COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (recast)
Date: 2022-04-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, admission of aliens, foreign national, free movement of persons, integration of migrants, legal status, residence permit, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.4.2022  SWD(2022) 651 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (recast) {COM(2022) 650 final} - {SEC(2022) 200 final} - {SWD(2022) 650 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ................................................. 3 

PROBLEM DEFINITION ....................................................................................................... 5 

2.1.  What are the problems and their drivers? ..................................................................... 5 
2.2.  How will the problem evolve? .................................................................................... 18 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................... 20 

3.1.  Legal basis .................................................................................................................. 20 
3.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action .......................................................................... 20 
3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action ..................................................................... 20 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ................................................................. 21 

4.1.  General objectives ...................................................................................................... 21 
4.2.  Specific objectives ...................................................................................................... 22 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? ....................................................... 24 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .............................................. 24 
5.2.  Description of the policy options ................................................................................ 25 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ............................................. 30 

6.1.  PO 1 – Actions to improve the effectiveness of the Directive (non-legislative 

option) ......................................................................................................................... 30 
6.2.  PO 2 Legislative option 1 – targeted revision of the Directive ................................... 32 
6.3.  PO 3: Legislative option 2 – wider legislative revision .............................................. 38 
6.4.  PO 4: Legislative option 3 – major legislative revision, creating a single EU 

permanent residence status ......................................................................................... 44 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? .............................................................................. 49 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION ......................................................................................................... 56 

8.1.  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) ....................................................... 57 
8.2.  One-to-one approach................................................................................................... 57 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................... 58 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 61 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................................ 65 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? ............................................................................ 76 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ....................................................................................... 78 

ANNEX 5: DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF POLICY MEASURES ........................................... 92 

ANNEX 6: CASE LAW OF THE CJEU ON DIRECTIVE 2003/109/EC .................................. 225 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AHQ 

BIPs 

CJEU 

DG  

EGEM 

EMN 

EU 

Ad Hoc Query 

Beneficiaries of International Protection 

Court of Justice of the European Union 

Directorate General 

Expert Group on Economic Migration 

European Migration Network 

European Union 

EU Charter 

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 

FRA 

FTE 

GDP 

JRC 

LMT 

LTR 

LTRD 

MS 

NGO 

PO 

RSB  

REFIT 

SME 

SPD 

TCN 

TFUE 

UN 

Fundamental Rights Agency 

Full Time Equivalent  

Gross Domestic Product 

Joint Research Centre  

Labour Market Test 

Long-term Resident  

Long-term residents Directive 

Member State/States 

Non-governmental organisation 

Policy option 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme 

Small and Medium-sized Enterprise 

Single Permit Directive 

Third country national 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

United Nations 

2 

 
1.  1.  INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

The vast majority of migrants arrive in Europe legally. In 2019, the EU Member States 
issued  more  than  3  million  first  residence  permits  to  third-country  nationals,  of  which 
over 1 million were for employment purposes. In the last decade, third-country workers 
filled  a  significant  part  of  new  jobs1,  helping  to  meet  labour  market  needs.  During  the 
COVID-19  pandemic,  the  contribution  of  third-country  nationals  to  the  European 
economies,  labour  markets  and  public  services  has  become  all  the  more  evident.  For 
instance,  13%  of  key  workers  performing  essential  functions  –  from  doctors  to  nurses 
and drivers – are migrants2.  

The  overall  number  of  third-country  nationals  legally  residing  in  the  EU  is  23  million, 
representing 5.1  % of the EU population3. Out of this,  over 10  million4 third-country 
nationals  hold  a  long-term  or  permanent  residence  permit.  This  is  the  target  group 
that  Directive  2003/109/EC  concerning  the  status  of  third-country  nationals  who  are 
long-term residents5 – hereafter ‘the Directive’ – is meant to cover. 

The Directive was the second EU legal instrument adopted in the field of legal migration, 
following the introduction by the Treaty of Amsterdam of the competence for the EU to 
set  common  rules  for  the  entry  and  residence  of  third-country  nationals.  The  Treaty 
explicitly requires the Union to develop a common immigration policy, so this is a clear 
objective to be pursued at EU level. At the same time, legal migration is an area of shared 
competence  between  the  EU  and  the  Member  States,  and  the  Treaty  also  reserves 
explicitly to the Member States the right to set volumes of admission for labour migrants 
they admit. 

The  political  framework  for  the  adoption  of  this  and  the  other  first  legal  migration 
instruments  were  established  at  the  Tampere  European  Council  in  October  1999.  As 
regards long-term residents, the Tampere Council conclusions stated that ‘a person, who 
has  resided  legally  in  a  Member  State  for  a  period  of  time  to  be  determined  and  who 
holds  a  long-term  residence  permit,  should  be  granted  in  that  Member  State  a  set  of 
uniform  rights  which  are  as  near  as  possible  to  those  enjoyed  by  EU  citizens;  e.g.  the 
right to reside, receive education, and work as an employee or self-employed person, as 
well  as  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  vis-à-vis  the  citizens  of  the  State  of 
residence’6. 

The proposal of the Commission followed closely the political framework established by 
the European Council, and  although  a number of compromises  were needed during the 

1   OECD (2018), “The contribution of migration to the dynamics of the labour force in OECD countries: 

2005-2015” 

2   https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/crucial-contribution-migrant-workers-europes-coronavirus-response  
3   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics#Migrant_population:_23_milli
on_non-EU_citizens_living_in_the_EU_on_1_January_2020  

4   http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_reslong&lang=en  
5   Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals 

who are long-term residents. 

6   Tampere European Council, 1999, Presidency Conclusions, point 21. 

3 

 
                                                           
negotiations  (at  the  time  unanimity  of  Member  States  was  required,  and  the  European 
Parliament  was  not  yet  co-legislator  in  this  policy  area),  the  final  text  adopted  by  the 
Council overall complied with those political objectives. 

As it is apparent from its recitals 4, 6 and 12, the principal purpose of the Directive is the 
integration  of  third-country  nationals  who  are  settled  on  a  long-term  basis  in  the 
Member  States,  which  in  turn  is  a  key  element  in  promoting  economic  and  social 
cohesion,  a  fundamental  objective  of  the  European  Union  stated  in  the  Treaty.  To  this 
purpose,  the  Directive  sets  out  the  conditions  under  which  third-country  nationals  who 
have  legally  and  continuously  resided  in  a  Member  State  for  at  least  five  years  can 
acquire ‘EU long-term residence status’ (hereafter ‘EU LTR status’). The advantages of 
this  residence  status  are  numerous:  it  is  permanent,  it  grants  equal  treatment  rights  in 
many  areas  (including  full  access  to  employed  and  self-employed  activities),  and  it 
ensures  reinforced  protection  against  expulsion.  While  these  advantages  may  also  be 
granted  by  permanent  residence  statuses  regulated  under  national  law  (the  Directive 
allows  these  parallel  national  schemes),  the  EU  LTR  status  additionally  grants  the 
possibility  to  move  and  reside  in  other  Member  States,  on  the  basis  of  three 
comprehensive  grounds:  exercise  of  an  economic  activity  (work  or  self-employment); 
studies and vocational training; other purposes.  This ‘right to intra-EU mobility’ is not, 
however, an automatic right, but is subject to a number of conditions. 

During the over 15 years of application of the Directive, the Commission has received a 
significant  number  of  complaints,  some  of  them  followed  up  by  infringement 
proceedings, and numerous issues were also subject to judgements of the Court of Justice 
of the European Union (hereafter CJEU). As elaborated below in Section 2, the case law 
of the CJEU has had an important role in clarifying a number of important aspects of the 
Directive: the relation between the EU permit and the national permits, the conditions to 
acquire the status, and the rights of long-term residents, with particular regard to the area 
of social security. A summary of the case law on the Directive is presented in Annex 6. 

The  Commission  adopted  two  implementation  reports  of  the  Directive7,  in  2011  and 
2019,  and  also  assessed  it  under  the  2019  Fitness  Check  on  legal  migration8.  All  this 
work  has  pointed  out  to  a  number  of  inconsistencies  and  shortcomings,  as  well  as 
practical issues arising from the application of the Directive by the Member States.  The 
Fitness  Check,  in  particular,  recommended  in  its  conclusions  ‘considering  putting 
forward legislative measures to  tackle the inconsistencies, gaps and other shortcomings 
identified, so as to simplify, streamline, complete and generally improve EU legislation’. 

The Commission’s Communication on a New Pact on Migration and Asylum9, adopted 
on 23 September 2020, provides a new comprehensive policy framework at EU level for 
better management and implementation of asylum and migration policies. With particular 
regard  to  legal  migration,  the  Pact  sets  out  that:  “More  could  be  done  to  increase  the 
impact  of  the  EU  legal  migration  framework  on  Europe’s  demographic  and  migration 

7   COM(2011)585, First implementation Report; and COM(2019)161, Second implementation report. 
8   https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/legal-migration/fitness-check_en#:~:text= 
9   COM/2020/609 final 

4 

 
                                                           
challenges.  There  are  a  number  of  inherent  shortcomings  in  the  EU  legal  migration 
system  (such  as  fragmentation,  limited  coverage  of  EU  rules,  inconsistencies  between 
different Directives, and complex procedures) that could be addressed through measures 
ranging from better enforcement to new legislation”. 

Consequently, the Pact announced a plan to address the main shortcomings in the area of 
legal migration with a ‘Skills and Talent package’ that would include three new sets of 
measures10, responding to the overall objectives of attracting the talent the EU needs, and 
facilitate intra-EU mobility of third-country workers who are already residing in the EU. 
The  revision  of  the  long-term  residents  Directive  is  part  of  this  package,  with  the 
objective  to  create  a  true  EU  long-term  residence  status,  in  particular  by  strengthening 
the right of long-term residents to move and work in other Member States. Together with 
the revision of the Single Permit Directive 2011/98/EU, this initiative has been included 
in Annex II of the 2021 Commission work programme11. 

The two legislative initiatives, the revision of the Long-term residents Directive and the 
revision of the Single Permit Directive are complementary as they address two different 
phases of the overall migration process: the latter aims at simplifying the first admission 
of third-country workers in the EU, and improving their rights, while the former aims at 
facilitating  the  acquisition  of  long-term  resident  status  for  those  third-country  nationals 
(including workers) who have settled down in the EU, as well as further improving their 
rights.  

The  European  Parliament,  in  its  Resolution  of  21  May  2021  on  new  avenues  for  legal 
labour  migration12,  welcomed  the  Commission’s  planned  revision  of  the  Directive, 
stating that this ‘presents an opportunity to enhance mobility and simplify and harmonise 
procedures’. 

2.  2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

2.1. 

What are the problems and their drivers? 

The  evaluation  of  the  Directive  carried  out  under  the  Fitness  Check  on  legal  migration 
and  the  above-mentioned  implementation  reports,  and  the  consultation  process  carried 
out  for  this  impact  assessment13,  have  revealed  a  number  of  gaps,  inconsistencies  and 
shortcomings, arising in particular from the application of the Directive by the Member 
States. These problems have been clustered into three main problem areas: 

1)  barriers for third-country nationals to access the EU LTR status and benefit from 

it; 

10   The other two initiatives are the review of Directive 2011/98/EU (Single Permit Directive) and the   

development of an EU Talent Pool for third-country skilled workers 

11   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/2021_commission_work_programme_annexes_en.pdf  
12   European Parliament resolution of 20 May 2021 on new avenues for legal labour migration 

(2020/2010(INI)) 

13   For details on the stakeholder consultation, see Annex 2. 

5 

 
                                                           
2)  barriers  to  the  integration  of  long-term  residents,  due  to  a  lack  of  clarity  and 

consistency in the rights granted by the EU status; and  

3)  barriers to the intra-EU mobility of long-term residents.  

Other two more specific problems outside the three main problem areas have also been 
identified: 

4)   circular migration opportunities for long-term residents are limited; 

5) 

there is a risk of abusive acquisition of the EU LTR status  on the basis of investor 
residence schemes. 

The  above-mentioned  evaluation  and  consultation  process  showed,  in  general,  that 
migrants already residing in, or considering moving to, the EU are negatively affected by 
the shortcomings of the current Directive, which results in administrative burden, lengthy 
waiting  times,  uncertainty  and  confusion  as  to  applicable  rules  and  outcomes.  All  this 
may  even  discourage  migrants  from  applying  for  EU  LTR  status14.  A  limited  set  of 
rights,  especially  as  regards  their  families  and  intra-EU  mobility,  may  limit  their 
integration in the host societies15. It also impacts countries of origin indirectly, as limited 
remittances are linked to insufficient integration of their nationals in the host countries. 

According  to  several  of  the  stakeholders  consulted,  EU  employers,  including  big 
companies,  start-ups  and  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (hereafter  SMEs),  are 
negatively affected by the under-use of the EU LTR status, as this status offers stability 
to their migrant workers16. National, regional and local authorities of Member States are 
negatively affected, as they have to apply and enforce different and complex sets of rules 
to assess applications and grant permits17. 

Indirectly, EU citizens are also negatively affected as the EU’s labour migration system 
insufficiently  contributes  to  tackling  skills  shortages,  demographic  ageing,  increasing 
old-age  dependency  ratio,  and  migrants’  integration  in  the  host  societies  and  labour 
markets18. This affects the financial viability of the EU’s welfare systems. Furthermore, 
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, 
which ultimately also impacts EU citizens19. 

The main driver for these problems is a mix of a regulatory failure at EU and Member 
State level, and poor implementation by the competent national authorities. This leads 
to  a  general  weakness  of  the  current  overall  EU  regulatory  framework  on  granting 

14   Views  expressed  by  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  the  Views  of  Migrants,  European  Public 
Employment  Services  network,  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration,  representatives  of  the  Civil 
Society, EU legal migration practitioners network, and in the EMN Inform, (2020), Long-term resident 
status in the EU. 

15   Ibid. 
16   Ibid. 
17   Consultation with representatives of the Civil Society of 20 April 2021; Second meeting of the EU legal 

migration practitioners network of 29 April 2021. 

18   See Fitness Check, pp. 74-77 
19   EMN Inform, (2020), Long-term resident status in the EU 

6 

 
                                                           
permanent  residence  to  third-country  nationals:  the  rules  across  the  Member  States  are 
incoherent,  ineffective  and  inefficient,  with  complex  and  diverging  procedures  for  the 
acquisition of the status and the exercise of the rights attached to it. Many provisions of 
the  Directive  also  give  a  large  margin  of  discretion  to  the  Member  States  for  their 
implementation,  allowing  for  diverging  rules,  more  or  less  favourable  to  the  long-term 
residents. There are also inconsistencies between the Directive and other legal migration 
Directives adopted later20. 

The following table presents the main problems and underlying drivers. 

20   See in particular the analysis on relevance, coherence and effectiveness of the Fitness check. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
s
m
e
l
b
o
r
P

s
r
e
v
i
r
D

Barriers for third-country nationals to access 
the EU LTR status 

Barriers to the intra-EU 
mobility of long-term 
residents 

Barriers to the integration 
of long-term residents  

Failure to enable 
circular migration of 
LTR 

Risk of abusive 
acquisition of EU 
LTR status 
through investor 
schemes 

No clear 
rules on 
the co-
existence 
of the EU 
and 
national 
statuses 

Member 
States do 
not 
actively 
promote 
the EU 
status 

Strict 
application 
of the 
resources 
and 
integration 
conditions 

Years 
spent as 
students 
or on 
temporary 
permits 
may not 
contribute 
to 
reaching 
the five 
years 

Member 
States may 
apply a 
labour market 
test and limit 
access to the 
labour market 

Long 
application 
procedure, 
and not 
possible to 
start working 
or studying 
with the 
application 
pending 

Family 
members of 
non-mobile 
long-term 
residents 
cannot benefit 
from the same 
rights 

Limited 
access to 
social 
benefits 
and 
housing 

Loss of 
EU LTR 
status 
where 
absence 
for more 
than 12 
consecu
tive 
months 

No clear 
procedu
re to 
reacquir
e EU 
LTR 
status 
after 
absence 

No clear 
monitoring 
mechanisms 
of residence 
acquired on 
the basis of 
investor 
schemes  

The five year residence 
period needs to be 
complied with even when 
TCNs can prove their full 
integration before 

It is not possible to 
cumulate residence 
periods in different 
Member States 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Problem area 1: barriers for third-country nationals to access the EU LTR status  

Sub-problem  1.1:  lack  of  information  and  uneven  competition  with  the  national 
permits 

Most  Member  States  continue  to  issue  almost  exclusively  national  long-term  residence 
permits. In 201921, in the 25 Member States bound by the Directive, there were around 3 
million third-country nationals holding an EU LTR permit, compared to around 7 million 
holding  a  national  long-term  residence  permit.  That  year,  the  EU  LTR  permits 
represented less than 5% of all long-term residence permits issued in 10 Member States, 
with 4 Member States (AT, CZ, EE, IT) issuing 88% of all EU LTR permits, as can be 
observed in the tables below 22. On the other hand, most of the permits issued by France, 
Spain and Germany were issued under national schemes.  

EU 

NATIONAL  

EU 

NATIONAL 

Italy 

2.099.223  0 

Romania 

13.581 

0 

Estonia 

Austria 

Lithuania 

Slovenia 

155.936 

1.525 

295.103 

12.071 

15.934 

48.994 

2.424 

39.431 

8.525 

Slovakia 

8.170 

Poland 

Spain 

Bulgaria 

Hungary 

16.333 

85.485 

2.235 

1.989 

112.159 

1.237.094 

43.001 

64.676 

France 

65.276 

2.087.825 

Portugal 

2.652 

Finland 

708 

Czechia 

98.217 

107.443 

Belgium 

1.891 

88.265 

43.668 

189.172 

26.975 

Croatia 

4.862 

Luxembourg  5.814 

Malta 

636 

6.646 

8.359 

1.905 

Netherlands  38.390 

Greece 

31.324 

115.480 

156.905 

Cyprus 

193 

Germany 

13.215 

2.355.941 

Latvia 

Sweden 

793 

742 

269.794 

369.636 

21   Complete 2020 data are not yet available at the date of publication of this Report 
22   Eurostat Data on long-term residents by citizenship. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
As highlighted in the 2011 and 2019 Commission implementation reports and confirmed 
in  the  consultations23,  this  low  uptake  can  be  attributed  to  the  lack  of  information 
available  about  the  EU  LTR  status  among  not  only third-country nationals  but  also  the 
national  migration  administrations;  and  to  the  "competition"  with  long-established 
national  schemes,  as  the  Directive  allows  Member  States  to  issue  national  permanent 
residence permits in parallel with the EU LTR permit. 21 Member States24 have parallel 
national  schemes,  which  can  have  more  favourable  provisions  (Article  13  of  the 
Directive), thus creating a risk of competition.  

to 

the  difficulty 

third-country  nationals,  due 

Besides the right to intra-EU mobility, which can only be granted by the EU LTR status, 
it is difficult to compare the EU status with the national ones25. The co-existence of the 
two systems does  not  necessarily  result in  more  favourable provisions  being  applied to 
the 
to  compare  advantages  and 
disadvantages respectively granted by the two kinds of  permits. This was confirmed by 
the results of a 2016 European Migration Network (EMN) ad-hoc query26, 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. The preliminary 
findings  of  a  study  carried  out  by  the  Fundamental  Rights  Agency  (FRA)27  further 
confirm  this,  with  experts  interviewed  highlighting  that  third-country  nationals  do  not 
necessarily understand the added value of applying for a residence permit which is more 
difficult to acquire. 

This  implies  that  many  third-country  nationals  who  could  benefit  from  the  rights 
guaranteed by the EU status, as they do not have a real access to the EU status, they also 
do not have access to those rights. As a result, there is no ‘level-playing field’ between 
the EU LTR permits and the national permanent residence permits, as often third-country 
nationals do not have a real choice between the two28.  

Drivers 

The main driver of this sub-problem is a regulatory failure, as the current Directive, on 
the one hand, allows Member States to keep their parallel national schemes, but, on the 
other hand, does not establish any clear rules on the co-existence of the EU and national 

23   Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration (EGEM), 14 April 2021. 
24   Four Member States do not have parallel national schemes: AT, IT, LU, RO 
25   European Commission (2019) 161 final, Second implementation report, p.7. 
26   EMN (2016) Ad-hoc query on COM AHQ on National Residents Permits of Permanent or Unlimited 

Validity. 

27   Initial findings of the ongoing study by FRA on the Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence status 

holder. The final FRA report is expected to be published in the second quarter of 2022. 

28   EMN Inform, (2020), Long-term resident status in the EU. For example, some Member States, such as 
Germany, often hand out a domestic long-term resident status under national laws unless third country 
nationals explicitly ask for the EU status, see also Thym, D. (2016), “Long Term Residents Directive 
2003/109/EC”  in  Kay  Hailbronner  and  Daniel  Thym  (eds.),  EU  Immigration  and  Asylum  Law:  A 
Commentary, 2nd edition, Munich: C.H. Beck. 

10 

 
 
                                                           
permits  or  any  mechanisms  to  ensure  that  third-country  nationals  have  a  real  choice 
between the EU and national permits. This leads to competition which does not benefit 
the potential beneficiaries of the status and also undermines the broader benefits for the 
EU as a whole of having an LTR status.  

The above-mentioned regulatory failure adds to a poor implementation by the Member 
States,  which  in  many  cases  do  not  actively  promote  the  issuance  of  EU  LTR  permits, 
and do not provide sufficient and accessible information on the procedures to apply for 
the status29; for instance, only eight Member States have a dedicated strategy in place to 
provide information  on the EU  LTR  status30. This  is  supported by preliminary  findings 
from the FRA study, where experts and national authorities consulted from nine Member 
States31 considered that one of the main reasons for the lower number of EU LTR permits 
issued is  the lack of information provided by the national  authorities.32 It  also  emerged 
from the consultations that some national administration and local agencies in charge of 
immigration were not aware of the EU status or found it too complicated33. This could be 
due to a lack of technical support or training on the EU LTR permit.  

However, the differences in  Member States practices may also  reflect  political  choices, 
national rules or local administrations’ practices34. For example, in some Member States, 
third-country  nationals  may  already  acquire  citizenship  after  five  years  of  legal  and 
continuous residence35. Restrictions on the access to the EU status (see sub-problem 1.2) 
and on the rights attached to it (see problem area  2) further reduce its  attractiveness, as 
well as barriers introduced by Member States to intra-EU mobility (see problem area 3). 

Sub-problem 1.2: the conditions to acquire the EU LTR status are too difficult to meet 

The conditions to acquire the EU LTR status may be too difficult to meet for a significant 
number of third-country nationals, who are therefore prevented from benefiting from this 
status as a tool for integration in the host society. In particular: 

 

In most cases periods of legal residence on temporary grounds (such as student years, 
temporary work, or previous  residence in  other Member States) do not  count to  the 
calculation of the required period of five years of legal and continuous residence; 
  Some  Member  States  apply  the  condition  for  stable  and  regular  resources  and 
integration conditions strictly, going against the proportionality test set by the CJEU 
requiring an individual examination of the personal situation of each applicant36 . In 

29   EMN (2016) Ad-hoc query on National Residents Permits of Permanent or Unlimited Validity. See also 
Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants of 2 March 2021 and Fifth 
meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration (EGEM) of 14 April 2021. 
30   EMN (2020) Inform on long-term residence status in the EU: BG, DE, HR, IE, IT, LU, PL, SE. 
31   BE, CZ, DE, ES, FR, IT, PL, PT, SE. 
32   Initial findings of the ongoing study by FRA on the Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence status 

holder, pp. 9 and 18. 

33   Consultation with representatives of the Civil Society, 20 April 2020. 
34   Ibid. 
35   See for example the 2019 EMN study on pathways to citizenship (p. 17): https://ec.europa.eu/home-
affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/00_eu_emn_study_synthesis_report_citizenship_final_en_0.pdf.  

36   See case Chakroun, C-578/08. 

11 

 
                                                           
most  cases37,  third-country  nationals  are  required  to  provide  proof  of  having  a 
regular income that is at least equivalent either to the minimum monthly salary (from 
312€  in  BG  to  2142€  in  LU38)  or  the  minimum  monthly  basic  income  or  benefit 
(from  165€  in  PL  to  600€  in  PT39).  Furthermore,  12  Member  States  request 
documentation with regard to appropriate accommodation, some of them considering 
that the failure to provide it is a ground for refusing an application40. 

  15 Member States41 have transposed the optional clause of requiring compliance with 
integration  conditions.  Academic  studies  report  that  in  most  cases,  strict  language 
knowledge requirements can limit access to permanent residence to “well integrated 
migrants”42.  Consultations  with  representatives  of  migrant  organisations  as  well  as 
preliminary findings from the FRA study showed that in some Member States43, the 
level of language proficiency required was deemed disproportionate considering the 
difficulties that a third-country national might face to have access to language courses 
or certification44.  

Drivers 

This  sub-problem  is  due  both  to  a  regulatory  failure,  as  the  conditions  set  by  the 
Directive are very broad and leave a wide discretion to the national migration authorities, 
and to the implementation of these conditions by the Member States, which eventually 
exclude  a  significant  number  of  third-country  nationals  to  benefit  from  the  status.  In 
particular: 

  Resident  permits  on  temporary  grounds  or  formally  limited  are  excluded  from  the 
calculation  of  the  five  years  (Article  3(2)(e)  of  the  Directive).  Furthermore,  this 
exception  is  not  clear  and  some  Member  States  apply  it  too  strictly45,  despite  the 
clarifications brought by the case-law of the CJEU46.  

  The residence periods spent as students may not be counted at all or, if counted, only 
as  half  (Article  4(2)  second  paragraph),  so  that  a  student  who  e.g.  completed  a 
Masters’ degree and started working afterwards cannot apply for the EU LTR status, 
even if he/she can demonstrate to be fully integrated47; 

37   EMN Inform (2020), Long-term resident status in the EU, p. 6 to 8. 
38   Eurostat  (2021)  Monthly  minimum  wages,  for  the  first  semester  of  2020  –  bi-annual  data, 

earn_mw_cur. 

39   EMN Ad Hoc Query 2019.98 on European Union Long-term residence – Part 1. 
40   European Commission (2019) 161 final, Second implementation report, p. 4. 
41   CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT. 
42   Bocker, A., Strik, T., Language and Knowledge Tests for Permanent Residence Rights: help or 

hindrance for integration? European Journal of Migration and Law 13. p.173 

43   For example, DE and PL, see the initial findings of the ongoing study by FRA on the Fundamental 

Rights of Long-term residence status holder, p. 5. 

44   Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants (2 March 2021) 
45   According to the Commission implementation report 2011, several Member State are applying a broad 

reading of this exception (AT, CY, EL, IT, PL). 

46   CJEU (2012), C-502/10, Singh. 
47  This issue was raised several times in the consultations: Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on 
Economic Migration, 14  April 2021 and the  Second  meeting of the EU legal  migration practitioners’ 
network, 29 April 2021. 

12 

 
                                                           
  Periods  of  legal  and  continuous  residence  in  different  Member  States  cannot  be 

cumulated48 (Article 4(1)); 

  Member  States  have  a  large  discretion  in  applying  the  requirements  of  “stable  and 
regular  resources”  (‘shall  clause’  in  Article  5(1)(a))  and  of  compliance  with 
“integration  conditions”  (‘may  clause’  in  Article  5(2)),  and  some  Member  States 
apply them in a very strict manner (though this discretion has been partially framed 
by the case law of the CJEU)49.  

Problem area 2: barriers to the integration of long-term residents 

As  repeatedly  confirmed  by  the  CJEU50,  the  principal  purpose  of  the  Directive  is  the 
integration of third-country nationals who are settled on a long-term basis in the Member 
States.  Besides  granting  the  right  to  reside  permanently  in  a  Member  State,  the  main 
integration tool provided by the Directive is represented by the right to be treated equally 
as nationals, in a number of important areas such as work, education, and social benefits. 
While the status of long-term resident should benefit from the highest standard of rights 
compared to other (temporary) migration statuses, the consultation showed that there are 
still  many  instances  where  long-term  residents  face  discrimination51.  Besides  anecdotal 
evidence, however, there are no data to indicate to what extent the integration objective 
has been achieved, as there are no comprehensive and reliable study on the integration of 
long-term residents. 

The Fitness check showed clearly that there are a number of inconsistencies between the 
Long-term residents Directive and other EU Directives on legal migration adopted later, 
with  regard  to  the  rights  granted  to  long-term  residents  and  their  family  members.  In 
particular: 

  As the family situation of long-term residents is regulated only in case of mobility to 
other Member States, the spouse and children of long-term residents who do not move 
to other Member States may not benefit from the same rights of their ‘sponsor’, which 
may undermine the main objective of the Directive to be an instrument for integration; 
  Access to housing for long-term residents is unclear, and in particular the right to buy 
immovable  property.  This  lack  of  clarity  has  brought  some  Member  States  not  to 
allow  long-term  residents  to  buy  immovable  property,  which  undermines  the  main 
objective of the Directive to be an instrument for integration;  

  In some Member States long-term residents may only have access to ‘core benefits’ in 

relation to social assistance and social protection; 

  If family members of a long-term resident reside outside the Member State, the latter 

may not have access to family benefits. 

