REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents
Date: 2019-03-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, admission of aliens, equal treatment, foreign national, free movement of persons, legal status, national implementing measure, removal, residence permit

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.3.2019 COM(2019) 161 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country   nationals who are long-term residents   
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 

The  first  Commission  Report  (“the  2011  Report”)1  on  the  implementation  of  Directive 
2003/109/EC2  (“the  Directive”)  was  published  on  28  September  2011,  complying  with  the 
reporting obligation under Article 24 of the Directive. This report revealed a general lack of 
information  among  third-country  nationals  about  the  EU  long-term  residence  (LTR)  status 
and the rights attached to it, as well as a number of shortcomings in the transposition of the 
Directive  into  national  law  (for  example,  restrictive  interpretation  of  its  scope,  additional 
conditions  for  admission,  high  administrative  fees,  illegal  obstacles  to  intra-EU  mobility, 
watering down of the right of equal treatment and protection against expulsion). 
This  second  Report  gives  an  updated  overview  of  how  EU  Member  States3  have  been  
transposing  and  implementing  the  Directive,  including  for  the  first  time  information  on  the 
implementation  of  Directive  2011/51/EU4  which  amended  Directive  2003/109/EC  by 
extending  its  scope  to  beneficiaries  of  international  protection.  Member  States  had  until  20 
May 2013 to transpose Directive 2011/51/EU into their national legislation. The Commission 
launched  infringement  proceedings  against  11  Member  States  for  not  having  transposed  the 
Directive  in  time  or  for  not  having  properly  informed  the  Commission  of  the  adoption  of 
national legislation. Eight of these cases have been closed. 
This  Report has been drawn up on the basis of  a study conducted by an external  contractor 
throughout  the  period  2014-2016  and  of  other  sources,  including  complaints5,  petitions, 
information exchanges with Member States, and infringement procedures. 

Statistical overview 

The  2011  Report  highlighted  the  low  impact  that  the  Directive  had  had  in  many  Member 
States,  with  few  EU  LTR  permits  issued,  and  80%  of  them  issued  by  only  four  Member 
States6. In 2017, though a higher general uptake can be reported (3,055,411 EU LTR permits 
compared  to  1,208,557  in  2008),  the  same  four  countries  account  for  an  even  higher 
percentage  of  EU  LTR  permits  issued  (90%),  with  only  Italy  having  issued  around  73%  of 
them7. This low uptake can be attributed to the lack of information available about the LTR 
status among not only third-country nationals but also the national migration administrations; 
and  to  the  "competition"  with  long-established  national  schemes,  which  are  allowed  by 
Article 13 of the Directive (21 Member States out of 25 have retained their national schemes). 

II. COMPLIANCE OF THE TRANSPOSITION MEASURES 

Personal scope - Article 3 

Article 3 defines the scope of the Directive and a number of exclusions (i.e. situations where 
the  Directive  does  not  apply).  The  2011  Report  highlighted  one  particular  implementation 
problem across several Member States, related to the exclusion of third-country nationals who 

1   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament  and the Council on the application of Directive 2003/109/EC 

concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, COM(2011) 585 final. 

2   Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term 

residents, OJ L16, 23.1.2004, p.44. 

3   Denmark, Ireland and UK are not bound by the Directive. 
4   Directive  2011/51/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  May  2011amending  Council  Directive 

2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection, OJ L 132, 1 9.5.2011, p.1. 

5   Most of the complaints received by the Commission concern: rejected applications on different grounds (e.g. fulfilment 
of  the  conditions  for  granting  the  LTR  status,  in  particular  stable  and  regular  resources  and  periods  of  absence); 
disproportionate administrative charges; equal treatment; format of the permit; recognition of professional qualifications; 
and intra-EU mobility. 

