorities find out that the third-country national 
does not comply with the required conditions of that permit, they issue a letter and 
the third-country national has 30 days to apply for another permit. If a migrant’s stay 
is found to be illegal because s/he no longer fulfils the conditions of the permit, his/her 
residence permit will be withdrawn and s/he will be asked to leave within 30 days after 
the notification of the return decision.  

In addition to administrative sanctions as described above, four Member States274 
have financial sanctions in place for failure to notify the authorities that the conditions 
of the permit have changed. The sanctions vary from € 50 – 250 in Austria; minimum 
sanction of PLN 1,000 in Poland and €800 – 1,200 in Slovenia. In Hungary, in cases 
of employment, the new employer might be fined up to €1,600275 . 

Q6c (vi). Please review information (publicly) available on status 
changes and rate your agreement with statement provided in the table 
below: The procedures to apply for a change from the migration status 
into another status are clear 

As highlighted above, a practical obstacle reported by the majority of Member States 
is that it is difficult to find publically available information and understand the 
conditions and requirements for status change. In approximately half of the Member 
States276, national researchers responded to this statement as ‘Disagree’ and ‘Strongly 
disagree’, while further four responded with ‘Neither agree/nor disagree’277. It was 
reported that information on changes of status is either scarce or difficult to find in 
comparison to information on application for first permits and renewals, which is 
generally more readily available.  

Q6c (v). How can third-country nationals obtain citizenship in the host 
Member States? 

All Host Member States require third-country nationals to have been legally and 
continuously residing in the Host Member State for a set number of years and/or hold 
permanent residency as a prerequisite for the acquisition of citizenship. As illustrated 
in the table below, the number of years extend from a minimum of 3 to a maximum of 
10 years.  

Table 12.  Minimum residency required 

Minimum residency 

Member States 

3 years 

4 years 

PT 

MT (a minimum of 4 years during the last 6 years), NL 

274 AT, HU, PL, SI 
275 500.000 HUF  August 2017 exchange rate 1 HUF = 0.0033 euro 
276 BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT 
277 DE, ES, HR, SE 

June, 2018 

81 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Minimum residency 

Member States 

5 years 

7 years 

8 years 

10 years 

BE, EL, FI, HR, LU, LV, SE 

CY, RO 

DE, EE, SK 

AT, BG, CZ, ES, IT, LT, PL, SI 

Exceptions relating to the condition of residency apply to third-country nationals 
whose spouse is a citizen of the host Member State278; to third-country nationals who 
have been granted asylum or refugee status by the host Member State279; and to 
minors who were born, adopted or resided in the host Member State before the age of 
18280. In these cases, the legal requirements for residency diverge from the number of 
legally required years of residency are reduced.   

Concerning the criteria of means of livelihood, only Austria and Belgium have 
stipulated specific legal requirements. In Austria, third-country nationals have to proof 
that they have received a regular income over a period of 36 months within the last 
six prior to the citizenship application. In the case of Belgium, third-country nationals 
at the time of application must have worked 468 days during the past 5 years. The 
rest of the Member States281 only stipulate that the third-country nationals need to 
proof that they have sufficient financial means to sustain themselves. 

Minimum language requirements have to be met in all Member States, with a number 
of them requiring specific proof of language proficiency in form of language 
certificates282. In the remaining Member States, sufficient language knowledge is 
mentioned as a perquisite for citizenship283.  

In addition to the language requirements, different proofs of integration and general 
knowledge about the country of residence apply in a number of Member States in 
order to obtain citizenship, as well as: 

  Proof of a clean criminal record284; 
  Participation in a citizenship exam/naturalisation exam on civic knowledge and 

history285; and 

  Renunciation of old citizenship286. 

With regard to the procedure, applications for naturalisation are made to the relevant 
authority in charge of the naturalisation procedure, which may include the local 
municipality287, the Civil Registry Authority288, the Ministry of Justice289, or the 
police290. With the exception of Germany, Czech Republic and Slovak Republic 
application procedures have been standardised and require third-country national 
applicants to submit the application form together with the requested 
documentation291 in person or via post to the relevant authority. Should the 
authorities reach the conclusion that all legal requirements are met, naturalisation will 
be granted.  

278 AT, CY, CZ, IT, PL 
279 AT, CZ, ES, IT, PL, SI, SK 
280 CZ, EL, ES, PL, RO 
281 BG, CZ, DE, LT 
282 AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, ES, LT, LU, PL, HU, SK.  
283 DE, FI, CY, HR,  IT, NL, PT, SI, RO 
284 AT, CZ, NL 
285 AT, DE, EE, ES, LT, LV, NL  
286 AT, DE, HR, LT, NL 
287 BE, NL, SI 
288 CY, LU, RO 
289 BG and SE 
290 LT, MT 
291 This can include birth certificate; proof of permanent residency; tax records etc.  

June, 2018 

82 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Q6c (vii). Please review information available on the applicable rules 
and procedures for naturalisation and rate your agreement with the 
statements below: Information on procedures to apply for 
naturalisation is easily obtainable 

In 19 Member States, national researchers either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed to the 
statement’ as information on obtaining citizenship is readily available and easy to find. 
Only Greece and Malta ‘disagreed’ to the statement, while in Belgium, Bulgaria and 
Hungary rated the statement with 3 (‘neither agree nor disagree’).  

7.2.3  Topic 6.3: Access to employment and employment related rights 

Q6d (i.a). If access to the labour market is granted to a third-country 
national, is this indicated on the residence card? 

Irrespective of the type of the permit issued292, the SPD requires Member States, 
when issuing residence permits in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 to 
indicate the information relating to the permission to work. In line with the Regulation, 
when access to the labour market is granted to a third-country national, this is 
indicated on the residence card in 19 Member States293.  In five Member States294, this 
is not the case, which raises a potential application issue with regard to Art. 7(1) of 
the Single Permit Directive. 

The amount and type of information inserted in the residence card varies across 
Member States. To provide a few examples, in Austria, the name of the permit is 
indicated on the back of the card; this allows the authorities to know if a permit grants 
access to work or not. In Germany, the information about access to the labour 
market is stored in a chip; the information differentiates between the right to 
employment and self-employment. The residence card of the permanent settlement 
permit states if employment is allowed. In the Czech Republic, every type of 
residence has a double digit code which is printed on the residence card; in case of 
employment, the code on the card is “27”. 

Q6d (i.b). Are any other documents issued in relation to the 
permission to work and/or reside in the Member State other than the 
residence permit? 

Article 6 and 7 of the SPD stipulate that, when issuing the single permit or a permit for 
other purposes, Member States are not allowed to issue additional permits as proof of 
authorisation to access the labour market. The Netherlands and the Slovak Republic, 
in line with the SPD295, were found to issue an additional document providing 
additional details on the employer and the specific position. No other instances of 
Member States issuing additional documents were identified. 

Q6d (ii). Are certain permits to work linked to a certain employer 
only?  

In all Member States under examination, except for Greece and Portugal, certain 
permits to work are linked to a certain employer only. Moreover, in all Member States, 
except for Cyprus and Germany, third-country nationals need to change the permit if 
they lose their job or want to change employment. In Germany, If the person loses 
his/her job he/she remains in possession of the existing residence permit, but the 
immigration authority can decide to limits its duration. 

292 Bar the exceptions listed in the SPD 
293 AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, HU, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK. 
294 BG, EL, HR, IT, MT 
295 The second paragraphs of Article 6(1) and 7(1) 

June, 2018 

83 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

In these cases, the procedure to require a new permit varies across countries. The 
length of the procedure to change the permit ranges from 20 days (e.g. in Hungary) 
to 119 days in Finland for some occupations for which a labour market test needs to 
be carried out. In seven Member States296 the procedure lasts 30 days whereas in four 
countries297 it lasts 90 days. If the applicant does not change permit, 16 Member 
States298 apply sanctions, mainly financial ones.  

7.2.4  Access to employment for TCN students299 

The majority of the Member States (DE, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, LU, PT, SK, SE, UK) 
provide to TCN students special incentives to remain in the MS after the studies’ 
completion so as to enter the MS’s labour market. Most of these incentives are related 
to more favourable and easier conditions for obtaining a residence permit (change of 
immigration status) or the MS gives to the TNC a certain period in order to seek a job. 
In Sweden, TNC students have already access to the labour market prior to the 
studies’ completion which can facilitate their later transition to a resident permit for 
work reasons. The Netherlands offer incentives only to TNC researchers whereas other 
countries offer various incentives as for example the UK that has different provisions 
covering many types of studies (PhD, graduate entrepreneurs etc.). A few Member 
States (CY, CZ, HR, HU) do not have any special incentives in place to encourage 
former TCN students to remain in their territory and to enter the labour market. 
Former TNCs students in Belgium can request a switch to their immigration status 
prior to the termination of their studies. 

Most of the Member States have put into effort certain restrictions concerning the 
employment of former TCN students. For example in Cyprus, a labour market test is 
required whereas in Luxembourg former TCN students do not have access to positions 
in the public sector. Germany and the Slovak Republic offer more favourable and 
simplified conditions for labour market entry. In Germany specifically, in some cases 
labour market examination and the approval of the Federal Employment Agency are 
not required. Six Member States (CZ, FI, IE, LT, PT, SE) give to former TCN students 
the right to access the labour market without any restriction.  

All Member States, except for Portugal, require the former TCN students that have 
been granted residence permit for the purpose of employment or entrepreneurship to 
prove that the residence permit is used for its new main purpose and that it is not 
misused for other purposes. Member States ask for different kind of proofs from the 
TCN but the majority of the states ask to provide a work contract (e.g. Lithuania, 
Croatia) or a job offer document (e.g. Sweden). Portugal is the only country that does 
not ask any related proof. 

7.2.5  Topic 6.4: Equal treatment  

Q6e (i). Are there any identified restrictions and/or obstacles for 
third-country nationals enjoying equal treatment compared to 
nationals in terms of the following:  

-  Working conditions, including pay and dismissal as well as health and safety 

at the workplace  

-  Freedom of association and affiliation and membership of an organisation 
representing workers or employers or of any organisation whose members 
are engaged in a specific occupation, including t the benefits conferred by 
such organisations  

-  Social security benefits listed in Article 3 of Regulation 883/2004  

296 BG, CY, CZ, HR, LV, MT, RO. 
297 EL, ES, LU, SK. 
298 BG, EE, ES, FI, HR, HU, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SE, SK. 
299 EMN Ad-Hoc Query on AHQ on Retaining TCN Students, Requested by EE EMN NCP on 26th May 2017 

June, 2018 

84 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

-  Education and vocational training  
-  Recognition of diplomas, certificated and other professional qualifications in 

accordance with the relevant national procedures  

-  Tax benefits, in so far as the worker is deemed to be resident for tax 

purposes in the Member State concerned  

-  Access to goods and services and the supply of foods an services made 
available to the public including procedures for obtaining housing as 
provided by national law, without prejudice to the freedom of contract in 
accordance with Union and national law  

-  Advice services afforded by employment offices 

Four of the examined Directives (LTR, RD, BCD, SPD) include provisions on equal 
treatment of TCNs with respect to nationals of the Member States, covering a number 
of aspects, including, inter alia, working conditions, freedom of association, social 
security benefits, education, recognition of academic and professional qualifications, 
tax benefits, access to goods and services and advice services. The FRD and SD do not 
include provisions on equal treatment. However, equality is ensured by the SPD in 
certain circumstances, for example if third-country nationals, falling within the scope 
of the FRD and SD, are authorised to work.  

In 10 Member States300, no issues have been identified with relation to the legal 
transposition and the practical application of equal treatment as stipulated in EU 
acquis.  

The main problem with regard to equal treatment stems from no or incomplete 
transposition of some legal provisions of the respective Directives. This applies to 14 
Member States 301. This results in certain equal treatment rights not being (explicitly) 
guaranteed. Subsequently, which may lead not only to uncertainty for third-country 
nationals but also to exclusion of third-country nationals from certain equal treatment 
rights that are guaranteed by the EU acquis. This is most often the case with regard to 
social security benefits and access to public goods and services.  

General equal treatment issues, applicable to all examined categories of third-country 
nationals, have been reported in five Member States302. In some Member States, the 
issues concern access to social protectionay. In Hungary, residence permit holders 
are not always entitled to certain types of family allowances303.  In Latvia, all relevant 
national laws on state social allowances, social services and assistance explicitly 
exclude from the scope of its application persons with fixed- term residence permits, 
which may lead to improper application of the requirement of Regulation No.1408/71 
and replaced by 883/2004 and the respective equal treatment provisions in the 
Directives. Similarly, in Slovenia, access to most payments under family benefits 
schemes (e.g. childbirth grant, special childcare allowance, large family allowance), 
payable from the state budget, are only granted when one of the parents and/or the 
child, or only the child, possesses a permanent residence permit and actually resides 
in Slovenia.304  

Furthermore, in Cyprus and Hungary, it was also reported there is little information 
available about the right and modalities of accessing social security and social 
assistance.  

With regard to access to public goods and services, in Slovenia, only those with 
LTR status can apply for non-profit rental housing, rental subsidies and housing loans 

300 AT, CZ, EE, HR, FI, LT, EE, PT, SE, SK 
301 BE, DE, CY, EL, ES, FI, HU, IT, LV, LU, NL, PL, RO, SI. 
302 CY, HU, LV, PL, SI  
303 based on the Act LXXXIV of 1998 on Family Support. 
304 Parental Protection and Family Benefits Act/ Zakon o starševskem varstvu in družinskih prejemkih, 3 April 
2014, and subsequent modifications. 

June, 2018 

85 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

under public scheme. 305In Poland, the Polish Constitution allows for a possibility of 
setting differentiation in access to goods and services based on nationality with 
respect to foreigners. Currently, however, no legislation in force has introduced such 
restrictions.   

In Slovenia, third-country nationals have access to secondary and higher education 
under equal conditions as nationals on the basis of the principle of reciprocity (i.e. 
when Slovenian citizens enjoy the same rights in the country of origin). This principle 
may constitute a practical application issue.  

As highlighted above, this results in certain equal treatment rights not being 
(explicitly) guaranteed. Subsequently, this may lead not only to uncertainty for TCNs 
but also to exclusion of TCNs from certain equal treatment rights that are guaranteed 
by the EU acquis. This is most often the case with regard to social security benefits 
and access to public goods and services.  

With regard to RD, Finland, Latvia and Slovenia have not transposed Art.12 of the 
RD, while Spain has not transposed Art. 12(a) recognition of qualifications. In 
Slovenia, equal treatment applies only to researchers employed in Slovenia and not 
to those employed in the country of origin who are only hosted by the research 
organisation in Slovenia, which, if a third-country national is a de facto status holder 
under the RD, a practical application issue. .  

As for the BCD, in Belgium, equal treatment with regards to social security and social 
protection is guaranteed at a general level. Uncertainty remains as to whether the 
provision of the Directive is completely transposed. In Romania, this provision has 
not been transposed. In Latvia, the provisions regarding recognition of diplomas; 
access to social security and advice services by employment offices have only partially 
been transposed, while the provision on access to goods and services have not been 
transposed. In Luxembourg, in the national law, Blue Card holders do not have 
access to information and counselling services afforded by employment offices made 
available to the unemployed. 

Regarding LTR, in five Member States, equal treatment issues could result from 
unclear transposition of equal treatment provisions, which gives rise to uncertainty. 
For example, in Italy, although reference is made to “equal treatment between 
nationals and legally staying foreigners as regards all types of relations with the public 
administration”306, there is no specific reference to equal treatment as regards to the 
public supply of goods and services made available to the public. In Cyprus, the LTR 
permit holders are entitled only to ‘basic benefits of social assistance’ which are not 
defined, resulting in uncertainty as to the eligibility of the exact benefits. 