The uncertainties in the application of the existing derogations to the principle of equal 
treatment led to several interventions of the CJEU. However, academics commented that, 

48   Only EU Blue Card holders are  allowed  to cumulate  periods of residence in different  Member States 

(Article 16 of Directive 2009/50/EC). 

49   See P&S, C-579/13; X./Belgium, C-503-592/19; CGIL and INCA, C-309/14; Chakroun, C-578/08. 
50   See Commission v Netherlands, C‑508/10 
51   See Annex 2. 

13 

 
                                                           
considering the large discretion offered to the Member States in their application of the 
principle  of  equal  treatment,  the  “degree  of  convergence  achieved  by  the  Directive 
amounts to ‘comparable treatment’ instead of the original promise of ‘equal treatment’ in 
the areas covered by Article 11”52. 

Drivers 

This  problem  is  due  both  to  a  regulatory  failure,  as  the  current  Directive  in  some 
instances  fails  to  grant  long-term  residents  and  their  family  members  a  set  of  uniform 
rights which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens (as per the objective 
stated in the Tampere Council conclusions and reiterated in Recital 2 of the Directive), 
and to poor implementation by the Member States. The Directive includes a number of 
derogations  to  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  that    are  used  by  many  Member  States, 
showing their reluctance to grant third-country nationals, even those residing legally on 
their territory for years, the same rights as their nationals. In particular: 

  The Directive does not grant specific rights to the family members of the long-term 

residents besides the case of mobility to other Member States; 

  Under  Article  11(1)(f),  equal  treatment  with  regards  to  housing  is  limited  to 
“procedures for obtaining housing”. The fact  that the article refers to access  to  the 
procedures  rather  than  access  to  housing  in  general  seems  to  emphasise  that  “the 
provision  contains  no  individual  right  that  housing  shall  be  made  available  to 
individuals”.  It  also  leaves  discretion  to  the  Member  States  when  it  comes  to 
activities by long-term residents relating to housing, such as land purchases53. This 
lack of clarity was also highlighted by Civil Society representatives54. 

  Article 11(4) allows the Member States to limit access to social assistance and social 
protection  to  ‘core  benefits’,  and  the  interpretation  of  this  derogation  has  led  to 
divergent implementation in the Member States (partially clarified by the case law of 
the CJEU55). Also, as highlighted by Civil  Society  representatives and members of 
the  EU  legal  migration  practitioners’  network56,  the  definition  of  social  security 
(including  the  export  of  pensions)  is  not  aligned  with  the  other  legal  migration 
Directives57,  and  there  are  uncertainties  as  to  the  distinction  with  social  assistance 
and social protection; 

  Article 11(2) allows Member States to derogate from the principle of equal treatment 
with  regard to  family benefits  where the family  members of the long-term  resident 

52   Thym, D. (2016), “Long Term Residents Directive 2003/109/3C” in Kay Hailbronner and Daniel Thym 
(eds.), EU Immigration and Asylum Law: A Commentary, 2nd edition, Munich: C.H. Beck, p.480. 
53   Thym D. (2016), “Long Term Residents Directive 2003/109/3C” in Kay Hailbronner and Daniel Thym 
(eds.), EU Immigration and Asylum Law: A Commentary, 2nd edition, Munich: C.H. Beck, p.489. 

54   Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021. 
55   See CJEU, judgment of 24 April 2012, case C-571/10, Kamberaj. 
56   Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021 and Consultation with members of the 

legal migration network of practitioners, 29 April 2021. 

57   In  particular,  there  is  no  reference  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  883/2004,  and  no  equal  treatment  with 

regards to export of pensions (see Directive 2011/98/EU, Article 12(1)(e) and 12(4). 

14 

 
                                                           
reside  outside  the  Member  State:  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  regime  of  the  other 
legal migration Directives, including the Single Permit Directive58.  

Problem area 3:  Barriers to exercise the intra-EU mobility rights 

Holders of EU LTR permits face a number of barriers in exercising the right to move and 
reside in other Member States for work, study, or other reasons. In particular: 

  When  a  long-term  resident  has  an  offer  for  a  job  in  a  second  Member  State,  this 
country  may  apply  a  labour  market  test  (hereafter  LMT)  before  accepting  his/her 
application, to check if that job could be filled first by EU nationals59; 

 

  Delays in the assessment of an application in a second Member State can jeopardise 
the work or study opportunities there60. In particular, only 12 Member States allow 
for  the  application  to  be  submitted  from  the  first  Member  State  (to  embassies  or 
consulates of the second Member State)61. Civil society representatives stressed that 
this might demotivate employers from hiring long-term residents from other Member 
States or even considering them as job candidates62; 
‘Mobile’  long-term  residents  face  important  difficulties  in  the  recognition  of  their 
the  European  Network  of  Public 
professional  qualifications.  Members  of 
Employment  Services  highlighted  this  as  one  of  the  key  barriers  preventing  third-
country  nationals  from  accessing  the  labour  market  of  other  Member  States63, 
the  Legal  Migration  Fitness  Check  Public 
confirming 
the 
Consultation64; 
11 Member States65 apply restrictions to the labour market access for ‘mobile’ long-
term  residents,  either  limiting  it  to  a  single  employer66  or  a  single  professional 
field67. In addition, two Member States68 apply quotas for the admission of ‘mobile’ 
long-term  residents,  in  line  with  Article  14(4)  of  the  Directive.  In  three  Member 
States69  ‘mobile’  long-term  residents  may  be  required  to  attend  language  courses. 

responses 

to 

 

58   While  Member  States  may  apply  derogations  to  those  who  reside  outside  the  territory  of  Member 
States, the CJEU clarified that “those derogations can be relied on only if the authorities in the Member 
State concerned, who are responsible for the implementation of that Directive, have stated clearly that 
they  intended  to  rely  on  them”.  CJEU,  Judgement  of  25  November  2020,  case  C-303/19,  Istituto 
nazionale della previdenza sociale. 

59  16  Member  States  have  implemented  this  option  under  Article  14(3)  of  the  Directive,  see  European 
Commission (2019) 161 final, Second implementation report, p.7 and EMN Inform (2020) Long-term 
residence status in the EU, p.12. 

60   This was confirmed by members of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration and the Migrant 

Expert Group. 

61   BE, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, LV, LU, NL, SE, SI, SK, see EMN Inform (2020) Long-term residence status 

in the EU, p.2. 

62   Consultation with representatives of the Migrant Expert Group, 2 March 2021. 
63   Consultation with Members of the European Public Employment Services Network, 10 March 2021. 
64   European Commission (2019) 1055 final, Legal Migration Fitness Check, Summary of Replies to the 

public consultation on legal migration by non-EU citizens, pp. 46-47. 

65   BE, DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, LV, LU, NL, PT, SK 
66   FI, FR, LU. 
67   BE, EE, FI (for specific reasons, such as posted work), FR, HR, LV. 
68   EE and IT. 
69   DE, FR, IT. 

15 

 
                                                           
 

Experts in all nine Member States  covered by the FRA study highlighted that such 
labour market restrictions limit the intra-EU mobility of EU LTR permit holders70; 
‘Mobile’  long-term  residents  need  to  reside  for  five  years  in  the  second  Member 
State  before  being  allowed  to  apply  for  EU  LTR  status  there.  Members  of  the 
Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration  highlighted  that  employers  would 
prefer this time to be reduced, in order to lower their administrative burden in terms 
of having to request permit renewals, etc. 

Civil  Society  representatives71  and  members  of  the  EU  legal  migration  practitioners’ 
network72  underlined  that  the  current  barriers  to  intra-EU  mobility  are  one  of  the  key 
factors  decreasing  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  to  migrants  with  skills  required  by  the 
European  labour  market,  though  there  are  no  reliable  data  to  assume  that  the 
‘attractiveness’ of the EU LTR status is a decisive factor in the ‘attractiveness’ of the EU 
or  some  Member  States  as  a  migration  destination.  Some  members  of  the  Informal 
Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration73  also  highlighted  that  removing  these  barriers 
could be an important tool in times of crises and economic recessions. Those might have 
a very asymmetrical impact on Member States in terms of availability of occupations and 
employment rates, which has in the past pushed third-country workers and their families 
to move to other Member States for work. Some representatives considered this likely to 
happen again, with the crisis and recession triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic74.  

Drivers 

This problem is due to a regulatory failure, as the right of long-term residents to move 
and  reside  in  other  Member  States  is  subject  to  a  number  of  strict  conditions  in  the 
current  Directive,  as  well  as  to  the  strict  implementation  of  these  conditions  by  the 
Member  States,  and  to  the  fact  that  the  competent  national  administrations  are  not 
sufficiently familiar with the mobility procedures75. In particular: 

  Member States may apply a LMT before accepting applications for intra-EU mobility 

(Article 4(3)); 

  ‘mobile’  long-term  residents  are  not  allowed  to  start  working  or  studying  in  the 

second Member State while the application is being assessed (Article 21(2)); 

  the deadline to process applications for intra-EU mobility is longer than in the more 

recent legal migration directives (four months vs. 90 days – Article 19(1))76; 

70   In BE, CZ, DE, ES, FR, IT, PL, PT, SE,  see the initial findings of the ongoing study by FRA on the 

Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence status holder, p. 13. 
71   Consultation with representatives of the Civil Society, 20 April 2021. 
72   Consultation with representatives of the EU legal migration practitioners’ network, 29 April 2021. 
73   Meeting of 14 April 2021. 
74   This is supported by the findings of a study analysing the mobility of third-country nationals in the EU 
during the 2008-2013 recession, which found that migrants tended to respond faster and more flexibly 
to labour imbalances caused by the recession compared to the native population, bearing a large share 
of  the  burden  of  adjustment:  Kahanec,  M.,  Guzi,  M.  (2017)  “How  immigrants  helped  EU  labour 
markets to adjust during the Great Recession”, International Journal of Manpower, September 2017. 

75   See Fitness Check, p. 19. 
76   Blue Card Directive, Articles 11 and 17; Students and researchers Directive, Article 29. 

16 

 
                                                           
  ‘mobile’  long-term  residents  do  not  benefit  from  the  EU  regime  of  recognition  of 
professional  qualifications  when  they  apply  for  a  residence  permit  in  a  second 
Member State77; 

  Member  States  may  limit  the  access  to  the  labour  market  for  ‘mobile’  long-term 

residents and their family members for a period of up to 12 months (Article 21); 

  ‘mobile’ long-term residents need to reside for five years in the second Member State 

before being allowed to apply for EU LTR status there (Article 23). 

Problem area 4: failure to ensure circular migration of long-term residents 

Long-term residents lose their status where they are absent from the territory of the EU 
for more than one year. This regime does not allow the circular migration for long-term 
residents,  who  are  discouraged  from  leaving  the  territory  of  the  EU  for  periods  longer 
than one year because of the risk of losing the status. This also has an indirect impact on 
the countries of origin, who could benefit from circular migration in terms of brain gain.  

In  the  consultations,  Civil  Society  representatives  argued  to  increase  the  period  of 
allowed  absence,  as  this  would  facilitate  circular  migration  and  promote  the  possibility 
for  migrants  to  invest  in  their  countries  of  origin  and  share  the  knowledge  and  skills 
acquired during their time in the EU, as well as to return temporarily to their countries for 
personal and family circumstances78. 

Drivers 

The  main  driver  of  this  problem  is  a  regulatory  failure,  as  (Article  9(1)(c)  of  the 
Directive establishes that long-term residents lose their status where they are absent from 
the  territory  of  the  EU  for  more  than  12  consecutive  months79,  and  the  concept  of 
absence is not defined in the Directive80.  

While Article 9(2) of the Directive allows Member States to consider absences exceeding 
12 consecutive months for specific or exceptional reasons, only 14 Member States have 
decided  to  apply  this  derogation81.  Also,  Article  9(5)  of  the  Directive  introduced  a 
facilitated procedure to reacquire the status in those cases, but this regime leaves a large 
room  for  discretion  to  Member  States.  Only  15  Member  States  have  it  in  place82  and 
conditions are sometimes excessive83.   

77   Directive 2005/36/EC as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU. 
78   Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021. 
79   The Commission had proposed a period of two years, with exceptions, for the loss of status, in line with 
corresponding  rules  for  Union  citizens  in  the  Citizenship  Directive  (See  Article  10(1)(a),  (3) 
Commission Proposal, COM(2001) 127 mirroring Article 16(4) Directive 2004/38/EC). This proposal 
was not followed by the Council. 

80   For clarification on the concept of absence, see CJEU (pending) C-432/20, Z.K./Landeshauptmann. 
81   BE, BG, CZ, EE, ES, FI, FR, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT, SI in EMN Inform (2020) Long-term resident 

status in the EU, p. 10. 

82   BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, ES, FR, HU, IT, LV, LT, LU, LV, PL, PT, in EMN Inform (2020) Long-term 

resident status in the EU, p. 15. 

83   European Commission (2019) 161 final, Second implementation report, p. 5. 

17 

 
                                                           
Problem area 5: risk of abusive acquisition of the EU LTR status through investor 
schemes 

Under the Directive, the EU  LTR  status  is  granted to  third-country nationals  who  have 
resided legally  and continuously within the Member States’ territory  for five  years and 
thus are deemed to be well integrated. The continuity of presence is normally interrupted 
by absences of more than six consecutive months, or by an overall absence exceeding ten 
months within five years. However, there could be situations where, in the absence of an 
effective monitoring of the continuity of presence in the country or even of a requirement 
on  physical  presence,  third-country  investors  could  acquire  EU  LTR  status,  including 
intra-EU  mobility  rights,  without  fulfilling  the  actual  condition  of  the  continuity  of 
residence  for  five  years.  The  2019  Commission  Report  on  “Investor  Citizenship  and 
Residence  Schemes  in  the  EU”84  identified  this  as  a  potential  risk,  especially  in  cases 
where the continuous physical presence of holders of investor permits is not required or 
required only for a limited time. There is no available evidence to indicate the scale of 
this risk, but the Commission has committed in the report to monitor identified risks and 
take steps, as necessary. 

Drivers 

The main driver of this problem is due to poor implementation by Member States of the 
Directive  obligation  to  monitor  the  actual  residence  for  investors,  due  to  ineffective  or 
non-existing  monitoring  systems  on  the  residence  requirement.  The  2019  Commission 
Report  highlighted  that  investor  residence  schemes  exist  to  date  in  19  Member  States 
under different features (e.g. regarding the nature and amount of the investment)85, and 
that in several Member States the investor residence schemes do not require continuous 
physical presence or only require the investors’ presence for a very limited time86. Given 
that  the  Member  States  concerned  are  obtaining  a  financial  benefit  from  granting  this 
type  of  residence  permits,  there  are  insufficient  incentives  to  effectively  monitor  the 
continuous residence requirement. 

2.2. 

2.2. 

How will the problem evolve? 

Without EU action, the problems identified will continue to exist and possibly, in a few 
areas,  exacerbate. More  particularly, the EU  LTR status  will continue to be under-used 
and, based on trends witnessed over the past 10 years, may further worsen proportionally: 
while  from  2012  –  2015  the  share  of  EU  LTR  permits  on  the  total  LTR  permits  was 
around 40%, the shares in the subsequent years have been going down to 29% in 2019. 
Without making it easier to obtain the EU LTR status, third-country nationals are likely 
to continue encountering difficulties when applying for the status. As a direct result, they 
may thus prefer applying for national schemes.  

84   Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes in 
the European Union | European Commission (europa.eu).  

85   BG, CZ, EE, IE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PO, PT, RO, SK. 
86   BG, CZ, EE, IE, EL, FR, LV, LT, LU, MT, PO, RO, SK. 

18 

 
                                                           
Barriers to  intra-EU mobility will also  persist, in  particular  considering  that  there is  no 
evidence that Member States are willing to remove the LMTs, and/or put in place a truly 
facilitated procedure for ‘mobile’ long-term residents. In addition, the declining trend in 
EU LTR permits granted would also imply that the cohort of those who are eligible for 
intra-EU  mobility  will  gradually  decrease  in  size  or  stabilise.  This  in  turn  means  that 
labour markets cannot fully benefit from mobile long-term residents to address shortages. 
This will affect the potential contribution of long-term residents to the attainment of the 
internal market. 

Third  countries  will  also  continue  not  being  able  to  fully  benefit  from  the  potential 
economic  gain  of  their  nationals  being  long-term  residents  in  the  EU,  considering  the 
restrictions in place on the allowed absences without losing the status. Such restrictions 
are  currently  hampering  circular  migration  and  the  extent  to  which  third-country 
nationals  can  invest,  work  or  otherwise  contribute  to  the  economy  in  their  home 
countries. 

EU  long-term  residents  will  continue  facing  legal  uncertainty  around  their  rights  and 
those of their family members, and in some areas they will not be treated equally as EU 
citizens.  Finally,  the  current  risk  of  abusing  investor  schemes  to  obtain  the  EU  LTR 
status  is  also  expected  to  persist,  in  the  absence  of  Member  States  taking  appropriate 
measures. 

As a consequence, the attractiveness of the EU LTR status is likely to reduce or at least 
not to increase in the coming 10 years. The persisting problems may also have an effect 
on  the  integration  of  long-term  residents.  As  European  statistics  on  the  integration  of 
migrants  consistently  show87,  third-country  nationals  living  in  the  EU  continue  to  lag 
behind nationals and mobile EU citizens in terms of employment rates, being at-risk of 
poverty and median income. For example, as shown in Figure 1 below, the gap between 
the median equivalised income of citizens from EU countries and those living in the EU 
but  from  third  countries  is  likely  to  widen  somewhat  also  in  the  future,  when  applying 
extrapolation based on 2011-2019 Eurostat statistics. 

Figure 1.  Median equivalised annual income in euro, by groups of country of birth 

Source: Eurostat statistics on migrant integration (ilc_di16_1_Data) 

87    https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=Migrant_integration_statistics_%E2%80%93_labour_market_indicators  

19 

 
 
                                                           
3.  3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1. 

3.1. 

Legal basis 

The legal basis for Union action in the area is established in Article 79(2) (a) and (b) of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in connection with Article 
79(1) of the same Treaty. These provisions state that the “Union shall develop a common 
immigration  policy  aimed  at  ensuring,  at  all  stages,  the  efficient  management  of 
migration  flows,  fair  treatment  of  third-country  nationals  residing  legally  in  Member 
States,  (…)”.  For  this  purpose,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  acting  in 
accordance  with  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure,  "shall  adopt  measures  in  the 
following areas: (a) the conditions of entry and residence, and standards on the issue by 
Member States of long-term visas and residence permits (…)” and “(b) the definition of 
the  rights  of  third-country  nationals  residing  legally  in  a  Member  State,  including  the 
conditions  governing  freedom  of  movement  and  of  residence  in  other  Member  States”. 
Directive 2003/109/EC was  adopted on Article 63(3) and (4) of the Treaty establishing 
the European Community, the Article corresponding to Article 79(2) (a) and (b) prior to 
the changes brought by the Treaty of Lisbon. 

3.2. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The  principle  of  subsidiarity  applies  since  this  is  an  area  of  shared  competence.  In 
particular, any measure proposed in the area of legal migration “shall not affect the right 
of Member States to determine volumes of admission of third-country nationals coming 
from  third  countries  to  their  territory  in  order  to  seek  work,  whether  employed  or  self-
employed”  (Article  79(5)  TFEU).  The  need  for  a  common  EU  framework  on  legal 
migration  is  linked  to  the  abolition  of  internal  border  controls  within  the  EU  and  the 
creation of the Schengen area. In this context, the migration policies and decisions of one 
Member  State  affect  other  Member  States,  so  it  is  deemed  necessary  to  have  a  set  of 
common EU rules in relation to the conditions and procedures for allowing third-country 
nationals  to  enter  and  reside  in  the  EU,  and  to  lay  down  their  rights  following 
admission88. 

3.3. 

3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

The TFEU explicitly empowers the Union to develop a common immigration policy, so 
this is a clear objective to be pursued at EU level. At the same time, legal migration is an 
area of shared competence between the EU and the Member States, and the Treaty also 
reserves explicitly to the Member States the right to set volumes of admission for labour 
migrants  they  admit.  The  Fitness  check  showed  that  the  legal  migration  Directives, 
including  the  long-term  residents  Directive,  have  had  a  number  of  positive  effects  that 
would not have been realised by Member States acting alone. While positions on specific 
aspects  often  vary  (e.g.  across  Member  States,  Non-Governmental  Organisations 
(NGOs),  businesses,  individual  migrants),  all  stakeholders,  including  Member  States, 

88   See Fitness check, page 3. 

20 

 
                                                           
confirmed  the  continued  overall  added  value  of  the  EU  legal  migration  acquis89.  The 
main  positive  effects  identified  by  the  Fitness  check  are:  a  degree  of  harmonisation  of 
conditions, procedures and rights, helping to create a level playing field across Member 
States; simplified administrative procedures; improved legal certainty and predictability 
for third-country nationals, employers, and administrations; improved recognition of the 
rights  of  third-country  nationals  (namely  the  right  to  be  treated  on  an  equal  basis  with 
nationals in a number of important areas, such as working conditions, access to education 
and  social  security  benefits,  and  procedural  rights);  improved  intra-EU  mobility. 
However,  despite  these  positive  effects,  the  Fitness  check  also  concluded  that  there  is 
clearly room for further harmonisation and simplification at EU level. 

The  revision  of  the  Long-term  residents  Directive  aims  precisely  at  such  further 
harmonisation  and  simplification.  In  particular,  improved  rights  would  benefit  third-
country  nationals  and  facilitated  access  to  EU  LTR  status  would  ensure  a  secure  and 
stable  residence  status  for  third-country  nationals  who  would  not  otherwise  satisfy  the 
conditions for acquiring citizenship status.  

Finally, efficient rules on intra-EU mobility can be established only at EU level, since no 
national  migration  policy  has  ever  provided  facilitations  for  applications  from  third-
country  nationals  residing  in  another  Member  State.  Furthermore,  the  Member  States’ 
prerogative  to  establish  how  many  economic  migrants  they  admit  relates  only  to  third-
country  workers  from  outside  the  EU,  and  does  not  apply  to  intra-EU  mobility. 
Therefore,  EU  rules  have  an  important  influence  on  the  efficient  mobility  of  third-
country nationals across the Member States. Improved intra-EU mobility rules for long-
term residents would not require any significant additional transfer of competences from 
Member States to the EU level as easier intra-EU mobility is already envisaged — even 
if to a limited extent — in the current Directive. Moreover, further-reaching schemes on 
mobility  have  already  been  agreed  for  Intra-Corporate  Transferees,  Students  and 
Researchers, and highly qualified workers (EU Blue Card).  

4.  4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1. 

4.1. 

General objectives 

Based on the problem analysis, and taking into account the role of the Directive within 
the overall EU’s legal framework in the field of legal migration as established in the 2019 
Fitness Check, the general policy objectives of the initiative are:  

1)  To  ensure  the  efficient  management  of  migration  flows  in  the  EU  through  the 

approximation and harmonisation of Member States’ national legislation; 

2)  To ensure the fair treatment of third-country nationals legally residing in the EU; 
3)  To strengthen the EU’s competitiveness and economic growth. 

89   Ibid, page 94 

21 

 
                                                           
4.2. 

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

This  initiative  does  not  aim  to  overhaul  the  objectives  of  the  current  Directive,  but  to 
address in a targeted way the problems analysed above.  

Based on that, the specific policy objectives of the initiative are: 

1) To create a more coherent, efficient and fair system to acquire the EU long-term 

resident status; 

2) To facilitate the intra-EU mobility of long-term residents; 
3) To improve the rights of long term-residents and their family. 

The three specific objectives are all complementary and inter-twined. In particular, there 
is no trade-off between the objective of integration in the first Member State and the right 
to move to a second Member State or to exercise circular migration. The acquisition of 
the EU long-term residence status is the ‘acknowledgement’ that a third-country national 
is  well  integrated  in  the  first  Member  State,  and  full  integration  should  also  entail  the 
right for long-term residents to reside in other Member States or to be absent for the EU 
for a period of time without losing the status.  

In particular, the integration of third-country nationals in one Member State needs to be 
seen in the overall context of the development of a common EU migration policy, where 
a  third-country  national  who  is  integrated  in  one  Member  State  should  be  entitled  to 
continue  this  integration  process  in  other  Member  States,  and  therefore  able  to  move 
across the Union if he/she wishes so. 

The  table  below  illustrates  the  links  between  the  problems  and  their  drivers  with  the 
objectives.

22 

 
s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
c
i
f
i
c
e
p
S

s
m
e
l
b
o
r
P

To create a more coherent, efficient and fair system to acquire the EU LTR status 

To facilitate the intra-EU 
mobility of long-term residents 

To improve the rights of long term-residents and their family 

Barriers for third-country nationals to access 
the EU LTR status 

Risk of abusive 
acquisition of EU 
LTR status 
through investor 
schemes 

Barriers to the 
integration of long-term 
residents  

Failure to enable 
circular migration 
of LTR 

Barriers to the intra-EU 
mobility of long-term 
residents 

s
r
e
v
i
r
D

No clear 
rules on 
the co-
existence 
of the EU 
and 
national 
statuses 

Member 
States do 
not 
actively 
promote 
the EU 
status 

Strict 
application 
of the 
resources 
and 
integration 
conditions 

Years 
spent as 
students 
or on 
temporary 
permits 
may not 
contribute 
to 
reaching 
the five 
years 

No clear 
monitoring 
mechanisms 
of residence 
acquired on 
the basis of 
investor 
schemes  

Limited 
access 
to social 
benefits 
and 
housing 

Family 
members of 
non-mobile 
long-term 
residents 
cannot 
benefit from 
the same 
rights 

No clear 
procedure 
to 
reacquire 
EU LTR 
status 
after 
absence 

Loss of 
EU LTR 
status 
where 
absence 
for more 
than 12 
consecuti
ve 
months 

Member 
States may 
apply a 
labour market 
test and limit 
access to the 
labour market 

Long 
application 
procedure, 
and not 
possible to 
start working 
or studying 
with the 
application 
pending 

The five year residence 
period needs to be 
complied with even when 
TCNs can prove their full 
integration before 

It is not possible to 
cumulate residence 
periods in different 
Member States 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS?  

5.1. 

5.1. 

What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

The current Directive would continue to be applied without legislative changes. Existing 
monitoring  and  enforcement  activities  of  the  current  legislation  would  continue,  as 
reported  in  the  Commission  implementation  report  of  201990.  Furthermore,  it  can  be 
expected that there would be additional guidance from the evolving case law of the EU 
Court of Justice and national courts. 

The  baseline  should  also  take  into  account  the  revision  of  the  Single  Permit  Directive, 
which  is  expected  to  simplify  the  first  admission  for  third-country  workers  and 
improving their rights. However, as the expected increase in the number of third-country 
nationals  obtaining  single  permits  is  expected  to  be  very  limited  as  a  result  of  the 
revision, it would also not have a significant impact on the number of potential applicants 
for EU LTR status. 

For the assessment of the policy options (PO), the following main baseline assumptions 
have been made91: 

  Without  EU  action,  the  number  of  EU  LTR  status  holders  (stock  and  flow)  will 
evolve in a linear way, based on extrapolation using Eurostat statistics from 2015 to 
2019, which thus  takes  into  account  the  gradual  decline in  the share of EU permits 
vis-a-vis  national  permits  over  the  second  half  of  that  decade92,  whilst  also 
considering  the  continuously  growing  total  number  of  third-country  nationals  with 
long-term residence status. 

90   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0161&from=EN.  
91   For more details on the baseline assumptions, see Annex 4. 
92  The significant growth of national permits from 2015 to 2016 is notably due to the inclusion of data for 

Germany that was not available before. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                           
Baseline LTR Holders 
Evolution

20.000.000

15.000.000

10.000.000

5.000.000

0

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

EU LTR

Total LTR (including EU LTR)

Source: projections based on Eurostat data 2019 LTR status holders (migr_reslong) 

  From the limited statistics available on overall movements of third-country nationals 
in  absolute  terms,  it  seems  clear  that  these  remain  small  when  compared  to 
movements  of  EU  citizens  across  Member  States93.  When  processed  and 
extrapolated,  this  limited  data  suggests  that,  compared  to  the  3-4%  of  EU  citizens 
who are mobile,94 only 2% of the long-term residents are estimated to be mobile. 

The detailed assumptions used to estimate the costs and the economic impacts of the POs 
are summarised in section 6, and further explained in Annex 4.  

5.2. 

5.2. 