6   AT, CZ, EE, IT. 
7   Data by Eurostat, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_reslong&lang=en  

1 

 
 
                                                           
have been admitted solely on temporary grounds (Article 3(2)(e)), with some Member States 
applying a very broad reading of this exception. The Court of Justice of the European Union 
(CJEU) has clarified the meaning of this provision, by stating that the Directive excludes from 
its  scope  "residence  of  third-country  nationals  which,  whilst  lawful  and  of  a  possibly 
continuous nature, does not prima facie reflect any intention on the part of such nationals to 
settle  on  a  long-term  basis  in  the  territory  of  the  Member  States";  and  that  "the  fact  that  a 
residence  permit  contains  a  formal  restriction  does  not  in  itself  give  any  indication  as  to 
whether  that  third-country  national  might  settle  on  a  long-term  basis  in  the  Member  State, 
notwithstanding the existence of such a restriction"8. While the CJEU ultimately stated that it 
remains  the  responsibility  of  the  national  courts  to  individually  assess  the  legality  of  such 
exclusions, the Commission has not received complaints on alleged abuse of this exception by 
Member States. 
The  original  exclusion  of  refugees  from  the  scope  of  the  Directive  was  lifted  in  20119; 
however,  the  Directive  still  does  not  apply  to  third-country  nationals  who  have  a  form  of 
protection  other  than  the  one  laid  down  in  the  Asylum  Qualification  Directive10  (Article 
3(2)(c)).  The  question  as  to  how  national  protection  statuses  should  be  distinguished  from 
other national legal residence statuses has not been fully clarified so far by the case-law of the 
CJEU or national courts.   

Duration of residence - Article 4 

Third-country  nationals  are  required  to  have  resided  legally  and  continuously  within  the 
territory of the Member State for five years before submitting the application for LTR status. 
The  2011  Report  highlighted  that  some  Member  States  could  be  applying  the  concept  of 
"lawful" residence in a restrictive way, in particular by excluding holders of specific visas or 
residence  permits.  The  Commission  investigated  one  of  those  cases,  a  national  law  that 
required  applicants  for  LTR  status  to  be  holder  of  the  national  permanent  residence  permit. 
Following  information  exchanges  with  the  Commission,  the  Member  State  has  changed  its 
national law and made it compliant with the Directive. 

In relation to beneficiaries of international protection, the Directive provides that at least half 
of the period between the date of lodging of the  application for international  protection and 
the granting of the residence permit as a beneficiary of international protection is taken into 
account,  where  that  period  does  not  exceed  18  months  (Article  4(2)).  Most  of  the  Member 
States  take  into  account  half  of  that  period,  while  others11  provide  that  the  whole  period  is 
taken into account.  

the  Commission  has  not  received  any  complaints  regarding 

incorrect 
So  far 
implementation of Article 4(1a), establishing that Member States shall not grant LTR status in 
certain  cases  of  withdrawal  of  international  protection  in  accordance  with  the  Asylum 
Qualification Directive.  

the 

Conditions for acquiring long-term resident status - Article 5 

Judgement of 18 October 2012 in case C-502/10 (Singh). 

8  
9   By Directive 2011/51/EU. 
10   Directive  2011/95/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  December  2011  on  standards  for  the 
qualification  of  third-country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  as  beneficiaries  or  international  protection,  for  a  uniform 
status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast).  

11   DE, EE, FI, FR, IT, PT, RO, SK, SE. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
Article  5  lays  down  the  conditions  for  acquiring  long-term  resident  status,  namely  that  the 
applicant  must  provide  evidence  of  having  sufficient  stable  and  regular  resources,  sickness 
insurance and (optionally) the fulfilment of integration conditions. 

Most  Member  States  have  established  the  national  minimum  wage  or  minimum  subsistence 
means  as  a  threshold  for  assessing  the  condition  of  stable  and  regular  resources.  Some 
Member States also define the amount of financial resources required for the family members 
of  long-term  residents.  As  clarified  by  the  CJEU  with  reference  to  the  Family  reunification 
Directive  2003/86/EC12,  Member  States  may  not  impose  a  minimum  income  level  below 
which all applications will be refused, irrespective of an actual examination of the individual 
case. This interpretation can also be applied to the Long-term residents Directive. 

The Commission has checked with several Member States that a proportionality assessment is 
in  place  when  assessing  the  resources  conditions.  In  one  of  those  cases,  following  an 
infringement procedure the Member State concerned (MT) amended its law by introducing a 
flexibility  clause  requiring  its  national  competent  authorities  to  consider  all  relevant 
circumstances  of  the  individual  case  before  taking  a  decision  to  refuse  or  accept  the 
application. 

A  majority  of  Member  States  require  applicants  for  long-term  residence  to  comply  with 
integration  conditions13,  in  general  requiring  knowledge  of  their  official  language.  Some 
Member States also require the attendance of civic knowledge courses14. In the P&S case15, 
the CJEU considered the possibility for Member States to establish integration requirements 
after acquiring the LTR status, ruling that the Directive does not prevent those requirements, 
as long as they do not result in the withdrawal of the status. 