As for the SPD, practical problems were identified in eight Member States307, in which 
similar to previous statuses, the issues revolve around lack of explicit guarantee of 
equal treatment (due to partial or non-transposition of certain provisions), in 
particular as regards to access to social protection and access to public goods and 
services. For example, In Belgium and Germany, as regards to ‘working conditions’ 
(Art. 12(a)), nationality is not included as an explicit protected criterion for non-
discrimination. In Luxembourg, with regard to freedom and affiliation and 
membership of an organisation representing workers or employers, according to the 
national legislation, workers who do not have a work permit type B or C cannot 
represent more than one third of the workers’ representatives. This reduces 
significantly the chances for a TCN to be elected as representative, especially in a 

305 Housing Act/ Stanovanjski zakon, 19 June 2003, and subsequent modifications. 
306 Art. 2(5) D. Lgs. 286/1998  
307 BE, DE, EL, IT, LV, LU, NL, PL 

June, 2018 

86 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

small company. The national law is thus not in conformity with the EU Directive in that 
it makes it more difficult, if not impossible for TCNs to take up a representation role308.  

Only Cyprus reported on practical application issues with regard to working conditions 
not directly related a transposition issue. As documented by several national and 
international monitoring body reports, the working conditions and salary of domestic 
workers and agricultural workers are infinitely inferior and cannot be compared to the 
equivalent of nationals.309  

Q6e (ii). Are there any third-country nationals, not covered by the 
Directives, who are enjoying equal treatment compared to the Member 
State’s nationals?  

Despite the fact that the EU Migration Directives do not cover all third-country 
nationals, the equality of some groups falling outside their scope is still guaranteed in 
some Member States. This is the case in 17 Member States310, where TCNs, not 
covered by the EU Migration Directives, are enjoying equal treatment compared to the 
Member State’s nationals.  

The categories of beneficiaries vary across countries. In several Member States, such 
as Belgium, (Geneva Convention) refugees enjoy equal treatment with nationals.  

In some Member States the list of persons entitled to equal treatment is broad 
whereas in others such as Germany it is restricted311. In Hungary, numerous 
categories may also, often dependent on certain conditions, enjoy equal treatment: 

  Beneficiaries of subsidiary protection; 
  Asylum-seekers after 9 months of the date of submission of the application with 

work permit; 

  Tolerated persons with a work permit; 
  Persons under Humanitarian Protection with a work permit; 
  Statelessness persons with a work permit; 
  Holders of a Residence Permit for the Purpose of Intra-corporate Transfer and 

Permit for Long-term Mobility; 

  Holders of a Residence Permit for Seasonal Workers; 
  Holders of a Residence Permit for the Pursuit of Gainful Activity; 
  Holders of a Registration Certificate for EEA/Hungarian Nationals; 
  Interim Permanent Residence Permit holders; 
  Holders of a National Permanent Residence Permit Granted for National 

Economy Considerations.  

In other countries, equality is ensured on certain conditions. In Romania, foreigners 
not covered by the EU legal migration acquis enjoy equal treatment with nationals if 
they work in projects developed by central/local administration entities which 
contribute to the development and modernisation of the economic infrastructure of the 
country and have a positive effect for the economic growth.  

308 Conformity assessment of the BCD 

309 U.S. State Department, 2016 Human Rights Reports: Cyprus, available at 
www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2016/eur/265408.htm, section 7(b); U.N. Committee on the 
Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the twenty-third and twenty- 
fourth periodic reports of Cyprus, available at 
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/CYP/INT_CERD_COC_CYP_27
472_E.pdf 
310 BE, BG, CY, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, UK. 
311 Equal treatment is ensured to the following categories: TCN holding a permanent settlement permit; TCN 
holding a residence permit on purposes of vocational training; TCN holding a residence permit on 
humanitarian grounds. 

June, 2018 

87 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Q6e (iii.) Does the Member State have a mechanism in place to 
monitor labour exploitation of third-country nationals?  

In all Member States except Finland competent authorities do not have separate 
departments which specifically monitor labour exploitation312. Cooperation between 
national (governmental) authorities for the identification of TCNs is established 
formally by law or regulation313. While 17Member States314 have a mechanism in place 
to monitor labour exploitation, nine Member States315 do not. This is the case of Italy 
which, although it has a sufficiently developed legal framework to sanction labour 
exploitation both at a criminal and administrative level and to offer protection to 
victims, it neither has a mechanism to monitor labour exploitation, nor any other 
specific measures to prevent labour exploitation316. In Member States which have a 
monitoring mechanism, this falls within the competence of various authorities such as 
the Labour Inspection Office, the Anti-discrimination authority, the Tax and Customs 
Board etc. Despite their existence, the mechanisms in place are not always specifically 
tailored to third-country nationals. As a result, abusive situations involving some 
groups of migrants might not be easily detected. 

Several national researchers drew attention to the fact that third-country nationals 
suffer from poor working conditions especially in the agriculture and domestic work 
sectors, such as Cyprus and Italy. Although equality is recognised by law, it appears 
to not be fully applied in practice in Cyprus. For instance, although the law provides 
for equal pay of foreign and local workers, migrant workers are frequently paid wages 
much lower than those provided for in the collective agreements317. Since the 
minimum wage applies only to a small number of occupations and collective 
agreements do not exist in all sectors, the also system leaves a wide margin of 
discretion to employers to fix salaries at will. 

While, 16 Member States318 have a mechanism in place to monitor labour exploitation, 
nine Member States319 do not. This is the case of Italy which, although it has a 
sufficiently developed legal framework to sanction labour exploitation both at a 
criminal and administrative level and to offer protection to victims, it has neither a 
mechanism to monitor labour exploitation, nor any other specific measures to prevent 
labour exploitation320.  

In Member States which have a monitoring mechanism, this falls within the 
competence of various authorities such as the Labour Inspection Office, the Anti-
discrimination authority, the Tax and Customs Board etc. Despite their existence, the 
mechanisms in place are not always specifically tailored to third-country nationals. As 

312 EMN Synthesis Report 2017, p. 22. Illegal employment of third-country nationals in the European Union.  
313 Ibid. 
314 BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, LT, LU, MT, NL, RO, SE, UK. 
315 AT, CY, HR, HU, IT, LV, PL, PT, SI. 
316  Council  of  Europe,  Group  of  Experts  on  Action  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (GRETA)  (2014), 
Report  concerning  the  implementation  of  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  Action  against  Trafficking  in 
Human Beings by Italy, GRETA(2014)18, https://rm.coe.int/1680631cc1; Council of Europe, Group of Experts 
on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) (2017), Report on Italy under Rule 7 of the Rules of 
Procedure for evaluating implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in 
Human Beings, GRETA(2016)29, https://rm.coe.int/16806edf35. 
317 ECRI fourth report on Cyprus 
318 BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, LT, LU, MT, NL, RO, SE, UK. 
319 AT, HR, HU, IT, LV, PL, PT, SI. 
320  Council  of  Europe,  Group  of  Experts  on  Action  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (GRETA)  (2014), 
Report  concerning  the  implementation  of  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  Action  against  Trafficking  in 
Human Beings by Italy, GRETA(2014)18, https://rm.coe.int/1680631cc1; Council of Europe, Group of Experts 
on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) (2017), Report on Italy under Rule 7 of the Rules of 
Procedure for evaluating implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in 
Human Beings, GRETA(2016)29, https://rm.coe.int/16806edf35. 

June, 2018 

88 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

a result, abusive situations involving some groups of migrants might not be easily 
detected. 

In Belgium, there is a general labour inspection mechanism that includes the 
monitoring of labour conditions of third-country nationals’ employment although not 
specifically targeted to them. This service is part of the federal administration (SPF 
employment). The mechanism is based on investigations on the ground with a 
dedicated section for labour exploitation (known as “Cellules ECOSOC”).321 Moreover, 
in October 2015, the federal administration launched a Contact Point for fair 
competition through which individuals can report abuses.322 This is complementary to 
investigations as workers can report directly to the administration. Likewise, in 
Greece, the Labour Inspectorate is mainly responsible for inspecting work places and 
detecting violations of labour legislation.  

In Germany, the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency is inter alia mandated to consult 
persons who have been discriminated because of their race/ethnicity at their 
workplace including cases of labour exploitation. In Estonia, control visits, such as 
inspections and checks, are carried out by the Tax and Customs Board and Police and 
Border Guard Board in cooperation with the Labour Inspectorate. Inspections are 
carried out based on risk assessment as well as on an ad-hoc basis. Although multiple 
mechanisms exist, in Finland it is the Occupational Health and Safety Authority which 
monitors, supervises and investigates issues related to the employment of foreigners 
including labour exploitation and the black economy.  

Nine Member States to not have a monitoring system specifically targeting third 
country nationals. For example, in Cyprus. The system does not differentiate between 
nationals and third country nationals and treats all cases equally. The Department of 
Labour operates an inspectorate system whereby labour inspectors perform 
monitoring checks on employers either on their own initiative or after receiving a 
complaint by workers or workers’ unions. No inspections are carried out in private 
homes where the vast majority of the migrant labour force, such as domestic workers, 
are employed.  

Similarly, no mechanism to monitor specifically the labour exploitation of TCNs exists 
in Poland, however, this issue is at least partially covered by the activities of other 
bodies. The National Labour Inspectorate is authorised to check the legality of 
employment and stay of foreigners. Likewise, there is no agency dedicated to the 
labour exploitation of TCNs in Slovenia.  

Q6e (iv). What sanctions / other consequences has the Member State 
in place against labour exploitation? 

Moreover, the phenomenon of labour exploitation is tackled differently across the EU 
in terms of sanctions and other legal consequences. Employers can face a number of 
sanctions, among the most common are administrative and criminal sanctions323. How 
sanctions are calculated and applied differs substantially from Member State to 
Member State324.  

Several Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Belgium, Italy etc.) impose financial sanctions 
to punish labour exploitation whereas others foresee a combination of both financial 
penalties and the deprivation of liberty. This is the case in Belgium, where both a fine 
and imprisonment can be imposed along with other measures. In particular when the 

321 For more information you can consult the annual report of DG social inspection at: 
https://socialsecurity.belgium.be/fr/publications/rapport-annuel-dg-inspection-sociale.  
322 https://www.pointdecontactfraudesociale.belgique.be/en/index.html  
323 EMN Synthesis Report 2017, p. 26. Illegal employment of third-country nationals in the European Union. 
324 Ibid.  

June, 2018 

89 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

employer does not comply with the legal requirements regarding labour relations, for 
instance if labour conditions are illegal, the work permit is withdrawn.325  

Sanctions against employers that do no respect labour conditions and legal 
requirements vary according to the level of the infraction committed. If labour 
exploitation amounts to human trafficking this is a criminal infraction punished by the 
Criminal Code in Belgium (Article 433quinquies of the Penal Code). In such cases the 
employer can be punished to an imprisonment sentence of one to five years and a fine 
of at least 500€ and maximum 50.000€. 

The deprivation of liberty is also foreseen in Portugal, where penalties vary according 
to the type of crime. Sanctions applying to those who solicit or attempt to solicit 
labour exploitation differ from sanctions applicable to those who commit exploitation. 
The severity of the penalty ranges from one to five years (six in case of repeated 
offence) unless other legal provision imposes a more grievous sentence. In Cyprus, 
the deprivation of liberty can be increased to up to 10 years326 if the exploited person 
is a child. In Czech Republic, while financial sanctions are applicable to employers, 
illegally employed employees can be expelled out of the territory of the country. 

Labour exploitation falls within different types of crimes across EU Member States. To 
provide an example under the Italian law labour exploitation can be punished as:  

  Slavery or servitude (Art. 600, Criminal Code); 
  Trafficking of human beings (Art. 601, Criminal Code) punished with 8 to 20 

years detention; 

  Illegal brokering and labour exploitation (Art. 603bis of the Criminal Code) 

punished with 5 to 8 years detention and a fine of 1.000-2.000 euro per each 
worker recruited; 

  Hire of undocumented TCNs (Art. 22(12), (12bis) and (12ter), D. Lgs. 

286/1998)  

Finally, 10 Member States327 have specific measures in place to prevent labour 
exploitation of TCNs. For instance, in Portugal, there are several intervention 
measures, such as training actions, awareness campaigns, information material, 
conferences and seminars aimed to prevent the phenomenon etc. These actions aim at 
discouraging the demand for irregular TCN work, increase the likelihood of 
identification of potential victims of labour exploitation by police officers and the 
general population and increase the likelihood of people denouncing the potential 
situations. 

7.2.6  Topic 6.5: Integration  

Two Directives (FRD and LTR) stipulate that Member States may require compliance 
with integration ‘measures’ (FRD) and ‘conditions’ (LTR). According to the 
Commission’s guidelines on the FRD328, Member States may impose a requirement on 
family members to comply with integration measures under Article 7(2), but this may 
not amount to an absolute condition upon which the right to family reunification is 
dependent. The Directives do not define integration ‘measures’ and ‘conditions’. 
Integration ‘measures’ (or pre-integration measures) could refer to measures 
conducted in the immigrant’s country of origin, including language courses, 
‘adaptation’ and civic orientation courses, including courses on history and culture of 

325 Royal Decree of 9 June 1999, Article 35. 
326 Law revising the legal framework regulating the prevention, combating of trafficking and exploitation of 
persons and protection of victims N.60(I)/2014, 15 April 2014, article 8.  Available at 
http://cylaw.org/nomoi/arith/2014_1_060.pdf 
327 BG, CY, ES, FI, HR, LU, NL, PT, RO, SK. 
328 COM(2014) 210 final 

June, 2018 

90 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

the country of origin329. In contrast, integration ‘conditions’ as laid down in the LTR 
refer to evidence of integration in the host society. 

Integration requirements and measures differ significantly across Member States. The 
majority of Member States do not require TCNs to fulfil specific integration measures 
in order to reunite with family330331. Where integration measures exist prior to 
admission for family reunification, (Member) States require family members to 
demonstrate basic language proficiency, corresponding to A1 level of the Common 
European Framework of Reference for Languages (e.g. in AT, DE, NL) or take a civic 
integration exam (NL)332.  Table 13 below provides an overview of the integration 
requirements and measures in the Member States. In 12 Member States333, there are 
mandatory integration requirements, while in the remaining Member States, 
integration measures (such as language and integration courses) are voluntary. In five 
of these334, the mandatory integration requirements only concern applicants for long-
term residence, who need to demonstrate integration through knowledge of national 
language(s) and knowledge about society and culture of the country. For example, in 
Greece, in order to obtain a long-term residence permit, the applicant need to 
demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the Greek language, history and civilization. This 
can be demonstrated through the following means: document of graduation from 
Greek school or university; certificate of attainment in Greek of at least B1 level and 
special certificate of sufficient knowledge of the Greek language and elements of 
Greek history and civilization.     

Commonly, in the majority of Member States335, refusal to participate in the 
integration measures can result in loss of status. In Belgium, Germany and the 
Netherlands, not attending the integration and language courses may also result in a 
financial fine. Refusing to participate in the planning (30 days) or not attending the 
scheduled planning session (15 days) or refusal or failure to participate in the planned 
activities (60 days) will result in the withdrawal of social benefits for a number of 
days. Fees in relation to integration and language courses depend on the country of 
origin, course provider or course format (examination fee ranges from €75 to €130 for 
levels A1, A2 and B1 of CEFR in AT, €150 in NL)336. 

A small number of (Member) States may additionally require family members to 
acquire further language proficiency after admission (usually A2 or B1 level of CEFR) 
(AT, NL), or to take a civic language exam after admission (NL, UK) as part of their 
general integration programme or as part of requirements for permanent settlement in 
the country (AT, DE, LV, NL, UL). Estonia, Latvia and Norway provide free-of-charge 
language training in instances337.  Other post-admission requirements may include 
attending civics classes (BE, DE, EE, NL, SE), reporting to an integration centre (AT) 
or signing a declaration of integration (BE and NL)338.  