Description of the policy options 

Based  on  the  problem  definition  and  objectives  described  above,  four  different  policy 
options  have  been  identified,  one  non-legislative  and  three  legislative.  The  legislative 
policy  options  have  been  developed  by  presenting  a  range  of  increasingly  ambitious 
policy  measures  (from  PO2  –  less  ambitious  to  PO4  –  more  ambitious).  No  policy 
options  have  been  discarded,  as  all  different  policy  measures  emerged  from  the 
consultation and impact assessment process have been included in the four options. 

Option  1:  actions  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive  (non-legislative 
option) 

This  policy  option  would  involve  non-legislative  actions  aimed  at  enhancing  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive  and  the  promotion  of  the  EU  LTR  status,  without  any 
legislative change. The key measures would be: 

93   EMN (2013), Intra-EU Mobility of third-country  nationals; and EMN (2021) Ad Hoc Query 2021.37 
and  2021.36  to  support  an  impact  assessment  study  on  the  revision  of  the  Long-term  Residents  and 
Single Permit Directives. 

94   European Commission, 2019 Annual Report on Intra-EU Labour Mobility 

25 

 
 
                                                           
1.1.  The Commission enhances the implementation of the Directive through increasing 
enforcement  measures,  including  infringement  procedures,  and  supports  further 
practical  cooperation  between  Member  States.  Member  States’  experts  exchange 
information on best practices and perceived trends, as well as on possible fraud and 
abuses of the EU LTR status. 

1.2.  EU  and  Member  States  increase  the  visibility  of  the  EU  LTR  status  through 
information  sharing,  promotion,  and  advertisement  activities.  The  Commission 
issues  guidelines  and  awareness-raising  tools  addressed  to  Member  States 
authorities,  third-country  nationals,  and  legal  practitioners.  In  particular,  training 
activities are organised for national immigration authorities both on the procedures 
for the acquisition of EU LTR status and for intra-EU mobility. 

Option 2: targeted legislative revision of the Directive 

This  option  envisages  a  targeted  revision  of  the  Directive,  which  would  address  the 
following thematic areas, corresponding to the specific objectives: 

1.  Acquisition of the EU LTR status 

2.  Intra-EU mobility rights 

3.  Rights of long-term residents and their family members 

With  regard  to  the  acquisition  of  the  EU  LTR  status,  this  option  would  introduce  a 
‘level-playing field’ mechanism between the EU LTR permit and the national permanent 
residence  permits,  so  that  third-country  nationals  have  a  real  choice  between  the  two 
permits. In implementing this mechanism, Member States should ensure that: 

2.1. 

integration and resources requirements for acquiring the EU status are not stricter 
than the requirements to acquire the national status; 

2.2.  applicants for EU LTR permits pay the same level of fees for the handling of their 

application as applicants for national permits; 

2.3.  holders of EU LTR status do not enjoy a lower level of procedural safeguards and 

rights than holders of national residence permits; 

2.4. 

the  EU  LTR  status  benefits  from  the  same  level  of  information,  promotion  and 
advertising  activities  as  the  national  residence  permits,  for  example  through 
ensuring  adequate  information  on  the  national  websites  on  legal  migration, 
information campaigns and training programmes for the migration authorities; 

2.5.  holders  of  national  permits  who  apply  for  an  EU  LTR  permit  have  a  facilitated 
procedure (i.e. not presenting evidence already checked for the national permit). 

To  prevent  the  risk  of  fraudulent  acquisition  of  the  EU  LTR  status,  this  option 
includes also a measure: 

2.6.  encouraging Member States to reinforce checks on the residence requirement with 
regard to application for EU LTR status on the basis of investor residence schemes. 

26 

 
With  regard  to  intra-EU  mobility,  this  option  would  facilitate  the  right  of  long-term 
residents to move and reside in other Member States, in particular by: 

2.7.  not allowing the second Member State to apply a LMT; 

2.8.  allowing long-term residents to start working or studying in a second Member State 

while their application is being assessed; 

2.9.  allowing  long-term  residents  to  submit  the  application  while  still  residing  in  the 

first Member State; 

2.10.  shortening  the  deadline  for  processing  the  application  (from  four  months  to  90 

days); 

2.11.  granting  ‘mobile’  long-term  residents  equal  treatment  with  Union  citizens  as 
regards the recognition of professional qualifications in the second Member State, 
in accordance with applicable EU and national law; 

2.12.  improving  the  rules  on  access  to  the  labour  market  for  the  ‘mobile’  long-term 

residents and their family members; 

2.13.  shortening the time needed to acquire EU LTR status in the second Member State 
(three  years  instead  of  five  years)  for  those  third-country  nationals  who  already 
have EU LTR status in the first Member State. 

With regard to the rights of the long-term residents and of their family members, this 
option would improve them and address the identified consistency issues with other legal 
migration Directives, in particular by: 

2.14.  introducing  derogations  from  the  rules  on  family  reunification  of  Directive 

2003/86/EC to facilitate the family reunification for long-term residents; 

2.15.  automatically granting the EU LTR status to children of long-term residents born in 

the EU; 

2.16.  clarifying the access to housing, to include the right to buy immovable property; 

2.17.  aligning  the  definition  of  social  security  (and  the  export  of  pensions  and  family 
benefits)  with  the  other  legal  migration  Directives,  and  ensuring  full  equal 
treatment  with  regard to access  to  social assistance  and social protection  (beyond 
the concept of ‘core benefits’); 

2.18.  prolonging the allowed period of absence outside the EU from 12 to 24 months; 

2.19.  regulating in more detail the procedure to reacquire the  EU LTR status following 

absence. 

Option  3:  wider  legislative  revision  of  the  Directive  (Option  2  +  facilitation  of 
conditions to acquire the EU LTR status) 

This option would also address the three thematic areas as in options 2, including all the 
measures  of  option  2.  In  addition,  with  regard  to  the  thematic  area  concerning  the 

27 

 
acquisition of the EU LTR status, this option would include additional measures aimed 
at facilitating the conditions to acquire the EU LTR status, in particular by:  

3.1.  Always allowing periods of residence as students to be counted fully; 

3.2  Opening the possibility for Member States to lower the required residence period to 
apply for the  EU  LTR  status  from  five to  three  years, but  with  intra-EU mobility 
rights only granted after five years; 

3.3.  Opening the possibility for Member States to allow cumulating residence periods in 
different Member States (subject to a residence in the Member State of application 
of at least two years); 

3.4.  Opening the possibility for Member States to include in the scope of the Directive 

permits issued on temporary grounds;  

3.5.  Clarifying  and  limiting  the  discretion  of  Member  States  in  applying  the 
requirement of stable and regular resources, by codifying the CJEU case law; 

3.6.  Clarifying  and  limiting  the  discretion  of  Member  States  in  applying  integration 

conditions, by codifying the CJEU case law. 

These measures would be a mix of obligations for Member States (measure 3.1), options 
(measures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4), and clarifications of the current rules (measure 3.5 and 3.6). 
The added value of introducing new options, compared to the current Directive, is that in 
the current approach Member States are not allowed to facilitate the conditions set out in 
the Directive even if they wished, while with the proposed optional measures in Option 
3, they would be able to facilitate those conditions. 

Option 4: major legislative revision of the Directive, creating a single EU permanent 
residence status 

This  option  would  also  address  the  three  thematic  areas  as  in  options  2  and  3,  by 
including the relevant measures concerning improved rights, and facilitated conditions to 
acquire the status, plus: 

4.1.  There  would  be  a  fully  harmonised  EU  permanent  residence  status,  as  Member 

States would not be allowed to keep their national permanent residence schemes; 

4.2.  The required residence period to acquire the status would be lowered from five to 

three years; 

4.3.  The EU permanent residence status in one Member State would give an automatic 
right to move and reside in a second Member State, with conditions similar to the 
ones applicable to EU citizens exercising their free movement rights. 

The table below gives an overview of the various elements in each option. 

28 

 
29 

 
 
6.  6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

This section assesses the impact of the policy options (hereafter ‘POs’) described in the 
previous  section  against  a  series  of  assessment  criteria  covering  specifically 
effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The selected impacts are assessed qualitatively 
and, where possible, quantitatively based on a number of key assumptions (see Annex 4). 
No significant environmental impact is expected from the initiative and has thus not been 
assessed further, as  the magnitude of intra-EU  mobility and mobility related to  circular 
migration is expected to be low. Any pollution resulting for example from the means of 
transportation used for their move to another Member State is expected to be negligible, 
especially  when  compared  to  other  intra-EU  travel  (e.g.  for  the  purpose  of  tourism, 
business and other short-term stays) that causes pollution. 

The detailed and individual assessment of each policy measure is presented in Annex 5. 

6.1. 

6.1. 
(non-legislative option) 

PO  1  –  Actions  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive 

6.1.1.  6.1.1. Effectiveness 

The effectiveness of this PO would be limited, mainly due to the fact that  its measures 
are  not  binding.  Nevertheless,  this  PO  would  have  a  moderate  positive  impact  on 
creating a more coherent, efficient and fair system to acquire the EU LTR status, as 
a  result  of  a  better  implementation  by  the  Member  States  of  the  current  rules.  For 
instance,  providing  training  and  issuing  non-binding  guidelines  would  improve  the 
situation  in  those  Member  States  without  a  dedicated  information  strategy  on  the  EU 
status,95  or  information  tools  in  place  for  applicants.96  The  Commission’s  compilations 
and  sharing  of  best  practice  examples  from  Member  States97,  and  the  increased 
enforcement  measures,  including  infringement  procedures,  would  also  contribute  to  a 
better implementation of the current rules.  

This  PO  would  have  no  direct  effect  on  facilitating  intra-EU  mobility,  given  that 
application  conditions  for  mobility  would  remain  unchanged,  thought  the  improved 
information and enforcement activities may have a positive indirect effect. 

This PO would also have a minor positive effect on the improvement of rights of long-
term residents and their family members, as both them and national authorities would 
become  better  aware  of  these  rights  through  improved  implementation  of  the  current 
rules.  

95   Eight MS have such strategy in place: BG, DE, HR, IE, IT, LU, PL, SE 
96   14 MS have tools in place to promote the EU LTR status: BE, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, IT, 

LU, MT, PT, SE, SI, SK. 

97   For  example,  as  highlighted  by  the  expert  panel  of  the  supporting  study,  NL  and  LU  have  a  well-

developed and user-friendly website on the EU LTR status. 

30 

 
 
                                                           
6.1.2.  6.1.2. Expected impacts 

Social impacts and impacts on fundamental rights 

Third-country nationals would become more aware of the rights and conditions of the 
EU  LTR  status,  which  would  have  a  slightly  positive  impact,  though  not  possible  to 
quantify,  on  their  integration  and  possibly  also  lead  to  cost  savings  for  third-country 
nationals who would otherwise consult legal services and pay legal fees for support with 
their application. The increased information provision on the EU LTR status  could lead 
to  a  higher  demand  for  the  EU  LTR  status  compared  to  the  national  ones.  This  PO  is 
unlikely  to  lead  to  a  net  increase  in  overall  LTR  applications  for  national  authorities. 
This option would not have any specific impact on EU citizens. 

This  PO  would  provide  more  clarity  on  the  functioning  of  the  EU  LTR  status,  and  in 
particular  its  mobility  options,  to  businesses  and  employers  interested  in  hiring  third-
country nationals from other Member States, which could lead to a minor reduction in the 
administrative  burden.  In  addition,  a  slight  increase  in  the  number  of  EU  LTR  permits 
issued  could  lead  to  a  lightly  larger  pool  of  qualified  third-country  nationals  already 
residing in the EU, which would potentially help employers fill labour gaps. 

This  PO  would  make  a  slightly  positive  contribution  to  the  rights  to  family  and 
professional life (Article 33 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). 

Economic impacts  

Some Member States have already developed and invested in portals and other provision 
of information, and thus, this measure would mainly impact those Member States which 
currently  do  not  provide  sufficient  and/or  adequate  information.  Whilst  the  PO  is 
expected to possibly lead to a minor increase in  the number of EU LTR  status holders, 
which may in turn increase intra-EU mobility, it is not possible to estimate the specific 
economic  impacts  of  such  developments,  as  they  are  likely  to  be  negligible  and 
influenced by many other factors. 

6.1.3.  6.1.3. Efficiency 

Administrative and compliance costs 

This  PO  would  entail  one-off  cost  for  the  European  Commission  estimated  in  49  000 
euro,  resulting  from  the  issuing  of  guidelines,  training  material,  and  information  to 
national  authorities.  Furthermore,  it  would  lead  to  costs  for  national  authorities,  to 
provide  training,  updating  websites,  and  exchange  best  practices,  as  well  as  for  the 
identification  of  cases  of  abuse  of  the  EU  LTR  status  (recurring  administrative  costs 
amounting to EUR 204 500 per year on average). 

Simplification 

The  PO  is  expected  to  lead  to  cost  savings  for  third-country  nationals  resulting  from 
better  quality  information  on  the  EU  LTR  status.  However,  these  savings  cannot  be 

31 

 
quantified as the measures included are not binding, and may be implemented in varying 
ways.  

6.1.4.  6.1.4. Coherence with other EU policies 

As  it  only  aims  to  strengthen  the  implementation  of  the  Directive,  this  PO  is  not  fully 
coherent with the objective of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum to create a true EU 
long-term residence status, in particular by strengthening the right of long-term residents 
to move and work in other Member States. 

6.1.5.  6.1.5. Overall assessment 

The  measure  would  have  a  limited  positive  effect  on  the  creation  of  a  more  efficient 
system to acquire the EU LTR status and the other objectives of this initiative. However, 
as it is a non-binding measure, its impact would ultimately depend on the willingness of 
Member  States’  authorities  to  implement  and  roll-out  the  guidelines  and  training 
provided by the Commission.  

6.2. 

6.2. 

PO 2 Legislative option 1 – targeted revision of the Directive 

6.2.1.  6.2.1. Effectiveness 

Out of the 19 measures included in this PO, the majority would have positive impacts on 
achieving the policy objective of creating a more coherent, efficient and fair system to 
acquire the EU LTR status, in particular by introducing a level-playing field between 
EU and national permits98. This concerns not only the specific measures 2.1-2.5, but also 
the  measures  aimed  at  facilitating  intra-EU  mobility  and  improving  rights,  as  all  these 
measures  would  improve  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  LTR  status  for  third-country 
nationals.  In  particular,  it  is  estimated  that,  10  years  after  the  implementation  of  the 
revised Directive, there would be an increase of 20% in the number of EU LTR permits, 
compared  to  the  baseline,  corresponding  to  approximately  640  000  additional  EU  LTR 
holders. 

Number of EU LTR 
permits 

 2019 

 + 10 years 

Baseline evolution  3 007 696 

3 198 515 

PO2 (+20%) 

3 007 696 

3 838 218 

With  measure  2.6,  Member  States  would  be  encouraged  to  reinforce  checks  on  the 
residence requirement set out by Article 4 of the Directive for the acquisition of the EU 
LTR status and therefore, if implemented, this measure would have a positive impact on 
having  a  fairer  system  for  the  acquisition  of  the  EU  LTR  status.  This  would  have  an 
impact  in  particular  on  the  14  Member  States  that  do  not  require  continuous  physical 

98   The lack of information or awareness about the EU LTR permit and its benefits is seen by a majority of 
stakeholders as one of the main reasons of the under-use of the EU LTR status, see Annex 2. Only two 
Member State disagreed within the consultation with the Contact Group on Legal Migration (CZ, HU). 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
residence for granting investor residence permits, which could lead investors not actually 
residing in the EU and not really integrated to acquire the EU LTR status. 

This PO would have positive impacts on achieving the objective of facilitating intra-EU 
mobility,  through  seven  specific  measures  (2.7  –  2.13).  In  particular,  not  allowing  the 
second  Member  State  to  apply  a  LMT  would  have  a  significant  positive  impact  on  the 
intra-EU mobility to those 16 Member States which apply such test99. 

Out  of  the  19  measures  in  this  PO,  more  than  half  would  have  positive  impacts  on 
achieving  the  policy  objective  of  improving  the  rights  of  long-term  residents  and 
their  family.  In  particular,  the  specific  measures  2.14-2.17  would  ensure  long-term 
residents a fairer treatment in many areas relevant for their integration, including access 
to housing, social assistance, and better family rights. A particular positive impact would 
derive from the measure of granting automatic  EU LTR status to  children of long-term 
residents born in the EU, as it would significantly increase legal certainty for a category 
of third-country nationals that at the moment is not covered by EU law100. 

Furthermore, allowing  long-term residents to  be absent  up to  24 months without losing 
the  status  (measure  2.18)  and  regulating  more  in  detail  the  procedure  to  reacquire  the 
status  in  case  of  longer  absences  (measure  2.19)  would  strongly  enhance  the  right  to 
circular migration, with increased possibilities to study or work in their country of origin 
or outside the EU.  

6.2.2.  6.2.2. Expected impacts 

Social impacts and impacts on fundamental rights  

All  measures  of  this  PO  would  have  positive  social  impacts,  on  most  target  groups.  In 
particular, there would be significant positive impacts for third-country nationals, who: 
would benefit from the measures introducing a level-playing field by having a real choice 
between  the  EU  LTR  permit  and  the  national  LTR  permits;  would  benefit  from  better 
intra-EU mobility rights by having more chances to be recruited or accepted for studies 
in other Member States; would have better rights for them and their family members, to 
support their full integration in the society; would be able to exercise circular migration 
without losing their EU LTR status. Nevertheless, as the conditions to acquire the status 
would remain the same, the acquisition of the EU LTR status would still be difficult for a 
significant number of third-country nationals.  

99   Members from three of the stakeholder groups consulted considered that labour market tests acted as a 
significant  barrier  or  limitation  to  the  intra-EU  mobility  of  EU  LTR  permit  holders  and  that  these 
should  not  be  conducted  in  the  second  MS.  In  particular,  members  of  the  Informal  Expert  Group  on 
Economic Migration and Civil Society representatives  highlighted that, in  many cases, labour  market 
tests can lead to delays in the processing of applications to work in a second MS which result in missed 
work opportunities or employers not considering the hiring of TCNs. However, members of the Legal 
Migration Contact Group had mixed views on this point, with some considering that labour market tests 
remain an essential tool for MS to manage the admission of TCNs so that it is in line with their labour 
market needs and capacities. 

100  The  residence  status  of  children  born  in  the  EU  by  third-country  nationals  is  not  covered  by  any  EU 
legal instrument, including Directive 2003/86/EC on family reunification which only covers admission 
of children born and living outside the EU. 

33 

 
                                                           
The  measures  aimed  at  improving  the  rights  of  long-term  residents  and  their  family 
would also have positive impacts on a number of fundamental rights, and in particular 
the  right  to  property  (Article  17  of  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights),  non-
discrimination (Article 21), family and professional life (Article 33), social security and 
social assistance (Article 34).    

As  the  intra-EU  mobility  of  long-term  residents  in  this  option  would  be  facilitated  (in 
particular through the abolition of the LMT), it may create some competition towards EU 
citizens. However, the most important safeguards to avoid pressure on labour conditions, 
wages  and  of  displacement  of  EU  workers  are  that  the  system  remains  demand-driven 
(long-term  residents  would  still  need  a  job  offer  to  move  to  another  Member  State). 
Therefore, the potential displacement effect on EU workers is expected to be limited, first 
because of the proportionally low number of EU LTR holders expected to move over a 
10-year  period,  and  second  because  this  number  is  still  dwarfed  by  the  number  of 
vacancies. On the basis of available quarterly data from 2013Q1 until 2021Q2, there are 
on average approximately 1.75 million unfilled job vacancies every quarter, which is also 
similar  to  the  annual  level  of  unmet  vacancies  by  EU  companies.101  Mobile  EU  LTR 
status holders are therefore very likely to first fill the existing labour shortages, if these 
offer better conditions. Due to a lack of data and the number of assumptions required, it 
has however not been possible to quantify any possible displacement effect. 

A  positive  impact  is  also  expected  on  third  countries,  as  the  measures  facilitating 
circular  migration  would  help  counter  the  “brain  drain”  phenomenon  allowing  third-
country  nationals  to  move  and  stay  longer  in  their  country  of  origin,  for  instance  for 
investment  or  business  purposes.  Furthermore,  the  measure  enabling  third-country 
nationals to re-acquire their EU LTR status would allow them to maintain a more stable 
economic  situation  and  ultimately  to  maintain  the  level  of  remittances  sent  to  their 
country of origin. 

This  PO  would  also  have  impacts  on  legal  practitioners  and  judiciary,  as  the 
simplification  introduced  by  many  measures  would  mean  for  third-country  nationals  to 
require less support as they will make the law more clear, precise, and predictable, which 
will have the effect of increasing the "legal certainty" attached to the implementation of 
these  rights.  Nevertheless,  an  increasing  workload  for  this  group  can  be  expected  in 
particular  from  the  measures  facilitating  intra-EU  mobility.  As  a  consequence  of  these 
measures, legal practitioners may be  confronted with additional queries for clarification 
on the new procedures, at least in the first months/year of their introduction. 

Finally,  this  PO  would  have  important  impacts  on  businesses/employers,  in  particular 
the measures facilitating intra-EU mobility In particular, removing the requirement to 
apply  a  labour  market  test  for  mobile  long-term  residents  in  16  Member  States  would 
provide an incentive to employers to hire mobile third-country nationals, as they would 

101  Based on data on the quarterly and annual number of job vacancies published by Eurostat for a number 
of European countries. Aggregated data at the EU-27 level is not available due to a lack of harmonised 
data collection in Member States. 

34 

 
                                                           
benefit  from  a  larger  pool  of  qualified  and  already  legally  residing  third-country 
nationals.  

Economic impacts 

Out  of  the  19  measures  included  in  this  PO,  five  are  expected  to  have  a  measurable 
economic impact, whilst the remaining measures, in particular those aimed at improving 
the  use  of  the  EU  LTR  status,  improving  the  rights  of  long-term  residents  and  their 
family  members,  and  facilitating  circular  migration  are  also  expected  to  have  positive 
economic benefits, but these could not be quantified102. Those economic benefits would 
derive  from  that  fact  that  more  third-country  nationals  with  an  EU  LTR  status  and  the 
enhanced  rights  attached  to  it  are  expected  to  lead  to  improved  integration,  which  in 
return  could  also  lead  to  better  wages,  as  well  as  benefits  for  employers  in  terms  of 
access  to  more  qualified  workforce.  Increased  circular  migration  would  be  expected  to 
result in increased investments in third countries. 

The  measurable  economic  impacts  concern  the  measures  facilitating  intra-EU 
mobility,  as  these  are  all  expected  to  result  in  an  increase  of  third-country  nationals 
moving  to  a  second  Member  State,  where  it  is  assumed  that  they  would  on  average 
increase their wages by 10%, which in turn would lead to higher tax revenue, increased 
productivity  and  consumption,  and  enhanced  economic  growth.  In  addition,  also  as  a 
result of their higher wages, remittances are also assumed to increase as a proportion of 
their income103.  

Intra-EU  mobility  is  expected  to  increase  by  1.5  %  points104,  thus  from  the  baseline 
assumption of 2% to 3.5%, resulting in an increase of just over 70 000 additional mobile 
long-term  residents  at  the  end  of  a  10-year  period,  on  top  of  the  baseline  scenario  of 
around 64 000 mobile long-term residents. 

Mobile LTRs %  

 2019 

Baseline evolution  2% 

PO2  

3,5% 

60 148 

60 148 

+ 10 years 

 63 970 

134 378 

The total collective net economic effects of this increase are, over a 10-year period: 

-  An increase in tax revenue of EUR 8 million; 
- 
Increased consumption by EUR 70.5 million; 
-  Remittances  increased  by  EUR  12.6  million  (leaving  the  EU  economy  and  thus 

subtracted from the total economic benefits). 

Adding up to a total economic benefit of EUR 66 million. 

Whilst  it  is  not  possible  to  estimate  the  impact  on  economic  growth  (i.e.  increase  in 
GDP),  it  can  be  assumed  that  the  increased  intra-EU  mobility  of  long-term  residents 

102  See Annex 4 for further explanation on quantification of impacts. 
103  The key assumptions and calculation methods are detailed in Annex 4. 
104  Ibid. 

35 

 
  
                                                           
would also contribute to a rise in  GDP,  in particular considering that this  group can be 
assumed to mostly move for (better) work opportunities and integrate easily, as they have 
already spent a minimum of five years in the EU105.  

6.2.3.  6.2.3. Efficiency 

Administrative compliance costs 

Out of 19 measures in this PO, 14 are expected to trigger administrative and compliance 
costs for national authorities and the European Commission.  

For the European Commission, the additional costs will primarily relate to introducing 
the legislative revisions to the Directive and communicating the changes.  

For  national  authorities,  costs  include  adapting  national  legislation  and  relevant 
procedures,  guidance  and  training,  as  well  as  ensuring  enforcement  and  compliance, 
monitoring  and  reporting  costs  to  the  EU.  Other  cost  categories  include  preparing 
information on the changes to disseminate to EU LTR applicants, as well as costs related 
to  a  potential  increase  in  application  for  EU  LTR  status.  However,  the  extent  of  the 
impact  of  the  measures  within  this  PO  is  varied,  and  can  be  grouped  in  measures  that 
impact almost all Member States, and measures that impact a limited number of them.  

In  particular,  for  the  following  measures  additional  costs  are  expected  for  all/most 
Member  States,  as  they  would  need  to  adapt  procedures,  invest  in  additional  staff  and 
training, as well as providing information material for both staff and applicants:  

  Measure 2.8 allowing third-country nationals to start working/studying in the second 
Member  State  while  their  application  is  being  assessed  would  impact  all  Member 
States  and  brings  additional  costs  to  national  authorities  that  would  have  to  adapt 
their procedures.  

  Measure  2.9  allowing  third-country  nationals  to  submit  the  application  while  still 
residing  in  the  first  MS  would  impact  15  MS,  bringing  additional  costs  to  national 
authorities that would have to adapt their procedures.  

 

In the 20 Member States affected by measure 2.12 improving the rules on access to 
the labour market for long-term residents and their family, the changes  would bring 
additional administrative costs to  national authorities that would have to adapt  their 
admission procedures. 

  Measure  2.13  shortening  the  time  needed  to  acquire  EU  LTR  status  in  the  second 
Member  State  would  impact  all  Member  States  and  bring  some  administrative 
compliance costs, such as through the updating of internal procedures (i.e. updating 
guidelines). 

  Measure  2.14  introducing  derogations  from  rules  on  family  reunification  would 
impact all Member States, resulting in some administrative and compliance costs for 
national authorities.  

105  Annex 3 provides a hypothetical example of such effect. 

36 

 
                                                           
  Measure  2.19  regulating  the  procedure  to  reacquire  the  status  would  result  in  some 
compliance costs as 10 Member States would have to introduce a new procedure and 
15 Member States would have to adapt their current procedure.  

  Measure  2.6  would  also  result  in  compliance  costs  in  setting  up  and  running  a 
monitoring  mechanism  on  application  for  EU  LTR  status  on  the  basis  of  investor 
residence schemes. 

The  following  costs  are  estimated  (totals  of  the  average  yearly  cost  of  all  measures 
included in the PO, rounded to the nearest 1,000): 

European Commission: 

-  One-off  administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the  change: 

43 000 euro;  

Member States: 

-  One-off  administrative  costs  for  transposition,  alignment  of  procedures,  guidance 

and training, monitoring and reporting: 568 000 euro; 

-  Recurring administrative costs for transposition, alignment of procedures, guidance 

and training, monitoring and reporting: 105 000 euro; 

-  One-off  compliance  costs  to  develop  and  implement  new  procedures,  inform  and 

advise those concerned, etc.: 392 000 euro; 

-  Recurrent  compliance  costs  to  develop  and  implement  new  procedures,  inform  and 

advise those concerned, etc.: 755 000 euro. 

Simplification 

Out  of  19  measures  in  this  PO,  most  (13)  are  expected  to  have  some  effects  on 
simplification.  Strong  simplification  effects  are  expected  from  the  measures  facilitating 
intra-EU  mobility  and  improving  the  rights  of  long-term  residents  and  their  family.  In 
particular,  not  allowing  the  second  Member  State  to  apply  a  labour  market  test  would 
benefit  16  Member  State  in  terms  of  administrative  simplification,  as  they  would  no 
longer  need  to  apply  those  tests;  and  allowing  third-country  nationals  to  start 
working/studying  in  the second  Member  State  while  their  application  is  being  assessed 
would  reduce  for  them  the  costs  induced  by  lengthy  administrative  procedures. 
Employers  would  also  benefit  from  more  efficient  procedures  for  hiring  ‘mobile  long-
term  residents’ and reduced costs in  the hiring process  (e.g. situations of vacancies left 
unfilled or waiting for an administrative decision).  