Public policy and public security - Article 6 

All  Member  States  have  transposed  this  optional  ground  for  refusal,  though  often  using 
different terminology and establishing different thresholds on previous criminal convictions. 
However, not all Member States16 have explicitly transposed the balancing criteria laid down 
in  the  second  paragraph  of  Article  6(1),  which  require  to  take  into  account  the  personal 
situation  of  the  applicant  when  taking  the  relevant  decision.  This  could  create  compliance 
issues in the concrete application of refusal decisions by the competent authorities. However, 
the Commission has so far not received complaints on this matter.  

Documentary evidence - Article 7(1) 

The 2011 Report highlighted, as a problematic issue under some national laws, that the failure 
to  provide  documentary  evidence  showing  an  appropriate  level  of  accommodation  is 
considered  grounds  for  refusing  an  application.  From  the  available  information  on  the 
implementation  of  this  provision  in  those  Member  States  that  have  opted  for  such 
documentation  requirement,  it  seems  that  in  most  cases  the  proof  of  appropriate 
accommodation is considered as a condition for acquiring the status. In absence of the CJEU’s 
clarification on this point, the academic literature is divided on whether this implementation is 
compliant with the Directive17. 

12   Judgement of 4 March 2010 in case C-578/08, (Chakroun). 
13   AT, BE, CY, EE, EL, FR, HR, IT, LT, LV, LU, MT, NL, PT, RO. 
14   BE – Flanders, FR, HR, LT, LU, RO. 
15   Judgement of 4 June 2015 in case C-579/13 (P&S). 
16   ES, FR, HU, PL, RO, SI. 
17   See Hailbronner/Thym, EU Immigration and Asylum Law. Commentary, 2nd edition, p. 468. 

3 

 
 
                                                           
Following  an  infringement  procedure  against  Malta,  whose  legislation  required  that 
accommodation  must  not  be  shared  with  other  people  who  are  not  family  members,  Malta 
amended its legislation to make it compliant with the Directive. 

Time-limit to process the application - Articles 7(2) 

While  all  Member  States  have  correctly  transposed  the  six-month  deadline  for  processing 
applications provided under Article 7(2), many of them do not comply with this deadline in 
practice.  In  particular,  longer  delays  have  been  reported  following  the  refugee  crisis  that 
started in 2015, in those Member States where the competent national authorities responsible 
for processing applications on long-term residence are also responsible for processing asylum 
applications (e.g. in Sweden). 

Under  Article  7(2),  fourth  subparagraph  of  the  Directive,  any  consequences  of  no  decision 
being  taken  within  the  six-month  deadline  must  be  determined  by  national  legislation.  This 
provision  has  been  correctly  transposed  by  the  majority  of  Member  States:  in  most  cases 
through reference to general administrative laws; in other cases18 through specific provisions. 
However,  as  highlighted  in  the  implementation  report  of  the  Single  Permit  Directive 
2011/98/EU19, in  practice  the remedies applied in  some Member States  do not  appear to  be 
sufficient and can lead to legal uncertainty and excessive processing times. 

Application fees 

Contrary to more recent directives on legal migration, the LTR Directive does not contain any 
provisions  on  application  fees.  However,  the  2011  Report  highlighted  that  excessively  high 
fees should be regarded as contrary to the principle of proportionality and as equivalent to an 
unlawful additional condition for admission endangering the "effet utile" of the Directive. 
This  was confirmed by the CJEU in  two judgements20,  establishing that  "the level  at  which 
[the] charges are set must not have either the object or the effect of creating an obstacle to the 
obtaining  of  the  long-term  resident  status  conferred  by  the  Directive,  otherwise  both  the 
objective and the spirit  of  [the] directive would be undermined.21". The Court added that to 
assess  the  proportionality  of  such  fees  different  elements  should  be  taken  into  account, 
including: 1) the financial impact of the fees on the applicant; and 2) the actual administrative 
costs  for  processing  an  application  and  issuing  a  permit,  also  compared  with  the  fees  for 
issuing similar documents to nationals and EU citizens. 

On  this  basis,  the  Commission  launched  infringement  procedures  on  disproportionate  fees 
(where relevant covering also other legal migration directives)22 against a number of Member 
States:  the  Netherlands,  Italy,  Bulgaria,  and  Greece  –  cases  closed  following  change  in  the 
national  legislation  lowering  the  fees  to  a  proportionate  level;  and  Portugal  –  case  still 
ongoing. 