329 IOM (2009), Stocktaking of international pre-integration measures and recommendations for action aimed 
at their implementation in Germany  
330 BG, CY, CZ (only if the TCN applies for permanent residency), EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, IE, LT, LU, NO, PL, SI, 
SK, UK 
331 EMN Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed Study 2016, p.26. Family reunification of Third-Country 
Nationals in the EU plus Norway: National Practices. 
332 Ibid.  
333 AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, EL, FI, HR, IT, LU, MT, NL 
334 CY, EL, HR, LU, MT 
335 AT, BE, BG, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IT, MT 
336 EMN Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed Study 2016, p.26. Family reunification of Third-Country 
Nationals in the EU plus Norway: National Practices. 
337 EMN Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed Study 2016, p.27. Family reunification of Third-Country 
Nationals in the EU plus Norway: National Practices. 
338 Ibid. 

June, 2018 

91 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

June, 2018 

92 

 
 
  
 
  
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Table 13.  Overview of integration requirements and measures  

Categories of TCNs 

Types of integration measures 

Sanctions/consequences of not 
attending (Y/N) 

MS 

AT 

Voluntary 
(V)/  
Mandatory 
(M) 
M 

BE (Flemish 
Community) 

M 

 Red-white-red Cards Red-white-
red Cards plus and family members  
Family members of a TCN only; other 
categories are exempted  

BE (Wallonia) 

M 

Family members of a TCN only; other 
categories are exempted  

BG 

CY 

CZ 
DE 

M 

Medical professions only  

LTR applicants 

M (language 
test is 
mandatory 
but not 
language 
courses) 
No integration requirements in CZ  
M 

TCNs who reside for the purpose of 
gainful employment according to s18 
and s21RA, for the purpose of family 
reunification  

German language skills 

Tailored programme: 
- a basic course of Dutch (up to 600 hours, so 
as to reach A2 level), a course of social 
orientation: which includes an introduction to 
the Flemish and Belgian society, career 
guidance, individual counselling  
Integration programme: 
- personalised reception 
- Language courses (at least 120 hours) 
- Citizenship and social orientation courses (at 
least 20 hours) 
- Socio-professional guidance 
Language courses  

Language courses in order to pass  a language 
test 

Integration courses  

Y 
Loss of status  
Y 
A fine of 50 to 5.000€. 

Y 
T 
The first administrative fine is set at 50€. 
The fine can increase if the TCN still does 
not take part in the programme. 

Y 
Inability to have medical profession 
obtained/recognised 
Y 
Test is obligatory for the LTR status  

Requirement for obtaining a permanent 
settlement permit according and for a 
long-term residents permit. There is the 
option of issuing coercive means which 
can inter alia be a fine. Furthermore, the 
TCN can be obliged to pay the cost 
contribution.  
N 

EE 

V 

Available to all foreigners (both EU 
nationals and TCN) 

Welcoming programme which includes also 
short language training  

June, 2018 

93 

 
 
 
MS 

EL  

ES 

FI 

HR 

HU 
IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 
MT 

Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Categories of TCNs 

Types of integration measures 

Sanctions/consequences of not 
attending (Y/N) 

LTR applicants 

Holders of temporary permits  

In case the TCN is unemployed or 
receives income support during the first 
three years of his/her residence; family 
members of the immigrant may be 
included in such a plan. 

LTR applicants 

all TCNs 
Integration agreement - all TCNs who 
enter Italy for the first time and apply 
for a new residence permit of a duration 
equal to or longer than one year  
Italian language test - LTR applicants 

LTR applicants 

All third-country nationals 
LTR applicants 

Proof of sufficient knowledge of the Greek 
language, history and civilization  
Integration effort report: element in the 
renewal of temporary permits under the 
competence of the Autonomous Communities 
Administrations. 
Tailored individual plan 
Integration measures (such as language 
courses and other courses such as civic 
orientation courses, vocational or other 
training or education etc.)  

LTR will be accorded to a TCN who knows the 
Croatian language and Latin alphabet as well 
as the Croatian culture and social system. 
Integration measures implemented by NGOs 
Integration agreement - knowledge of the 
Italian language (equivalent to level A2), a 
good understanding of Italian institutions (e.g. 
in the field of health, education, labour, etc.); 
compulsory education to the children 
Italian language test  
Voluntary Lithuanian language courses, 
voluntary participation in the centres’ of 
immigrants, communities’ activities 
When authorities examine the application for 
long term residency, they can take into 
consideration the degree of integration of the 
third country national who can prove this by 
bringing evidence of language classes, 
witnesses, etc 
Language courses  
Attendance of at least 100 hours of an 
integration course and achieved a 75% pass 

No eligibility for long-term resident permit 

N 

Refusing to participate in the planning (30 
days) or not attending the scheduled 
planning session (15 days) or refusal or 
failure to participate in the planned 
activities (60 days) will result in the 
withdrawal of benefits for a number of 
days.  
No eligibility for long-term resident permit 

N 
Integration agreement – non-participation 
may result in loss of residence permit and 
a return 
The Italian language test is mandatory in 
order to obtain a LTR permit 

N 

Y 
The application for long-term residence 
will be refused 

N 
Y 
The application for long-term residence 

Voluntary 
(V)/  
Mandatory 
(M) 
M 

V 

M 

M 

V 
M 

V 

M 

V 
M 

June, 2018 

94 

 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

MS 

Voluntary 
(V)/  
Mandatory 
(M) 

Categories of TCNs 

Types of integration measures 

Sanctions/consequences of not 
attending (Y/N) 

NL 

M 

TCNs with a residence permit based on 
family reunification, with a sponsor who 
has a non-temporary right to stay, and 
TCNs intending to work in the 
Netherlands as spiritual counsellors in 
public  

mark in the examination of such course in the 
last 12 months immediately prior to the 
application  for  long  term  residence; and has 
obtained a pass mark of at least 65% pass 
mark in a Maltese language course at 
secondary education level. 
Introduction about core values of the 
Netherlands  

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE  

SI 

SK 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

All third-country nationals 

All third-country nationals 

All third-country nationals 

All third-country nationals 

All third-country nationals 

Depends (provided on project basis by 

NGOs and local authorities offer such courses 
free of charge  
Language courses  and service for supporting 
immigrants  
cultural accommodation activities, counselling 
and learning the Romanian language 

language training, and other mainstreamed 
services 
Slovenian language courses and courses on 
Slovenian history, culture and constitutional 
order 
language and integration courses 

will be refused 

Y 
Residence permit can be revoked as a 
consequence of not passing the exam 
(individual circumstances and, if 
applicable, art. 8 ECHR and will be taken 
into account). Residence consequences 
for not passing the exam are that family 
members cannot apply for an autonomous 
residence permit, permanent or EU long-
term residence permit or Dutch 
citizenship to which the integration 
requirement applies. TCNs can be fined: 
up to €1250 annually for not passing the 
exam in time and up to € 340 annually for 
not signing the participation declaration. 
N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

June, 2018 

95 

 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

MS 

Voluntary 
(V)/  
Mandatory 
(M) 

Categories of TCNs 

Types of integration measures 

Sanctions/consequences of not 
attending (Y/N) 

NGOs) 

June, 2018 

96 

 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

7.3  Main conformity issues and may clauses 

A full overview of the provisions of the EU Directives relevant to all migration phases is 
included in Annex 3 to this report. Table 14 below presents the provisions which most 
Member States (> 5) failed to transpose correctly. The extent to which these have led 
to practical application issues has been described above. 

Table 14.  Overview of most common conformity issues 

Directives and relevant provision 

RD 

Article 12 

Equal treatment 

Holders of a residence permit shall be entitled to equal treatment with 
nationals as regards: 

(a) recognition of diplomas, certificates and other professional 
qualifications in accordance with the relevant national procedures; 

(b) working conditions, including pay and dismissal; 

(c) branches of social security as defined in Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security 
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to 
members of their families moving within the Community (1). The 
special provisions in the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 
859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation 
(EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of 
third countries who are not already covered by these provisions solely 
on the ground of their nationality (2) shall apply accordingly; 

(d) tax benefits; 

(e) access to goods and services and the supply of goods and services 
made available to the public. 

BCD 

Article 9 

Withdrawal or non-renewal of the EU Blue Card 

1. Member States shall withdraw or refuse to renew an EU Blue Card 
issued on the basis of this Directive in the following cases: 

(a) when it has been fraudulently acquired, or has been falsified or 
tampered with; 

(b) wherever it appears that the holder did not meet or no longer 
meets the conditions for entry and residence laid down in this 
Directive or is residing for purposes other than that for which the 
holder was authorised to reside; 

(c) when the holder has not respected the limitations set out in 
Articles 12(1) and (2) and 13. 

MS 

No 
of 
MS  

5 

ES, FI, 
HU, LV, 
SI 

5 

ES, LU, 
LV, PT, 
RO 

Art. 9 (2) The lack of communication pursuant to Article 12(2) second 
subparagraph and 13(4) shall not be considered to be a sufficient 
reason for withdrawing or not renewing the EU Blue Card if the holder 
can prove that the communication did not reach the competent 

6 

BG, ES, 
IT, LT, 
NL, RO 

June, 2018 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

No 
of 
MS  

5 

MS 

BE, HU, 
LV, LU, 
RO 

7 

BE, DE, 
IT, LV, 
MT, RO, 
SI 

Directives and relevant provision 

authorities for a reason independent of the holder's will. 

Article 14 

Equal treatment 

1. EU Blue Card holders shall enjoy equal treatment with nationals of 
the Member State issuing the Blue Card, as regards: 

(a) working conditions, including pay and dismissal, as well as health 
and safety requirements at the workplace; 

(b) freedom of association and affiliation and membership of an 
organisation representing workers or employers or of any 
organisation whose members are engaged in a specific occupation, 
including the benefits conferred by such organisations, without 
prejudice to the national provisions on public policy and public 
security; (c) education and vocational training; (d) recognition of 
diplomas, certificates and other professional qualifications in 
accordance with the relevant national procedures; (e) provisions in 
national law regarding the branches of social security as defined in 
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. The special provisions in the Annex to 
Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 shall apply accordingly; (f) without 
prejudice to existing bilateral agreements, payment of income-related 
acquired statutory pensions in respect of old age, at the rate applied 
by virtue of the law of the debtor Member State(s) when moving to a 
third country; (g) access to goods and services and the supply of 
goods and services made available to the public, including procedures 
for obtaining housing, as well as information and counselling services 
afforded by employment offices; (h) free access to the entire territory 
of the Member State concerned, within the limits provided for by 
national law. EN 18.6.2009 Official Journal of the European Union L 
155/25 

LTR 

Art. 11 Equal treatment 

1. Long-term residents shall enjoy equal treatment with nationals as 
regards: 

(a) access to employment and self-employed activity, provided such 
activities do not entail even occasional involvement in 

the exercise of public authority, and conditions of employment and 
working conditions, including conditions regarding dismissal and 
remuneration; 

(b) education and vocational training, including study grants in 
accordance with national law; 

(c) recognition of professional diplomas, certificates and other 
qualifications, in accordance with the relevant national procedures; 

(d) social security, social assistance and social protection as defined 
by national law; 

(e) tax benefits; 

(f) access to goods and services and the supply of goods and services 
made available to the public and to procedures for obtaining housing; 

June, 2018 

98 

 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

MS 

No 
of 
MS  

7 

7 

9 

BE, FR, 
HR, LT, 
PL, RO, 
SK 

BG, DE, 
ES, LU, 
LV, NL, 
RO 

BE, DE, 
EL, 
FR,HU, 
IT, LU, 
LV, NL, 
SI 

Directives and relevant provision 

(g) freedom of association and affiliation and membership of an 
organisation representing workers or employers or of any 
organisation whose members are engaged in a specific occupation, 
including the benefits conferred by such organisations, without 
prejudice to the national provisions on public policy and public 
security; 

(h) free access to the entire territory of the Member State concerned, 
within the limits provided for by the national legislation for reasons of 
security. 

Article 18 

3. Diseases contracted after the first residence permit was issued in 
the second Member State shall not justify a refusal to renew the 
permit or expulsion from the territory. 

SPD 

1. An application to issue, amend or renew a single permit shall be 
submitted by way of a single application procedure. Member States 
shall determine whether applications for a single permit are to be 
made by the third-country national or by the third-country national’s 
employer. Member States may also decide to allow an application 
from either of the two. If the application is to be submitted by the 
third-country national, Member States shall allow the application to 
be introduced from a third country or, if provided for by national law, 
in the territory of the Member State in which the third-country 
national is legally present. 

Article 12 Right to equal treatment 

1. Third-country workers as referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 
3(1) shall enjoy equal treatment with nationals of the Member State 
where they reside with regard to: 

(a) working conditions, including pay and dismissal as well as health 
and safety at the workplace; 

(b) freedom of association and affiliation and membership of an 
organisation representing workers or employers or of any 
organisation whose members are engaged in a specific occupation, 
including the benefits conferred by such organisations, without 
prejudice to the national provisions on public policy and public 
security; 

(c) education and vocational training; 

(d) recognition of diplomas, certificates and other professional 
qualifications in accordance with the relevant national procedures; 

(e) branches of social security, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 
883/2004; 

(f) tax benefits, in so far as the worker is deemed to be resident for 
tax purposes in the Member State concerned; 

(g) access to goods and services and the supply of goods and services 
made available to the public including procedures for obtaining 
housing as provided by national law, without prejudice to the freedom 

June, 2018 

99 

 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Directives and relevant provision 

MS 

No 
of 
MS  

of contract in accordance with Union and national law; 

(h) advice services afforded by employment offices. 

Table 15 presents an overview of the may clauses relevant to Migration Phase 6 and 
the member States which did not transpose these.  

Table 15.  Transposition of may clauses  

Directives and relevant provision 

SD 

Article 12 

MS 

No of 
MS not 
transp
osed 

2. Without prejudice to Article 16, renewal of a residence 
permit may be refused or the permit may be withdrawn if 
the holder: 

9 

BG, CZ, HU, 
IT, LU, MT, PL, 
RO, SK 

(a) does not respect the limits imposed on access to 
economic activities under Article 17 

(b) does not make acceptable progress in his/her studies in 
accordance with national legislation or administrative 
practice. 

Article 12 

2. Without prejudice to Article 16, renewal of a residence 
permit may be refused or the permit may be withdrawn if 
the holder: 

(a) does not respect the limits imposed on access to 
economic activities under Article 17 

(b) does not make acceptable progress in his/her studies in 
accordance with national legislation or administrative 
practice. 

10 

BG, CZ, HU, 
IT, LU, MT, NL, 
RO, SI, SK 

Article 17 Economic activities by students 

6 

1. Outside their study time and subject to the rules and 
conditions applicable to the relevant activity in the host 
Member State, students shall be entitled to be employed 
and may be entitled to exercise self-employed economic 
activity. The situation of the labour market in the host 
Member State may be taken into account. Where 
necessary, Member States shall grant students and/or 
employers prior authorisation in accordance with national 
legislation. 

Art. 17 (3) Access to economic activities for the first year 
of residence may be restricted by the host Member State. 

13 

BG, IT, LT, PL, 
PT, SK 

AT, BE, BG, 
CZ, FI, FR, HR, 
HU, IT, LV, PL, 
RO, SK 

Art. 17 (4) Member States may require students to report, 
in advance or otherwise, to an authority designated by the 

11 

BE, DE, HR, 
HU, IT, LV, MT, 

June, 2018 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

MS 

No of 
MS not 
transp
osed 

PL, RO, SE, SK 

8 

CZ, HR, LT, LV, 
PL, RO, SE, SK 

Directives and relevant provision 

Member State concerned, that they are engaging in an 
economic activity. Their employers may also be subject to 
a reporting obligation, in advance or otherwise. 