The following costs saving are estimated (per average yearly cost): 

Member States: 

-  Recurring  cost  savings  resulting  from  simplification  of  current  procedures:  24  500 

euro, 

Third-country nationals: 

-  Recurring cost savings resulting from simplification: 1 145 000 euro 

37 

 
Employers: 

-  Recurring cost savings resulting from simplification: 112 700 euro 

6.2.4.  6.2.4. Coherence with other EU policies 

This PO is expected to contribute to greater coherence between the Long-term residents 
Directive  and  other  legal  migration  Directives,  and  is  in  line  with  the  New  Pact  on 
Migration and Asylum and the EU economic and social policies. 

6.2.5.  6.2.5. Overall assessment 

Overall, this PO would make a tangible contribution to most objectives and it would have 
a  significant  positive  effect  in  terms  of  social  impacts,  particularly  on  third-country 
nationals  and  employers.  It  would  lead  to  some  minor  administrative  and  compliance 
costs for national authorities, with a larger positive impact in terms of simplification. In 
addition,  several  measures included in  this PO  are  expected to  lead to more significant 
positive  economic  impacts.  Lastly,  most  of  the  measures  included  under  this  PO  were 
considered  with  favour  by  Member  States,  except  for  measure  2.7  -  not  allowing  the 
second  Member  State  to  apply  a  labour  market  test,  on  which  some  Member  States 
expressed  their  wish  to  keep  full  control  over  the  arrival  of  third-country  nationals  in 
relation to the needs of their labour market. 

6.3. 

6.3. 

PO 3: Legislative option 2 – wider legislative revision 

6.3.1.  6.3.1. Effectiveness  

Compared to PO2, PO3 includes six additional measures (3.1 – 3.6) that specifically aim 
to facilitate the conditions to acquire EU LTR status and therefore  would contribute 
further  to  the  objective  of  having  a  more  efficient  and  fairer  system  to  acquire  the 
status.  In  particular,  this  PO  would  facilitate  the  fulfilment  of  the  residence 
requirement,  which  numerous  consulted  stakeholders106  have  noted  as  posing  a 
significant barrier for the acquisition of the EU LTR status, by requiring Member States 
to count fully periods of residence as students, and by allowing Member States to lower 
the  residence  requirement  from  five  to  three  years,  to  cumulate  residence  periods  in 
different Member States, and to include in the scope of the Directive periods of residence 
spent  solely  on  temporary  grounds.  Even  though  these  latter  would  only  be  “may 
clauses”  (and  therefore  not  increase  the  level  of  harmonisation  and  the  rights  of  third-
country nationals in all Member States), they would still bring a positive impact on those 
Member  States  that  would  choose  to  implement  them.  The  added  value  of  introducing 
new options, compared to the current Directive, is that in the current approach Member 
States  are  not  allowed  to  facilitate  the  conditions  set  out  in  the  Directive  even  if  they 

106  Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; Consultation 
with the Economic and Social Partners, 5 May 2021; Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 
20  April  2021;  Fifth  meeting  of  the  Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration,  14  April  2021; 
Second  meeting  of  the  EU  legal  migration  practitioners  network,  29  April  2021;  PICUM  Priority 
recommendations for EU action on labour migration. 

38 

 
                                                           
wished,  while  with  the  proposed  optional  measures  in  Option  3,  they  would  be  able  to 
facilitate those conditions. 

This PO could have a stronger impact than PO2 in particular in those Member States that 
offer more favourable conditions as part of their national schemes. For instance, in those 
four Member States107 where the residence requirement for the national LTR schemes is 
less  than  five  years,  and  in  those  11  Member  States108  where  five  years  is  also  the 
minimum  residence  requirement  for  citizenship,  the  option  to  issue  the  EU  LTR  status 
after three years, if adopted, would lead to an increase in the use of the EU LTR status.  

It  is  estimated  that,  10  years  after  the  implementation  of  the  revised  Directive,  there 
would  be  an  increase  of  25%  in  the  number  of  EU  LTR  permits109,  corresponding  to 
approximately additional 800 000 EU LTR holders compared to the baseline. 

Number of EU LTR 
permits 

 2019 

 + 10 years 

Baseline evolution  3 007 696 

3 198 515 

PO3 (+25%) 

3 007 696 

3 998 144 

Allowing the Member States to (optionally) lower the period to acquire EU LTR status 
from  five  to  three  years  would  have  a  positive  impact  also  on  the  integration  of  third-
country  nationals  (as  they  would  obtain  full  equal  treatment  rights  faster),  in  those 
Member States implementing the option110. At the same time, keeping the period of five 
years  to  acquire  intra-EU  mobility  rights  (also  for  those  Member  States  choosing  this 
option) would avoid fragmentation in the implementation of the Directive. Furthermore, 
the  concepts  of  periods  of  residence  spent  solely  on  temporary  grounds,  regular  and 
stable resources, and integration conditions would be clarified111 so to limit the discretion 
of  Member  States  and  codify  the  case  law  of  the  CJEU112.  This  would  help  limit  strict 
practices  in  certain  Member  States  that  pose  significant  barriers  for  EU  LTR 
applicants113.  

107  CY, FI, HU, SE - EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the period of validity of residence permits 

granted to third-country nationals. 

108  BE,  BG,  CY,  CZ,  FI,  FR,  LU,  LV,  NL,  PT,  SE  -  EMN  (2019)  EMN  Synthesis  Report,  Pathways  to 

citizenship for third-country nationals in the EU p. 18. 

109  The key assumptions and calculation methods are detailed in Annex 4. 
110  Assuming that only a number of Member States would implement this option, this would not amount to 
competition  between  different  EU  long-term  residence  statuses,  as  the  number  of  years  required  to 
acquire EU LTR status is not expected to be a relevant factor on the third-country-nationals decisions to 
settle down in one specific country (as many other factors are more relevant, in particular economic and 
family related). 

111  Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021Consultation 
with  the  Economic  and  Social  Partners,  5  May  2021;  Second  meeting  of  the  EU  legal  migration 
practitioners  network,  29  April  2021;  Consultation  with  the  Legal  Migration  Contact  Group,  18  May 
2021; Thym D. (2016), Long-term Residents Directive 2003. Official Journal L 16. P 445 

112  Temporary  permits  C-502/10  (Singh);  ‘stable  and  sufficient  resources’  –  C-578/08  (Chakroun); 

‘integration conditions’ – C-579/13 (P&S). 

113  Consulted stakeholders noted that TCNs under temporary permits may find themselves in situations of 
labour exploitation, and thus facilitating access to the EU LTR status would help them to benefit from 
better rights (Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; 

39 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
This  PO  could  also  have  an  additional  positive  impact  on  intra-EU  mobility,  in  those 
Member  States  that  would  allow  cumulating  residence  periods  in  different  Member 
States,  as  this  would  be  an  incentive  for  third-country  nationals  who  have  not  yet 
acquired EU LTR status in the first Member State to move to other Member States with 
the perspective of acquiring sooner the status in the second Member State.  

Finally, it is noteworthy that if measures 3.2 and 3.3 would be compulsory for Member 
States to implement, they would likely face considerable resistance114, as many Member 
States are not in favour of an obligation to lower the required residence period to acquire 
the status. Nevertheless, this resistance would be avoided by introducing these measures 
as  optional  for  Member  States  to  implement,  which  is  likely  to  prove  more  politically 
viable even though less effective. 

6.3.2.  6.3.2.  Expected impacts 

Social impacts and impacts on fundamental rights 

The  additional  measures  of  this  PO  could  have  additional  positive  social  impacts  on 
third-country nationals and their integration as, if implemented by the Member States, 
they  would  be  able  to  fulfil  easier  the  conditions  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  status,  and 
therefore an increased number of third-country nationals legally residing in the EU would 
benefit from its  rights, contributing to  more social  cohesion,  which benefits  both  third-
country  nationals  and  EU  citizens.  For  the  same  reasons,  this  PO  would  also  have  an 
additional positive impact on the fundamental rights to family and professional life, as 
well  on  non-discrimination  by  limiting  Member  States’  discretion  on  assessing  the 
conditions to acquire the EU LTR status. 

However, where Member States  would opt  for lowering the period to  acquire EU  LTR 
status  from  five  to  three  years,  this  could,  in  certain  cases115,  place  third-country 
nationals  in  a  better  situation  than  Union  citizens  (and  their  third  country  family 
members) who are beneficiaries of the Free Movement Directive116, as the latter acquire 
the  status  of  permanent  residents,  and  the  rights  connected  to  that  status,  after  having 
resided legally in the host Member State for a continuous period of five years.  

The  positive  impacts  identified  could  be  also  slightly  offset  by  the  small  additional 
number of third-country students who are expected to stay in the EU after their studies, 
and the rather larger share of temporary permit holders who would wish to remain in the 
EU, as this may contribute to some displacement of EU workers. However, the effect is 

Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021; Consultation with the Economic and 
Social  Partners,  5  May  2021;  PICUM  (2020),  PICUM  Priority  recommendations  for  EU  action  on 
labour migration). 

114  As noted by all stakeholders during the consultation, see Annex 2. 
115  In  particular  with  regard  to  access  to  social  assistance,  and  protection  from  expulsion  on  economic 

grounds. 

116 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of 
citizens  of  the  Union  and  their  family  members  to  move  and  reside  freely  within  the  territory  of  the 
Member  States  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1612/68  and  repealing  Directives  64/221/EEC, 
68/360/EEC,  72/194/EEC,  73/148/EEC,  75/34/EEC,  75/35/EEC,  90/364/EEC,  90/365/EEC  and 
93/96/EEC, OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77–123 . 

40 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
expected  to  be  moderate  as  the  number  of  additional  students  is  low,  and  temporary 
permit  holders  are  assumed  to  primarily  be  low  or  medium  skilled,  and  potentially 
contributing to fill labour shortages117.  

Also businesses/employers would benefit from the additional measures, as more  third-
country  nationals  with  a  permanent  status  and  full  access  to  labour  market  would  help 
filling vacancies and labour shortages. Finally, third countries may also benefit from an 
indirect impact, as a facilitated access to EU LTR status for more third-country nationals 
would  result  in  more  stable  economic  conditions  for  third-country  nationals  and  higher 
remittances towards countries of origin.  

Economic impacts 

The additional measures of this PO aimed at facilitating the conditions to acquire the EU 
LTR  status  are  expected  to  have  positive  economic  impacts,  which  are  however 
impossible to quantify. These impacts would mostly relate to improved integration of the 
affected groups of third-country nationals, which in return could also lead to better wages 
and higher tax revenues. 

The  main  additional  measurable  economic  impacts  would  derive  from  the  expected 
(limited) higher number of intra-EU mobile long-term residents compared to PO2, due to 
the expected increase of EU LTR permits issued at the end of the 10 year period (25% 
increase in this PO compared to 20% increase in PO2).  

Mobile LTRs %  

 2019 

Baseline 

PO3 

2% 

3,5% 

60 148 

60 148 

+10 years 

  63 970 

139 935 

The total collective economic effects of this increase are, over a 10-year period: 

  An increase in tax revenue of 8.5  million euro; 

 

Increased consumption by  74.2 million euro; 

  Remittances  increased  by  13.2  million  euro  (leaving  the  EU  and  thus  deducted 

from the total economic impact on the EU economy). 

Resulting in a total economic benefit to the EU of around 69.4 million euro. 

Whilst  it  is  not  possible  to  estimate  the  impact  on  economic  growth  (i.e.  increase  in 
GDP),  it  can  be  assumed  that  the  increased  inflow  of  third-country  nationals  will  also 
contribute to  a  rise in  GDP,  in  particular  considering that this cohort is  keen to  remain 
and  work  in  the  EU  and  thus  likely  to  integrate  relatively  easily.  Annex  4  provides  a 
hypothetical example of such effect.  

Finally, it is important to bear in mind that PO3 also includes the measures of PO2, and 
the economic effects of the two options should therefore be added up.  

117  On the limited effect on displacement of EU workers, in particular with the abolition of the  LMT, see 

above the analysis on social impacts of PO2. 

41 

 
  
 
                                                           
6.3.3.  6.3.3. Efficiency 

Administrative and compliance costs 

This PO would trigger limited administrative and compliance costs in addition to those 
already foreseen in PO2. These include costs for the European Commission to adapt the 
text of the directive, and costs for national authorities to transpose and implement  it, to 
ensure compliance and enforcement, and to monitor and report.  

The  administrative  and  compliance  costs  of  policy  measures  3.2  and  3.3  would  differ 
depending on whether Member States would opt to implement them. 

Furthermore,  costs  would  strongly  depend  on  the  degree  to  which  a  policy  measure 
differs from the status  quo. For instance, measure  3.2 does  not  propose any changes  to 
administrative procedures, but rather a change in the timeline (three rather than five year 
residence  requirement).  Therefore,  this  would  just  require  changes  to  information  to 
disseminate  to  third-country  nationals,  as  well  as  guidelines  and  training  for  national 
authorities in the initial phase. Measures 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 also foresee minor costs, in that 
they  do  not  propose  large  changes  from  the  status  quo.  In  fact,  national  competent 
authorities should to some extent already be familiar with the changes foreseen in those 
measures due to the relevant CJEU rulings. 

Measures  3.3  is  expected  to  pose  the  highest  potential  administrative  and  compliance 
costs,  as  currently  the  accumulation  of  residence  periods  in  different  Member  States  is 
not possible, and processing proof of residence in different Member States may require 
slightly more complex application processes.  

The average yearly administrative and compliance costs per stakeholder category of this 
PO are, over a 10-year  period (totals  of the average  yearly cost,  rounded to  the nearest 
1,000):  

European Commission: 

  One-off  administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the  change: 

57 000 euro; 

Member States: 

  One-off administrative costs for transposition, alignment of procedures, guidance and 

training, monitoring and reporting: 781 000 euro; 

  Recurring  administrative  costs  for  transposition,  alignment  of  procedures,  guidance 

and training, monitoring and reporting: 151 000 euro; 

  One-off  compliance  costs  to  develop  and  implement  new  procedures,  inform  and 

advise those concerned, etc.: 452 000 euro; 

  Recurrent  compliance  costs  to  develop  and  implement  new  procedures,  inform  and 

advise those concerned, etc.: 900 000 euro. 

Simplification 

42 

 
This PO promises some further simplifications across stakeholder categories. Firstly, the 
main  added  simplification  in  addition  to  PO2  would  contribute  to  creating  a  uniform 
understanding among national authorities of different significant terminology used for 
conditions to acquire EU LTR status. This PO would clarify the concept of residence on 
‘temporary grounds’, ‘stable and sufficient resources’ and ‘integration conditions’.  

This  PO  would  also  bring  some  simplification  for  third-country  nationals,  by 
addressing complexities within the EU LTR application that acted as a barrier to acquire 
EU LTR status. As highlighted by stakeholders118, these included diverse readings across 
Member States of which third-country nationals with temporary/formally limited permits 
are within/out of the scope of the Directive. 

The following cost savings are estimated (per average yearly cost): 

Member States: 

-  Recurring  cost  savings  resulting  from  simplification  of  current  procedures:  24  500 

euro. 

Third Country Nationals: 

-  Recurring cost saving resulting from simplification: 1 145 000 euro. 

Employers: 

-  Recurring cost savings resulting from simplification: 112 700 euro. 

6.3.4.  6.3.4. Coherence 

By facilitating the conditions for a wider group of third-country nationals to acquire EU 
LTR  status,  this  PO  would  also  bring  additional  contribution  to  the  objectives  of  the 
Commission’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum to support migrants’ integration into 
local communities and attract (and retain) talent to the EU. 

6.3.5.  6.3.5. Overall assessment 

Overall,  this  PO  is  likely  to  offer  many  positive  impacts  especially  with  regards  to 
increasing the EU LTR status attractiveness in comparison with national LTR schemes, 
and  most  significantly  towards  facilitating  the  conditions  for  a  wider  group  of  third-
country  nationals  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  status.  This  PO  also  presents  proportionate 
administrative and compliance costs and potential simplification for national authorities 
and third-country nationals.  

118  Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  the  Views  of  Migrants,  2  March  2021;  Fifth 
meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021; Consultation  with the 
Economic  and  Social  Partners,  5  May  2021;  Consultation  with  representatives  of  Civil  Society,  20 
April 2021; Second meeting of the EU legal  migration practitioners network, 29 April 2021; PICUM 
Priority recommendations for EU action on labour migration 

43 

 
                                                           
6.4. 

6.4. 
a single EU permanent residence status 

PO 4: Legislative option 3 – major legislative revision, creating 

6.4.1.  6.4.1. Effectiveness 

This PO would by default create a more coherent and efficient system to acquire the 
EU  LTR  status,  as  it  would  make  it  the  only  EU  permanent  residence  status  by 
abolishing  national  LTR  schemes.  As  a  consequence,  it  is  expected  that,  following  the 
implementation of the revised Directive, all LTR permits issued in the EU-25 would be 
EU LTR permits. 

Number of EU LTR 
permits 

 2019 

 + 10 years 

Baseline evolution  3 007 696 

3 198 515 

PO4 

3 007 696 

17 745 156 

Furthermore, in all Member States, third-country nationals would be able to apply for the 
EU LTR status after three years of residence. This PO is also likely to have a significant 
impact  on  facilitating  intra-EU  mobility,  as  it  would  grant  to  long-term  residents 
automatic  intra-EU  mobility  rights  resembling  EU  citizens’  freedom  of  movement119. 
This PO is likely to have a minor negative effect on enabling circular migration. Indeed, 
studies found that drivers for migrants to return to their countries  are unemployment in 
the  destination  country  and  economic  opportunities  in  their  country  of  origin.120 
Therefore, granting EU LTR holders automatic intra-EU mobility rights would give them 
the  possibility  to  more  swiftly  capitalise  on  employment  opportunities  across  the  EU, 
thus diminishing their incentive to return to the country of origin for other opportunities.  

This  PO would have a positive effect  on  improving the right of long-term residents, 
though  the  abolition  of  the  national  long-term  residence  statuses  would  not  result  in  a 
further  improvement  in  the  rights  for  all  potential  beneficiaries,  as  those  categories  of 
third-country  nationals  who  benefit  from  the  specific  conditions  of  those  national 
schemes  (e.g.  bilateral  agreements  based  on  shared  history  with  third  countries)  would 
have a less facilitated access to permanent residence in the EU. 

6.4.2.  6.4.2. Expected impacts 

Social impacts and impacts on fundamental rights 

The  stakeholder  group  expected  to  benefit  the  most  from  this  PO  are  third-country 
nationals.  This  PO  would  enable  a  higher  number  of  third-country  nationals  to  have 
access  to  EU  LTR  status  and  intra-EU  mobility  rights.  This  may  also  mean  that  with 
more employment opportunities, remittances are likely to increase, indirectly stimulating 

119 In certain situations, as it is explained in section 6.3.2 regarding the impact of option 3 on the rights of 
Union mobile citizens and their third country family members under the Free Movement Directive, the 
EU LTR status would grant more rights to third-country nationals than to Union mobile citizens (and 
their third-country family members). 

120  https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9d3d05d2-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/9d3d05d2-en  

44 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
the  third  countries’  economic  growth.  Nevertheless,  the  abolition  of  national  schemes 
would  also  mean  that  some  categories  of  third-country  nationals  who  benefit  from  the 
specific  conditions  of  those  schemes  (e.g.  bilateral  agreements  based  on  shared  history 
with  third countries)  would  have  a less facilitated access  to  permanent  residence in  the 
EU121.  This  PO  would  also  have  a  positive  contribution  to  fundamental  rights  of  long-
term residents.  

Assuming that this PO would  lead to  an increase of intra-EU mobility,  employers and 
businesses  would  benefit  from  a  larger  pool  of  third-country  nationals  with  facilitated 
admission into their Member State. This would result in less delays to fill positions and 
complex  bureaucratic  procedures  to  hire  an  EU  LTR  holder  in  another  Member  State. 
Indirectly, this may also have an impact on rectifying labour mismatches by facilitating 
the filling of shortages and alleviating unemployment in certain Member States and thus 
contribute  to  economic  growth.  Nevertheless,  as  the  mobility  of  long-term  residents  in 
this  option  would  be  largely  similar  to  that  of  EU  citizens,  this  would  potentially  add 
more competition towards EU workers compared to POs 2 and 3, which could lead to a 
moderate  to  significant  displacement  effect  on  EU  workers.  However,  this  number, 
spread  over  10  years,  is  still  substantially  lower  than  the  approximately  1.75  million 
unfilled job  vacancies  every quarter, which is  also similar to  the annual  level  of unmet 
vacancies  by  EU  companies.122  Mobile  long-term  residents  are  therefore  still  likely  to 
rather  contribute  to  filling  existing  labour  shortages,  resulting  in  a  low  displacement 
effect of EU workers. Due to a lack of data and the number of assumptions required, it 
has not been possible to quantify this effect. 

As with PO 3, this option could, in certain cases, place third-country nationals in a better 
situation  than  Union  citizens  (and  their  third-country  family  members)  who  are 
beneficiaries  of  the  Free  Movement  Directive,  as  the  latter  acquire  the  status  of 
permanent residents, and the rights connected to that status, after having resided legally 
in the host Member State for a continuous period of five years. 

Economic impacts  

This  PO  would  entail  improved  integration  of  the  affected  groups  of  third-country 
nationals, which in return could also lead to better wages. Measure 4.3, in particular, is 
anticipated to result in an increase of third-country nationals moving to a second Member 
State,  where  it  is  assumed  that  they  would  on  average  increase  their  wages  by  10%, 
which in turn would lead to higher tax revenue, increased productivity and consumption, 
and  enhanced  economic  growth.  In  addition,  also  as  a  result  of  their  higher  wages, 
remittances are also assumed to increase as a proportion of their income. 

121  EMN (2016) Ad-hoc query on COM AHQ on National Residents Permits of Permanent or Unlimited 

Validity. 

122  Job  vacancy  number  by  NACE  Rev.  2  activity  -  quarterly  data  (from  2001  onwards)  Eurostat 

[jvs_q_nace2]. 

45 

 
                                                           
With measure 4.3, long-term residents are expected to have the same intra-EU mobility 
rights  than  EU  citizens,  and  therefore  it  is  assumed  that  their  intra-mobility  would 
increase from the baseline assumption of 2% to 4%, resulting in a net increase of around 
645 000 additional mobile long-term residents at the end of  a 10-year period. 

Mobile  LTRs 
%  

Baseline 

PO4 

2% 

4% 

 2019 

60 148 

60 148 

Year 10 

  63 970 

709 806 

The total collective economic effects of this increase are, over a 10-year period: 

  An increase in tax revenue of  70 million euro; 

 

Increased consumption by  615 million euro; 

  Remittances  increased  by  110  million  euro  (leaving  the  EU  and  thus  subtracted 

from the total economic benefit); 

Resulting in a total economic benefit to the EU of 575 million euro. 

Whilst  it  is  not  possible  to  estimate  the  impact  on  economic  growth  (i.e.  increase  in 
GDP), it can be assumed that  an increased intra-EU mobility of  third-country nationals 
will also contribute to a rise in GDP, in particular considering that this cohort of EU LTR 
status  holders  can  be  assumed  to  mostly  move  for  (better)  work  opportunities  and 
integrate easily, as they have already spent a minimum of five years in the EU. Annex 4 
provides a hypothetical example of such effect.  

6.4.3.  6.4.3. Efficiency 

Administrative and compliance costs 

The  additional  measures  within  this  PO  pose  administrative  and  compliance  costs,  in 
addition to those in PO2 and PO3. 

The  largest  costs  foreseen  are  for  national  authorities  to  revise  their  administrative 
procedures  and  ensure  the  transition  of  national  statuses  to  EU  LTR  statuses.  The 
measures within this PO propose many substantial changes from the status quo, and thus 
would require considerable training and revisions to guidelines. In addition, harmonising 
administrative procedures for the automatic intra-EU mobility for EU LTR holders would 
have  an  impact  on  several  national  competent  authorities  (processing  legal  migration 
permits, border management, etc.) and their cooperation with one another. 

The average yearly administrative and compliance costs per stakeholder category of this 
PO are (totals of the average  yearly cost of all measures included in the Policy Option, 
rounded to the nearest 1 000): 

European Commission: 

-  One-off  administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the  change: 

68 000 euro; 

46 

 
  
Member States: 

-  One-off administrative costs for transposition, alignment of procedures, guidance and 

training, monitoring and reporting: 928 000 euro; 

-  Recurring  administrative  costs  for  transposition,  alignment  of  procedures,  guidance 

and training, monitoring and reporting: 151 000 euro; 

-  One-off  compliance  costs  to  develop  and  implement  new  procedures,  inform  and 

advise those concerned, etc.: 401 000 euro; 

-  Recurrent  compliance  costs  to  develop  and  implement  new  procedures,  inform  and 

advise those concerned, etc.: 1 133 000 euros. 

Simplification 

This PO is expected to bring simplification for national competent authorities processing 
LTR  applications  (in  both  the  first  and  second  Member  State),  as  well  as  for  third-
country nationals and EU LTR holders, by ensuring there is one single process to apply 
for EU LTR status and eliminating the pre-conditions for intra-EU mobility by making it 
automatic.  This  would  significantly  reduce  the  administrative  burden  on  national 
authorities and employers. The following cost savings are estimated (per average yearly 
cost): 

Member States: 

-  Recurring  cost  savings  resulting  from  simplification  of  current  procedures:  24  500 

euro.  

Third-country Nationals: 

-  Recurring cost saving resulting from simplification: 1 145 000 euro.  

Employers: 

-  Recurring cost savings resulting from simplification: 112 700 euro. 

6.4.4.  6.4.4. Coherence 

Overall, this PO is in line with the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. Nonetheless, the 
measure granting automatic intra-EU mobility would not be coherent with the other legal 
migration  Directives,  as  Member  States  would  need  to  allow  residence  on  the  basis  of 
residence permits issued by other Member States.  

6.4.5.  6.4.5. Overall Assessment 

Overall,  this  PO  is  expected  to  have  significant  positive  impacts  for  third-country 
nationals  and  for  stimulating  intra-EU  mobility,  as  well  as  ensuring  equal  treatment  of 
third-country nationals applying for EU LTR status with EU citizens. It foresees potential 
positive  economic  impacts  due  to  increased  mobility  resulting  in  less  labour  shortages 
and  improving  skills  matching.  While  this  PO  would  be  welcomed  by  the  European 

47 

 
Parliament123, it would likely  face major resistance from national authorities, as well as 
challenges  of  coherence  with  other  EU  legislation  and  policies,  which  would  seriously 
hamper  its  practical  and  political  feasibility.  In  particular,  the  abolition  of  parallel 
national  schemes  proved  to  be  politically  controversial  in  the  negotiations  on  the 
revision  of  the  EU  Blue  Card  Directive124,  which  ended  in  the  final  text  opting 
rather  for  establishing a  level-playing  field.125  In  addition,  the  measure  granting  free 
movement rights to long-term residents would face significant resistance as it would limit 
Member States’ control on the number of mobile third-country nationals. This anticipated 
resistance  from  the  Member  States’  side  was  shared  by  many  stakeholders  during  the 
consultations.126  

123  In particular, the measures concerning the reduction of the residence period to 3 years, and granting free 
movement  rights  for  long-term  residents  are  explicitly  requested  by  a  draft  legislative  Report  of  the 
European Parliament (2020/2255(INL). 

124 COM(2016) 378 final 
125  Directive (EU) 2021/1883 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2021 on the 
conditions  of  entry  and  residence  of  third-country  nationals  for  the  purpose  of  highly  qualified 
employment, and repealing Council Directive 2009/50/EC 

126 Consultation with experts from the Legal Practitioners Network, and Contact Group on legal migration. 

48 

 
 
 
                                                           
7.  7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

The  table  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  ratings  of  the  impacts  of  each  Policy 
Options, on a score from -3 to +3 (-3 indicating the most negative impact, +3 indicating 
the  most  positive  impact).  It  should  be  noted  that,  while  these  ratings  allow  for  a 
comparison  between  options,  the  various  ratings  for  a  particular  option  cannot  be 
cumulated  since  there  is  no  objective  basis  to  weigh  one  assessment  criterion  over 
another. 

The effectiveness of the POs was assessed against the three specific policy objectives of 
the initiative.  