EU long-term residence permit - Article 8 

18   BE, CY, FR, MT, PT. 
19   Report on the implementation of Directive 2011/98/EU, COM(2019)160. 
20   Judgement  of  26  April  2012,  C-508/10  (Commission  v.  Netherlands);  and  judgement  of  2  September  2015,  C-309/14 

(CGIL & INCA). 
21   C-508/10, para 69. 
22   Notably,  Directive  2004/114/EC  on  students,  Directive  2005/71/EC  on  researchers,  Directive  2009/50/EC  on  the  EU 
Blue  Card,  Directive  2011/98/EU  on  the  single  permit,  Directive  2014/36/EU  on  seasonal  workers,  and  Directive 
2014/66/EU on intra-corporate transferees. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
All Member States have correctly transposed the Article 8 provisions on the form and validity 
of  the  EU  long-term  residence  permit.  On  the  validity  of  the  permit,  most  Member  States23 
opted  for  a  five-year  validity  period,  others  for  a  validity  of  up  to  10  years  or  an  unlimited 
period24.  

While  Article  8  provides  that  the  validity  of  the  permit  must  be  for  at  least  five  years,  the 
long-term residence status once acquired is  permanent,  subject  to  the withdrawal  conditions 
under Article 9. 

Remarks to be entered in long-term resident’s EU residence permits for beneficiaries of 
international protection - Articles 8(4)-(6) and 19a 

Where the LTR status is granted to a beneficiary of international protection, a remark should 
be noted in the permit, including the name of the Member State that granted the protection (or 
to which the protection is transferred, in cases of intra-EU mobility). Following infringement 
proceedings  on  non-communication  of  the  transposition  measures  of  Directive  2011/51/EU, 
several Member States amended their legislation to ensure full transposition of the provisions 
concerned. The Commission has so far not received any complaints in relation to the correct 
implementation of these provisions. 

Withdrawal or loss of status - Article 9 

Overall,  Article  9  has  been  correctly  transposed  by  the  Member  States,  with  some  minor 
compliance issues. 

Under Article 9(2) Member States may provide that absences from  their territory  exceeding 
12 consecutive months or for specific or exceptional reasons do not lead to the withdrawal or 
loss of LTR status. Some Member States25 availed themselves of this faculty by providing that 
the absence of 12 consecutive months from the territory of the EU leads, as a rule, to the loss 
of  status,  while  also  providing  for  a  possibility  to  allow  a  longer  period  of  absence  due  to 
exceptional circumstances. However, other Member States opted for a longer period of time 
as a rule (e.g. Finland a period of two years that can be further extended due to specific and 
exceptional circumstances, and France three years). 

Article 9(3) allows Member States to withdraw the LTR status in cases where the long-term 
resident  constitutes  a  threat  to  public  policy,  but  such  threat  is  not  a  reason  for  expulsion 
under Article 12. Less than half of the Member States decided to adopt this option26. 

Article  9(3a)  gives  Member  States  the  possibility  to  withdraw  LTR  status  where  that  status 
was obtained on the basis of international protection, and this protection has been withdrawn 
under  certain  provisions  of  the  Asylum  Qualification  Directive  (because  the  beneficiary 
should have been excluded from it, or misrepresented or omitted facts that were decisive for 
the  granting  of  the  status).  The  Commission  has  not  received  any  complaints  about  the 
incorrect implementation of this provision by Member States. 

Article  9(5)  provides  a  “facilitated  procedure”  for  the  re-acquisition  of  long-term  resident 
status.  Member  States  have  wide  discretion  in  implementing  this  provision  since  the 
conditions and procedure must be determined by national law. However, in some cases those 
conditions consist of excessive requirements that do not seem to comply with the objective of 
a facilitated procedure (e.g. BE requires residence for 15 years before departure). 

Procedural guarantees - Article 10  

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

5 

 
 
                                                           
With  regard  to  the  procedural  guarantees  under  Article  10,  while  some  Member  States27  
provide  for  administrative  arrangements  for  long-term  residents  in  their  immigration  laws, 
others28  only  make  reference  to  general  administrative  laws.  The  Commission  recently 
launched an infringement procedure against Romania for an alleged breach of the obligation 
to give reasons in case of refusal decisions based on grounds of public security, arguing that 
even in cases where the relevant information is covered by State secret the applicant has the 
right  to  know  the  essence  of  that  information,  in  order  to  be  able  to  exercise  the  right  to 
challenge the decision. 