RD 

Article 5 6. A Member State may, among other measures, 
refuse to renew or decide to withdraw the approval of a 
research organisation which no longer meets the conditions 
laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 or in cases where the 
approval has been fraudulently acquired or where a 
research organisation has signed a hosting agreement with 
a third-country national fraudulently or negligently. Where 
approval has been refused or withdrawn, the organisation 
concerned may be banned from reapplying for approval up 
to five years from the date of publication of the decision on 
withdrawal or non-renewal. 

Article 10 Withdrawal or non-renewal of the residence 
permit 

7 

CZ, FI, IT, LT, 
LV, RO, SK 

1. Member States may withdraw or refuse to renew a 
residence permit issued on the basis of this Directive when 
it has been fraudulently acquired or wherever it appears 
that the holder did not meet or no longer meets the 
conditions for entry and residence provided by Articles 6 
and 7 or is residing for purposes other than for which he 
was authorised to reside. 

Art. 10 (2) 2. Member States may withdraw or refuse to 
renew a residence permit for reasons of public policy, 
public security or public health. 

BCD 

Article 8 

2. Before taking the decision on an application for an EU 
Blue Card, and when considering renewals or 
authorisations pursuant to Article 12(1) and (2) during the 
first two years of legal employment as an EU Blue Card 
holder, Member States may examine the situation of their 
labour market and apply their national procedures 
regarding the requirements for filling a vacancy. 

7 

6 

CZ, IT, LT, LV, 
NL, RO, SK 

DE, FI, HR, LV, 
PT, RO 

Art. 9 (3) Member States may withdraw or refuse to renew 
an EU Blue Card issued on the basis of this Directive in the 
following cases: 

5 

DE, LT, LV, NL, 
SI 

(a) for reasons of public policy, public security or public 
health; 

(b) wherever the EU Blue Card holder does not have 
sufficient resources to maintain himself and, where 
applicable, the members of his family, without having 
recourse to the social assistance system of the Member 
State concerned. Member States shall evaluate these 
resources by reference to their nature and regularity and 

June, 2018 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Directives and relevant provision 

MS 

No of 
MS not 
transp
osed 

may take into account the level of minimum national 
wages and pensions as well as the number of family 
members of the person concerned. Such evaluation shall 
not take place during the period of unemployment referred 
to in Article 13; 

(c) if the person concerned has not communicated his 
address; 

(d) when the EU Blue Card holder applies for social 
assistance, provided that the appropriate written 
information has been provided to him in advance by the 
Member State concerned. 

Article 14 Equal treatment 

1. EU Blue Card holders shall enjoy equal treatment with 
nationals of the Member State issuing the Blue Card, as 
regards: 

(a) working conditions, including pay and dismissal, as well 
as health and safety requirements at the workplace; 

(b) freedom of association and affiliation and membership 
of an organisation representing workers or employers or of 
any organisation whose members are engaged in a specific 
occupation, including the benefits conferred by such 
organisations, without prejudice to the national provisions 
on public policy and public security; 

Art. 14 (4) When the EU Blue Card holder moves to a 
second Member State in accordance with Article 18 and a 
positive decision on the issuing of an EU Blue Card has not 
yet been taken, Member States may limit equal treatment 
in the areas listed in paragraph 1, with the exception of 
1(b) and (d). If, during this period, Member States allow 
the applicant to work, equal treatment with nationals of the 
second Member State in all areas of paragraph 1 shall be 
granted. 

LTR 

15 

20 

15 

AT, BG, CZ, 
ES, FR,  HR, 
HU, IT, LV, PL, 
PT, RO, SE, SI, 
SK 

AT, BE, BG, 
CZ, DE, ES, FI, 
FR, HR, HU, IT, 
LT, LU, LV, NL, 
PL, PT, RO, SI, 
SK 

AT, BE, CZ, 
DE, ES, FI, HR, 
IT, LT, LU, LV, 
NL, PL, RO, SI 

Art. 5(2) Member States may require third-country 
nationals to comply with integration conditions, in 
accordance with national law.  

11 

BE, BG, CZ, 
DE, FI, HU, LV, 
PL, SE, SI, SK 

Article 8 Long-term resident's EC residence permit 

1. The status as long-term resident shall be permanent, 
subject to Article 9. 

2. Member States shall issue a long-term resident's EC 
residence permit to long-term residents. The permit shall 
be valid at least for five years; it shall, upon application if 
required, be automatically renewable on expiry. 

Art. 11 (2). With respect to the provisions of paragraph 1, 
points (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g), the Member State 

12 

AT, BG, ES, 
HR, HU, LT, 

June, 2018 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Directives and relevant provision 

concerned may restrict equal treatment to cases where the 
registered or usual place of residence of the long-term 
resident, or that of family members 

for whom he/she claims benefits, lies within the territory of 
the Member State concerned. 

MS 

No of 
MS not 
transp
osed 

LU, MT, PT, 
RO, SI, SK 

Art. 11 (3). Member States may restrict equal treatment 
with nationals in the following cases: 

13 

(a) Member States may retain restrictions to access to 
employment or self-employed activities in cases where, in 
accordance with existing national or Community legislation, 
these activities are reserved to nationals, EU or EEA 
citizens; 

Art. 11 (3) (b) Member States may require proof of 
appropriate language proficiency for access to education 
and training. Access to university may be subject to the 
fulfilment of specific educational prerequisites. 

Art. 11 (4). Member States may limit equal treatment in 
respect of social assistance and social protection to core 
benefits. 

12 

19 

Art. 11 (5). Member States may decide to grant access to 
additional benefits in the areas referred to in paragraph 1. 

20 

Member States may also decide to grant equal treatment 
with regard to areas not covered in paragraph 1. 

BE, CY, CZ, 
DE, ES, HU, 
LT, LU, LV, PL, 
PT, SI, SK 

AT, BG, EE, 
HR, HU, IT, LT, 
LV, PL, PT, SI, 
SK 

AT, BE, BG, 
CZ, FI, FR, HR, 
HU, IT, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, NL, PT, 
RO, SE, SI, SK 

AT, BE, BG, 
CY, CZ, DE, FI, 
FR, HR, HU, 
LT, LU, MT, NL, 
PL, PT, RO, SE, 
SI, SK 

8 

Phase 7 – Intra-EU mobility phase 

8.1  Main findings 

Mobile third-country nationals and their families overall are facilitated if they wish to 
exercise their right to intra-EU mobility, without needing to acquire entry visa and with 
the possibility to submit their residence or work (Blue card) applications without 
having to leave the European Union (either inside the first or second Member State). 
In comparison, applications by first time applicant under EU directives or equivalent 
national schemes in most cases need to be lodged outside the EU at the time of the 
application.  

Few Member States have provided for additional facilitations to the procedures and 
documentation requirements for mobile third country nationals – these include, for 
example, shorter application processing times, an exemption from need to provide 
proof of sickness insurance, as well as exemptions from integration measures, proof of 
accommodation and labour market tests. Compared to EU citizens, who are subject 
only to a “registration regime”, procedures and application supporting documents 
required by mobile third country nationals are part of a “permit regime”, i.e. the 
Member State has the discretion to decline an application. In terms of rights for family 
members of mobile third country nationals: these are subject to national legislation, 
and very few Member States make any connection with rights in first Member States.  

June, 2018 

103 

 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Short-term mobility, as far as regulated by the current directives is facilitated by the 
fact that only five member states apply any regime for notification and only two for 
authorisation; only two Member States require additional documents in addition to 
residence permit and valid travel documents for short term mobility. 

8.2  Findings per research topic 

Provisions on intra EU-mobility exist in the LTR, the BCD, the SD and the RD339. In 
general, third-country nationals who are in possession of a valid travel document and 
a residence permit or a long-stay visa issued by a Member State applying the 
Schengen acquis in full, are allowed to enter into and move freely within the 
territory of the Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full, for a period up to 
90 days in any 180 days period. This applies to all Schengen states – but those 
countries which are not applying the Schengen acquis in full can also recognise these 
permits and long-stay visas as equivalent to their national visas340.  

The analysis below assesses the specific procedures, conditions and rights linked to 
the movement of third-country nationals and their family members between EU 
Member States, in particular for the purpose for pursuing work or studies, and 
establishing short or longer term residence. Beyond assessing the practical application 
of the Directives, this section also examines how the procedures and conditions for the 
mobility of third-country nationals under EU Directives permits compare to the 
mobility under national schemes or mobile EU citizens.  

This section addresses three aspects: 

  The procedures and rules for intra-EU mobility of third-country nationals from 

the point of view of the accepting, i.e. ‘second’, Member State.  

  The procedures, conditions, and rights linked to the mobility of the third-

country national family members. 

  The specifics around short-term mobility.  

8.2.1  Research topic 7.1: Conditions and procedures for intra-EU mobility (in 

the second Member State) 

Q7(a) (i). If a third-country national wants to move from a first 
Member State, in which s/he holds a residence permit, to your 
Member State, do the conditions and procedures listed in the table 
below in your member state differ for this ‘mobile’ third-country 
national compared to those for applicants who are applying for the 
first time? 

This section aims to examine if there are any facilitating or additional conditions that 
mobile third-country nationals needs to fulfil. The tables below compare the conditions 
and documents required that mobile third-country nationals need in comparison to: 
(1) first time applicants under EU directives permits (2) first time applicants under 
equivalent national schemes, and (3) mobile EU citizens.  

Many of differences between mobile third-country nationals and first time applicants 
stem naturally from the intra-EU mobility directives:  

In the BCD, the key differences between procedures for mobile third-country nationals 
and first time applicants stem from Art. 18(1-3). Art. 18 allows Blue Card holders, 
after 18 months of legal residence in the first Member State, to move to another 
Member State for the purpose of highly qualified employment. They can enter and 
reside in a second Member State for up to 30 days without a visa or permit, during 
which period they need to submit their application for a Blue Card while inside the 

339 They also exist in the ICT and the S&RD, but these are not covered by Task II 
340 Decision No 565/2014/EU 

June, 2018 

104 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

second Member State. They may also submit their application from the first Member 
State.  

Art. 8 of the SD lays down the conditions for a third-country nationals who have 
already been admitted as a student and applies to follow in another Member State 
part of the studies already commenced. Such a student needs to fulfil all the 
conditions to which first time applicant student is subject in Art. 6 and Art. 7 of the 
SD, or to complement them with a related course of study in another Member State, if 
the student participates in a bilateral exchange programme or has been admitted as a 
student in a Member State for no less than two years.  

Art. 13 of the RD allows third-country national who have been admitted as 
researchers under the RD to carry out part of their research in another Member State. 
Art. 13.2 allows the researcher to stays in another Member State for a period of up to 
three months, on the basis of the hosting agreement concluded in the first Member 
State. Art. 13.5 also allows for in-country applications. 

Art. 14 of the LTR provides long-term resident with the right to move to another 
Member State under certain conditions. Art. 15 is where, the conditions for intra EU 
mobility are listed, and where most of the conformity issues and differences with first 
time applicants arise. According to art. 15.1 long term residents may enter the 
territory of another Member State for up to three months without a visa, and may 
submit while in the second Member State their application for a residence permit. Art. 
15.2 of the LTRD regarding the evidence of stable and regular income and sickness 
insurance as well as Art.15.4 regarding the documentary evidence needed to show 
that the conditions for intra-EU mobility are met are where most conformity issues 
arise. 

Table 16.  Do the conditions and procedures for admission in a second Member State 

differ for ‘mobile’ TCNs compared those for a first time applicant third-
country nationals under EU Directives 

Blue Card 
Directive 
(2009/5
0/EC) 

Family 
Reunificati
on 
Directive 
(2003/86
/EC) 

Students 
Directive 
(2004/114
/EC) 

Researcher
s Directive 
(2005/71/
EC) 

Procedures 
and 
conditions 
to request 
a residence 
permit 

Yes 

No 

AT, BG, 
CZ, DE, 
EE, EL, FI, 
IT, LV, 
MT, NL, 
PT, RO, 
SK,  

BE, ES, 
HR, HU, 
LT, LU, PL, 
SE, SI, 

DE, EE, FI, 
LT, LV, NL, 
SK,  

BG, DE, EE, 
FI, IT, LU, 
LV, MT, NL, 

BG, DE, EE, 
FI, IT, LU, 
LV, NL, PL, 
RO, SK, 

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, EL, ES, 
HR, HU, IT, 
LU, MT, PL, 
PT, RO, SE, 
SI, 

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, EL, ES, 
HR, HU, LT, 
PL, PT, RO, 
SE, SI, SK, 

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, EL, ES, 
HR, HU, LT, 
MT, PT, SE, 
SI, 

Long-term 
residents 
Directive 
(2003/10
9/EC) 

AT, BE, BG, 
CZ, DE, EE, 
ES, FI, IT, 
LT, LV, MT, 
NL, PL, PT, 
SE, SK, 

CY, EL, HR, 
HU, LU, RO, 
SI, 

N/A  CY, 

BG, 

Procedures 
and 
conditions 
to request 

Yes 

BG, EE, 
EL, IT, 
MT, NL, 
RO, SE 

NL, SK, 

LU, NL, 

DE, EE, IT, 
LU, NL, 

BE, BG, DE, 
ES, IT, NL, 
SE, SK 

June, 2018 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

a work 
permit 

Documenta
tion 
requiremen
ts to prove 
residence 

Other 
different 
conditions 
/ 
procedures 

Blue Card 
Directive 
(2009/5
0/EC) 

Family 
Reunificati
on 
Directive 
(2003/86
/EC) 

Students 
Directive 
(2004/114
/EC) 

Researcher
s Directive 
(2005/71/
EC) 

AT, BE, 
CZ, DE, 
ES, HR, 
HU, LT, 
LU, LV, 
PL, PT, SI, 
SK, 

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, 
EL, ES, HR, 
HU, IT, LT, 
LU, LV, MT, 
PL, PT, RO, 
SE, SI, 

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, 
EL, ES, HR, 
HU, LT, LU, 
LV, PL, PT, 
RO, SE, SI, 
SK, 

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, EL, ES, 
HR, HU, LT, 
LU, LV, MT, 
PL, PT, RO, 
SE, SI, SK, 

Long-term 
residents 
Directive 
(2003/10
9/EC) 

AT, CY, CZ, 
EE, EL, HR, 
HU, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, PL, 
PT, RO, SI, 

CY, FI, 

BG, FI, 

BG, FI, IT, 
MT, 

BG, FI, 

FI, 

AT, BE, 
BG, EL, FI, 
SI, SK, 

CZ, DE, 
EE, ES, 
HR, HU, 
IT, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, 
NL, PL, 
PT, RO, 
SE, 

FI, IT, SK,  FI, SI, 

FI, SI,  

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, 
EL, ES, HR, 
HU, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, NL, 
PL, PT, RO, 
SE, SI, 

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, 
EL, ES, HR, 
HU, IT, LT, 
LU, LV, MT, 
NL, PL, PT, 
RO, SE, SK, 

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, 
EL, ES, HR, 
HU, IT, LT, 
LU, LV, MT, 
NL, PL, PT, 
RO, SE, SK, 

BE, ES, FI, 
LT, NL, SI, 
SK, 

AT, CY, CZ, 
DE, EE, EL, 
HR, HU, IT, 
LU, LV, MT, 
PL, PT, RO, 
SE, 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

No 

BG, 

BG, 

BG, 

BG, 

CY, 

N/A 

Yes 

BE, CZ, 
LV, MT, 
RO, SK, 

BE, LV, RO, 
SK, 

BE, LV, 

BE, FI, LV, 
RO, 

No 

AT, DE, 
EE, EL, 
ES, FI, 
HR, HU, 
IT, LT, NL, 
PT, SI, 

AT, CY, CZ, 
DE, EE, EL, 
ES, FI, HR, 
HU, IT, LT, 
MT, NL, PT, 
SI, 

AT, CY, CZ, 
DE, EE, EL, 
ES, FI, HR, 
HU, IT, LT, 
MT, NL, PT, 
RO, SI, SK, 

AT, CY, CZ, 
DE, EE, EL, 
ES, HR, HU, 
IT, LT, MT, 
NL, PT, SI, 
SK, 

BE, CZ, ES, 
LV, NL, RO, 
SK, 

AT, CY, DE, 
EE, EL, FI, 
HR, HU, IT, 
LT, MT, PT, 
SI, 

N/A 

BG, CY, 
LU, PL, 

BG, LU, PL,  BG, LU, PL,  BG, LU, PL,  BG, LU, PL, 

8.2.1.1  Mobile third-country nationals versus first time applicants under EU 

Directives 

Overall, with regard to work permits, procedurally the majority of Member States 
apply the same procedure for intra-EU mobility as for first time applicants. For 
residence permits this is less pronounced, and the procedures are much facilitated. In 
terms of the documents needed, again, in the majority of Member States there is no 
difference between first time applicants and mobile third-country nationals.  