In  terms  of  effectiveness  in  achieving  the  objective  of  creating  a  more  coherent, 
efficient and fair system  to acquire  the EU LTR status, the highest  scoring POs are 
PO3  and  PO4,  followed  by  PO2.  PO1  would  be  effective  mainly  in  improving  the 

49 

 Baseline Non-legislative option   PO1PO2PO3PO4Effectiveness      Effectiveness in achieving the objectives      Specific objective 1: create a more coherent, efficient and fair system to acquire the   EU LTR status0122,5300.522301222Social impacts      01232Environmental impacts       00000Fundamental rights       00,51,522Coherence      Coherence with the Migration Pact and other legal migration Directives 00,5231Efficiency      Costs      Administrative and compliance costs 0-0,5-0,5-1-3Simplification 001,523Economic impacts      Impacts on labour market, economic growth, productivity and consumption 00,51,522,5Legislative options Specific objective 2: facilitate intra-EU mobility of long-term residents Specific objective 3: improve the rights of long-term residents and their family 
 
knowledge and awareness of the Directive for both national authorities and potential EU 
LTR  applicants.  The  increase  in  visibility  and  availability  of  information  regarding  the 
EU LTR status as well as the enhanced correct implementation of the Directive foreseen 
in  PO1 would have the effect  of  clarifying the process  of acquiring the  EU  LTR  status 
but  the  conditions  and  requirements  for  acquiring  the  status  would  remain  unchanged, 
and  its  outcome  in  terms  of  improving  the  actual  EU  LTR  system  would  be  highly 
dependent  on  the  willingness  of  Member  States  to  follow  the  guidelines  and  de  facto 
change administrative practices.  PO2 and PO3 would create a more efficient system  by 
introducing  the  level-playing  field  mechanism,  with  PO3  bringing  more  substantial 
facilitations  regarding  the  conditions  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  status.  Finally,  PO4  is  by 
default  expected  to  considerably  contribute  to  this  objective;  however,  not  allowing 
Member  States  to  maintain  their  parallel  national  schemes  is  likely  to  encounter 
significant  resistance,  which  puts  into  question  a  possibility  of  finding  a  political 
agreement  on  PO4  (see  below  the  analysis  on  political  feasibility).  Furthermore,  the 
positive  effect  of  lowering  the  required  residence  period  from  five  to  three  years  in  all 
Member States would be counter-balanced by the negative effect of abolishing the more 
favourable national statuses. 

As regard the effectiveness in achieving the objective of facilitating intra-EU mobility, 
the  highest  scoring  PO  is  PO4,  followed  by  PO3  and  PO2.  PO1  would  have  a  very 
limited  effect  on  this  objective  besides  the  expected  increase  in  terms  of  awareness 
concerning  the  intra-EU  mobility  advantages  offered  by  the  EU  LTR  status.  PO2  and 
PO3 would bring a similar level of facilitations on intra-EU mobility, while PO4 scored 
higher as it would provide quasi-free movement rights to long-term residents, even if its 
political feasibility is significantly lower. 

Regarding the effectiveness in achieving the objective of improving the rights of LTRs 
and their family members, all legislative options (PO2, PO3 and PO4) have the same 
scoring as they include the same measures on improving rights. PO1 would only have a 
minor effect on this objective as it would only better inform potential EU LTR applicants 
of the rights and benefits attached to the EU LTR status.  

The  table  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  individual  policy  measures  in  terms  of 
effectiveness in achieving the objectives, using a qualitative assessment ranging from ‘no 
effect’, where the policy measure is not expected to have an impact on the achievement 
of an objective, to ‘very effective’, where a strong contribution towards the achievement 
of  an  objective  is  expected.  It  is  also  mentioned where  the  policy  measure  has  only  an 
‘indirect’ effect on the objective. 

Objective 1: 
More coherent, 
efficient and 
fair system to 
acquire the EU 
LTR status 

Objective 2: 
Facilitate the 
intra-EU 
mobility  

Objective 3: 
Improve the 
rights of long 
term-residents 
and their family 

Policy Option 1: Non-legislative option 

50 

 
  
1.1 Enhancing implementation of the 
Directive and practical cooperation 
between MS 

1.2 increase the visibility of the EU LTR 
status through information sharing, 
promotion, and advertisement activities 

Moderately 
effective 

Moderately 
effective 

Moderately 
effective 

Moderately 
effective 

Moderately 
effective 

Moderately 
effective 

Policy Option 2: Targeted legislative revision  

Policy Measures relating to introducing a level-playing field 

2.1 Integration and resources 
requirements not stricter than the 
requirements to acquire the national status 

2.2 Same level of fees for the handling of 
EU LTR applications and national permits 

2.3 No lower level of procedural 
safeguards and rights than holders of 
national residence permits 

2.4 Same level of information, promotion 
and advertising activities as the national 
residence permits 

2.5 Facilitated procedure for holders of 
national permits 

2.6 Encouraging Member States to 
reinforce checks on the residence 
requirement with regard to investor 
residence schemes 

Very effective 

Effective 

Moderately 
effective 
(indirect) 

Moderately 
effective 
(indirect) 

Effective 

No effect 

Effective 

No effect 

Effective 

Effective 

Very effective 

Moderately 
effective 
(indirect) 

Moderately 
effective 
(indirect) 

Moderately 
effective 

Effective 

Moderately 
effective 

No effect 

No effect 

Policy Measures relating to the facilitation of intra-EU mobility 

2.7 Not allowing the second Member 
State to apply a labour market test 

2.8 Allowing the LTRs to start working or 
studying in a second Member State while 
their application is being assessed 

2.9 Allowing long-term residents to 
submit the application while still residing 
in the first Member State 

2.10 Shortening the deadline for 
processing the application (from four 
months to 90 days) 

2.11 Granting ‘mobile’ LTRs equal 
treatment with Union citizens as regards 
the recognition of professional 
qualifications in the second MS  

No effect 

No effect 

Very 
effective 

Very 
effective 

Effective 

Effective 

No effect 

Effective 

Effective 

No effect 

Effective 

No effect 

No effect 

Very 
effective 

Effective 

51 

 
2.12 Improving rules on access to the 
labour market for the ‘mobile’ LTRs and 
their family members 

No effect 

Very 
effective 

Effective 

2.13 Shortening the time needed to 
acquire EU LTR status in the second MS 
(three years instead of five years)  

Very 
effective 

Very effective 
Policy Measures relating to improving the rights of third-country nationals and their 
family 

Very effective 

2.14 Derogations from the rules on family 
reunification of Directive 2003/86/EC to 
facilitate the family reunification for 
LTRs 
2.15 Automatically granting the EU LTR 
status to children of long-term residents 
born in the EU 

2.16 Clarifying the access to housing, to 
include the right to buy immovable 
property 

2.17 Aligning the definition of social 
security with the other legal migration 
Directives, and ensuring full equal 
treatment with regard to access to social 
assistance and social protection  

2.18 Prolonging the allowed period of 
absence outside the EU from 12 to 24 
months 

2.19 Regulating in more detail the 
procedure to reacquire the EU LTR status 
following absence 

Effective 
(indirect) 

Effective 
(indirect) 

Very effective 

Very effective 

Effective 
(indirect) 

Very effective 

No effect 

No effect 

Moderately 
effective 

No effect 

No effect 

Very effective 

Effective 

No effect 

Very effective 

Effective 

No effect 

Effective 

Policy Option 3: Wider legislative revision 

Policy Measures relating to facilitating the conditions to acquire the LTR status 

3.1 Allowing periods spent as students to 
be counted fully 

3.2 Opening the possibility for MS to 
lower the required residence period to 
apply for the EU LTR status from five to 
three years 

3.3 Opening the possibility for MS to 
allow cumulating residence periods in 
different MS  

3.4 Opening the possibility for Member 
States to include in the Directive permits 
issued on temporary grounds  

Very effective 

Effective 
(indirect) 

No effect 

Very effective 
(if 
implemented) 

Very effective 
(if 
implemented) 

Effective 
(indirect) 

Effective 
(indirect) 

No effect 

No effect 

Effective (if 
implemented) 

Moderately 
effective 
(indirect) 

No effect 

52 

 
3.5 Clarifying and limiting the discretion 
of MS in applying the requirement of 
stable and regular resources 

3.6 Clarifying and limiting discretion of 
Member States in applying integration 
conditions 

Effective 

Effective 

No effect 

Effective 

Effective 

No effect 

Policy Option 3: Major legislative revision 
4.1 Create a fully harmonised EU 
permanent residence status, by not 
allowing Member States to keep their 
national permanent residence schemes 

4.2 Lower the required residence period to 
acquire the EU LTR status from five to 
three years 

4.3 Introduce an automatic right to move 
and reside in a second MS for EU long-
term residents, with conditions similar to 
the ones applicable to EU citizens 
exercising free movement rights 

Very effective 

Very effective 

Very 
effective 

Effective 
(indirect) 

Very effective 

No effect 

No effect 

Very 
effective 

Very effective 

As  regards  the  social  impacts  of  the  POs,  different  categories  of  stakeholders  were 
considered in their assessment, namely third-country nationals, EU citizens including EU 
workers,  national  authorities,  legal  practitioners  and  the  judiciary,  businesses  and 
employers  and  third  countries.  The  scoring  includes  the  social  impacts  of  each  PO 
regarding all categories  of stakeholders.  By including  all the improvements  foreseen in 
PO2 in addition to its own policy measures, PO3 appears to be the most favourable in 
terms of social impacts. Positive social impacts on all categories of stakeholders except 
for  EU  workers  have  been  identified  also  regarding  PO1,  though  the  soft  nature  of  its 
measures  and  their  dependence  on  the  willingness  of  the  Member  States  to  implement 
them  reduce  considerably  their  potential  social  impacts  compared  to  PO2  and  PO3.  
While PO4 would have significant positive social impacts on third-country nationals by 
removing  national  LTR  schemes  and  granting  intra-EU  mobility  rights  similar  to  those 
enjoyed by EU citizens, potentially also simplifying the work of legal practitioners and 
the  hiring  process  for  businesses  and  employer,  it  could  lead  to  a  more  significant 
displacement of EU workers compared to the other Policy Options.  

None of the POs are expected to have significant environmental impacts. 

All legislative options would have a positive impact on fundamental rights, in line with 
the EU Charter, and in particular, the right to family and professional life (Art. 33), non-
discrimination  (Art.21),  and  the  rights  to  have  access  to  social  security  and  social 
assistance  (Art.  34).  Building  on  the  positive  impacts  foreseen  under  PO2,  the  most 

53 

 
 
favourable POs in terms of strengthening fundamental rights are PO3 and PO4, the most 
far-reaching in terms of limiting discretional margins and potential discriminations. 

As  regards  economic  impacts,  at  differing  degrees  all  policy  options  offer  a  positive 
impact. In particular, PO2 would increase intra-EU mobility and improve the integration 
of  long-term  residents  with  the  related  estimated  positive  effects  on  tax  revenue, 
productivity,  consumption  and  economic  growth,  whilst  PO3  would  add  to  this  the 
positive effects caused by an increased share of third-country students and third-country 
nationals with temporary permits remaining in the EU. Finally, the additional economic 
impacts of PO4 are granted by the estimated increase in intra-EU mobility of long-term 
residents. 

As  regards  the  coherence,  PO3  and  PO2  would  bring  a  substantial  contribution  to  the 
Pact’s goal to attract and retain international skills and talent to the EU, through measures 
that facilitate the conditions  to  acquire EU  LTR  status  and facilitate intra-EU mobility. 
Moreover,  PO3  and  PO2  would  also  contribute  to  closer  coherence  with  other  legal 
migration directives. The most critical challenge to coherence with other legal migration 
directives is posed by PO4, as Member States would need to allow residence on the basis 
of a residence permit issued by another Member State. 

In terms of administrative and compliance costs, the majority of policy options would 
have a minor negative contribution. Indeed, the changes foreseen across PO1, PO2 and 
PO3  would  primarily  consist  in  minor  changes  to  administrative  processes,  guidelines 
and  training  of  staff,  as  well  as  national  legislative  revision  for  PO2  and  PO3.  PO4 
promises  the  highest  administrative  and  compliance  costs  in  that  it  proposes  the 
largest  legislative  and  administrative  changes  from  the  status  quo  (baseline).  For 
instance,  in  addition  to  large  revisions  of  internal  administrative  procedures  and 
legislation,  PO4  would  also  result  in  national  authorities  having  to  ensure  all  national 
LTR holders become EU LTR holders. This may involve complex assessments due to the 
differing  conditions  to  acquire  the  national  LTR  status  in  comparison  the  EU  LTR  in 
some Member States. 

Nevertheless,  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  also  offer  significant  simplification  for  Member 
States’ authorities, third-country nationals and employers/businesses, which for PO2 and 
PO3 to some extent counterbalances the negative impact brought by administrative and 
compliance costs. 

With regard to principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the proposed measures in 
the  legislative  options  PO2  and  PO3  would  be  limited  to  those  aspects  that  Member 
States  cannot  achieve  satisfactorily  on  their  own,  and  the  administrative  burden  on 
stakeholders would not  be disproportionate  vis-à-vis the objectives to be achieved, also 
because  those  measures  would  only  update  or  complement  the  already  existing 
procedures.  In  particular,  the  required  adaptations  in  the  administrative  procedures  by 
Member  States  are  considered  proportionate  in  view  of  the  envisaged  improvements  in 
the  situation  of  third-country  nationals,  more  opportunities  for  employers,  and 
simplification  for  national  administrations.  PO4  would,  however,  raise  some  issues  in 
terms  of  proportionality,  as  in  particular  the  abolition  of  national  schemes  and  the 

54 

 
granting of free movement rights would require more substantial changes on which there 
is not sufficient evidence they would be justified to reach the objectives of the initiatives. 

With  regard  to  the  political  feasibility,  the  fact  that  PO1  would  not  require  legislative 
amendments  would  be  met  with  favour  by  those  Member  States  not  wanting  further 
legislation on legal migration127, but would contradict the call of the European Parliament 
to improve the Directive. PO2, PO3 and PO4 would all require legislative amendments 
and would differ on political feasibility, depending on the foreseen changes. On the basis 
of the views expressed by  Member States128 on this initiative, it seems that it would be 
easier under PO2 to get a political agreement as this requires a targeted revision and does 
not  change  the  conditions  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  status.  It  can  be  expected  that  the 
European Parliament  would  support all  elements of  this  option, while at  the same time 
requesting  for  more  ambition.  On  the  other  hand,  the  measures  under  PO3  that  would 
facilitate  the  acquisition  of  the  status,  and  in  particular  the  obligation  to  take  fully  into 
account  student  years  and  the  limitation  to  the  national  discretion  on  the  resources  and 
integration conditions may not be supported by a number of Member States but is likely 
to be supported by the European Parliament.  

Finally,  the  measures  under  PO4  to  abolish  the  national  permanent  schemes  and  grant 
quasi-free movement rights to long-term residents would be supported by the European 
Parliament but  likely  face strong resistance from  a  large majority of Member States.  In 
particular,  according to the views expressed by  Member States,  the  removal  of parallel 
national LTR schemes would deprive them from the possibility to have national permits 
adapted  to  national  specificities  (e.g.  bilateral  agreements  based  on  shared  history  with 
third countries) while the freedom of movement would significantly limit national control 
over admission of third-country nationals to their territory. This resistance was recently 
made  evident  during  the  negotiation  on  the  revision  of  the  EU  Blue  Card  Directive, 
where  a  majority  of  Member  States  strongly  opposed  the  abolition  of  parallel  national 
schemes and a substantial simplification of intra-EU mobility, leading to a stagnation of 
three  years  in  the  negotiation  of  that  Directive.  A  political  compromise  within  the 
Council could only be achieved by retaining both the national schemes and a number of 
safeguards  on  intra-EU  mobility  of  EU  Blue  Card  holders129.  As  the  Member  States 
showed  opposition  with  regard  to  rules  concerning  a  very  specific  (and  limited  in 
number) category of third-country nationals (the highly skilled), it is expected that they 
would  be  even  more  strongly  opposed  with  regard  to  similar  rules  concerning  a  much 
more numerous and heterogeneous category such as the long-term residents. 

127  See Annex 2 
128 Meetings of Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion, 1 March 2021, and Contact Group 

on Legal Migration, 18 May. 

129  Directive (EU) 2021/1883 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2021 on the 
conditions  of  entry  and  residence  of  third-country  nationals  for  the  purpose  of  highly  qualified 
employment, and repealing Council Directive 2009/50/EC. 

55 

 
                                                           
8.  8.  PREFERRED OPTION 

On the basis of the analysis in the above section, the preferred option is PO3 – wider 
legislative revision of the Directive.  

PO2  contains  a  large  set  of  policy  measures  which  would  address  most  of  the 
shortcomings  identified  within  the  Directive,  compared  to  PO1,  which  focuses  only  on 
the  lack  of  awareness  and  information,  having  therefore  a  very  limited  impact  on  all 
objectives.  However,  PO2  makes  a  relatively  smaller  contribution  to  the  objective  of 
creating  a  more  coherent,  efficient  and  fair  system  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  status,  as  it 
does  not  include  changes  to  the  conditions  to  acquire  the  status.  PO3  as  the  preferred 
option  would  compensate  for  this  gap,  as  it  would  include  all  measures  under  PO2,  in 
addition  to  six  measures  which  are  expected  to  make  a  positive  contribution  to 
facilitating the conditions for acquisition of the EU LTR status.  

With  specific  regard  to  the  measure  lowering  the  period  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  status 
from  five  to  three  years,  including  it  as  an  obligation  (as  in  PO4)  would  facilitate  the 
acquisition of the status in all Member States, while it is not possible to assess in advance 
how many Member States would implement this measure if it were optional (as in PO3). 
Based on the assessment and on the views of the consulted stakeholders, the arguments 
in  favour  of  either  approach  are  equally  strong.  If  implemented  by  all  Member  States, 
this measure would allow a significant number of third-country nationals who can prove 
their integration in  the host society already after three  years to  benefit quicker from  all 
the rights attached to the EU LTR status, which is an outcome that would be welcomed 
by  the  European  Parliament  and  different  stakeholders  (in  particular  civil  society 
representatives and legal practitioners). At the same time, as the integration process for 
third-country  nationals  depends  on  many  factors  which  are  different  across  Member 
States,  if  this  measure  were  optional  it  would  allow  Member  States  to  better  take  into 
consideration  these  specific  factors,  and  therefore  it  is  expected  that  the  optional 
approach would be more welcomed by them. Based on these different but equally valid 
arguments, it remains an open consideration whether this measure should be included in 
the preferred option as an obligation or as an option. 

Furthermore,  and  taking  into  account  the  recent  negotiations  on  the  EU  Blue  Card 
Directive,  the  preferred  option  does  not  aim  at  a  ‘full  harmonisation’  as  PO4,  nor  it 
considers the discontinuation of national long-term residence permits as a crucial factor 
for the successful revision of the Directive. The preferred option manly aims at ensuring 
that all third-country nationals who have put down roots in the EU have a fair and equal 
access  to  the  EU  status  and  the  rights  attached  to  it,  including  the  right  to  move  more 
freely within the EU. 

Overall, the preferred PO is  expected to  make an additional positive contribution  to  all 
objectives  while  respecting  the  principle  of  proportionality,  and  to  have  very  positive 
social and economic impacts. The economic impacts are based on the assumptions that, 
first,  more  third-country  nationals  would  have  access  to  the  EU  LTR  status  with  its 
attached  rights,  and,  second,  an  increased  share  of  third-country  nationals  would  be 
moving  to  a  second  Member  State.  This  in  turn  would  lead  to  higher  tax  revenue, 

56 

 
increased productivity and consumption, and enhanced economic growth. In addition, as 
a result of likely higher wages, remittances are also assumed to increase as a proportion 
of long-term residents’ income. 

Furthermore,  the  preferred  policy  option  would  result  in  additional  alignment  between 
the  Directive  and  the  New  Pact  on  Migration  and  Asylum,  bringing  also  additional 
coherence with the case law of the CJEU. 

8.1. 

8.1. 

REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 

REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount (average 
yearly saving) 

Comments 

Cost savings from simplification of the 
LTRD procedures currently in place 

Cost savings from lower EU LTR fees, 
shorter procedures, the provision of better 
quality information on the EU LTR status 
resulting in a reduction in fees paid for 
legal support 

Cost savings from a reduction in 
administrative fees and shorter 
procedures 

24 500 euro 

Member State national authorities 

1 145 000 euro 

Third-country nationals 

113 000 euro 

Employers 

(1)  amounts presented are the average value of all average annual cost savings across measures 

included within the preferred option 

8.2. 

8.2. 

One-to-one approach  

This section describes the expected impacts of the preferred option on EU businesses and 
citizens.  

  Impacts on EU businesses 

EU businesses are expected to benefit from the preferred option and specifically from the 
measures facilitating intra-EU mobility of long-term residents. In particular, not allowing 
the second Member State to apply a labour market test  would grant  employers reduced 
costs  and  streamlined  administrative  procedures  in  the  hiring  process  of  long-term 
residents  from  another  Member  State.  The  simplified  and  shorter  procedures (allowing 
the  long-term  residents  to  start  working  at  the  latest  30  days  after  submitting  their 
application)  could  lead  to  more  efficiency  to  the  functioning  of  the  Single  market  in 
terms of better job matching and decreased vacancy rate, as well as potential increases in 
productivity. Also, the simplified procedures for intra-EU labour mobility are expected to 
benefit SMEs as they are likely to  suffer disproportionately from administrative burden 
when  hiring  third-country  nationals  in  comparison  to  large  enterprises  due  to  more 
limited  resources  and  expertise  (e.g.  legal  fees,  understanding  of  immigration  law  and 
process, etc.).  

57 

 
  
The  preferred  option  is  not  expected  to  entail  any  costs  or  disadvantages  for  EU 
businesses vis-à-vis the status quo. Recurring cost savings resulting from simplification 
are estimated in 112 700 euro. 

  Impact on EU citizens 

As  the  intra-EU  mobility  of  long-term  residents  in  the  preferred  option  would  be 
facilitated  (in  particular  through  the  abolition  of  the  labour  market  test  in  the  second 
Member State), it may create some competition towards EU citizens. However, the most 
important safeguards to avoid pressure on labour conditions, wages and of displacement 
of  EU  workers  are  that  the  system  remains  demand-driven  (long-term  residents  in  one 
Member State would still need a job offer to move to another Member State). Therefore, 
the potential displacement effect on EU workers is expected to be limited, first because 
of the proportionally low number of EU LTR holders expected to move over a 10-year 
period,  and  second  because  this  number  is  still  dwarfed  by  the  number  of  unfilled 
vacancies  (see  above  section  6.2.2).  Due  to  a  lack  of  data  and  the  complexity  of 
assumptions  required,  it  has  however  not  been  possible  to  quantify  any  possible 
displacement  effect.  Furthermore,  lowering  the  period  to  acquire  EU  LTR  status  from 
five  to  three  years,  could,  in  certain  cases130,  place  third-country  nationals  in  a  better 
situation  than  Union  citizens  (and  their  third-country  family  members)  who  are 
beneficiaries  of  the  Free  Movement  Directive,  as  the  latter  acquire  the  status  of 
permanent residents, and the rights connected to that status, after having resided legally 
in the host Member State for a continuous period of five years. 

9.  9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

As described throughout the report, the main data sources used to inform the analysis in 
this  impact  assessment  are  European  statistics,  surveys,  research,  and  consultation  with 
stakeholder groups. The monitoring and evaluation of the revised Directive will need to 
continue  relying  on  those  sources  but  also  explore  additional  sources,  in  particular 
reporting systems at Member State level. The monitoring and evaluation will need to be 
assured  at  all  stages  of  the  policy  cycle  (including  implementation,  application  and 
evaluation),  assessing  progress  and  achievements  against  the  following  operational 
objectives: 

  To increase awareness of the EU LTR status  

  To adapt the conditions to acquire EU long-term residence    

  To  remove  barriers  to  intra-EU  mobility  (recognition  of  qualifications,  labour 

market test) 

  To  make  sure  that  Member  States  adopt  a  facilitated  admission  procedure  for 

mobile long-term residents 

130  In  particular  with  regard  to  access  to  social  assistance,  and  protection  from  expulsion  on  economic 

grounds. 

58 

 
                                                           
  To clarify and strengthen equal treatment rights under the LTR status  

  To facilitate circular migration  

  To monitor residence requirements for investor residence schemes 

At  implementation  stage,  as  for  all  other  recasts  and  directives,  the  Commission  is 
expected  to  organise  contact  committee  meetings  with  the  EU-25  Member  States  to 
discuss and clarify any issues that may arise during the transposition phase. 

In addition, the Commission will launch a conformity assessment, once the deadline for 
implementation  has  passed,  to  verify  that  the  recast  has  been  transposed  correctly  into 
national  laws  in  all  EU-25.  Following  that,  the  Commission  will  present  a  report 
evaluating  the  implementation,  functioning  and  impact  of  the  directive  approximately 
two  or  three  years  after  the  transposition  deadline,  and  every  three  or  four  years 
thereafter. These reports will thus also play a key role in the application stage.  

During the application stage, the practical implementation and functioning of the recast 
Directive  will  be  monitored  against  the  operational  objectives  as  listed  above,  using  a 
series  of  relevant  and  measurable  outcomes.  It  will  be  important  to  ensure  that  the 
indicators can be measured through methods and sources which are easily available and 
credible.  Official  European  and  national  statistics  published  by  Eurostat  and  competent 
national statistical authorities should be used as much as possible, to monitor the number 
of EU LTR permits issued (also vis-a-vis national LTR permits) and, where possible, to 
monitor  the  number  of  third-country  nationals  engaging  in  intra-EU  mobility  and  in 
circular migration. Data on the latter two are currently not collected at EU level, but may 
be recorded by some Member States at national level. In addition, it would be important 
to make use of existing EU agencies and networks, such as the FRA and the EMN.  

To  obtain  stakeholder  views,  the  Commission  could  consider  launching  a  Special 
Barometer or a Public Consultation to obtain both quantitative and qualitative inputs. The 
Commission will also continue making use of the existing expert groups that contributed 
to the impact assessment. 

The  table  below  provides  more  detailed  suggestions  for  indicators  and  for  methods  of 
data collection. The timeframe for the  monitoring  indicators is  the first  implementation 
report of the recast Directive. 

Main operational objectives  Monitoring indicators 
To increase awareness and 
improve the use of the EU 
LTR status 

Number of EU LTR permits 
granted in EU; 
TCN awareness level on EU 
LTR status; 
Other stakeholder awareness 
level on EU LTR status. 
Number of mobile TCNs 
residing in the EU; 
TCN awareness level on intra-
EU mobility rights; 
Other stakeholder awareness 
level on intra-EU mobility 

Data sources and tools 
European statistics; 
Surveys and research (e.g. 
public consultation, EMN, 
Eurobarometer); 
Consultation with stakeholder 
groups.  
Evaluations of practical 
application of the Directive; 
European and national 
statistics; 
Surveys and research; 
Consultation with stakeholder 

To remove barriers to intra-
EU mobility (recognition of 
qualifications, labour market 
test) 

59 

 
 
 
To clarify and strengthen 
equal treatment rights under 
the EU LTR status 

rights. 

groups. 

Integration success rate of EU 
long-term residents; 
TCN awareness level on LTR 
rights; 
Other stakeholder awareness 
level on LTR rights. 

Evaluations of practical 
application of the Directive; 
Surveys and research (e.g. 
public consultation, EMN, 
Eurobarometer); 
Consultation with stakeholder 
groups. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG, DEcide Planning/CWP references 

DG  Migration  and  Home  Affairs  (DG  HOME)  is  the  lead  DG.  The  agenda  planning 
reference is PLAN/2021/11127. 

Organisation and timing 

The  Communication  for  the  New  Pact  on  Migration  and  Asylum  of  23  September 
2020131  announced,  among  various  initiatives,  a  revision  of  the  Long-term  residents 
Directive,  in  order  to  create  a  true  EU  long-term  residence  status  and  to  address  the 
its 
shortcomings 
implementation report. 

identified  under  the  Fitness  Check  on  Legal  Migration  and 

Additionally,  the  2021  Commission  Work  Programme  announced  on  19  October  2020 
that the revision of the Long-term residents Directive is part of the number of measures 
to be proposed on legal migration132. The proposal is included in the Commission Work 
Programme (Annex II), under the Commission priority “Promoting our European Way of 
Life”.133  

The Inception Impact Assessment report was published on 1 December 2020.  

The  Inter-service  Steering  Group  was  set  up  by  the  Secretariat-General  to  assist  in  the 
preparation  of  the  initiative.  The  representatives  of  the  following  Directorates  General 
participated  in  the  ISG  work:  BUDG,  EAC,  ECHO,  EMPL,  ESTAT,  GROW,  INTPA, 
DIGIT, EEAS, RTD, HR, JRC, NEAR, MOVE, AGRI, JUST, TAXUD, Legal Service. 

The ISG met three times on 26 November 2020, 7 May 2021 and 30 August 2021.  

Consultation of the RSB 

On  22  September  2021,  the  Directorate-General  for  Migration  and  Home  Affairs 
submitted  the  draft  Impact  Assessment  to  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board,  which 
examined  the  draft  Impact  Assessment  on  20  October  2021.  On  25  October  2021,  the 
Board  issued  a  positive  opinion  with  reservations,  requesting  to  rectify  a  number  of 
aspects.  The  table  below  summarises  the  main  recommendations  for  improvement,  and 
how they have been addressed in this Impact Assessment report.  