Equal treatment - Article 11 

As already highlighted in the 2011 Report, several Member States have not adopted specific 
transposition  measures  of  the  equal  treatment  principle  in  their  immigration  legislation,  but 
rather rely on general provisions regulating employment, education or social security, often in 
combination  with  the  general  principle  of  non-discrimination.  The  absence  of  explicit 
transposition measures may bring about difficulties in the correct implementation of the equal 
treatment  principle  at  national  level,  as  confirmed  by  the  numerous  complaints  received  by 
the Commission in this area. 
On  access  to  employment  and  self-employed  activities,  most  Member  States29  have 
established provisions that limit access to activities entailing even occasional involvement in 
the  exercise  of  public  authority.  The  Commission  has  taken  action  against  some  Member 
States  when  considering  that  these  provisions  went  beyond  the  scope  of  the  derogation. 
Following  exchanges  between  the  Commission  and  the  national  authorities  in  2014,  a 
Member  State  amended  its  legislation  that  did  not  give  third-country  nationals,  including 
long-term residents, access to the public transport sector and to the national civilian service. 
In 2018 the Commission launched infringement proceedings against Hungary with regard to a 
national law barring long-term residents access to the veterinary profession. 
On access to social security, social assistance and social protection, the CJEU has clarified30 
the  scope  of  the  "core  benefits"  derogation  provided  in  Article  11(4),  by  stating  it  must  be 
understood as allowing Member States to limit equal treatment, with the exception of social 
assistance  or  social  protection  benefits  which  enable  individuals  to  meet  their  basic  needs 
such as food, accommodation and health. 

No  specific  transposition  requirement  was  necessary  for  the  provision  introduced  by 
paragraph 4a,  according to which restrictions on equal treatment are to be without prejudice 
to  the  provisions  of  the  Asylum  Qualification  Directive.  The  Commission  has  not  received 
any complaints about the incorrect implementation of this provision. 

Protection against expulsion - Article 12 

Article 12 of the Directive has been correctly transposed by most Member States. However, 
some31 have not explicitly transposed that the threat to public policy or public security should 
be  actual  and  sufficiently  serious.  Furthermore,  some  Member  States32  have  not  completely 
transposed  all  the  balancing  factors  provided  in  paragraph  3.  In  a  recent  case33,  the  CJEU 
ruled  that  Spanish  legislation  is  non-compliant  with  the  Directive,  in  so  far  as  it  does  not 
provide  for  the  assessment  of  the  factors  foreseen  in  Article  12(3)  to  expulsion  decisions 

27   CY, EL, IT, MT, RO. 
28   AT, BG, CZ, EE, FI, HR, HU, LV, NL, SI, SK. 
29   BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, SK. 
30   Judgement of 24 April 2012, case C-571/10 (Kamberaj). 
31   BG, FR, IT, LT, LV, RO, SI, SK. 
32   AT, BG, DE, EE, FR, HR, LT, LV, NL, SE, SI, SK. 
33   Judgement of 7 December 2017, case C‑ 636/16 (Wilber López Pastuzano). 

6 

 
 
                                                           
following a conviction for a criminal offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of more 
than one year. 

Paragraphs  3a,  3b,  3c  and  6  of  Article  12  provide  specific  rules  for  expulsion  decisions 
concerning  holders  of  a  long-term  residence  permit  in  one  Member  State  who  obtained  the 
international  protection  status  in  another  Member  State.  The  Commission  has  not  received 
any complaints regarding the incorrect implementation of these provisions.  

More  favourable  provisions/relationship  with  national  permanent  residence  permits  - 
Article 13 

The 2011 Report highlighted a risk of competition between national and EU permits, which 
does  not  necessarily  result  in  more  favourable  provisions  being  applied  to  the  third-country 
nationals, due to the difficulty to compare advantages and disadvantages respectively granted 
by the two kinds of permits. This problem was confirmed by the results of a 2016 European 
Migration Network (EMN) ad-hoc query34, highlighting that in some cases national long-term 
residence permits, while granted under more favourable conditions (e.g. less than five years of 
residence, or no income requirement), provide fewer equal treatment rights or less protection 
against expulsion. 
In  that  respect,  the  CJEU  has  in  the  meantime  clarified35  the  interpretation  of  Article  13, 
which, despite its title, does not provide Member States with the possibility to grant the LTR 
status  under  more  favourable  conditions,  but  it  rather  allows  the  co-existence  of  distinct 
national  long-term  or  permanent  residence  statuses.  All  Member  States  but  four  (Austria, 
Italy, Luxemburg, and Romania) have maintained parallel national schemes.  