June, 2018 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Regarding the BCD, the referred to in the table above, are linked only to Art. 18.1 and 
18.2. In terms of proof of residence, six Member States341 require such evidence: they 
may include copy of previous Blue Card or residence permit (BE, SI) or only evidence 
of local residence in case when applying from within the second Member State (FI). 

As regards the SD, mobile third-country students who can prove that the studies in 
the second Member State are either complementary to those in the first Member State 
or are part of an exchange programme, do not need a long-term visa to enter the 
second Member State in five cases342 and are entitled to a residence permit for which 
they may apply from within the Member State in six others343. Mobile third-country 
students in three Member States have to show that they are pursuing studies / or hold 
residence permits of a minimum duration of 2 years in the first Member State344. 
Another difference relates to health coverage: in Finland, for instance, mobile third-
country nationals who are covered by the European Health Insurance Card and/or 
those with long-term EU residence permit from the first Member State, do not need 
show proof of health insurance. Some Member States require proof of a previously 
held residence permit from the first Member State (LU, SI).   

In the case of the RD, again, mobile third-country nationals can enter some second 
Member States without acquiring a long-term visa345, and it is possible to apply for a 
residence permit from within the country346. In Italy for short stay (up to 3 months) 
rather than the authorisation to work, the third-country national must submit a 
communication to the local responsible authority (“Prefettura”) within 8 days from 
entry; attached to this communication the TCN must submit a copy of the hosting 
agreement signed with the hosting institution in the first Member State; this hosting 
agreement must include information on the research period in Italy, availability of 
resources, and a sickness insurance valid during his/her stay in Italy. In addition to 
this the third-country national must attach a declaration from the hosting institution in 
Italy.  

Regarding the LRT, mobile third-country long-term residents in some Member States 
are required to submit additional documents in comparison to first time applicants in 
order to obtain residence or work permit. These can include medical certificate / 
insurance (BE,MT); criminal record (BE, SK347); evidence of sufficient means (BE, MT); 
a certificate issued by the educational institution in first Member State (BG, MT); 
evidence of accommodation (MT); language test score (MT); and residence permit 
from first Member State (NL SI).  

In other Member States, mobile third-country nationals are exempted from certain 
requirements that first time applicants need to meet, such as exemption from 
integration conditions (language, culture) if already met in first Member State (NL); 
exemption from permit procedure if evidence of sufficient means is presented (NL). 
Another facilitation factor mentioned is Shorter processing time for application (CZ, 
PT). In Portugal, there is an entirely different residence permit scheme for EU LTRs. 

In terms of work permits mobile third-country nationals may also face additional 
requirements, such as: consent of the labour market institutions (AT, DE); evidence of 
job offer / contract (SK); previous work permit (BG, MT). Facilitations, on the other 
hand conditions include: the possibility for the third-country national, as opposed to 
only the employer, to apply for the work permit (NL); shorter-term work permits 

341 BE, CZ, LV, MT, RO, SK, 
342 DE, IT, NL, LU, MT 
343 BE, BG, DE, EE, FI, LT 
344 IT, LU, MT 
345 DE, IT, NL, RO 
346 BE, DE, EE, FI, LT, SK 
347 This requirement is at the discretion of Slovak authorities, and is not mandatory.  

June, 2018 

107 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

(NL)348; exemption from the work permit requirement if employed for previous 12 
months under work permit B (BE); exemption from labour market test (BE349, EE); 
exemption from meeting salary thresholds (EE). 

Box 13 Evidence from the OPC 

Based on the results of the Open Public Consultation, 68% (n=123)350 of Profile 2 respondents 
did not encounter any problems in getting a residence permit in a second Member 
State.  

8.2.1.2  Mobile third-country nationals versus first time applicants under 

National equivalent schemes 

Table 17 below shows that only for national long-term residence permits, Member 
States have different procedures and conditions between mobile third-country 
nationals and first time applicants under national schemes.  

In Slovenia, for instance, the general procedures and conditions for mobile EU third-
country nationals and first time applicants are the same, but the national law sets up a 
special procedure for two groups, both consisting of nationals of the former Socialist 
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), which may obtain permanent resident status 
under the Act Regulating the Legal Status of Citizens of Former Yugoslavia Living in 
the Republic of Slovenia. This act was adopted to provide a regularisation opportunity 
to certain categories of citizens after the fall of SFRY. They did not have to meet any 
of the conditions set out in the Aliens Act, meaning that a parallel system was 
introduced. The only conditions that they have to satisfy is that they fall in one of the 
two categories of “erased” persons” or “de facto residents” and that they continued to 
de facto reside in Slovenia, without interruptions.  

In Latvia, mobile long-term resident third-country nationals can apply for residence 
permit from within the country and without a criminal record check, unlike first time 
applicants under national schemes.  

In Germany, one difference with first time applicants under the national equivalent 
scheme, is that absence periods under previous EU LTR permits are taken into account 
when considering the residence permit application 

Table 17.  Do Conditions and Procedures in a second Member State differ for ‘mobile’ 
third-country nationals compared to those for a first time applicant under 
National equivalent schemes351 

National 
equivalent 
to Blue 
Card 
Directive 
(2009/50/
EC) 

National 
equivalent to 
Students 
Directive 
(2004/114/EC
) 

National 
equivalent to 
Researchers 
Directive 
(2005/71/EC) 

Procedure  

National 
equivalent to 
Long-term 
residents 
Directive 
(2003/109/E
C) 

DE, LV, SI 

s
e
Y

348 TCNs only need a work permit for the first 12 months whilst other TCNs are required to have a work permit 
for 5 years 
349 Only if in labour shortage profession 
350 Country of residence: AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IT, LU, LV, PL, PT, LU, MT, NL, NO, SE, SL, 
UK 
351 Member States that do not have a national equivalent scheme are marked N/A. 

June, 2018 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

National 
equivalent 
to Blue 
Card 
Directive 
(2009/50/
EC) 

AT, BE, DE, 
EE, ES, FI, 
IT, LT, MT, 
NL, PT, SE, 

BG, CY, CZ, 
EL, HR, HU, 
LU, LV, PL, 
RO, SI, SK, 

s and 
conditions 
to request 
a 
residence 
permit 

Procedure
s and 
conditions 
to request 
a work 
permit 

AT, BE, DE, 
ES, EE, IT, 
LT, MT, NL, 
PT, SE, 

National 
equivalent to 
Students 
Directive 
(2004/114/EC
) 

National 
equivalent to 
Researchers 
Directive 
(2005/71/EC) 

AT, CZ, ES, PT,   AT, ES, FI, IT, 

PT, 

National 
equivalent to 
Long-term 
residents 
Directive 
(2003/109/E
C) 

AT, BE, ES, FI, 
HR, HU*, LT, 
NL, PT, 

BE, BG, CY, DE, 
EE, EL, FI, HR, 
HU, IT, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, NL, PL, 
RO, SE, SI, SK, 

BE, BG, CY, CZ, 
DE, EE, EL, HR, 
HU, LT, LU, LV, 
MT, NL, PL, RO, 
SE, SI, SK, 

BG, CY, CZ, 
EE, EL, IT, LU, 
MT, PL, RO, 
SE, SK, 

SI 

AT, CZ, ES, PT,  AT, ES, IT, PT,  AT, BE, DE, 
ES, HR, HU, 
LT, LV, NL, PT, 

BG, CY, CZ, 
EL, FI, HR, 
HU, LU, LV, 
PL, RO, SI, 
SK, 

BE, BG, CY, DE, 
EE, EL, FI, HR, 
HU, IT, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, NL, PL, 
RO, SE, SI, SK, 

BE, BG, CY, CZ, 
DE, EE, EL, FI, 
HR, HU, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, NL, PL, 
RO, SE, SI, SK, 

BG, CY, CZ, 
EE, EL, FI, IT, 
LU, MT, PL, 
RO, SE, SK, 

Document
ation 
requireme
nts to 
prove 
residence 

AT, BE, DE, 
EE, ES, FI, 
IT, LT, MT, 
NL, PT, 

AT, CZ, ES, PT,  AT, ES, FI, IT, 

PT, 

BG, CY, CZ, 
EL, HR, HU, 
LU, LV, PL, 
RO, SE, SI, 
SK, 

BE, BG, CY, DE, 
EE, EL, FI, HR, 
HU, IT, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, NL, PL, 
RO, SE, SI, SK, 

BE, BG, CY, CZ, 
DE, EE, EL, HR, 
HU, LT, LU, LV, 
MT, NL, PL, RO, 
SE, SI, SK, 

Other 
different 
conditions 
/ 
procedure
s 

AT, BE, DE, 
EE, ES, FI, 
IT, LT, MT, 
NL, PT, 

AT, CZ, ES, PT,  AT, ES, FI, IT, 

PT, 

AT, BE, DE, 
ES, FI, HR, HU, 
LT, LV, NL, PT, 
SI, 

BG, CY, CZ, 
EE, EL, IT, LU, 
MT, PL, RO, 
SE, SK, 

LV 

AT, BE, DE, 
ES, FI, HR, HU, 
LT, NL, PT, 

BG, CY, CZ, 
EL, HR, HU, 
LU, LV, PL, 
RO, SE, SI, 
SK, 

BE, BG, CY, DE, 
EE, EL, FI, HR, 
HU, IT, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, NL, PL, 
RO, SE, SI, SK, 

BE, BG, CY, CZ, 
DE, EE, EL, HR, 
HU, LT, LU, LV, 
MT, NL, PL, RO, 
SE, SI, SK, 

BG, CY, CZ, 
EE, EL, IT, LU, 
MT, PL, RO, 
SE, SI, SK, 

o
N

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

o
N

e
m
e
h
c
s

e
m
e
h
c
s

e
Y

s

o
N

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n

o
N

e
m
e
h
c
s

e
m
e
h
c
s

June, 2018 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Q7(a) (ii). Do the conditions and procedures in your Member State 
differ for mobile third-country nationals and mobile EU citizens who 
want to move from a first Member State to your Member State? Please 
identify whether there are any specific categories of third-country 
nationals (e.g. under the directives or national equivalent statuses) 
which are treated the same way as mobile EU citizens when moving to 
another Member State, and identify those that are not, describing the 
differences. 

None of the Member States reported any provisions concerning any category of third-
country nationals under which they can move to a second Member State under the 
same rules as EU citizens. Generally, beyond the 90 day period, all third-country 
nationals need to satisfy conditions to obtain a residence or work permits. EU citizens, 
on the other hand, do not need to apply either for residence or work permit, as in 
Member States they simply register with competent local or national authorities. EU 
citizens need to provide sufficient resources after 3 months of stay.  

8.2.2  Research topic 7.2: Movement and rights of family members 

Q7(a) (v). Are dependent family members of mobile third-country 
nationals allowed to move from a first Member State to your Member 
State? 

The right of mobile third-country national family members to move is guaranteed in 
Art. 16 of the LTR and provides for the right of LTR family members to move 
whenever the long-term resident to exercise their right to move to another Member 
State. The LTR sets up a number of additional conditions in Art. 16, such as the need 
by the family to be constituted in the first Member State, as otherwise the family 
would be reunited under the FRD.  Art. 16 also allows Member States to require from 
family members to provide, along with their application, (a) their long-term resident's 
EC residence permit or residence permit and a valid travel document or their certified 
copies; (b) evidence that they have resided as members of the family of the long-term 
resident in the first Member State (c) evidence of sufficient income to maintain 
themselves (d) sickness insurance. 

Art. 18 of the BCD provides for the right of family members to move along with the 
Blue Card holder after the 18th month of legal residence in the first Member State. The 
specific requirements and conditions that Member States may requires are articulated 
in Art. 19 of the BCD (residence permit in the first Member State and a valid travel 
document; evidence that they have resided as members of the family of the EU Blue 
Card holder; evidence of sickness insurance; evidence of available accommodation or 
sufficient funds).  

All Member States conform to the general provisions of Art. 16.1 of LTR and Art. 18 of 
BCD and the vast majority of Member States also grant this right to family members 
of mobile third-country nationals as part of the other statuses.  

The SD, RD, SPD and FRD do not contain any specific provisions concerning the 
intra-EU mobility of family members, and the issue was left to national legislation. The 
S&RD (Ar. 27) has now filled the gap for family members of mobile third country 
national researchers.   

In cases where the family has been constituted after the third country national has 
moved to the second Member State or still resides in a third country when applying to 
join the mobile third country national, the LTR (Art.16.5) refers to the Family 
Reunification Directive (FRD). The FRD therefore covered all cases, where the mobile 
third country national has moved to a second Member State and has acquired a 
residence permit there.  

The only Member State that had an exceptional approach was Czech Republic, where 
family members of third-country nationals, who have student or researcher status, 

June, 2018 

110 

 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

could join a third country national in the Czech Republic, only if the sponsoring third 
country national is undertaking studies or research in the Czech Republic for a period 
of minimum of 15 months and that the spouses are over 20 years of age.   

Table 18.  Are dependent family members of mobile TCNs allowed to move from a one 

Member States to a second Member States? 

EU legal migration Directives 

National equivalent statuses 

BCD 

FRD 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

NA352 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

SD 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

RD 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

NA 

Yes 

NA 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

LTR 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

NA 

Yes 

Yes 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

BDC 
national 

SD 
nationa
l 

RD 
nationa
l 

LTR 
national 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Yes 

Yes 

NA 

No 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

Yes 

No 

NA 

NA 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

No 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Yes 

Yes 

NA 

Yes 

NA 

Yes 

NA 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

No 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Total - 
Yes 

23 

Total - 
No 

0 

22 

17 

21 

23 

9 

3 

4 

10 

2 

5 

3 

0 

3 

1 

1 

2 

352 The law allows it but as there are no Blue Cards issued, the practical applicability cannot be assessed.  

June, 2018 

111 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Q7(a) (i). If a third-country national wants to move from a first 
Member State, in which s/he holds a residence permit, to your 
Member State, do the conditions and procedures in your Member State 
differ for this ‘mobile’ third-country national compared to those for 
applicants who are applying for the first time under EU directives? 
(Rights of family members) 

As regards the procedures and conditions concerning (Table 19 below) the 
mobility of family members of third-country nationals, one key difference is that family 
members of Blue Card holders can enter a second Member State without an entry 
visa353. The following facilitated conditions are provided to family members of mobile 
Blue Card holders in comparison to first time applicants: 

  Reduced processing times (BE, FI) 
  Possibility to prove family ties only with previous permit (BG) 
  In-country applications (EE, FI, SK) 
  Exemption from housing condition (BE) 
  Access to labour market (NL, SK) 
  No need for long-stay visa (DE, NL) 

For family members of mobile long-term residents, only the Netherlands provides 
facilitations, such as exemption from an integration examination and possibility to 
obtain a work permit for the first 12 months of their stay. 