Main 
recommendations 

Changes in the Impact Assessment Report 

131 COM (2020) 609 final, Communication from the Commission on a New Pact on Migration and Asylum, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1601287338054&uri=COM%3A2020%3A609%3AFIN  
132 COM(2020) 690 final, Commission Work Programme 2021, A Union of vitality in a world of fragility, p.6, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar%3A91ce5c0f-12b6-11eb-9a54-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF  
133 COM(2020) 690 final, Annexes to the Commission Work Programme 2021, p. 14, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar%3A91ce5c0f-12b6-11eb-9a54-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_2&format=PDF  

61 

 
 
                                                           
for improvement 
1.  Clarify the 

problem definition 
and intervention 
logic 

  The  problem  definition  has  been  revised,  also  based  on  the 
intervention  logic  of  the  Fitness  check,  and  a  hierarchy 
between  problems  has  been  established,  with  three  key 
problem areas. 
It has been clarified how the initiative fits within the EU 
legal migration acquis and within the overall Pact’s objective 
to have a comprehensive approach to migration management 
in the EU. 

 

2.  Clarify the scope 
of the initiative 
and how it 
articulates with 
the revision of the 
Single Permit 
Directive. 

 

 

It  has  been  clarified  that  the  scope  of  the  initiative  is  to 
revise  the  current  Directive,  not  to  fundamentally  overhaul 
its objectives, and that the starting point of the revision are 
the  outstanding  issues  emerged  during  the  15  years  of 
applications  of  the  Directive,  as  confirmed  and  elaborated 
during 
Impact 
Assessment, and in the conclusions of the Fitness Check. 
It  has  been  clarified  that  the  revision  of  the  Long-term 
residents  Directive  and  the  revision  of  the  Single  Permit 
Directive  are  complementary,  as  they  address  two  different 
phases of the overall migration process. 

the  consultation  carried  out 

the 

for 

  Following  the  revision  of  the  problem  definition,  also  the 
objectives  have  been  restructured.  It  has  been  clarified  that 
the three specific objectives are all complementary and inter-
twined, and that, in particular, there is no trade-off between 
the objective of integration in the first Member State and the 
right  to  move  to  a  second  Member  State  or  to  exercise 
circular migration. 

  The policy options have been more clearly structured around 
the  three  main  thematic  areas  corresponding  to  the  three 
specific objectives. 

  The  revised  Report  explains  better  to  what  extent  the  three 
legislative policy options address the different objectives, so 
that  it  is  clearer  that  they  present  alternative  ways  to  meet 
the objectives. 

  A new table underlining the assessment of the effectiveness 

of the individual measures has been added. 

 

 
5.  It has been clarified what measures are new obligations and 
what  measures are new  options  for Member States, and the 
effectiveness  analysis  of  the  optional  measures  has  been 
adapted  taking  into  account  the  uncertainties  on  their 
implementation. 
It has been made clearer that the preferred option PO3 does 
not aim at a ‘full harmonisation’ as PO4, nor it considers the 
discontinuation of national long-term residence permits as a 
crucial factor for the successful revision of the Directive.  
It has been clarified that in all legislative options but option 
4,  the  intra-EU  mobility  of  long-term  residents  would  be 
facilitated,  but  would  still  be  subject  to  conditions.  In 

 

62 

3.  Clarify the core 
differences in 
policy choices 
between the 
options. 

4.  Better assess the 
impact on the 
effectiveness of 
the Directive 
when measures 
are optional rather 
than mandatory. 

6.  Better analyse the 
domestic labour 
market impact of 

 
 
 
facilitating intra-
EU mobility. 

that 

it  has  been  clarified 

particular, 
the  potential 
displacement effect on EU workers is expected to be limited 
in  PO3,  as  the  most  important  safeguards  to  avoid  pressure 
on  labour  conditions,  wages  and  of  displacement  of  EU 
workers  are  that  the  system  would  remain  demand-driven 
(long-term residents would still need a job offer to move to 
another Member State). 

Evidence, sources and quality 

As detailed in Annex 2, the Impact Assessment is based on a series of studies, reports, 
stakeholders and experts' consultations, of which the most relevant ones are highlighted 
below.  

A  wide  consultation,  including  a  public  consultation,  was  already  conducted  in  the 
context of the Fitness Check on EU legislation on legal migration134 published in 2019, 
which was supported by a study conducted by an external consultant.  

Between 23 September and 30 December 2020, another online public consultation on the 
future of legal migration was conducted via the Commission’s ‘Have your say’ portal135. 

Targeted consultations, asking more technical questions on the revision of the Directive, 
took place in the first half of 2021. Some of these consultations were carried out by the 
Commission  independently  and  some  in  the  context  of  a  study  commissioned  to  an 
external contractor.  

Replies  to  the  two  above-mentioned  public  consultations  came  from  EU  citizens, 
organisations  and  third-country  nationals  (residing  inside  or  outside  the  EU),  business 
associations  and  organisations,  non-governmental  organisations,  academic/research 
institutions,  trade  unions,  ministries,  public  service  entities.  Targeted  consultations 
included  competent  authorities  in  the  Member  States,  business  associations  and 
organisations, non-governmental organisations, academia, think tanks and public service 
entities. The replies to the consultations gave a very comprehensive overview of the main 
problems in the functioning and implementation of the Directive.  

Taken together, the consultations carried out by external consultant and the Commission 
independently have generated a good amount of data. However, much of this data is of a 
general  nature,  especially  with  regard  to  questions  of  costs/administrative  burdens.  For 
this  reason,  the  Impact  Assessment  relies  on  a  qualitative  methodology  capable  of 
accommodating  quantitative  measures  and  reflecting  quantitative  estimates  from  other 
sources.  The  cost  estimates  that  are  provided  in  the  Impact  Assessment  are  based  on  a 
combination  of  factors,  including  representative  data  on  costs  provided  by  certain 
Member States and stakeholders. 

134  SWD(2019) 1055 final 
135  https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/content/public-consultation-future-eu-legal-migration_en  

63 

 
 
                                                           
The  analysis  presented  here  has  been  partly  constrained  by  the  negative  impact  of  the 
Covid-19  pandemic  that  caused  distortions  on  the  incoming  migration  flows  and  the 
intra-EU  mobility.  While  data  on  long-term  residence  permits  for  2020  is  not  yet 
available,  published  statistics  by  the  end  of  July  2021  show  changes  in  trends  of 
migration.  For  instance,  net  migration  which  is  the  difference  between  the  number  of 
immigrants and the number of emigrants decreased in the EU during 2020 compared to 
2019136 and most Member States for which data is available issued less single residence 
permits in 2020 than in 2019137. Therefore, it was more difficult to estimate and quantify 
the  potential  impacts  of  the  policy  options  and  of  various  factors  that  influence  the 
attractiveness and labour migration flows, e.g. entry requirements, level of rights and the 
(real or perceived) "burdens".  

136  Eurostat, Statistics Explained article on Population and population change statistics 
137  Source: Eurostat (migr_ressing) as available at the end of July 2021. 

64 

 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  

This  annex  provides  a  synopsis  report  of  all  stakeholder  consultation  activities 
undertaken in the context of this Impact Assessment. 

1.  Consultation strategy  

The  overall  aim  of  the  consultation  activities  was  to  collect  the  views  of  the  relevant 
stakeholders on the policy initiatives in the area of legal migration at both national and EU 
level and to offer them the opportunity to inform the impact assessment and, in particular, 
the development of policy options addressing the problems identified. The consultations 
sought to collect inputs pertaining to:  

(1) 

(2) 

collect  objective  data,  information,  and  evidence  to  feed  into  the  Impact 
Assessments; 

collect views on the issues at stake and suggested EU involvement, as well 
as opinions, ideas and concerns about possible solutions and impacts.  

In preparing the initiative, Commission services carried out an initial mapping of primary 
stakeholders, which include: (i) EU institutions and agencies; (ii) relevant authorities in 
the  EU  Member  States;  (iii)  networks  of  NGOs  working  at  the  EU  level;  (iv)  subject-
matter  experts;  (v)  economic  and  social  partners;  (vi)  trade  unions;  (vii)  international 
organisations and (vii) employers’ associations. 

Over  the  course  of  the  consultation  process,  Commission  services  used  a  variety  of 
methods and forms of consultation, which included:   

  Targeted  consultations  with  stakeholders  both  independently  and  as  part  of  the 

study that supported the development of this Impact Assessment. 

  An  opportunity  for  all  interested  parties  to  provide  feedback  on  the  Inception 

Impact Assessment via the Commission’s ‘Have your say’ platform;  

The  study  was  commissioned  by  the  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for  Migration 
and Home Affairs (DG HOME) and conducted by an external contractor. 

More  specifically,  a  wide  consultation  process,  including  a  public  consultation,  was 
already  conducted  in  the  context  of  the  Fitness  Check  on  EU  legislation  on  legal 
migration138 published in 2019, which was supported by a study conducted by an external 
consultant. Subsequently, between 23 September and 30 December 2020, another online 
public consultation on the future of legal migration was conducted via the Commission’s 
‘Have your say’ portal139. In total, 226 responses were received to the questionnaire and 
38  written  contributions,  from  a  wide  range  of  actors  representing  all  relevant 

138  SWD(2019) 1055 final. 
139  https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/content/public-consultation-future-eu-legal-migration_en  

65 

 
                                                           
stakeholders140.  This  public  consultation  aimed  to  identify  areas  where  the  EU 
framework on legal migration could be further improved, including through possible new 
legislation. It included questions relevant for the revision of both the Long-term residents 
Directive and the Single permit Directive. 

The majority of respondents' views to this consultation were aligned that the EU should 
take both new legislative and practical measures in the area of legal migration. Improving 
the  information  on  legal  pathways  (92%  or  208  out  of  226  total  responses),  improving 
systems to recognise professional qualifications and validate professional skills acquired 
(92% or 207 responses) and the support in the exchange of good practices (87% or 197 
responses) were perceived as the most prominent practical measures that the EU should 
focus its initiatives on. 

Concerning  improving  intra-EU  mobility,  a  large  majority  of  respondents  agreed  or 
strongly  agreed  on  the  importance  of  improving  intra-EU  mobility  of  third-country 
workers  (72%  or  162  respondents),  whilst  14%  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  (32 
responses), and 24% (32) responded as neutral. 

Finally,  respondents  agreed  that  the  EU  should  strengthen  and  promote  the  long-term 
residents Directive and make long-term resident status a truly EU-wide residence status, 
with  strengthened intra-EU mobility rights  (79% or 178 respondents  strongly  agreed or 
agreed).  Only  9%  (or  21  respondents)  either  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  with  this 
statement, with the remaining 12% (or 27 respondents) providing a neutral response. 

In  light  of  the  consultations  already  conducted,  no  dedicated  public  consultation  took 
place in the framework of this impact assessment. 

Targeted consultations were however organised in the first half of 2021, with the purpose 
to  cover  more  technical  questions  compared  to  the  ones  included  in  the  public 
consultations.  In  particular,  they  helped  defining  the  policy  options  and  assessing  their 
impact.  

This  synopsis  report  presents  a  succinct  overview  and  the  conclusions  of  the 
consultations  undertaken  in  relation  to  the  impact  assessment  on  the  revision  of  the 
Directive.  The  main  results  are  summarised  below  and,  where  appropriate,  referenced 
and taken into account in the Impact Assessment report.  

2.  Overview of the consultations 

A  number  of  targeted  consultation  meetings  were  held  in  2021  as  part  of  the  study  in 
support of the Impact assessment on the revision of the Directive.  

  1  March:  the  Portuguese  presidency  of  the  Council  of  the  EU  held  a  Working 
Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion, to have an exchange of views on 

140  Contributions  were  received  from  EU  citizens,  organisations  and  third-country  nationals  (residing 
inside  or  outside  the  EU),  business  associations  and  organisations,  non-governmental  organisations, 
academic/research institutions, trade unions, ministries, public service entities, religious organisations, 
a law firm and a foundation. 

66 

 
                                                           
the  legislative  initiatives  in  the  field  of  legal  migration,  where  the  Commission 
also presented the results of the public consultation.  

  2  March:  meeting  of  the  newly  established  Expert  Group  on  the  Views  of 

Migrants in the field of Migration, Asylum and Integration.  

  10 March: meeting of the European Network of Public Employment Services. 
  14  April:  meeting  of  the  Commission  Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic 

Migration (EGEM). 

  20 April: meeting with representatives of the Civil Society.  
  29 April: meeting of the EU Legal Migration Practitioners Network. 
  5 May: meeting with Economic and Social Partners. 
  18 May: meeting of the Contact Group on Legal Migration. 

Ad  hoc  queries  were  also  launched  in  the  framework  of  this  impact  assessment  to  the 
members of the European Migration Network141.  

During all targeted meetings, the Commission presented the LTRD’s main objectives and 
proposed a discussion on several shortcomings highlighted in the Fitness Check on legal 
migration  and  the  implementation  reports  of  the  LTRD.  Topics  and  areas  discussed 
included: 

  The under-use of the LTRD (due to among others a lack of information about the 
existence and the benefits of the LTRD, and the attractiveness and added-value of 
the LTRD); 

  The  conditions  to  acquire  the  long-term  resident  status  (among  others  the 
requirement for five years of continuous and legal residence, the exclusion of the 
period spent with temporary permits, language requirements and the condition for 
stable and regular resources); 

  The barriers to exercising intra-EU mobility (among others any disproportionate 

pre-conditions for intra-EU mobility); 

  The lack of clarity and consistency in the rights of long-term residents and their 

family members; and 

  The failure to ensure circular migration of long-term residents.  

An  overview  of  the  results  of  and  main  points  raised  during  the  seven  targeted 
consultations can be found in section 2 below. 

3.  Results 

Under-use of the LTRD142 

According to a majority of stakeholders, the under-use of the LTRD is at least in part due 
to  a  lack  of  information  or  awareness  about  the  LTRD  itself  or  about  its  benefits.143 

141  EMN (2021) Ad Hoc Query 2021.37 and 2021.36 to support an impact assessment study on the 

revision of the Long-term Residents and Single Permit Directives. 

142  Some within the Contact Group on Legal Migration disagree with this classification and do not believe 

there are any issues in the under-use of the EU LTR status. 

143  Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  the  Views  of  Migrants;  Consultation  of  the 
European Network of the Public Employment Services; Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on 

67 

 
                                                           
 
According  to  representatives  of  Civil  Society,  in  some  Member  States,  the  lack  of 
awareness  amongst  migrants  might  be  due  to  poor  administrative  practices  and 
contentious  national  policy  choices.144  In  particular,  it  was  reported  that  some  national 
administrations do not have sufficient knowledge of procedures concerning the EU LTR 
status or find them too complicated compared to the ones concerning the national permits 
(Representatives of the Civil Society, EU legal migration practitioners’ network). 

Various suggestions were made for improving the situation, among which:  

  A  legal  obligation  for  Member  States  to  inform  third-country  nationals  of  the 
possibility  to  apply  for  the  EU  LTR  status  (Economic  and  Social  Partners),  for 
example when they receive  an application for the national  LTR  status  (EU legal 
migration  practitioners  network)  or  during  Member  States’  integration  courses 
(Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants);  

  Technical  support  or  training  to  relevant  entities  and  service  workers  within 
Member  States  (Representatives  of  the  Civil  Society,  Commission  Economic 
Group on the Views of Migrants);  

  Awareness-raising  campaigns,  enhanced  communication  or  guidelines  addressed 
to  both  Member  States  and  possible  EU  LTR  applicants  (Economic  and  Social 
Partners,  Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration)145,  among  others  on  the  different 
permits  and  the  possibility  to  hold  both  the  EU  and  national  statuses 
(Representatives of the Civil Society);  

  Better accessible and understandable information from Member States authorities, 
for  example  on  their  websites  (EU  legal  migration  practitioners  network, 
Economic and Social Partners); and 

  EU  legal  migration  codification  that  third-country  nationals,  national  authorities 
and organisations could understand and refer to when it comes to the purpose and 
procedures  of  the  legal  migration  Directives  (Representatives  of  the  Civil 
Society). 

Besides  this,  stakeholders  also  underlined  issues  with  the  attractiveness  and  added 
value  of  the  LTRD.146  The  European  Public  Services  network  suggested  extending  the 
validity of the LTR permit (from five years to ten years after renewal), whereas the EU 
legal  migration  practitioners  network  focused  on  lengthy  LTR  application  processing 
time  compared  to  other  schemes.  It  also  emphasised  –  together  with  some  within  the 

Economic  Migration;  Consultation  with  representatives  of  Civil  Society;  Second  meeting  of  the  EU 
legal  migration  practitioners  network;  Consultation  with  the  Economic  and  Social  Partners; 
Consultation  with the  Legal  Migration  Contact Group. Only two Member States disagreed  within the 
Consultation with the Contact Group on Legal Migration. 

144  Consultation with representatives of Civil Society. 
145  Member States could in particular reach out to TCNs who are potentially eligible who are either high-
skilled  or  working  in  a  labour  field  where  shortages  exist  (Consultation  of  the  European  Public 
Employment Services network). 

146  Consultation  of  the  European  Public  Employment  Services  network;  Fifth  meeting  of  the  Informal 
Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration;  Second  meeting  of  the  EU  legal  migration  practitioners 
network; Consultation with the Contact Group on Legal Migration. 

68 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration  –  that  in  many  Member  States,  five  years  of 
continuous  residence  are  enough  to  acquire  citizenship  –  in  some  cases  especially  for 
students, for whom only half of the period of residence is counted for the EU LTR status. 
Finally, the EU legal migration practitioners’ network pointed out that, in some Member 
States, there is a very large level of discretion left to national authorities when assessing 
applications for the EU LTR status, as opposed to the national status. On the basis of this, 
it suggested  the triggering of sanctions following the receipt of  complaints  on Member 
States who do not implement the LTRD effectively or whose criteria are too difficult to 
meet. 

The Expert Group on Economic Migration (EGEM), as well as some within the Contact 
Group on Legal Migration, noted that the benefits or differences of the LTR status vis-à-
vis a national scheme would have to be clarified better; the EGEM believed it would be 
useful to ask Member States where the LTRD made a significant positive impact, or what 
the  drivers  of  a  high  number  of  EU  LTR  permits  issued  were.  When  reaching  out,  the 
private sector could also be targeted more, as employers can benefit from the effect of the 
EU LTR status on the stability of the labour force and the ability to retain workers.  

Some members of the Working Party on  Integration, Migration and Expulsion  strongly 
underlined the need to keep the national schemes. In particular, they expressed the view 
that  the  abolition  of  the  national  schemes  would  undermine  the  Member  States’ 
competencies  and  would  bring  no  added  value,  also  in  those  countries  where  national 
long-term resident permits are not issued (e.g. Austria).  

Conditions to acquire long-term resident status 

A number of stakeholders emphasised some issues with the requirement for five years 
of continuous and legal residence, also in combination with the exclusion of the period 
spent with temporary permits (mostly pertaining students).  

The  Commission  EG  on  the  Views  of  Migrants,  the  European  Public  Employment 
Services  network,  the  Economic  and  Social  Partners  and  the  Representatives  of  Civil 
Society  explicitly  noted  that  five  years  is  too  long,  especially  compared  to  national 
schemes.147  The  Economic  and  Social  Partners  believe  the  number  of  years  should  be 
reduced  to  three.  Importantly,  however,  Representatives  of  Civil  Society  also  recalled 
that before the adoption of the LTRD, a large majority of the Member States had a five-
year  (or  more)  requirement  to  obtain  their  national  status.  Only  three  Member  States 
foresaw  shorter  periods.  The  Member  States  might  still  be  reluctant  to  choose  a 
permanent status arising earlier for the EU than for the national status. Furthermore, the 
majority  of  members  from  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration  believes  the  current 
conditions  are  appropriate  and  sufficient,  particularly  as  regards 
the  five-year 
requirement. 

The  Commission  EG  on  the  Views  of  Migrants  underlined  that  periods  of  legal 
residence  spent  in  two  or  more  Member  States  cannot  currently  be  cumulatively 

147  The Informal EGEM also noted that some categories of refugees and asylum seekers are not covered by 

the LTRD despite living in the EU for more than five years. 

69 

 
                                                           
counted. Some Civil Society Representatives agreed that all periods of residence should 
be  counted  whether  they  are  continuous  or  not.  They  also  noted  that  there  is  a  need  to 
address  the  definition  of  the  place  of  residence,  the  assessment  of  which  could  be 
difficult, especially in situations of remote work from a different Member State or a third 
country.   

The Commission EG on the Views of Migrants, the Informal EGEM, the Representatives 
of the Civil Society and the Economic and Social Partners brought up that students’ years 
of  studies  should  be  counted  in  full,  if  only  to  make  the  EU  more  attractive  to 
international talent (Civil Society). 

Besides  this,  the  Commission  Economic  Group  on  the  Views  of  Migrants  and  the  EU 
legal migration practitioners’ network were of the opinion that language requirements 
in some Member States are disproportionate. 

Finally, the condition for stable and regular resources might be challenging to meet, in 
particular  for  low-skilled  third-country  workers,  students,  or  challenging  to  prove 
(Commission EG on the Views of Migrants). The Commission EG suggested to include – 
as an alternative or additional condition to the resources requirement – a points system to 
acquire  the  EU  LTR  status  (giving  for  example  points  to  consider  the  impact  of  social 
entrepreneurs  or  the  level  of  studies  of  the  applicant).  Besides  this,  the  EU  legal 
migration  practitioners’  network  pointed  out  that  some  Member  States  interpret  this 
condition  very  strictly.  As  a  general  solution,  members  of  the  EU  legal  migration 
practitioners  network  suggested  the  automatic  triggering  of  sanctions  following  the 
receipt  of  complaints  regarding  bad  implementation  (including  the  implementation  of 
criteria too difficult to meet) of the LTRD by the Member States. 

Barriers to exercising intra-EU mobility 

Although  some  members  from  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration  did  not  see  the 
necessity  of  facilitating  intra-EU  mobility,  others  disagreed.  In  line  with  this,  other 
stakeholder groups emphasised disproportionate pre-conditions for intra-EU mobility 
for LTR status holders compared to other EU workers, concerning among others:  

  Labour market tests (LMT) (EGEM, Representatives of Civil Society, Economic 

and Social Partners);  

  The  recognition  of  qualifications  (European  Public  Employment  Services 

network, EGEM); and  

  Proof of integration (Commission EG on the Views of Migrants).  

This  is,  according  to  stakeholders  (European  Public  Employment  Services  network, 
Informal  EGEM,  Economic  and  Social  Partners)  particularly  troublesome  for  intra-EU 
mobility for professional purposes, which could increase the dynamism of the European 
Single  Market  and  resolve  shortages,  among  others.  Furthermore,  the  European  Public 
Employment Services network critically commented on how LMTs are only required for 
low  to  medium-skilled  Third-country  nationals  in  some  Member  States,  with  the 
Commission EG on the Views of Migrants also highlighting discrimination in the labour 
market  against  third-country  nationals  and  additionally  pointing  towards  the  right  or 

70 

 
ability of family members to follow. According to the EGEM and Representatives of the 
Civil Society, issues with intra-EU mobility in relation to the LTRD defeats the added-
value  of  the  LTRD,  with  Civil  Society  once  again  highlighting  the  special  position  of 
beneficiaries of international protection. 

Some of the solutions suggested include, among others:  

  Better  communication  to  national  administrations  on  LTRD  rules  and  benefits 

regarding intra-EU mobility (EU legal migration practitioners network);  

  Better  communication between Member States (EU legal  migration practitioners 

network, Contact Group on Legal Migration);  

  Mutual recognition of professional qualifications among Member States (EGEM, 

EU legal migration practitioners network, Economic and Social Partners);  

  Some LTRD provisions being beneficial in recognising professional qualification 
(for instance applying equal treatments measures) (European Public Employment 
Services network);  

  Reviewing  measures  in  other  and  more  recent  Directives  that  seem  to  be  more 

effective (European Public Employment Services network);  

  Replace  LMTs  with  other  good  practices  (Representatives  of  Civil  Society, 
EGEM)  or  make  them  into  a  purely  administrative  process  whereby  a  TCN  can 
work whilst awaiting the application processing (EGEM, Representatives of Civil 
Society). 

Some members of the EGEM noted that increased intra-EU mobility might not make the 
EU LTR status more attractive, as TCN mobility within the EU is relatively low, at least 
in  part  due  to  the  ‘investment’  necessary  to  acquire  LTR  status  in  a  Member  State. 
Additionally,  the  LTR  status  is  almost  always  acquired  by  individuals  without  the 
support  of  an  employer,  who  might  focus  on  initial  admission  and  cross-Member  State 
employment. However, other members of the EGEM disagreed with this. They noted that 
TCN mobility might very well be different in times of crisis (e.g., economic, pandemic) 
and  that  the  administrative  burden  of  temporary  permits  might  be  enough  to  push 
employers towards the LTR status for their employees. The Informal EGEM and some of 
the  Economic  and  Social  Partners  considered  a  talent  pool  or  one-stop-shop  for 
candidates  to  intra-EU  mobility.  Finally,  some  members  of  the  Working  Party  on 
Integration, Migration and Expulsion argued against the added value of having automatic 
intra-EU  mobility  rights  for  long-term  residents,  and  expressed  the  need  to  first 
implement the existing rules and observe their outcomes before taking further steps.  

Lack  of  clarity  and  consistency  in  the  rights  of  long-term  residents  and  their  family 
members 

In terms of the rights of long-term residents, Representatives of the Civil Society noted 
firstly that clauses concerning social security and social assistance should be removed or 
reduced by a horizontal revision of all legal migration Directives concerned and not by 
amending only the LTRD.  

71 

 
Besides  this,  the  European  Public  Employment  Services  network  and  the  EU  legal 
migration  practitioners’  network underlined the  problem  with  (ethnic) discrimination  in 
the recruitment  process.  The European Public Employment  Services network suggested 
mapping the qualifications and competences of third-country nationals to deploy them at 
the  right  level  while  filling  vacancies.  Relatedly,  the  Commission  Economic  Group  on 
the  Views  of  Migrants  wished  to  see  additional  data  (e.g.,  on  the  situation  of  women, 
poorly paid jobs and difficulties with meeting LTR conditions; on the intersectionality of 
discriminations  people  face  at  entry-level  jobs)  to  ensure  non-discrimination.  It  further 
noted that the revised LTRD could be aligned with EU Integration Action Plan and EU 
Action Plan against Racism to explore the possibility of introducing non-discrimination 
infringement  measures.  According to  economic  and social partners, the  Directive could 
be improved by excluding the possible discrimination in the access to public employment 
or in the possibility to access certain voting rights.  

Other specific issues that were mentioned include the following: 

  The  reluctance  to  let  third-country  nationals  purchase  immovable  property  (EU 
legal  migration  practitioners’  network,  Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration, 
Representatives  of  the  Civil  Society).  Linked  to  this  topic,  Representatives  of 
Civil  Society  noted  that  the  clause  on  equal  treatment  with  regard  to  housing 
should not be limited to public housing.  

  Persons applying for LTR status should have the same procedural safeguards and 
rights as those who apply for the national LTR permit as some within the EU legal 
migration  practitioners  pointed  out  differences  between  the  two  permits  in  the 
probability of winning an appeal against a negative decision.  

  Concerning the transfer  of social contributions,  there is  a lack of  clarity  on how 
this  can  be  done  in  practice  when  transferring  them  from  one  Member  State  to 
another  (EU  legal  migration  practitioners’  network,  Representatives  of  the  Civil 
Society). 

  The  fact  that  the  withdrawal  of  protection  status  may  sometimes  lead  to  the 
withdrawal  of  the  EU  LTR  status  should  be  addressed  (Economic  and  Social 
Partners). 

Besides  this,  some  believe  there  are  problems  with  the  rights  of  family  members  of 
long-term  residents.  The  EGEM  and  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration  see  some 
issues  with  family  members’  access  to  the  labour  market.  The  Economic  and  Social 
Partners  advocated  for  extending  the  treatment  granted  to  LTR  permit  holders  to  their 
family members, for example in terms of taxes, social security and social protection. The 
Commission  EG on the Views of Migrants  believes the family members are entitled to 
facilitated access to the LTR permit or to a facilitated procedure to extend their visas or 
permits. In general, the EU legal migration practitioners’ network believes the provisions 
in the LTRD regarding the treatment of family members are very vague; it (together with 
some  members  of  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration)  underlined  that  preferential 
treatment could act as an incentive for the use of the LTR status.  

72 

 
Failure to ensure circular migration of long-term residents 

According to the Commission EG on the Views of Migrants, the Representatives of the 
Civil  Society,  and  some  within  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration,  12  months  of 
absence  allowing  long-term  residents  to  leave  the  Member  State  of  residence  while 
retaining the LTR status is too short; up to a minimum of two years is suggested as an 
alternative.  Multiple  considerations,  such  as  the  current  sanitary  situation  restricting 
return travels (Commission EG on the Views of Migrants) and the possible distribution 
of knowledge and skills (Representatives of the Civil Society) play a role in this context. 
Some  within  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration  described  difficulties  with  the 
interpretation  of the concept  of ‘absence’  as  some members witnessed  situations where 
an EU LTR would only come back in the MS for a couple of days to reset the counting of 
the period of absence while residing elsewhere. 