Conditions to residence and work in another Member State - Articles 14, 15, 16, 18 

The  2011  Report  highlighted  the  transposition  and  implementation  of  the  intra-EU  mobility 
provisions of the Directive as being one of the most problematic issues. It also presented the 
very  low  number  of  long-term  residents  who  had  exercised  their  right  to  reside  in  another 
Member State (fewer than 50 per Member State). According to available (partial) data from 
EMN36,  intra-EU  mobility  rights  provided  under  the  Directive  seem  to  continue  being 
underused. This could be partly because the right is not automatic but subject to a number of 
detailed  conditions  (see  below).  As  confirmed  by  numerous  complaints  received  by  the 
Commission,  those  conditions  and  the  strict  implementation  by  most  of  the  Member  States 
often make the actual exercise of intra-EU mobility rights very difficult in practice.  

Article 14(2) provides that long-term residents in a first Member State have the right to reside 
in a second Member State on three main grounds: exercise of an economic activity; studies or 
vocational  training;  other  purposes.  While  some  Member  States37  do  not  refer  to  "other 
purposes",  others  seem  to  provide  an  exhaustive  list  of  them38,  which  may  result  in  a 
restrictive implementation of the provision. 
A number of Member States39 have opted under Article 14(3) to apply labour market tests to 
long-term residents from other Member States who apply to reside for exercising an economic 
activity. 

34   EMN Ad-Hoc Query no. 2016.1000 on national residence permits of permanent or unlimited validity. 
35   Judgement of 17 July 2014, case C-469/13 (Tahir). 
36   Intra-EU  mobility 

third-country 

nationals, 

Study 

2013, 

EMN 

of 

https://ec.europa.eu/home-

affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/doc_centre/immigration/docs/studies/emn-
synthesis_report_intra_eu_mobility_final_july_2013.pdf , pages 48-49. 

37   EE, EL. 
38   HR, RO. 
39   AT, CY, CZ, DE, FI, FR, IT, MT, NL, PT, RO, SI, SK. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
Article  14(4)  of  the  Directive  allows  Member  States  to  limit  the  total  number  of  persons 
entitled to be granted right of residence, if such limitations were already set out in the existing 
legislation at the time of the adoption of the Directive. Only three40 have applied this option. 

The second paragraph of Article 14(5) allows Member States to authorise long-term residents 
from other Member States to reside as seasonal workers, a category that is not covered by the 
Seasonal workers Directive 2014/36/EU that only applies to third-country nationals residing 
outside the EU. This option has been applied by four Member States41. 

All  Member  States  have  chosen  to  apply  the  option  provided  by  Article  15(2)(a)  of  the 
Directive concerning the condition for applicants to prove having stable and regular resources. 
Some  Member  States42  have  established  fixed  amounts  (corresponding  to  the  national 
minimum income), which, to be compatible with the principle of proportionality confirmed by 
the  CJEU  in  the  Chakroun  case43,  must  be  applied  taking  into  account  the  specific 
circumstances of each individual case. 

Article 15(3) of the Directive allows Member States to require long-term residents applying 
for a residence permit to comply with integration measures, if integration conditions had not 
been applied to the long-term resident in the first Member State. Five Member States44 have 
decided to apply this option. 

Under Article 16(1) of the Directive, spouses and minor children have the right to accompany 
and  join  the  long-term  resident,  if  the  family  was  already  constituted  in  the  first  Member 
State. Some Member States  have established additional requirements that  may  constitute an 
obstacle to the exercise of mobility. For example, Czechia obliges family members to submit 
an  application  together  with  additional  documents,  namely  a  criminal  record  and  a 
comprehensive medical report. In Germany, family members may only join if the long-term 
resident has sufficient living space; in Estonia, the spouse has the right to join only if already 
resided in the first Member State. 

Article 16(2) of the Directive provides the option to extend the right to accompany and join 
the long-term residents to family members other than spouses and minor children. This option 
has been transposed by some Member States45. 