The only country which differentiates between the family members of mobile third-
country nationals and first time applicants under equivalent national status is the 
Netherlands, where family members of mobile LTR third-country nationals or of mobile 
EU Blue Card holders do not need the long-stay visa to travel to the Netherlands on 
the condition that they have lived together with the sponsor in the first Member State, 
and can travel to the Netherlands directly. 

Table 19.  Extent to which conditions and procedures differ between ‘mobile’ third-
country national compared to first-time applicants under EU directives? 
(Rights of family members) 

Blue Card 
Directive 
(2009/50/EC) 

AT, BE, BG, EE, 
EL, FI, HU, NL, 
SK, 

CZ, DE, ES, HR, 
IT, LT, LU, LV, 
MT, PL, PT, RO, 
SE, SI, 

Yes 

No 

Family 
Reunificatio
n Directive 
(2003/86/
EC) 

HU, NL, RO, 
SE, SK, 

Students 
Directive 
(2004/114
/EC) 

Researcher
s Directive 
(2005/71/
EC) 

Long-term 
residents 
Directive 
(2003/109/E
C) 

HU, NL, SK,  HU, NL, SK,  BE, CZ, ES, HU, 

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, 
EL, ES, FI, 
HR, IT, LT, 
LU, LV, MT, 
PL, PT, SI, 

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, 
EL, ES, FI, 
HR, IT, LT, 
LU, LV, PL, 
PT, RO, SE, 
SI, 

AT, BE, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, 
EL, ES, FI, 
HR, IT, LT, 
LU, LV, MT, 
PL, PT, RO, 
SE, SI, 

NL, SI, SK,  

AT, CY, DE, EE, 
EL, FI, HR, IT, 
LT, LU, LV, MT, 
PL, PT, RO, 

N/A  CY, 

BG, 

BG, MT, 

BG, 

BG, SE, 

353 AT, BE, EE, FI, NL, SK 

June, 2018 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Q7(a) (vi). Do dependent family members of mobile third-country 
nationals who are allowed to move from a first Member State to your 
Member State (if your answer to the question q7(v) above is Yes), 
maintain the same rights as in the first Member State? 

Dependent family members of third-country nationals who are allowed to move from a 
first Member State to a second Member State, generally do not automatically maintain 
the same rights they had in the first Member State. Member States bestow rights to 
family members in accordance with their own national legislation. If they held a right 
in the first Member State that is not part of legislation of the second Member State, 
then it is not transferred. Therefore, the rights are the same as the ones of provided 
to family members that joined under conditions of the FRD.  

The type of rights that family member may have immediate access to include:  

  Right to the labour market, including self-employment (CY, ES, LU, PT, IT) 
  Right to education (CY, IT) 
  Right to vocational training (CY, IT) 
  Access to social services (IT) 
  Access to health insurance (if ensured in first Member State) (CZ, PT) 
  Immediate access to labour market for family member of mobile third country 

national (CZ) 

Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands and Malta grant the same rights as in the first 
Member State under all EU statuses, whereas Lithuania grants these for the BCD, FRD 
and LTR 

8.2.3  Research topic 7.3: Short-term mobility 

Q7 (d) (i). How does your Member State ensure short-term mobility of 
third-country nationals (e.g. work, travel, study, exchange, holidays) 
in practice? 

Generally, Art 21 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, 
stipulates that third-country nationals who hold valid residence permits issued by one 
of Member States may, on the basis of that permit and a valid travel document, move 
freely for up to three months within the territories of other Member States. Art. 22 
further leaves at the discretion of Member States to oblige third-country nationals to 
report their presence either at the border or within three days of their arrival.  

The BCD does not specifically provide rules on short-term mobility. Art. 18.2 makes it 
mandatory for Blue Card holders to apply within 1 month for a Blue Card in the second 
Member States.  

Mobility of students is subject to Art. 8 of the SD, but it does not differentiate between 
long or short term mobility. Art. 13 of the RD arranges for the short term mobility of 
researchers, stipulating that for a period of up to three months, the research may be 
carried out on the basis of the hosting agreement concluded in the first Member State, 
provided that he has sufficient resources in the other Member State and is not 
considered as a threat to public policy, public security or public health in the second 
Member. 

The ICT and S&RD provide for short term and long term mobility – which are both 
seen as temporary movements. Art. 21 of ICTD defines short-term mobility as a 
period of up to 90 days in any 180-day period per Member State, and provides detail 
on the notification. While Art. 28 of the S&RD stipulates rules for the short-term 
mobility of researchers, defining it as 180 days in any 360-day period.  

The section below examines three aspects of short term mobility: 

  The need for notification by mobile TCNs 
  The need for authorisation  

June, 2018 

113 

 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

  The documents needed to exercise the right for short-term mobility. 

Five Member States require some type of notification, as presented in Table 20 below. 

Table 20.  Member States requiring notification in case of short-term mobility 

MS  Authority notified  Time 

Scope / additional conditions 

CZ 

Czech Foreign Police  3 days after 

All third-country nationals 

the arrival 

IT 

Questura 

Single Desk for 
Immigration of local 
Prefettura 

8 working days 
from their 
entry  

LU 

RO 

Border police 

SI 

Police 

Employment Service 
of Slovenia 

3 days of 
arrival 

Upon arrival at 
border  

3 days of 
arrival 

Prior to arrival 

If staying in hotel, hostel or guesthouse, 
this obligation is fulfilled automatically 
by the accommodation provider. 

All third-country nationals 

Researchers should submit copy of the 
hosting agreement signed with the 
institution in the first Member State and 
a declaration from the institution in the 
second Member State. 

All third-country nationals 

All third-country nationals 

All third-country nationals shall be 
reported to the police by either a 
landlord or by a host or in person. 

Third-country nationals for employment 
except researchers under RD.  

Regarding the need for authorisation for TCNs for short term mobility, only two 
Member States have such provisions in their legislation. The Czech Republic requires a 
work permit, if the short term visit of a Blue Card Holder is with an employment 
purpose. The permit needs to be obtained in advance by the Czech Labour Office. In 
Greece, third-country nationals need authorisation granted by the Greek Consular 
Authority for short-term mobility.  

Q7 (d) (ii). Is the residence permit a third-country national is holding, 
in addition to valid travel documents sufficient for short term 
mobility? 

Only two Member States require from the mobile third-country nationals additional 
documentation aside from a residence permit and a valid travel documents when it 
comes to short-term mobility. In Sweden, regarding the Students Directive a third-
country national also needs a certificate from the Swedish university and a certificate 
from the university in the home country. The other exception is Slovenia, where 
regarding the Family Reunification Directive if the permits to family members are not 
issued by the State Party to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, 
or if the family members are not citizens of a visa-free country, a visa is required, 
provided that the applicant fulfils requirements for the issuance of a visa (e.g. 
sufficient means of subsistence, health insurance). 

8.3  Main conformity issues and may clauses 

A full overview of the provisions of the EU Directives relevant to all migration phases is 
included in Annex 3 to this report. Table 21 below presents the provisions which most 
Member States (> 5) failed to transpose correctly. The extent to which these have led 
to practical application issues has been described in the section above. 

June, 2018 

114 

 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

No of 
MS 

MS 

8 

EE, ES, LT, 
PL, RO, SE, 
SI, SK 

Table 21.  Overview of most common conformity issues 

Directives and relevant provision 

SD 

Article 8 Mobility of students 

1. Without prejudice to Articles 12(2), 16 and 18(2), a third-
country national who has already been admitted as a student 
and applies to follow in another Member State part of the 
studies already commenced, or to complement them with a 
related course of study in another Member State, shall be 
admitted by the latter Member State within a period that does 
not hamper the pursuit of the relevant studies, whilst leaving 
the competent authorities sufficient time to process the 
application, if he/she: 

(a) meets the conditions laid down by Articles 6 and 7 in 
relation to that Member State; and 

(b) has sent, with his/her application for admission, full 
documentary evidence of his/her academic record and evidence 

that the course he/she wishes to follow genuinely complements 
the one he/she has completed; and 

(c) participates in a Community or bilateral exchange 
programme or has been admitted as a student in a Member 
State for no less than two years. 

2. The requirements referred to in paragraph 1(c), shall not 
apply in the case where the student, in the framework of 
his/her programme of studies, is obliged to attend a part of 
his/her courses in an establishment of another Member State. 

3. The competent authorities of the first Member State shall, at 
the request of the competent authorities of the second Member 
State, provide the appropriate information in relation to the 
stay of the student in the territory of the first Member State. 

BCD 

Art. 18 (4) In accordance with the procedures set out in Article 
11, the second Member State shall process the application and 
inform in writing the applicant and the first Member State of its 
decision to either:  

5 

CY, DE, EE, 
LU, PL 

(a) issue an EU Blue Card and allow the applicant to reside on 
its territory for highly qualified employment where the 
conditions set in this Article are fulfilled and under the 
conditions set out in Articles 7 to 14; or  

(b) refuse to issue an EU Blue Card and oblige the applicant and 
his family members, in accordance with the procedures 
provided for by national law, including removal procedures, to 
leave its territory where the conditions set out in this Article are 
not fulfilled. The first Member State shall immediately readmit 
without formalities the EU Blue Card holder and his family 
members. This shall also apply if the EU Blue Card issued by the 
first Member State has expired or has been withdrawn during 
the examination of the application. Article 13 shall apply after 

June, 2018 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Directives and relevant provision 

No of 
MS 

MS 

readmission.  

LTR 

Art. 15(4) The application shall be accompanied by 
documentary evidence, to be determined by national law, that 
the persons concerned meets the relevant conditions, as well as 
by their long-term resident permit and a valid travel document 
or their certified copies. 

8 

EL,FI,LU,LV
, 
MT,PT, RO, 
SE 

The evidence referred to in the first subparagraph may also 
include documentation with regard to appropriate 
accommodation. 

In particular: 

(a) in case of exercise of an economic activity the second 
Member State may require the persons concerned to provide 
evidence: 

(i) if they are in an employed capacity, that they have an 
employment contract, a statement by the employer that they 
are hired or a proposal for an employment contract, under the 
conditions provided for by national legislation. Member States 
shall determine which of the said forms of evidence is required; 

(ii) if they are in a self-employed capacity, that they have the 
appropriate funds which are needed, in accordance with 
national law, to exercise an economic activity in such capacity, 
presenting the necessary documents and permits; 

(b) in case of study or vocational training the second Member 
State may require the persons concerned to provide evidence of 
enrolment in an accredited establishment in order to pursue 
studies or vocational training. 

Table 22 presents an overview of the may clauses relevant to Migration Phase 7 and 
the Member States which did not transpose these.  

Table 22.  Overview of most common conformity issues 

Directives and relevant provision 

RD 

Art. 13 (3) If the researcher stays in another Member State 
for more than three months, Member States may require a 
new hosting agreement to carry out the research in that 
Member State. At all events, the conditions set out in Articles 
6 and 7 shall be met in relation to the Member State 
concerned. 

BCD 

MS 

No MS 
not 
transp
osed 

5 

AT,LT,LV,PL,P
T 

Art. 18 (3) The application may also be presented to the 
competent authorities of the second Member State while the 
EU Blue Card holder is still residing in the territory of the first 

7 

BG,DE,LT,PL,P
T,RO,SK 

June, 2018 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Directives and relevant provision 

MS 

No MS 
not 
transp
osed 

Member State.  

Art. 18 (5) If the EU Blue Card issued by the first Member 
State expires during the procedure, Member States may 
issue, if required by national law, national temporary 
residence permits, or equivalent authorisations, allowing the 
applicant to continue to stay legally on its territory until a 
decision on the application has been taken by the competent 
authorities. 

Art. 18 (6) The applicant and/or his employer may be held 
responsible for the costs related to the return and 
readmission of the EU Blue Card holder and his family 
members, including costs incurred by public funds, where 
applicable, pursuant to paragraph 4(b).  

Art 18 (7) In application of this Article, Member States may 
continue to apply volumes of admission as referred to in 
Article 6. 8. From the second time that an EU Blue Card 
holder, and where applicable, his family members, makes use 
of the possibility to move to another Member State under the 
terms of this Chapter, ‘first Member State’ shall be 
understood as the Member States from where the person 
concerned moves and ‘second Member State’ as the Member 
State to which he is applying to reside. 

6 

7 

15 

BE,IT,LT,PT,R
O,SE 

BG,CZ,DE,ES,
LT,LU,SI 

AT,BE,CZ,DE,
FI,HU,IT,LT,L
U,lV,NL,PT,SE
,SI,SK 

LTR 

Art. 14 (3) In cases of an economic activity in an employed 
or self-employed capacity referred to in paragraph 2(a), 
Member States may examine the situation of their labour 
market and apply their national procedures regarding the 
requirements for, respectively, filling a vacancy, or for 
exercising such activities. For reasons of labour market 
policy, Member States may give preference to Union citizens, 
to third-country nationals, when provided for by Community 
legislation, as well as to third country nationals who reside 
legally and receive unemployment benefits in the Member 
State concerned. 

10 

AT,BE,BG,EE,
ES,HU,LT,LU,l
V,PL,SE 

Art. 14 (5) This chapter does not concern the residence of 
long-term residents in the territory of the Member States: 

10 

(a) as employed workers posted by a service provider for the 
purposes of cross-border provision of services; 

(b) as providers of cross-border services. Member States may 
decide, in accordance with national law, the conditions under 
which long-term residents who wish to move to a second 
Member State with a view to exercising an economic activity 
as seasonal workers may reside in that Member State. Cross-
border workers may also be subject to specific provisions of 
national law. 

AT,CZ,FI,IT,L
T,LU,NL,PT,R
O,SK 

Art. 15 (3). Member States may require third-country 
nationals to comply with integration measures, in accordance 
with national law. This condition shall not apply where the 

15 

AT,BE,BG,CY,
CZ,ES,FI,HU,I
T,LT,PL,PT,RP

June, 2018 

117 

 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Directives and relevant provision 

third-country nationals concerned have been required to 
comply with integration conditions in order to be granted 
long-term resident status, in accordance with the provisions 
of Article 5(2). 

No MS 
not 
transp
osed 

MS 

,SI 

9 

Phase 8 – End of legal stay, leaving the EU 

9.1  Main findings 

A main challenge for third-country nationals in this phase is having access to and 
obtaining clear information on the exportability of social security benefits earned 
during their stay in a Member State. While most Member States do have 
arrangements in place and concluded bilateral agreements with third countries on this 
topic, finding information on the scope and modalities of transferring certain social 
security benefits is a challenge. 

Compliance issues were flagged in the transposition and implementation of Article 9(7) 
of the LTR in certain Member States. This Article provides that a third-country national 
who loses the long-term status, or the status is withdrawn but does not lead to a 
removal, should be able to remain in the territory of the Member State concerned if 
s/he fulfils the conditions provided for in national legislation and/or if s/he does not 
constitute a threat to public policy or public security. Five Member States did not 
transpose this Article and three other Member States partially transposed it which may 
lead to legal uncertainty for third-country nationals concerned and potentially to 
removals which are not allowed by EU law. 

The situation of third-country nationals who cannot be removed following a return 
decision is not addressed in a harmonised manner across Member States. Whilst 
certain Member States provide for a specific residence permit in such situations, in 
other Member States, this category of third-country nationals is tolerated with unclear 
rights as to access to basic healthcare, education or access to the labour market. 

9.2  Findings per main research topic 

9.2.1  Topic 8.1: Exploring procedures around leaving the Member State 

Q8(a)(i). Does your Member State have any specific procedures in 
place for third-country nationals who choose to leave the Member 
State? 

Most Member States have established a number of specific procedures or notification 
requirements for third-country nationals choosing to leave their territory.354 These 
procedures are overall the same for all categories of residence permits. They mainly 
entail a requirement for de-registration from the local authorities where the third-
country national was residing, the return of the residence permit and leaving details of 
the country of next residence. These requirements are generally notification 
requirements and their non-compliance is rarely sanctioned.  