Other 

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, both Representatives from the Civil Society 
and  the  EU  legal  migration  practitioners’  network  referred  to  flexibility  allowing  for 
derogations  in  case of  exceptional  situations. According to  Representatives  of the Civil 
Society,  the  impact  of  the  pandemic  should  be  considered  both  for  the  five-year 
requirements and for the 12 months of allowed absence while having the LTR status.  

4.  Direct feedback on the inception impact assessment 

No direct feedback received. 

5.  Conclusion 

The findings from the targeted consultation meetings showed several  shortcomings that 
could be addressed in the revised LTRD. 

Concerning  the  under-use  of  the  LTRD,  a  majority  of  stakeholders  pointed  towards  a 
lack of information or awareness about the LTRD itself or about its benefits. Suggestions 
for improvement ranged from technical support or training, awareness-raising campaigns, 
enhanced  (and  accessible,  understandable)  communication  or  guidelines,  to  legal 
obligations  to  inform  about  the  LTR  status  or  EU  legal  migration  codification. 
Stakeholders also underlined issues with the attractiveness and added-value of the LTRD, 
pointing  towards  several  areas  for  improvement  –  touching  upon  among  others  the 
validity of the permit, the processing time or discretion, the added-value and clarification 
vis-à-vis national schemes. 

Concerning  the  conditions  to  acquire  long-term  resident  status,  four  stakeholder 
groups  explicitly  noted  that  the  requirement  for  five  years  of  continuous  and  legal 
residence is too long, especially compared to national schemes. This also in combination 
with the exclusion of the period spent with temporary permits, for example in the case of 
students.  Some  suggested  the  shortening  of  the  period,  while  others  highlighted  that 
Member States might be reluctant to choose a permanent status arising earlier for the EU 
than for the national status. Further remarks were made on the periods of legal residence 
and on definitions. Besides this, two stakeholder groups found the language requirement 

73 

 
to  be  disproportionate,  and  two  underlined  issues  with  the  condition  for  stable  and 
regular resources. 

the  barriers  to  exercising 

Concerning 
intra-EU  mobility,  stakeholder  groups 
emphasised disproportionate pre-conditions for intra-EU mobility for LTR status holders 
compared to other EU workers, concerning among others:  

  Visa  requirements  in  the  second  Member  State  despite  the  LTR  status  (EGEM, 

Representatives of Civil Society);  

  Labour market tests (LMT) (EGEM, Representatives of Civil Society, Economic 

and Social Partners);  

  The  recognition  of  qualifications  (European  Public  Employment  Services 

network, EGEM); and  

  Proof of integration (Commission EG on the Views of Migrants).  

This  could  hinder  the  dynamism  of  the  European  Single  Market  and  the  resolving  of 
shortages. Further remarks were made on the position of low to  medium-skilled TCNs, 
among others. According to the EGEM and Representatives of the Civil Society, issues 
with  intra-EU  mobility  in  relation  to  the  LTRD  defeats  the  added-value  of  the  LTRD. 
Seven  potential  solutions  were  suggested  by  various  stakeholder  groups,  ranging  from 
(once  again)  solutions  involving  better  communication,  to  efforts  to  recognise 
professional qualifications, and the review of LMTs. 

Concerning  the  lack  of  clarity  and  consistency  in  the  rights  of  long-term  residents, 
one stakeholder group noted firstly that derogations concerning social security and social 
assistance should be removed or reduced by a horizontal revision of all legal migration 
Directives  concerned  and  not  by  amending  only  the  LTRD.  Besides  this,  issues 
pertaining  to  ethnic  discrimination  in  the  recruitment  process,  the  situation  of  women, 
and the purchasing of immovable property came up, among others. A variety of solutions 
was  suggested  at  different  levels  of  intervention.  Concerning  the  lack  of  clarity  and 
consistency in the rights of the family members of long-term residents, the following 
topics  were  prominent:  access  to  the  labour  market,  the  extension  of  the  treatment 
granted to  LTR permit holders to their family members (for example in terms of taxes, 
social  security  and  social  protection),  and  the  entitlement  of  family  members  to 
facilitated access to the LTR permit or to a facilitated procedure to extend their visas or 
permits. In general, the EU legal migration practitioners network believes the provisions 
in the LTRD regarding the treatment of family members are very vague; two stakeholder 
groups underlined that preferential treatment could act as an incentive for the use of the 
LTR status.  

Concerning the failure to ensure circular migration of long-term residents, stakeholders 
from three stakeholder groups underlined that 12 months of absence allowing long-term 
residents  to  leave  the  Member  State  of  residence  while  retaining  the  LTR  status  is  too 
short;  up  to  a  minimum  of  two  years  is  suggested  as  an  alternative.  Stakeholders  from 
two  stakeholder  groups  also  referred  to  a  need  for  more  flexibility  allowing  for 
derogations  in  case  of  exceptional  situations,  such  as  the  COVID-19  pandemic 

74 

 
(impacting  for  example  the  five-year  requirements  and  the  12  months  of  allowed 
absence).  

75 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

1.  Practical implications of the initiative 

The  preferred  option  (PO3)  would  have  positive  impacts  on  most  target  groups.  In 
particular, there would be significant positive impacts for third-country nationals, who: 

  would  benefit  from  the  measures  introducing  a  level-playing  field  by  having  a  real 

choice between the EU LTR permit and the national LTR permits;  

  would  be  able  to  fulfil  easier  the  conditions  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  status,  and 
therefore an increased number of TCNs legally residing in the EU would benefit from 
its  rights,  contributing  to  more  social  cohesion,  which  benefits  both  TCNs  and  EU 
citizens; would benefit from better intra-EU mobility rights by having more chances 
to be recruited or accepted for studies in other Member States; 

  would  have  better  rights  for  them  and  their  family  members,  to  support  their  full 

integration in the society;  

  would be able to exercise circular migration without losing their EU LTR status.  

As  the  intra-EU  mobility  of  long-term  residents  in  this  option  would  be  facilitated  (in 
particular through the abolition of the LMT), it may create some competition towards EU 
workers.  However,  the  most  important  safeguards  to  avoid  pressure  on  labour 
conditions,  wages  and  of  displacement  of  EU  workers  are  that  the  system  remains 
demand-driven  (long-term  residents  would  still  need  a  job  offer  to  move  to  another 
Member State). Therefore, the potential displacement effect on EU workers is expected 
to be limited, 

A  positive  impact  is  also  expected  on  third  countries,  as  the  measures  facilitating 
circular migration would help counter the “brain drain” phenomenon allowing TCNs to 
move and stay longer in their country of origin,  for instance for investment or business 
purposes. Furthermore, the measure enabling the TCNs to re-acquire their EU LTR status 
will be able to maintain a more stable economic situation which would ultimately allow 
them to maintain the level of remittances sent to their country of origin. 

The  competent  national  authorities  would  need  to  adapt  the  existing  procedures  and 
ensure compliance with the new rules. In particular, they would have to adapt procedures 
on  LTR  applications  as  a  consequence  of  the  level-playing  field  mechanism  and  the 
modified  conditions  for  acquisition  of  the  status,  as  well  as  on  intra-EU  mobility 
applications and applications to reacquire the status after long absences.  

The  preferred  PO  would  also  have  important  impacts  on  businesses/employers,  in 
particular with regards to the measures facilitating intra-EU mobility. As a result of these 
measures, which is especially positive for SMEs, employers would benefit from a larger 
pool of qualified third-country nationals already legally residing in the EU. 

 Summary of costs and benefits 

The  tables  below  present  the  costs  and  benefits  associated  with  the  preferred  Policy 
Option, PO3. Benefits are mainly in the form of direct costs savings across MS national 

76 

 
authorities,  TCNs  and  employers.  On  the  other  hand,  costs  were  mainly  identified  for 
national authorities and include one-off and recurring costs. 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount 

Direct benefits 

Comments 

Simplification of current 
procedures 

€ 24.457 

Simplification of current 
procedures for TCNs (e.g. 
lowering fees, shorter 
procedures) 

€ 1.144.530 

Simplification of current 
procedures for employers 
(e.g. lowering fees, shorter 
procedures) 

€ 112.727 

Increase in tax revenue 

€ 8.469.964 

Indirect benefits 

MS national authorities 
The average value of cost savings across 
all measures included within PO3 are 
presented. Note that only 6 measures were 
associated with a quantifiable cost savings 
to MS national authorities 

TCNs 
The average value of cost savings across 
all measures included within PO3 are 
presented. Note that only 2 measures were 
associated with a quantifiable cost savings 
to TCNs 

Employers 
The average value of cost savings across 
all measures included within PO3 are 
presented. Note only 1 measure was 
associated with a quantifiable cost saving 
to Employers 

Mostly resulting from increased intra-EU 
mobility of EU LTR permit holders, as 
well as an increase in third-country 
students coming to the EU and an increase 
of in temporary permit holders remaining 
in the EU to obtain the EU LTR status. 

Increase in consumption 

€ 74.216.198 

As above 

Increase in remittances  

-€ 13.234.319 

As above – the amount is negative as it is 
benefiting third countries, not the EU 
economy 

(1) Estimates are relative to the baseline for the preferred option as a whole (i.e. the impact of individual actions/obligations 
of the preferred option are aggregated together); (2) Please indicate which stakeholder group is the main recipient of the 
benefit in the comment section;(3) For reductions in regulatory costs, please describe details as to how the saving arises (e.g. 
reductions in compliance costs, administrative costs, regulatory charges, enforcement costs, etc.; see section 6 of the attached 
guidance). 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

EC 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off  Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

77 

 
 
 
 
PO 3 
(may 
clauses)   

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

59.727 

-1.144.530 

-112.727 

1.200.705 

1.017.019 

(1) 1) Estimates reported the totals of all the average annual costs included in each measure included within the Policy Option, 
totalled for all cost items associated with each stakeholder group (including costs related to transposition, familiarisation, 
adaptation, IT systems acquisition/update, information provision, communication).  

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

This annex presents the overall analytical methods used, and assumptions made, for the 
quantification of costs (and cost savings) and economic impacts.  

The approach used for the cost-assessment is a Standard Cost Model. Costs and, where 
relevant, cost savings were itemised and quantified to the extent possible across each of 
the  proposed  measures.  These  were  then  aggregated  across  measures  to  estimate  the 
overall  average  or  total  costs  to  all  relevant  stakeholder  groups  associated  with  the 
proposed Policy Options.  

In  addition,  a  theory-based  model  was  used  for  the  estimation  of  economic  benefits  to 
measure  the  impact  of  the  proposed  Policy  Options  on  tax  revenue,  remittances  and 
consumption. This model uses various equations, the parameters of which are taken from 
the  literature  or  qualitative  evidence  such  as  experts’  advice  and  validation.  No  other 
econometric  models  were  used,  as  it  was  not  deemed  feasible  on  the  basis  of  the  data 
available.  

The  steps  taken,  calculations  used,  and  main  assumptions  made  in  this  analysis  are 
summarised below. 

General  

The following main assumption has been made concerning the evolution of the EU long-
term residence (EU LTR) permits: 

Without EU action, the number of EU LTR status holders (stock and flow) will evolve in 
a linear way, based on extrapolation using European statistics on LTR status holders for 
2015  –  2019148,  which  thus  takes  account  of  the  gradual  decline  in  the  share  of  EU 
permits  vis-a-vis  national  permits  over  the  second  half  of  that  decade,  whilst  also 
considering the continuously growing total number of third-country nationals with long-
term residence status. No research was available to suggest any other trend. 

The  baseline  scenario  for  the  number  of  EU  LTR  status  holders  over  the  period  2020-
2030 was achieved by estimating the average  annual  change in  EU  LTR  status  holders 

148  Souce: Eurostat, (migr_reslong) 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
over 2015-2019 and using such average to extrapolate the linear trend using as starting 
point  in  2014.  Over  the  last  10  years,  trends  have  been  affected  by  the  effects  of  the 
financial  and  economic  crisis,  which  would  make  2009-2019  more  volatile  and  less 
representative. For extrapolation purposes, the period 2015-2019 was chosen considering 
that those are more representative years, of the way in which the situation would evolve 
in the foreseeable future. 

Based on most recent available data from Eurostat, (migr_resfirst  ), in 2020 there was an 
abrupt fall in the number of first permits (including LTR) issued due to the COVID-19 
pandemic and travel restrictions. However, the trend anterior to 2020 was approximately 
linear  since  2016.  The  linear  trend,  therefore,  is  the  best  approximation of  the  baseline 
evolution,  if  we  assume  a  gradual  return  to  pre-COVID  situation.  Other  trends  can  be 
envisaged,  but  they  would  be  based  on  speculative  assumptions  and  hypothesis  which 
would be difficult to validate ex-ante, in respect of the linear trend. 

Based  on  retrospective  analysis,  over  the  last  decade,  the  increase  in  the  numbers  of 
national  permits  was  much  more  pronounced  than  that  of  EU  permits.  Therefore,  we 
expect the continuation of the relative decline of the share of EU permits, assuming that 
Member  States  will  continue  to  issue  their  national  permits.  However,  in  the  case  of 
option  4,  the  issuance  of  national  permits  will  no  longer  be  possible,  with  a  European 
scheme subsuming the total population of permits holders. 

In terms of absolute total numbers, the population of long-term residence permit holders 
is growing continuously since 2012, with the exception of the year 2020 due to COVID-
19  pandemic.  It  seems  reasonable  to  assume  that  this  trend  will  continue,  once  the 
situation 
normal. 
are 
conditions 
to 
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do 

return 

more 

will 

that 

Long Term Residence baseline extrapolated from 2015-2019 period 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

EU LTR  

European Union - 27 countries (from 2020) 

3.074.478 

2.984.337 

3.055.411 

2.964.527 

3.007.696 

All LTR  

European Union - 27 countries (from 2020) 

7.582.068 

9.935.373 

10.248.919 

10.171.153 

10.357.741 

2020 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

2028 

2029 

2030 

3.025.043 

3.042.390 

3.059.738 

3.077.085 

3.094.432 

3.111.779 

3.129.126 

3.146.474 

3.163.821 

3.181.168 

3.198.515 

11.029.324  11.700.907  12.372.491  13.044.074  13.715.657  14.387.240  15.058.823  15.730.407  16.401.990  17.073.573  17.745.156 

Analytical methods applied to estimate costs and cost savings 

The costs and possible cost-savings of the policy measures have been calculated for three 
main stakeholder groups, namely 1) national authorities, 2) employers/businesses and 3) 
third-country nationals, as well as for 4) the European Commission.  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
It is important to note that there is assumed to be a sub-group within the second group, 
employers/businesses,  which  includes  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs). 
Whereas this sub-group were not accounted for separately as part of cost and cost savings 
calculations due to limitations in the availability of data, the cost savings associated with 
certain measures included within the policy options assessed (in particular, measure 2.6) 
are likely to affect SMEs to a greater extent. This is because it is reasonable to assume 
that SMEs  would face a higher  relative threshold associated  with  hiring  procedures for 
TCNs, which leads to a disproportionate administrative burden given their more limited 
resources when compared with larger organisations. As such, cost savings resulting from 
faster and simpler hiring procedures, the main type of saving associated with employers, 
would  benefit  SMEs  relatively  more.  Therefore,  it  is  possible  that  the  figure  for 
Employer cost savings reported is an underestimate.  

The  overall  approach  to  the  estimation  of  costs  and  cost  savings  consisted  of  the 
following key steps: 

1.  Firstly,  the  cost  items  associated  with  each  policy  measure  were  assessed, 
considering  the  type  of  cost  (i.e.  one-off  or  recurring),  the  stakeholder  group 
impacted and, in the case of Member States, how many of these were likely to be 
impacted by the measure/change. 

2.  For each cost item, estimates for the value of the cost/cost saving were developed. 
Further  details  on  how  each  type  of  cost  item  was  estimated  are  set  out  by 
stakeholder  group  below.  Estimates  and  assumptions  were  based  on  the  Study 
supporting this  Impact  assessment149, including the inputs provided by an expert 
panel,150  and  the  study  team  members’  experience  of  conducting  similar 
quantification exercises, in particular on the cost of reporting to the EU, training 
of staff, familiarisation  with  EU legislation, transposition, and compliance costs. 
The approach is similar to the one used most recently for a DG JUST Study on the 
impacts of a possible revision of the Consumer Credit Directive (CCD) in 2020-
2021,  and  DG  HOME  Evaluation  of  the  Counter-Terrorism  Directive,  among 
others  in  previous  years.  For  the  CCD,  the  costing  approach  had  in  fact  been 
discussed as part of a workshop on policy options and discussed with  key study 
experts. In some cases, estimates of the cost values are based on estimates of the 
baseline scenario when the LTR was adopted in 2003. These were then used as a 
reference  on  which  to  base  assumptions  for  the  costs  associated  with  individual 
measures, as detailed below. 

3.  Costs  and  costs  savings  for  each  cost  item  and  policy  measure  were  then 
aggregated  across  Member  States  and  over  the  period  between  2021-2030 
(excluding  2020  as  the  baseline  year).  This  enabled  aggregate  costs  across  all 
relevant Member States to account for differences in costs across Member States 

149  ICF,  Study  in  support  of  the  Impact  assessments  on  the  revision  of  Directive  2003/109/EC  and 

Directive 2011/98/EU, 2021. 

150  The expert panel was made up of five experts from the Odysseus Academic Network for Legal Studies 
on  Immigration  and  Asylum  in  Europe;  the  Migration  Policy  Institute;  and  Fragomen,  a  law  firm 
specialised in labour migration.  

80 

 
                                                           
(e.g. public sector salaries, LTR applicants etc.). In addition, to estimate aggregate 
costs for the implementation of each measure across all affected Member States, 
where relevant, the specific costs per Member State were estimated, considering 
evidence on whether the policy measure would require change in a Member State 
or not.   

4.  Finally, estimated costs and cost savings were aggregated for each policy option. 

This consisted of: 

a)  Estimating  the  average  annual  costs  (total  costs  across  all  relevant  Member 

states) of each cost item included within each policy measure. 
‘streamlined’ 

into  a  more 

items 

b)  Aggregating  cost 
items/categories151. 

list  of  costs 

c)  For  costs,  totalling  all  the  average  annual  costs  (across  all  relevant  Member 
States)  of  all  the  measures  included  within  each  policy  option  for  each  cost 
item.  Costs  presented  are  totals  of  the  average  annual  costs  of  all  measures 
included in each policy option for each cost item. These totals do not exclude 
any  costs  that  are  duplicated  within  each  policy  option  when  aggregating  all 
measures  (e.g.  monitoring  and  reporting  costs,  which  are  included  in  each 
measure but would be delivered at the policy option level in practice). This is 
because, when estimating costs, assumptions were made that took into account 
the fact  that individual measures would be  aggregated i.e. assumptions  made 
around  the  amount  of  FTE  days  or  effort  required  for  each  cost  item  were 
relatively  conservative  for  individual  measures,  since  it  was  assumed  that 
measures would not be implemented in isolation.  

d)  For cost savings, average figures were used (i.e. the average cost saving of all 
the  average  annual  total  cost  savings  across  all  policy  measures  included 
within  each  policy  option).  This  is  because  several  of  the  cost  savings  that 
were thought to be associated to policy measures were not possible to quantify 
at  this  stage  due  to  a  combination  of  a  lack  of  available  data  and  further 
validation required for certain assumptions on values. As such, it was deemed 
to be more accurate to present average cost saving figures (i.e. the average cost 
saving  across  all  measures  included  within  the  Policy  Option)  rather  than 
totals  that  in  effect  excluded  several  potential  savings.  However,  this  may 
mean that total cost savings are somewhat underestimated, since figures have 
not  been  aggregated  across  all  the  measures  within  each  Policy  option.  It  is 
important to note, on the other hand, that in most cases relatively few policy 
measures  were  associated  with  quantifiable  cost  savings  (6  for  national 
authorities, 2 for TCNs and 1 for employers).. 

151  To  more  accurately  estimate  the  costs  associated  to  each  measure,  the  original  list  of  cost  items  was 
highly specific and detailed. However, to facilitate the overall analysis of costs and cost savings across 
policy  options,  it  was  deemed  appropriate  to  aggregate  costs  into  overarching  cost  types,  e.g. 
administrative  costs  and  compliance  costs.  These  aggregated  costs  represent  the  average  annual  total 
costs  across  all  relevant  Member  States  and  all  cost  items  included  within  the  ‘overarching’  cost 
type/category. 

81 

 
 
                                                           
Details  on  the  specific  calculations  and  assumptions  applied  to  estimate  costs  for  each 
stakeholder  group  are  set  out  below,  based  on  the  supporting  study  of  this  Impact 
Assessment152. 

Estimation of costs for the European Commission  

The costs for the European Commission were mainly calculated in relation to introducing 
amendments  to  the  LTRD  and  issuing  guidelines,  training  material  and  information  as 
well as ensuring compliance to new measures. These were based on estimates as to the 
number of days that would be required per type of activity, multiplied by the daily cost of 
a  Commission  official  level  AD10  (i.e.  monthly  salary  estimated  based  on  EU 
statistics153), assuming an average working month of 22 days, and an average 36.2 hours 
worked  per  week  (based  on  figures  from  Eurostat  in  2019  on  the  average  number  of 
hours worked per week, assuming a 7-hour working day154).  

Estimation of costs for national authorities 

The calculations of administrative/compliance costs for national authorities were largely 
based on a general formula: 

Number of days per FTE * number of FTEs * daily wages  

However, where available, calculations of costs were based on estimates of annual FTE 
time required in the baseline scenario – when the LTR was adopted in 2003, as noted in 
the above. In these cases, the formula was: 

Number  of  days  per  FTE  in  2003  *  proportion  of  these  number  of  days  required  per 
measure (%).  

We have assumed that only one national authority would be affected in each case.  

Typically,  the  number  of  hours  and  number  of  FTEs  assumed  for  activities,  such  as 
transposition, monitoring, reporting, familiarisation, adaptation, training, communication/ 
information provision, etc. were based on the study team’s assumptions (in turn based on 
study team members’ experience of conducting similar quantification exercises).  Where 
baseline  estimates  were  drawn  upon,  it  was  assumed  that  the  effort/cost  requirement 
associated to specific measures would be a fraction of that associated to the revision of 
the  entire  LTR155.  Such  activities  are  not  dependent  on  the  number  of  affected 
applications or permit holders; hence they are not included in the above formula. 

152  ICF,  Study  in  support  of  the  Impact  assessments  on  the  revision  of  Directive  2003/109/EC  and 

Directive 2011/98/EU, 2021. 

153  Figures available from https://euemployment.eu/how-much-do-eu-officials-earn/  
154  This was calculated by multiplying the hours worked per week by 52 (number of weeks per year) then 
dividing by the assumed working day (7 hours) and dividing again by 12 (number of months per year) 
Estimate 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Hours_of_work_-_annual_statistics  

available 

at 

155  Baseline values were available for costs associated with transposition, monitoring and reporting. In the 
interest  of  consistency,  it  was  assumed  that  30%  of  the  costs/effort  required  for  these  cost  items  for 
revising the entire LTR would be required for the implementation of specific measures. This is because, 
whereas  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  revising  a  single  measure  would  require  a  fraction  of  the 
transposition/  monitoring/  reporting  costs  than  revising  the  entire  LTR,  it  would  still  likely  require  a 

82 

 
                                                           
 
 
The following sources and assumptions were used: 

Daily  wages  for  public  sector  professionals  in  each  member  state  were  sourced  from 
Eurostat (“Average daily wage of Public sector professional [in Euros]”) and increased in 
line with inflation (inflation statistics derived from Eurostat and OECD156). 

As noted above, it is assumed that for each measure, the cost of transposing, monitoring 
compliance and reporting to the EU to Member States is 30% of the time cost estimated 
to be required in the baseline figures – when the LTR was adopted in 2003157.  

In some cases, it was known that costs would affect different Member States to different 
extents.  However,  at  this  stage  this  variation  was  not  included  within  the  estimation  of 
costs. This  is  because in  some cases it was  not  known which Member States would be 
more  affected,  and  in  others  the  extent  to  which  those  member  states  would  be 
additionally affected was unknown and would be challenging to estimate. 

Estimation of cost savings for national authorities 

The calculation of cost savings were made using the formula below:  

Number of days per FTE before the introduction of the measure * proportion of this time 
spent after the introduction of the measure (where relevant) * number of FTEs * hourly 
wages.  

Typically cost savings for national authorities would be in the form of reduced time spent 
on certain activities, such as checking LTR status of TCNs or undertaking labour market 
tests, or simplification/reduction of administrative burden/ procedural steps around LTR 
and  associated  restrictions.  As  above,  these  reductions  were  based  on  the  study  team’s 
assumptions (and thus on study team members’ experience including on studies such as 
the studies cited above, the Study on the impacts of a possible revision of the Consumer 
Credit  Directive  and  Evaluation  of  the  Counter-Terrorism  Directive,  as  most  recent 
examples of an approach used already on many occasions)..  

The following sources and assumptions were used: 

Daily  wages  for  public  sector  professionals  in  each  member  state  were  sourced  from 
Eurostat (“Average daily wage of Public sector professional [in Euros]”) and increased in 
line with inflation. 

Where relevant (e.g. measure 2.5), the above formula was also multiplied by a proportion 
representing  the  share  of  applicable  LTR  status  holders,  assuming  the  amount  of 

not-insignificant  proportion  of  this  effort  to,  for  example,  make  legislative  changes  and  monitor 
compliance to individual measures.  

156  Eurostat  data  was  used  for  the  inflation  rate  in  2019  and  2020  (available  at  Statistics  |  Eurostat 
(europa.eu)),  whereas  OECD  figures  were  used  for  inflation  forecasts  for  2020  onwards  (available  at 
Euro Area Inflation Forecast 2019-2024 and up to 2060, Data and Charts - knoema.com) 

157  These were estimated based on similar estimates of time costs drawn from ICF’s recent study for DG 
JUST  Study  on  the  impacts  of  a  possible  revision  of  the  Consumer  Credit  Directive  (CCD)  in  2020-
2021  

83 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
time/effort  required  to  perform  certain  tasks  would  decrease  directly  in  line  with  the 
number of applicants.  

In  one  case,  when  calculating  the  cost  saving  to  Member  States  associated  with  a 
simplification of procedures for the family members of EU LTR permit holders applying 
for family reunification (measure 2.13) , the above formula is multiplied by the number 
of applications for reunification assumed to be received per country per year, on average. 
Due to a lack of availability of relevant data, and based on consultation with the expert 
panel, this was assumed to be 100 applications. 

The number of applications is estimated to be low due to the fact that, as highlighted by 
members  of  the  expert  panel,  in  practice  a  high  number  of  EU  LTR  permit  holders 
acquire citizenship after five years and most family reunification takes place rather at this 
stage, with similar rights to EU citizens and under facilitated conditions.158 

Estimation of costs / cost savings for third-country nationals 

Cost  savings  for  third-country  nationals  were  assumed  when  a  policy  measure  would 
ensure either a reduction in their direct costs due to the lowering of a fee (policy measure 
2.2)  or  reduced  reliance  on  external  counsel  (e.g.  legal  advisors),  as  calculated  under 
policy measure 2.4 and policy option 1. 

To  calculate  the  reduction  in  fees  that  would  result  from  policy  measure  2.2,  the 
following formula was applied: 

[Cost of EU LTR - cost of national LTR = potential cost saving per permit] * number of 
EU LTR permit holders 

However, as only in Portugal a significant difference between the fees for the two types 
of permits was identified, the cost savings calculated only concern this Member State. 

To calculate the estimated reduction in legal fees (policy measure 2.4 and policy option 
1), the following formula was applied: 

Average cost of legal fees paid by TCNs * % of TCNs applying for LTR that seek legal 
counsel (assumed to be 10%) * % of cases of TCNs seeking legal counsel assumed to be 
spared by greater information * number of EU LTR applications projected to be received 
each year in the Member States. 

A few policy measures were also assessed to reduce the time that third-country nationals 
need to wait for a decision on their application (measure 2.9), to be able to work/study in 
the second Member State (measures 2.10 and 2.7 respectively), or decrease travel costs 
(measure  2.8),  but  as  there  were  too  many  different  factors  at  play,  these  cost  savings 
could not be quantified.  

The following sources and assumptions were used: 

158  Brainstorming session with the expert panel, 10 June 2021. 

84 

 
                                                           
National and EU LTR permit fees were sourced from the Legal Migration Fitness Check 
(Task  II,  phase  3),  figures  in  red  are  taken  from  EMN  2016  (#1000)  AHQ  on  national 
residence permits of permanent or unlimited validity (Question 3). 