Under  Article  19(2)  of  the  Directive,  the  second  Member  State  must  issue  the  long-term 
resident  with  a  renewable  residence  permit  whenever  the  conditions  are  fulfilled,  and  must 
inform  the  first  Member  State  of  its  decision.  However,  some  Member  States46  have  not 
transposed such information obligation in their legislation. 

Equal treatment in the second Member State - Article 21 

Under Article 21 of the Directive, upon receipt of the residence permit in the second Member 
State, permit holders and their family members are entitled to equal treatment in the areas and 
under the conditions of Article 11, including access to the labour market. Member States can 
opt to restrict equal treatment to certain employed and self-employed activities, for a period 
not  exceeding  12  months.  Following  exchanges    between  the  Commission  and  the  national 
authorities, a Member State has amended its legislation that required the family members of 
long-term residents from other Member States to hold a work permit valid only for a specific 
job or sector, also after the first 12 months of residence.  

40   AT, IT, RO. 
41    DE, EE, ES, HR. 
42   BE, CZ, EL, ES, HR, IT, NL, PL, PT. 
43   Judgement of 4 March 2010 in case C-578/08, (Chakroun). 
44   AT, DE, FR, MT, NL. 
45   AT, BE, CZ, EE, ES, FI, HR, IT, LT, LU, PT. 
46   AT, EE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LT, LV, RO. 

8 

 
 
                                                           
Under  Article  21(2),  Member  States  may  restrict  access  to  employed  and  self-employed 
activities to those holding a residence permit for the purpose of studies or vocational training 
or for other purposes. This option is applied by some Member States47. 

III. CONCLUSIONS 

Since 2011, the implementation state of play of the long-term  residents Directive across the 
EU  has  improved,  also  thanks  to  the  numerous  infringement  cases  launched  by  the 
Commission and judgements issued by the CJEU. However, some outstanding issues continue 
to undermine the full achievement of the Directive's main objectives, which are to: constitute 
a genuine instrument for the integration of third-country nationals who are settled on a long-
term  basis  in  the  Member  States48;  and  contribute  to  the  effective  attainment  of  an  internal 
market49. 

On  the  first  objective,  it  was  noted  above  that  most  Member  States  have  not  actively 
promoted  the  use  of  the  EU  LTR  status,  and  continue  to  almost  exclusively  issue  national 
long-term residence permits unless third-country nationals explicitly ask for the EU permit. In 
2017, in  the 25 Member States bound by the Directive there were around 3.1 million  third-
country  nationals  holding  a  EU  LTR  permit,  compared  to  around  7.1  million  holding  a 
national  long-term  residence  permit50.  However,  as  highlighted  by  academic  literature,  if  it 
was  ascertained  that  the  national  immigration  authorities  actively  promoted  the  national 
permit instead of the EU permit, this would undermine the effet utile of the Directive51.  

The  Commission  will  monitor  this  aspect  of  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  and  will 
encourage the Member States to take up the EU LTR permit as an instrument that is beneficial 
to the integration of third-country nationals. 

On  the  second  objective,  the  way  that  most  Member  States  have  implemented  the  intra-EU 
mobility  provisions  of  the  Directive  has  not  really  contributed  to  the  attainment  of  the  EU 
internal  market.  Only  few  long-term  residents  have  exercised  the  right  to  move  to  other 
Member States. This is also because in some cases exercising this right is subject to as many 
conditions as the ones for a new application for a residence permit, or the competent national 
administrations  do  not  have  enough  knowledge  of  the  procedures,  or  they  find  difficult  to 
cooperate with their counterparts in other Member States. The Commission will encourage the 
Member  States  to  improve  the  implementation  of  the  intra-EU  mobility  provisions,  also  by 
promoting the cooperation and exchange of information between national authorities. 

The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of the Directive by the Member 
States  in  accordance  with  its  powers  under  the  Treaties  and  may  take  appropriate  action 
including, where necessary, the initiation of infringement procedures. 

47   AT, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IT, MT, NL. 
48   Recital 12, as confirmed by the CJEU in Commission vs. Netherlands, C-508/10, para 66. 
49   Recital 18, as confirmed by the CJEU in Commission vs. Netherlands, C-508/10, para 66. 
50   Data by Eurostat, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_reslong&lang=en  
51   See Hailbronner/Thym, page 497. 

9