De-registration (or notification of departure) from local authorities of residence is a 
requirement in a majority of Member States.355 The moment of de-registration is 
specifically determined in a few Member States. For example, a third-country national 
has to deregister three days before the end of his/her residence in Czech Republic, 

354 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, ES, FI, HU, LU, LT, LV, NL, PL, RO, SE and SI. 
355 AT, BE, CZ, EE, ES, FI, HU, IT, LU, LV, NL, RO, SE and SI 

June, 2018 

118 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

report his/her departure one week before departure in Sweden, and up to eight days 
after departure in Slovenia. Non-compliance with this requirement is sanctioned in the 
Netherlands, where national authorities can impose a fine on third-country nationals. 

Alongside deregistration formalities, third-country nationals also have to return their 
residence permits in certain Member States, as they are considered property of the 
State.356 More specifically, holders of long-term residence permits need to give their 
residence permits when leaving the country in four Member States.357 It is possible to 
return any residence card when already present in the country of origin to the 
consulate of Lithuania. There is no requirement to return the residence permit in 
Finland as the act of deregistration and related information are automatically shared 
with relevant authorities.  

Leaving details of the country of next residence is not a requirement in most Member 
States.358 A few Member States request this information together with the 
deregistration process.359 In Slovenia, holders of a long term residence permit (under 
EU or national schemes) that wish to settle abroad have to notify national authorities 
within 15 days of their new permanent address abroad. 

Seven Member States do not have any specific requirements set up for third-country 
nationals deciding to leave the Member State.360  

9.2.2  Topic 8.2: Examining rights to transfer benefits 

Q8(b)(i). On the basis of the relevant provisions in the Single Permit 
and Blue Card Directives, does your Member State allow third-country 
nationals to export certain social security benefits when leaving for a 
third country? 

Most (24) Member States allow third-country nationals to export certain social security 
benefits when leaving for a third country.361 The exportability of pension benefits is 
generally foreseen in national legislation or bilateral agreements with third-
countries.362 Invalidity or sickness benefits, and parental benefits can also be 
transferred in some cases. Unemployment benefits cannot be exported, unless a 
bilateral agreement with a third country includes it.363 

In some cases, the exportability of social security benefits is only possible if Member 
States have signed a bilateral agreement with the respective third country.364 Where 
this applies, the scope, modalities and procedures for the transfer of the benefits are 
set out in the agreement. In such cases, third-country nationals would usually have to 
apply for a transfer of social security benefits to local authorities in their country of 
origin.365  

In the absence of a bilateral agreement with a third country, the principle of the 
portability of pensions in respect of old age, death or invalidity should apply if it also 
applies to nationals of the Member State.366 This principle is however not fully applied 

356 AT, BG, CZ, LV, LU, NL and SI. 
357 BE, CZ, HU and LT. 
358 It is not a requirement in BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, NL, MT, PL, PT, RO and SE. 
359 AT, EE, FI, LU and SI. 
360 DE, EL, FR, IT, MT, PT and SK. 
361 BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK. 
362 BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, FI, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK. 
363 DE, EE and FR. 
364 BG, CZ, DE, EE, FR, HU, LV, PT, RO, SE and SI. 
365 BG, CZ, EE, HU, LV, PT and SI. 
366 As established by Articles 12(4) of the SPD and Article 3 of Regulation 883/2004. 

June, 2018 

119 

 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

in a number of Member States.367 As an example, recent case law368 in Belgium ruled 
that a bilateral agreement is no longer necessary for the transferability of pensions 
thus ensuring the portability of statutory pensions for all third-country nationals. In 
France, pensions cannot be exported in the absence of a bilateral agreement. In the 
Netherlands, benefits can also be transferred without the existence of a bilateral 
agreement, but only a certain share of the total amount (e.g. receive a pension based 
on a minimum of 50% of the net minimum wage) can be accessed, whereas a social 
security treaty can guarantee access to the full amount.. 

To request a transfer of benefits, third-country nationals may either lodge a request to 
the channels foreseen in bilateral agreements (i.e. either request directly to 
authorities of the Member States369 and/or to authorities designated to manage such 
requests in third-countries370) or lodge a request directly to Member States’ authorities 
where there is no such agreement.371 For example, in Italy, application for 
exportability may be submitted online or via consulates in third-countries. 

Q8(b)(ii). Does your Member State make information on the 
portability of social security rights available? 

With the exception of a few Member States, information provided above on 
exportability of social security benefits is in practice not easily accessible to third-
country nationals372 nor made available by national authorities in a clear manner.373  

Information is generally not published on websites of national authorities responsible 
for migration nor on websites of diplomatic missions abroad,374 and an expert eye 
needs to look for them on websites of the relevant social security agencies375 or 
request them in person or by phone.376  

The language in which this information is available may also be a hampering factor. 
While in the Netherlands, information available on social security agencies is available 
in German, French, Spanish, Polish and Turkish, information available in Czech 
Republic is for example available only in Czech.  

Furthermore, the content of the information published may not be sufficient. Not all 
Member States publish the bilateral agreements signed with third countries.377 Some 
Member States only publish the bilateral agreements – which can be general in nature 
without specifying the administrative procedures to be followed in a clear manner.378  

367 As shown by the transposition of Article 12(4)(e) of the SPD, partial conformity was noted in BG, CZ, DE, 
EL, FR, LV and SI. For example, in CZ, national legislation does not provide explicitly for such principle in its 
national legislation, and in DE and LV this principle can be limited by the scope of bilateral agreements signed 
with third countries. 
368 Court of cassation ruling of 15 December 2014  
369 BE, HR, IT and SK. 
370 IT and NL. 
371 BE, HR, FI, IT, NL, LT and SK. 
372 Information easily available: FI, FR, NL, RO, SI and SK (experiential questions). 
373 Information clear: FI, FR, HR, NL, RO and SK (experiential questions). 
374 With the exception of BE, ES and LT. 
375 BE, BG, CZ, EE, FI, FR, HU, IT, LU, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK. 
376 AT, BE, CZ, EE, ES, FI, HR, HU, IT, LT, NL and SI. 
377 AT, EE and LU do not publish social security bilateral agreements concluded with third countries. 
378 FR, PT and SK publish social security bilateral agreements concluded with third countries on websites of 
national social security authorites or agencies.  

June, 2018 

120 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

9.2.3  Topic 8.3: Identifying procedures around absences from the Member 

State 

Q8(c)(i). How long can a third-country national residing in your 
Member State be absent from the territory before s/he loses the 
residence permit/right?  

The LTR379 and BCD380 contain provisions regulating the period of absences tolerated 
outside the EU before a residence permit is withdrawn. As the other legal migration 
Directives do not contain provisions on this topic, the legislative framework in a 
number of Member States’ does not provide for rules in this area for permits issued 
based on the FRD, SD and RD.381 For example in Slovenia, the sole fact of absence 
from the Member State cannot constitute on its own a revocation or withdrawal of a 
residence permit. In Poland, whilst there is no period of absence set in national 
legislation, a prolonged absence from its territory may indirectly put into question the 
validity and purpose of the residence permit (e.g. whether the third-country national 
continues to work or study in Poland).  

Periods of absences allowed in other Member States are the following: 

  FRD: on average, 7 months of absence are allowed in Member States,382 

ranging from 30 days in Croatia and Greece to up to two years in Finland. 
  SD: on average, 5 months of absence are allowed in Member States, ranging 

from 30 days in Croatia to up to one year in the Netherlands. 

  RD: on average, 7 months of absence are allowed in Member States, ranging 

from one month in Croatia, three months in Cyprus, Spain and Greece to up to 
two years in Finland. 

While the BCD only regulates the period of absence allowed in cases where the 
(former) Blue Card holder has long-term residency status, it does not include 
provisions concerning absences taken before the third-country national has reached 
that point. Not all Member States have regulated this nationally.383 For example, 
Estonia does not take into account periods of absences outside its territory as the 
validity of the residence permit is linked to the purpose and length of the residence 
permit. In other Member States,384 the periods of absences allowed depend on the 
implementation of the BCD. Blue Card holders in Belgium and Germany can be absent 
for 12 consecutive months. In Bulgaria, Spain, Greece and Latvia, Blue Card holders 
can be absent for 12 consecutive months with a total of 18 months within the five 
years period of the validity of the residence permit. In other Member States, absences 
to the country of origin for work and/or studies (e.g. Romania), or for short-term visits 
or holidays (e.g. Finland) are not taken into account.  

Most Member States comply with the provisions set in the LTR regarding the minimum 
period of absences from the EU before a long-term residence permit is withdrawn.385 
According to Article 9(1)(c) of the LTR Directive, holders of a long-term residence 
status will have their status withdrawn in the event of absence from the territory of 

379 Article 9(1) of the LTR stipulates that third-country nationals are now longer entitled to the states in case of 
an absence for a period of 12 consecutive months from the territory of the Member State 
380 Article 16(4) of the BCD states that by way of derogation from Article 9(1)(c) of the LTR, Member States 
shall extend to 24 consecutive months the period of absence from the territory of the Community which is 
allowed to an EC long-term resident holder of a long-term residence permit with the remark referred to in 
Article 17(2) of this Directive and of his family members having been granted the EC long-term resident status. 
381 AT, BG, CZ, EE, FR, HU, LV, MT, PL, SE and SI.  
382 BE, CY, DE, ES, FI, HR, IT, LT, LV, LU, NL, PT, RO, and SK.  
383 AT, CZ, EE, HU, MT, PL, SE and SI.  
384 BE, BG, CY, DE, EL, ES, FI, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PT, RO and SK. In HR however, the absence of 12 
consecutive months concerns absences outside Croatia and not the EU. 
385 With the exception of EE and ES.  

June, 2018 

121 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

the EU longer than 12 consecutive months. A few Member States have allowed for a 
longer period of absence in their legislation, in accordance with the option left in 
Article 9(2) of LTR.386  

Problems with transposition of Article 9(1)(c) of LTR were noted in two Member 
States.387 It is due to a restrictive interpretation of the geographical scope of the 
provision – 12 consecutive months outside the EU and it was transposed as 12 
consecutive months outside the Member State (Croatia).  

The ‘may’ clause of Article 9(2) of LTR – which states that Member States may 
consider absences exceeding 12 consecutive months or for specific or exceptional 
circumstances as not causing a withdrawal of the LTR status – was transposed by 16 
Member States.388 In four Member States specific or exceptional circumstances are not 
clearly specified in national legislation.389 

Figure 9.  Periods of absence allowed by the EU Directives 

Q8(c)(ii). Does your Member State monitor absences from the 
national territory? 

In a number of Member States, absences of third-country nationals from the national 
territory are not monitored.390 For example in Italy, national police authorities do not 
monitor absences from the national territory unless they receive information from 
other authorities. 

In contrast, a monitoring system exists in some Member States.391 Authorities 
involved in the monitoring are either local authorities,392 migration authorities393 or 

386 AT and FI provide for two years of absence, and France provides for three years of absence. 
387 HR and NL and. 
388 AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT and SI. 
389 EE, EL, FR and MT. 
390 AT, CZ, DE, EE, HR, HU, IT, MT, NL, PL, PT and SE. 
391 BE, BG, CY, EL, ES, FI, LT, LU, LV, RO, SI and SK. 
392 BE andLU. 
393 LV, RO and SI. 

June, 2018 

122 

ELHRCYESDEITLTLUNLPTSKBEROFIATBGCZEEFRHULVMTPLSESI30309090180180180180180180180365365730ESBEBGCYCZDEELHRHUITLTLULVMTNLPLPTROSESISKATFIFREE903653653653653653653653653653653653653653653653653653653653657307301080HRBECYELESDEITLTLUPTSKNLATBGCZEEFIFRHULVMTPLROSESI3090909090180180180180180180365HRCYELESDEITLTLUSKPTNLBEFIATBGCZEEFRHULVMTPLROSESI30909090180180180180180183240365730HRCYLTLVPTSKITNLBEBGDEELESROFILUATCZEEFRHUMTPLSESI3090180180180180182240364364364364364364730730Less than 6 monthsMore than 6 months and up to 12 monthsMore than 12 monthsNo established periodFRDLTRSDRDBCD 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

national law enforcement authorities.394 Some Member States collect this information 
systematically,395 either on a daily basis or continuously, whilst in other Member 
States this is done on an ad-hoc basis, for example when third-country nationals 
requests a prolongation of the right to stay or through visits to check whether the 
third-country national is still residing on the territory.396 In the latter, monitoring of 
absences is closely linked to the de-registration process and notification procedures to 
national authorities. 

In a few Member States, information on absences registered in population registers is 
also used for monitoring purposes.397 Other Member States use information systems 
made available to border police to monitor entry and return of third-country nationals 
to their territory.398 

Q8(c)(iii). If a third-country national is considered to have exceeded 
the maximum allowed period of absence from your Member State, 
what documentation is required from him/her to prove that this is not 
correct? 

In most Member States, proof that a third-country national can bring to substantiate 
that he/she has not exceeded the maximum period of absence allowed is not 
regulated in legislation and the principle of freedom of proof prevails. Overall, any 
documentation which may prove the actual presence of the third-country national 
concerned on the territory of the Member State are accepted. This can include: 

  Entry and exit stamps on passports;399 

  Travel tickets;400 

  Any other documents proving that the third-country national was living on the 
territory of the Member State such as house agreement, and utility bills (e.g. 
EL, LU, RO), proof of professional activity (e.g. PT, RO), registration to school 
or university (e.g. PT), but also statements from witnesses (e.g. SI). 

Q8(c)(iv). Does your Member State allow third-country nationals to 
leave the national territory when they are awaiting the delivery or the 
renewal of the permit? 

Most Member States allow for third-country nationals to leave the national territory 
when they are awaiting delivery or the renewal of a residence permit, albeit conditions 
differ greatly between Member States.401  

In certain Member States, third-country nationals only may leave and re-enter the 
national territory during the issuance or renewal of a residence permit if no visa is 
required for (re)entering the Member State. This will depend on the nationality of the 
third-country national and on whether he/she benefits from visa facilitation 
agreements.402 Similarly, in other Member States, third-country nationals may leave 
the territory while waiting for a decision on an application for residence permit as long 
as the initial entry visa is still valid.403 

394 BE, CY, EL, ES and SK. 
395 BG and EL. 
396 FR, LT, LU and SK. 
397 FI, LT and SI. 
398 CY and EL. 
399 CZ, ES, LU, LV, PL, PT and RO. 
400 ES, FI and PL. 
401 CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK. 
402 FI, HR and PL. 
403 BG, CY and IT. 

June, 2018 

123 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Other Member States allow third-country nationals to leave their national territory only 
while waiting for the renewal of a residence permit.404 For example, Germany and 
Portugal consider that third-country nationals waiting for renewal of their residence 
permit are entitled to the same rights as third-country nationals holding a residence 
permit. In Slovakia, however, only third-country nationals applying for the renewal of 
a single permit can leave the territory. In such situations, Member States deliver 
either a specific visa405 or a certificate proving that the application for renewal of a 
residence permit was lodged, which is necessary to re-enter the territory of the 
Member State.406 The validity of these visas or duration of the absence ranges from 
two months (Czech Republic) to up to one year (the Netherlands). 

9.2.4  Topic 8.4: Exploring processes for circular migration 

Q8(d)(i). Does your Member State have measures or a scheme in 
place to allow circular migration? 

Few (seven) Member States have established measures encouraging circular 
migration.407 In some, such measures were adopted to answer the political and 
economic priorities of these Member States, as they are interlinked with the signature 
of wider bilateral agreements in the area of migration management with third 
countries408 or target specific geographical regions (for example neighbouring third-
countries).409 

Measures encouraging circular migration in two Member States are mainly targeted at 
allowing seasonal work in specific sectors such as agriculture and/or tourism.410 
Employment in the Member State is possible for 9 months within a 12 months period 
and the scheme is accompanied by measures encouraging return to the country of 
origin. 

In Poland, based on an employer’s letter of intent, a third-country national (citizens of 
Belarus, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine and Armenia) can apply for an entry visa for work 
purposes or a temporary residence permit. The signature of the employment contract 
will be possible after entry into the country. 

In Sweden, national legislator has merely adopted a commitment to facilitate circular 
migration, via for example facilitating the acquisition of a permanent resident permit 
by labour migrants. 

9.2.5  Topic 8.5: Reviewing the consequences of overstaying 

Q8(e)(i). Please describe the consequences in your Member State in 
case a third-country national deliberately overstays 

In all Member States where a third-country national deliberately overstayed the 
duration of their residence permit, national authorities may start a return procedure 
which entails a period during which voluntary departure is possible, before a forced 

404 CZ, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL, PL, SI and SK. 
405 CZ and NL. 
406 DE, ES, FR, IT, SI and SK. 
407 DE, EL, ES, IT, PL, PT and SE. 
408 ES, FR and PT. 
409 DE, EL and PL. In Germany, this refers to a specific category of third-country nationals: cross-border 
workers that have the option to apply for a cross-border card, issued to third-country nationals residing in a 
country neighbouring Germany. This card allows third-country nationals to enter Germany and to work. In 
Greece, it focuses on the Greek regional and seasonal work context as Greece has concluded agreements 
with Albania and Egypt. In Poland, the regulation which allows circular migration does not specify any 
category of workers or labour market sector but citizenship. Citizens of Armenia, Belarus, Moldova, Russia 
and Ukraine are allowed to work based on an employer’s declaration of intent to entrust a job to a foreigner 
without necessity of obtaining a work permit. 
410 ES and IT. 

June, 2018 

124 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

return procedure is started (as per Article 7 of the Return Directive). Some Member 
States impose an administrative fine or criminal sanction on third-country nationals 
that deliberately overstay (i.e. who do not comply with the voluntary departure 
period).411  

In Portugal, a third-country national maintains a right to stay for up to 6 months after 
the expiry date of the residence permit during which he/she can regularise the 
situation. If, after the expiry of this period, a third-country national did not obtain a 
right to stay, a return procedure is started by national authorities. In Spain, over-
stayers lose their right to work but keep certain basic rights such as access to 
healthcare and education. 

With regard to the RD specifically, most (19) Member States transposed the may 
clause contained in Article 5(3) of the Directive,412 which provides that Member States 
may require “a written undertaking of the research organisation that where a 
researcher remains illegally in the territory of a Member State, it will be responsible 
for reimbursing the costs related to his/her stay and return incurred by public funds”. 
This financial responsibility of the research organisation ends at the latest six months 
after the termination of the hosting agreement. Two application issues were spotted: 
Member States transposed the obligation to require from research organisations a 
written undertaking stating their responsibility in case a researcher remains illegally 
on the territory of the Member State. However, the last part of the provision – on the 
termination of the responsibility of the research organisation, was not transposed, 
which in practice could lead to these organisations being held liable indefinitely.413  

Article 9(7) of LTR provides that where a third-country national loses the long-term 
status or the status is withdrawn but does not lead to a removal, Member States shall 
authorise the person concerned to remain in its territory if he/she fulfils the conditions 
provided for in its national legislation and/or if he/she does not constitute a threat to 
public policy or public security. This provision would appear not to be transposed414 or 
incorrectly transposed415 by seven Member States. Incorrect transposition stems from 
uncertainty around the type of residence permit to be issued in such cases (Malta); no 
definition of threat to public policy or public security in national legislation (Croatia), 
and; the personal scope of third-country nationals benefiting from this measure (only 
refugees granted long-term residence permit in the Netherlands). Incorrect 
transposition could lead to third-country being removed without legal grounds or to 
them being left in a legal limbo. 

9.2.6  Topic 8.6: Examining the procedure for those who cannot be returned 

Q8(f)(i). Which are the procedures in place for third-country nationals 
who lost their right to stay in a Member State and who cannot be 
returned? 

Procedures around third-country nationals who cannot be returned (i.e. persons who 
cannot be returned due to either practical obstacles to enforce their return, such as 
the lack of travel documents, lack of cooperation from the third-country national 
concerned or from his/her country of origin, or based on legal grounds) fall outside EU 
legal migration directives as well as outside the scope of application of the Return 
Directive. Hence, procedures set up by Member States regarding this category of 
third-country nationals vary greatly.  

411 CZ, HR, PL, PT and SK. 
412 BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI and SK. 
413 In EE and EL. 
414 BE, LT,  SI and RO. 
415 HR, MT and NL. 

June, 2018 

125 

 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

A number of Member States do not have specific procedures.416 Third-country 
nationals remain under an irregular status on the territory of the Member States 
concerned for as long as their return is postponed. They are generally tolerated on 
territory of the Member States. In Bulgaria, a third-country national in such situation 
has to appear periodically at the local police unit. A few Member States regulate the 
situation of such third-country nationals by providing specific residence permits, with a 
validity varying from 3 months to a year.417 In the Netherlands, third-country 
nationals in an irregular situation can apply for a temporary residence permit in case 
he/she can demonstrate that departure from the Netherlands is not possible against 
his/her own will. However, such residence permits are rarely issued in practice. Other 
Member States do not provide for residence permits but ‘tolerate’ their stay (e.g. BE, 
RO) and may grant access to the labour market (e.g. MT).  

Where requirements are reunited, third-country nationals who cannot be returned may 
apply for a visa or residence permits for humanitarian or medical reasons.418   

9.3  Main conformity issues and may clauses 

A full overview of the provisions of the EU Directives relevant to all migration phases is 
included in Annex 3 to this report. Table 23 below presents the provisions which most 
Member States (> 5) failed to transpose correctly. The extent to which these have led 
to practical application issues has been described in sections 9.2.3 and 9.2.5 above. 

Table 23.  Overview of most common conformity issues 

Directives and relevant provisions 

N° of MS  MS 

Researchers Directive 

Article 5(3). Member States may require, in accordance with 
national legislation, a written undertaking of the research 
organisation that in cases where a researcher remains illegally in the 
territory of the Member State concerned, the said organisation is 
responsible for reimbursing the costs related to his/her stay and 
return incurred by public funds. The financial responsibility of the 
research organisation shall end at the latest six months after the 
termination of the hosting agreement. 

Long-term residents Directive  

2 

EE and EL 

Article 9(1). Long-term residents shall no longer be entitled to 
maintain long-term resident status in the following cases: […] (c) in 
the event of absence from the territory of the Community for a 
period of 12 consecutive months. 

Article 9(2) By way of derogation from paragraph 1(c), Member 
States may provide that absences exceeding 12 consecutive months 
or for specific or exceptional reasons shall not entail withdrawal or 
loss of status. 

Article 9(7) Where the withdrawal or loss of long-term resident 
status does not lead to removal, the Member State shall authorise 
the person concerned to remain in its territory if he/she fulfils the 
conditions provided for in its national legislation and/or if he/ she 
does not constitute a threat to public policy or public security. 

2 

4 

7 

HR, NL 

EE, EL, FR, 
MT 

BE, HR, LT, 
MT, NL, RO, 
SI 

416 BE, BG, EE, EL, HR, FR, LU, LV and NL.  
417 DE, FI, LT, PL, PT, SE, SI and SK. 
418 CZ, EL, ES, LT and PL. 

June, 2018 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Annex 1 List of interviews 

1.1 List of interviews carried out by national researchers 

Member State  Organisation/authority 

Date of interview  

Austria 

Austria 

Austria 

interviewed  

Telephone contact with visa service hotline 
at the Ministry of Interior, Department 
II/3. 

Telephone and e-mail contakt with various 
district administrative authorities and 
Magistrat Vienna (MA 35).  

Telephone and e-mail contact with Tracing 
Service and Family Reunification, 
Österreichisches Rotes Kreuz, 
Landesverband Salzburg. 

Austria 

Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für 
Wien, Telephone and e-mail contact with, 

Belgium 

Private individual 

Belgium 

Private individual 

Croatia 

Ministry of Interior 

3 March 2017 

9 August 2017 

26 July 2017 

3 July 2017 

7 July 2017 

7 July 2017 

13 July 2017 

Cyprus 

Cyprus 

Cyprus 

Cyprus 

Cyprus 

Immigration Authorities (official name: 
Department of Archives Population and 
Immigration, Ministry of Interior) 

Immigration Authorities (official name: 
Department of Archives Population and 
Immigration, Ministry of Interior) 

13 July 2017 

Immigration Authorities (official name: 
Department of Archives Population and 
Immigration, Ministry of Interior) 

13 July 2017 

Immigration Authorities (official name: 
Department of Archives Population and 
Immigration, Ministry of Interior) 

13 July 2017 

Immigration Authorities (official name: 
Department of Archives Population and 
Immigration, Ministry of Interior) 

11 July 2017 

Estonia 

Police and Border Guard Board 

14.06.2017 and 22.06.2017 

 Germany 

 Foreigners Authority Munich 

 29 May - 30 June (via email) 

 Germany 

Foreigners Authority Constance 

 22 June  

June, 2018 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Member State  Organisation/authority 

Date of interview  

interviewed  

 Greece 

 Greek Council for Refugees 

 2/6/2017 

 Greece 

 HIAS Greece 

 Greece 

 ARSIS 

 30/5/2017 

 8/6/2017 

 Hungary 

 Immigration and Asylum Office 

Phone interviews: Between 15 
May 2017 and 20 June 2017 

Email response: 20 June 2017 

 Hungary 

 Menedék -Hungarian Association for 
Migrants 

 5 June 2017 

 Hungary 

 Hungarian Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria 

 3 June 2017 

Italy 

Italian migration lawyer, member of the 
Italian Association of Legal Migration 
Studies (ASGI) 

Italy 

Italian migration lawyer 

19.05.2017 

10.07.2017 

20.07.2017 

16.05.2017 

13.06.2017 

02.07.2017 

Italy 

Latvia 

Latvia 

Latvia 

Latvia 

Official at the Italian Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs 

NGO Shelter “Safe House” 

14 June 2017 

The Office of Citizenship and Migration 
Affairs 

21 June 2017  

Euroaxess Latvia  

Ministry of Welfare 

30 June 2017 

4 July 2017 

Latvia  

State Labour Inspectorate of Latvia 

31 August 2017 

Luxembourg 

LE GOUVERNEMENT DU GRAND-DUCHÉ DE 
LUXEMBOURG 

Interview in person: 17 May 
2017 

Ministère des Affaires étrangères et 
européennes 

Direction de l‘immigration 

Luxembourg 

LE GOUVERNEMENT DU GRAND-DUCHÉ DE 
LUXEMBOURG 

 Email follow-ups on: 12 July 
2017 and 18 July 2017 

Ministère des Affaires étrangères et 
européennes 

Direction de l‘immigration 

Luxembourg 

Dwellworks  

Poland 

Mazoviecki Voivode Office 

Email contacts on: 6 July 2017 
and 17 July 2017  

questions sent on 07.06.17, 
answered on 07.06.17 

June, 2018 

128 

 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

Member State  Organisation/authority 

Date of interview  

interviewed  

Poland 

Mazoviecki Voivode Office 

Poland 

Podlaski Voivode Office 

Poland 

Lubuski Voivode Office, 

Poland 

Lubelski Voivode Office 

Poland 

Wielkopolski Voivode Office 

Poland 

Labour Office (Warsaw) 

questions sent on 13.06.17, 
answered on 13.06.17 

questions sent on 07.06.17, 
answered on 07.06.17 and 
18.06.17 

questions sent on 07.06.17, 
answered on 18.06.17 

questions sent on 07.06.17, 
answered on 14.06.17 

questions sent on 07.06.17, 
answered on 24.06.17 

questions sent on 29.06.2017, 
answered on 29.06.2017 

Poland 

Poland 

Poland 

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights 

22.06.2017 

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights 

22.06.2017 

Mazoviecki Voivide Office 

 Portugal 

 CNAIM/ACM, I.P. 

Slovenia  

Ministry of the Interior, Internal 
Administrative Affairs, Migration and 
Naturalisation Directorate 

 30th June 2017, 6th July 
2017, 29th August 2017 

19 July 2017 - date of 
reponse; additional 
information provided in written 
on 27 July 2017 

Spain 

Spain 

Progestion /Expert Lawyer on Migration  

14/06/2017 

ADSIS Foundation /Expert Lawyer on 
Migration 

16/06/2017 

Spain 

Expert Independent Lawyer on Migration.   07/06/2017 

Spain 

Comillas Pontifical University/ International 
Coordinator. ICAI School of Engineering. 

12/06/2017 

Spain 

La Rueca Association/ Technical Expert.  

15/06/2017 

Spain 

Ges Document - Immigration Corporate 
Counselling Solutions / Technical Expert. 

08/06/2017 

Sweden 

The Swedish Migration Agency 

August 2017 

Sweden 

Malmö University 

Sweden 

Malmö University 

June-August 

June-August 

June, 2018 

129 

 
 
 
  
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

1.2 List of interviews carried out by national researchers 

Table 24.  Migration agencies in the EU 

Agency 
1.FRAGOMEN 

2.Matrix Relocations 
(South East Europe) 
3.Point for Mobility  

Germany 

Member State 
Belgium, Luxembourg and 
the Netherlands 
Bulgaria 

Status 
Completed 25/10/2017 

Completed 23/10/2017 

4.Matrix Relocation 

Croatia 

5.Peregrine Immigration 
Management 
6.International Business 
Support s.r.o. 
7.Arletti & Partners 

Hungary, Poland and UK  

Czech Republic 

Italy 

8.Kroes Advacaten  

Netherlands 

9.Pro Relocation Sp. z o.o.  Poland 

10.Eurohome Relocation 
Services  

11.Immigration Manager 
at Executive Relocations 

Netherlands (head office), 
secondary offices located 
in Prague and Moscow, 
and Poland  
France 

Table 25.  Migration agencies outside the EU 

Agency 
1.Solicitor at Farani Taylor 
Solicitors 
2. Global Visa 
3. Crownhub Consulting 
4. MOAF Consulting 
5. Talented Students Team 
(TST) 

Country 
Brazil 

Brazil 
Nigeria 
Nigeria 
Russia 

Completed 
05/10/2017  
Completed 
05/10/2017  
Completed 
02/11/2017  
Completed 
29/09/2017 
Completed 
2/10/2017 
Completed 
07/11/2017 
Completed 
06/10/2017 
Completed 
23/10/2017 

Completed 
24/11/2017 

Status 
03/10/2017 

17/08/2017 
20/08/2017 
22/08/2017 
29/08/2017 

Annex 2 EMN resources used 

EMN Ad-Hoc Query ‘Attesting highly professional qualifications by professional 
experience, Requested by LT EMN NCP on 1st July 2016  

EMN Ad-Hoc Query National residence permits of permanent or unlimited validity 
requested by COM on 8th September 2016 

EMN Ad-Hoc Query on AHQ on Retaining TCN Students, Requested by EE EMN NCP on 
26th May 2017  

Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed Study 2015, p.12. Changes in immigration 
status and purpose of stay: an overview of EU Member States’ approaches 

June, 2018 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence base for practical implementation of the legal migration directives 

EMN Synthesis Report 2017, p. 22. Illegal employment of third-country nationals in 
the European Union 

EMN Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed Study 2016, p.26. Family reunification of 
Third-Country Nationals in the EU plus Norway: National Practices 

June, 2018 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations 
(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); 
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); 
by contacting the Europe Direct service 
(http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels 
may charge you). 

Priced publications: 

  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
doi: 10.2837/396264