Data on the number of LTR permit holders was sourced from Eurostat, data on long-term 
residents by citizenship on 31 December of each year [migr_reslong]. Data for the years 
2020-2030  was  extrapolated  based  on  the  2015-2019  linear  trend.  For  some  years  and 
some Member States (a minority), data was missing. Where this was the case data was 
added, estimated based on figures for the years before/after. 

It is assumed that average cost of legal fees paid by each TCN that seeks legal counsel to 
support  with  their  application  is  300  EUR  per  application.  This  is  based  on  the  team’s 
expert judgement and experience of projects related to LTR applications. 

The percentage of cases of TCNs seeking legal counsel assumed to be spared by greater 
information  is assumed to  be 5% for  policy option  1 and 10% for measure 2.4. This  is 
because, since the measure in policy option 1 would not be legally binding, it is assumed 
that fewer cases would be spared, taking into account the variation in ways in which the 
measure would be applied. For  policy option  1,  the fact  that the measure would not  be 
legally  binding  also  means  it  would  be  reasonable  to  assume  that  less  than  half  of  the 
Member States would apply it. To account for this, as well as the variation in the way the 
measure would be applied across member states, the estimated cost saved per person was 
further  reduced  by  three  quarters  (i.e.  it  was  assumed  to  be  one  quarter  of  the  cost  for 
policy measure 2.4, on top of the reduced percentage of TCNs spared legal counsel fees). 
This  approach  was  adopted  because  it  would  be  difficult  to  estimate  which  of  the 
Member States would/would not apply the measure. 

Estimation of cost savings for employers/businesses 

One policy measure was assessed to lead to costs savings for employers as the removal of 
the  labour  market  test  would  speed  up  and  simplify  their  recruitment  procedures  when 
hiring  third-country  nationals  (policy  measure  2.6).  The  formula  applied  was  the 
following: 

Time cost  associated with labour market  tests  when hiring one third-country  national  * 
average number of third-country nationals (per Member State per year) requiring labour 
market  tests  (across  the  EU)  *  %  of  effort  required  following  the  introduction  of  the 
measure. 

The following sources and assumptions were used: 

Due to lack of availability of data on employer time costs across member states, data on 
daily wages for public sector professionals in each member state were used, sourced from 
Eurostat (“Average daily wage of Public sector professional [in Euros]”) and increased in 
line with inflation. 

As noted above, due to a lack of available data it is assumed that the cost reduction has 
an equal effect on firms of all sizes, though this is not likely to be realistic. 

85 

 
It  was  assumed,  based  on  the  team’s  expert  judgement,  that  on  average  each  member 
state  would  receive  around  500  applications  from  third-country  nationals  that  would 
require labour market tests across the EU.  

Economic impacts 

Estimating  the  potential  economic  impacts  of  the  changes  to  the  LTRD  is  a  difficult 
exercise, as data are lacking on key points such as the extent to which long-term resident 
third-country nationals are intra-EU mobile, the drivers of their migration decisions and 
the drivers behind their choice to apply for the national or EU LTR status. To arrive at 
some degree of quantification and monetisation, several assumptions had to be made for 
which  no  evidence  was  available  from  literature  or  other  sources.  In  the  context  of  the 
study supporting this Impact Assessment, an Expert Panel made up of five experts from 
the  Odysseus  Academic  Network  for  Legal  Studies  on  Immigration  and  Asylum  in 
Europe,  the  Migration  Policy  Institute  and  Fragomen,  a  law  firm  specialised  in  labour 
migration, was consulted to review draft assumptions and assessments made.   

Wherever  it  was  deemed  possible  to  quantify  and  monetise,  for  the  estimation  of  the 
economic  impacts  the  main  assumptions  used  as  part  of  the  assessment  of  the  policy 
measures are the following. 

The  policy  options  overall  were  expected  to  lead  to  increased  intra-EU  mobility  of 
third-country nationals. Therefore, as part of the baseline, it was assumed that on average 
2% of EU LTR status holders would move to a second Member State. This was based on 
an  estimate  that  3-4%  of  EU  citizens  are  resident  outside  their  country  of  origin159  and 
anecdotal  evidence  that  third-country  nationals  are  less  mobile  overall.160  This 
assumption was validated by the expert panel,161 who shared the view that the removal of 
barriers  to  intra-EU  mobility  could  be  expected  to  lead  to  a  moderate  increase  in  the 
number of mobile EU LTR status holders. 

Moreover,  national  authorities  provided  evidence  for  only  four  Member  States 
(Germany, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden) on the number of EU LTR  residence holders 
from another Member State applying for a residence permit. If the numbers for these four 
countries are summed and divided by four (sample mean) and this average is extrapolated 
over 25 Member States, such percentage rate reaches 7%. However, such estimate would 
significantly overestimate the actual percentage rate because it is based on countries such 
as Germany and Sweden that are magnets for immigration. In addition, data shows high 
dispersion (e.g., 22 in Poland compared to 2,284 in Sweden). Therefore, given the lack of 

159  EMN  (2021)  Ad  Hoc  Query  2021.37  and  2021.36  to  support  an  impact  assessment  study  on  the 
revision of the Long-term Residents and Single Permit Directives and Kahanec, M., Guzi, M. (2017), 
"How  immigrants  helped  EU  labour  markets  to  adjust  during  the  Great  Recession"  in  International 
Journal  of  Manpower.  Data  can  also  be  found  on  Eurostat,  Immigration  by  age  group,  sex  and 
citizenship (MIGR_IMM1CTZ). 

160  Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021. 
161  The  panel  consists  of  experts  from  the  Odysseus  Network  Academic  Network  for  Legal  Studies  on 
Immigration  and  Asylum  in  Europe,  the  Migration  Policy  Institute  Europe,  and  Fragomen,  a  firm 
specialising in immigration and labour law. 

86 

 
                                                           
data for 21 Member States and the uncertainty in the out-of-sample extrapolation, the 2% 
represents a more credible value. 

In consultation with the expert panel, an estimate was made of the % increase of third-
country  nationals  who  would  become  mobile  as  a  result  of  the  individual  policy 
measures. These estimates ranged from 1.5 percentage points to 2% percentage points on 
top  of  the  2%  baseline,  depending  on  the  option.  This  share  was  then  applied  to  the 
extrapolated baseline of EU LTR status holders. It is noted that these are very cautious 
estimates, given that many other factors are also expected to influence intra-EU mobility, 
including educational levels, type of professional qualifications and skills, etc., which are 
not known for this cohort. 

The policy options were also expected to lead to an increase in  applications for the EU 
LTR status by third-country nationals, as the various measures included would make the 
status more attractive over national LTR statuses. It was assumed that this would increase 
by  20%  and  25%  for  two  of  the  options  compared  to  the  extrapolated  value  of  the 
baseline  over  the  period  2020-2030.  Such  assumption  is  based  on  the  study  team’s 
experience with similar studies in the field of legal migration162 as well as the views of 
the expert panel. A final policy option foresees a major increase in permit holders as it is 
based on the extrapolation of both EU and national LTR status holders. In other words, 
the national LTR scheme is subsumed by the EU scheme. In addition, for such an option 
it was assumed 4% would become mobile. 

Two  important  additional  general  assumptions,  again  in  consultation  with  the  expert 
panel, where made: 

Incremental  vs  distributional  effect.  The  effects  of  the  policy  measures  were 
incremental, i.e. affecting the EU as a whole. Intra-EU mobility means that people move 
from Member State A to B. In theory, if both countries were identical, the final outcome 
would be a zero-sum game, namely, what Member State A loses is gained by State B. In 
such a case, there is no change at EU level but a simple distributional change, which is 
not of much relevance for an impact assessment. However, in practice, this may not be 
the case because Member States are heterogeneous. For example, if people move from a 
low-tax Member State to a high-tax Member State, the net effect is higher tax revenues at 
EU level. It is extremely difficult to predict the precise net effects of intra-EU mobility in 
those terms. Hence, it has to be assumed that mobility per se brings certain incremental 
benefits at the EU level as a whole.  

The panel  of experts agreed on this overall  assumption,  as  well as  with the assumption 
that  a  key  driver  for  intra-EU  mobility  would  be  the  wage  differential.  The  assumed 
average wage differential for third-country nationals to move to a second Member State 

162  For  example,  the  Analysis  of  the  Legal  Migration  and  Integration  Public  Consultations  (2020),  the 
Study in support of the Legal Migration  Fitness Check (2018), the impact assessment of the EU Blue 
Card  Directive,  as  well  as  relevant  studies  conducted  for  the  EMN,  such  as  the  Synthesis  Report  on 
Long-term resident status in the EU (2020); Migratory pathways for start-ups and entrepreneurs (2019); 
Pathways to citizenship for third-country nationals (2019); Labour market integration of third-country 
nationals (2018); and Attracting and retaining international students (2018). 

87 

 
                                                           
is  estimated  at  10%.  There  is  ample  research  about  the  link  between  migration  and 
wages.  Literature  assumes  that  mobile  citizens  act  as  rational  agents  who  base  their 
decision  to  migrate  according  to  benefits  and  costs.  Moving  abroad  has  tangible  and 
intangible costs that must be outweighed by tangible and intangible benefits. The wage 
differential is considered one of the most important drivers for moving abroad. However, 
there are other emotional and social factors beyond the economic considerations.163 The 
panel  of  experts  considered  that  a  10%  wage  differential  appeared  a  reasonable 
assumption, in the absence of any other supporting evidence. 

One  policy  measure  (3.3),  included  in  policy  option  3  ,  was  assumed  to  lead  to  an 
increase in the number of third-country nationals coming to the EU for the purpose 
of  studies,  who  after  5  years  will  request  the  EU  LTR  status.  In  consultation  with  the 
expert panel, it was however concluded that it was too difficult to estimate the % increase 
with any degree of certainty. It can nonetheless be assumed that these additional students 
would, once entering the labour market, make an important contribution to tax revenue, 
economic growth, consumption, productivity and remittances. 

It  was  further  assumed  that  this  would  increase  /  accelerate  their  socio-economic 
integration,  which  was  expressed  as  an  assumed  10%  increase  in  their  wages  after 
completing their study in the EU, as opposed to the counterfactual of them not being able 
to obtain the EU LTR status within 4 years and potentially not remaining in the EU.  

Another  policy  measure  (3.4),  included  in  policy  option  3  was  expected  to  lead  to  an 
increase  in  the  number  of  third-country  nationals  with  temporary  permits  (of  less 
than  6  months)  to  remain  in  the  EU  as  they  wish  to  become  EU  status  holders.  In 
consultation  with  the  expert  panel,  it  was  again  concluded  that  the  %  increase  in  their 
number was too difficult to estimate, as it also depended on many other factors. They too, 
however,  are  also  expected  to  make  important  contributions  in  terms  of  tax  revenue, 
economic growth, consumption, productivity and remittances. The policy option is also 
expected to increase the potential for their socio-economic integration. 

Unless mentioned otherwise, all economic impacts have been calculated over a period of 
10 years, with the policy option and policy measure assessments presenting each time the 
total impact over that period. Details on the specific calculations and assumptions applied 
to  estimate  economic  impacts  are  set  out  below,  based  on  the  supporting  study  of  this 
Impact Assessment164. 

Estimation of tax revenue 

Literature  suggest  that  labour  mobility  may  contribute  to  an  increase  in  tax  revenues, 
provided  this  is  driven  by  the  prospective  of  a  higher  income,  which  is  a  reasonable 
assumption  considering  the  considerable  wage  differential  to  overcome  all  sort  of 

163  Mack,  M.,  Roeder,  S.,  Marchand,  K.  and  Siegel,  M.,  2020.  Intra-EU  migration:  Shedding  light  on 
drivers,  corridors  and  the  relative  importance  of  migrant  characteristics.  Maastricht  Economic  and 
Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT). 

164  ICF,  Study  in  support  of  the  Impact  assessments  on  the  revision  of  Directive  2003/109/EC  and 

Directive 2011/98/EU, 2021. 

88 

 
                                                           
obstacles to mobility.165  166 For the policy measures anticipating an increase in intra-EU 
mobility, the increase in tax revenue, has been calculated as follows:  

Number  of  additional  mobile  EU  LTR  status  holders  *  (EU  average  annual  median 
disposable income + 10% wage increase due to  the higher anticipated wages offered in 
the second Member State) * 9.6% which corresponds to the EU average % of taxes paid 
on gross income.  

The  panel  of  experts  also  considered  this  a  reasonable  approach,  again  considering  the 
lack of any evidence. However, the estimate must be taken with caution because of the 
dispersion of data (e.g., 6% in Luxembourg compared to 14.7 in Hungary) and the final 
outcome  of  tax  revenues  depends  on  the  pattern  of  sending/receiving  countries.  For 
example, if all the sending countries are close to the lowest (6%) and the opposite for the 
receiving, then the effect of tax revenues is  higher than the average. Moreover, the EU 
average % of taxes on gross income is 9.6±0.9 (8.8 – 10.4). 

For the policy measure  which anticipates a higher share of students  to  come to  the EU 
and a higher share of temporary permit holders to remain in the EU, the same calculation 
as  above  is  performed,  using  the  additional  numbers  of  these  two  categories  of  third-
country nationals instead.  

The  EU  average  annual  median  disposable 
(ICW_RES_02) 

income 

is 

taken  from  Eurostat 

The average EU tax share is calculated based on Eurostat data (ICW_TAX_01) 

Formula: [% of taxes paid on gross income] * [EU-average annual median income] * [% 
increase in income due to higher (new) wages] * [Number of additional TCNs] 

Estimation of economic growth 

Although  difficult  to  estimate,  the  impact  of  higher  intra-EU  mobility  of  TCNs  is 
expected  to  contribute  to  GDP  due  to  a  better  functioning  of  labour  markets  and  more 
efficient  allocation  of  resources.  It  is  fair  to  expect  that  skills  mismatch  and  over-
education will be mitigated.167 For example, a JRC study estimates that the % increase in 
GDP  from  migration  and  mobility  of  refugees  is  estimated  between  0.2%  and  1.4%  of 
GDP  growth.  Such  estimate  must  be  taken  with  caution  in  the  context  of  this  study 
because the type of migration under scope differs from the one in the present study. Yet, 
it offers an approximate idea of the positive nature of the expected economic impact. 

Also, the positive effects on tax revenues and consumption produce a multiplier effect on 
income and GDP. Higher wages contribute to more purchase of goods and services and 
hence to production; even in the event of a small or modest effect, the impact is positive. 

165 De Wispelaere, F. and Jozef, P., 2019. The benefits of posting: Facts and figures on the use and impact 

of intra-EU posting. In Posted Work in the European Union (pp. 31-49). Routledge. 

166  De  Wispelaere,  F.,  2018.  Intra-EU  Posting.  Costs  and  benefits.  In  International  Conference  of 

Europeanists, Date: 2018/03/28-2018/03/30, Location: Chicago. 

167  Kancs, D. and Lecca, P., (2017) Long-term Social, Economic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration into the 

EU: The Role of the Integration Policy, JRC Working Papers in Economics and Finance, 2017/4, 
doi:10.2760/999095 

89 

 
                                                           
Yet, these positive effects might be to some extent offset by remittances, which lead to 
financial outflows outside the EU. 

For  illustrative  purpose,  if  growth  in  GDP  is  calculated  as  a  one-off  effect  resulting 
directly  from  the  increase  in  intra-EU  mobility  and/or  increase  in  the  number  of  third-
country  nationals  coming  to  or  staying  in  the  EU,  taking  the  EU-27  GDP  based  on 
Eurostat  data  (NAMA_10_GDP)168  and  a  %0.8  increase  in  GDP  resulting  from  TCNs 
migration and mobility, the impact on GDP could reach EUR 1.07 billion. 

Estimation of productivity 

The  estimation  of  productivity  remains  qualitative  given  the  limitations  in  data  and 
uncertainty  in  the  dynamics  of  impacts.  The  qualitative  impact  is  based  on  the 
assumption,  reviewed  together  with  the  expert  panel,  that  third-country  nationals  who 
become  intra-EU  mobile,  or  who  opt  to  come  or  remain  in  the  EU,  as  per  the  various 
policy measures, will become more productive, as: 

  Mobile EU LTR holders were previously over-qualified and are moving to the 

second Member State for a better job with higher wages. 

  Third-country  students  are  more  attracted  to  the  EU  and  will  better  integrate, 

leading to better jobs with higher wages once they finish studying. 

  Third-country  nationals  with  temporary  permits  will  feel  more  inclined  to 
remain  in  the  EU  and  will  better  integrate,  leading  to  better  jobs  with  higher 
wages.  

Estimation of consumption 

The  increase  in  consumption  is  calculated  based  on  the  assumption  that  third-country 
nationals  who  become  intra-EU  mobile,  or  who  opt  to  come  or  remain  in  the  EU  as  a 
result of the policy measures, will increase their wage by 10%, and that this increase in 
value  will  lead  to  an  equivalent  increase  in  their  consumption  (income  elasticity  =  1). 
The additional number of third-country nationals is thus multiplied by the average yearly 
household consumption in a selected number of Member States (see below) and by the 
10% increase in consumption. The assumption that income elasticity of consumption is 1, 
that  is,  every  additional  EUR  earned  is  consumed  is  based  on  fair  assumption  in  the 
literature.169 It means that as the migrants were coming from lower wages, they tended to 
consume on 'necessity' goods rather than on 'luxury' goods. As the increase in wages is 
still moderate (about 10%), it is fair to assume that some repressed consumption due to 
lower wages before migrating will recover but without changing to higher elasticity. 

To  estimate  the  impact  on  consumption,  increase  in  yearly  consumption  is  made  using 
experimental Eurostat statistics on mean and median economic resources of households 
by income, consumption and wealth quantiles - experimental statistics [icw_res_02]. The 
average median household consumption for those countries which are expected to receive 

168  EU-27 GDP at current prices (2020)  
169  Borjas, G.J., 2013. The analytics of the wage effect of immigration. IZA Journal of Migration 2, 22.. 

doi:10.1186/2193-9039-2-22 

90 

 
                                                           
most third-country nationals (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, FI, FR, IT, LV, LU, MT, NL, PT, 
RO, SI, and SK) has been calculated.  

Formula:  [yearly  consumption  per  household]  *[Number  of  additional  TCNs]  *  [% 
increase in consumption due to higher (new) wages] 

Estimation of remittances 

The  increase  in  remittances  is  calculated  by  multiplying  the  average  share  of  income 
which third-country nationals send home, estimated at 15%, with the EU average annual 
median  income,  and  by  the  number  of  additional  third-country  nationals  who  become 
mobile, or come / remain in the EU. This estimate must be taken with caution because it 
is  based  on  a  world-wide  sample  and  the  patterns  of  remittances  may  vary  remarkably 
across continents and type of migrants.  

The share of  remittances is  taken from a UN online publication, Remittances matter: 8 
facts you don’t know about the money migrants send back home. It represents a global, 
not EU-specific share.  

Formula: [proportion of income sent as remittances]*[EU-average annual median 
income]*[Number of additional TCNs

91 

 
ANNEX 5: DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF POLICY MEASURES 

This Annex provides the detailed assessment of each policy measures included in the four Policy Options considered for this Impact 
Assessment. Each policy measure is assessed against the standard criteria for impact assessment (social, economic and environmental 
impacts  and  impacts  on  fundamental  rights)  and  the  policy  objectives.  Where  it  was  feasible,  the  assessment  also  includes  a 
quantification and/or description of the costs of each measure, as well as the economic impacts (while the methodology used for the 
calculation of costs, the assumptions made, and the detailed calculations are presented in annex 4). 

92 

 
 
 
1.1  Policy option 1 – Actions to improve the effectiveness of the Directive 

(non-legislative option) 

Policy measure 1.1: The Commission enhances the implementation of the Directive and 
supports further practical cooperation between Member States.  

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
the  EU 
acquire 
LTR status 

The  2019  implementation  report  as  well  as  members  of  several  of  the 
stakeholder groups  consulted for the purpose of this impact assessment, 
all  confirm  that  there  is  an  overall  lack  of  information  among  national 
administrations  and  TCNs  on  the  functioning  of  the  EU  LTR  status.170 
This  statement  is  also  confirmed  by  the  initial  findings  shared  by  FRA 
from  the  ongoing  study  on  the  Fundamental  Rights  of  LTR  status 
holders. Some representatives of civil  society expressed concerns that a 
legislative revision of the Directive could result in the adoption of more 
restrictive measures potentially leading to further restrictions in the rights 
of EU LTR permit holders. In their view, enhancing the implementation 
of  the  Directive  through  soft  measures  such  as  supporting  practical 
cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  or 
improving  the  infringement  procedures,  could  improve  some  of  the 
issues reported in the 2019 Implementation report of the Commission.171 

Under  this  policy  measure,  the  European  Commission  would  seek  to 
improve  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  by  providing  training 
materials to national authorities on the implementation of the EU LTRD. 
This would contribute to a more level-playing field between the EU and 
national LTR schemes in the 21 Member States having parallel schemes 
in place172, as it will improve the knowledge of national administrations 
on the functioning and practical implementation of the LTRD, making it 
more equal to their knowledge on the national schemes. 

Furthermore,  the  Commission  will  compile  and  share  best  practice 
examples  from  Member  States  which  provide  detailed,  clear  and  easily 
accessible  information  to  TCNs  on,  for  example,  the  permit  fees, 
procedures  and  conditions  needed  to  be  able  to  apply  for  the  EU  LTR 
status. 

170 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; Fifth meeting of 
the  informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration,  14  April  2021;  Consultation  with  representatives  of 
Civil  Society,  20  April  2021;  Second  meeting  of  the  EU  legal  migration  practitioner’s  network,  29  April 
2021; Consultation with the Economic and Social Partners, 5 May 2021 

171 Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021 
172 BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK. 

93 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Assessment  

With the enhanced implementation of the Directive, trainings and sharing 
of  best  practices,  national  authorities  will  be  more  aware  of  procedures 
and conditions regarding the EU LTR status and the modalities of intra-
EU mobility. Thus, this measure might have a potential indirect positive 
effect  on  this  objective.  However,  the  effect  on  this  objective  will  be 
limited  as 
the  conditions  and 
requirements to move to another Member State will remain unchanged. 

is  non-binding  and 

the  measure 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

An  enhanced  implementation  of  the  Directive  as  well  as  sharing  best 
practices  amongst  Member  States  will  have  the  effect  of  strengthening 
legal  certainty  regarding  the  rights  EU  LTRs  can  claim  as  well  as 
clarifying  the  procedure  for  prospective  EU  LTR  applicants.  The  effect 
on  this  objective  will  be  minor  due  to  the  non-binding  nature  of  the 
measure. 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

TCNs  will  benefit  from  a  better  implementation  of  the  Directive,  in 
particular in Member States where a bad implementation of the Directive 
has  been  reported  by  the  2019  Implementation  Report.  The  increased 
knowledge  of  national  authorities  and  public  administrations  regarding 
the  functioning  of  the  EU  LTR  status  will  allow  potential  EU  LTR 
applicants  to  make  an  informed  choice  between  national  and  EU 
schemes.  This  measure  could  also  have  a  positive  effect  on  the 
integration  of  TCNs  in  their  host  country,  although  not  possible  to 
quantify.  

EU workers 

This measure is not expected to lead to any significant social impacts on 
EU workers. 

National authorities 

The enhanced implementation of the Directive as well as the exchange of 
best practices between Member States could have an effect of increasing 
the attractiveness of the EU status and leading to a higher demand for the 
latter. This  measure  is  unlikely to  lead to  a net  increase in  overall  LTR 
applications and would mostly involve a “displacement” of applications 
for the national LTR scheme to the EU LTR. National authorities willing 
to follow this measure would incur some administrative and compliance 
costs related to the transposition, alignment of procedures, guidance and 
training, monitoring and reporting foreseen by this measure. 

Legal practitioners 

94 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

The enhanced implementation of the Directive as well as better certainty 
on  the  application  procedure  for  the  EU  LTR  permit  may  result  in  a 
minor reduced dependency on legal practitioners. However, the effects of 
the measure will depend on the will of Member States to implement the 
guidelines and recommendations. 

Businesses/employers 

The  slight  potential  increase  in  the  number  of  EU  LTR  permits  issued 
could have a minor positive effect on employers and business employing 
or  interested  in  employing  EU  LTR  permit  holders  as  well  as  on  the 
potentially mobile labour force. 

Third countries 

The possible increase in the number of EU LTR permits issued could in 
turn  result  in  a  minor  loss  of  human  capital  and  labour  force  in  third 
countries.  However,  there  may  be  other  positive  factors  at  play  such  as 
remittance flows and possibilities for circular migration promoting skills 
transfers. Nonetheless, a non-binding provision on information alone can 
only have a very limited effect on this category of stakeholders. 

Economic impacts  The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level  of  the  policy  options  instead.  As  a  qualitative  assessment,  no 
tangible economic impacts have been identified for this measure. 

This type of impact is unlikely to take place. 

A  better  implementation  of  the  Directive  and  the  sharing  of  good 
practices between Member States is likely to have a positive effect on the 
enjoyment  by  EU  LTRs  of  the  rights  granted  by  the  EU  status,  in 
particular the rights to family and professional life (Article 33 of the EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights). 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This measure, in combination with policy measure 1.2 (below) will entail 
low administrative costs for the European Commission and for Member 
States (per average yearly cost). These costs are estimated as follows (per 
average yearly cost): 

European Commission 

  Administrative  costs  for  the  provision  of  training  and  guidelines  to 

national authorities: 4,909 euro 

95 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

National authorities 

Simplification 

  Administrative and compliance costs: 248,710 euro 

This  measure,  in  combination  with  measure  1.2  (below),  is  expected  to 
lead to cost savings for TCNs resulting from the provision of additional 
information on the EU LTR status and greater awareness of the relevant 
procedures  for  the  acquisition  of  the  permit.  However,  these  savings 
cannot be quantified as the measures included are not binding, and may 
be implemented in varying ways. 

Overall assessment 

This  policy  measure  will  contribute  positively  to  a  better  implementation  of  the  Directive. 
National authorities will have a better understanding of the functioning of the EU LTR status, 
which  is  likely  to  reduce  issues  related  to  a  wrong  or  a  lack  of  implementation  of  the 
Directive.  While  this  could  result  in  increasing  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  LTR  and 
strengthening the rights of EU LTR permit holders and their family members, any effect will 
be  fully  dependent  on  Member  States’  willingness  to  implement  this  non-legislative  policy 
measure. 

Policy measure 1.2: EU and Member States increase the visibility of the EU LTR status 
through information sharing, promotion, and advertisement activities.  

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

As mentioned under policy measure 1.1, the 2019 implementation report, 
members of several of the stakeholder groups consulted for the purpose 
of  the  impact  assessment  as  well  as  the  initial  findings  shared  by  FRA 
from  the  ongoing  study  on  the  Fundamental  Rights  of  LTR  status 
holders,  all  confirm  that  there  is  an  overall  lack  of  information  among 
national administrations and on the functioning of the EU LTR status.173 
EU legal migration practitioners shared that often national authorities do 
not understand the EU LTR scheme and its difference with the national 

173 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; Fifth meeting of 
the  informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration,  14  April  2021;  Consultation  with  representatives  of 
Civil  Society,  20  April  2021;  Second  meeting  of  the  EU  legal  migration  practitioner’s  network,  29  April 
2021; Consultation with the Economic and Social Partners, 5 May 2021 

96 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

LTR status, which limits their ability to provide explanations to potential 
applicants.174  

Member States would also be encouraged to increase the visibility of the 
EU  LTR  status  through  promotion and advertisement activities, such as 
the  printing  of  brochures  shared  across  immigration  offices  and 
municipalities,  and 
information  days,  where 
applicants  are  encouraged  to  ask  questions  to  authorities  and  legal 
experts.  Members  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  the  Views  of 
Migrants suggested that information regarding the LTR permit could be 
provided as part of “integration courses” when implemented by Member 
States or when TCNs are renewing their national residence permits.175 

the  organisation  of 

The  Commission  would  issue  non-binding  guidelines  (on,  for  example, 
the type of information which should be provided on national  websites, 
how  it  should  be  presented,  and  the  minimum  number  of  languages  in 
which information should be provided), this could improve the situation 
in  several  Member  States  which  do  not  have  a  dedicated  information 
strategy on the EU status176, or do not have any specific information tools 
in  place  for  prospective  applicants  (France,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania 
and the Netherlands).177  

Moreover, this policy measure will have a positive effect on the visibility 
and availability of information on the EU LTR  status, both for Member 
States  national  authorities  and  TCNs.  This  would  in  turn  bring  more 
clarity on the conditions and procedure to acquire the EU LTR status.  

The effect on this objective is expected to be moderate, bearing in mind 
that  this  measure  is  non-binding.  Furthermore,  it  would  have  no  direct 
effect  on  facilitating  the  conditions  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  status,  as 
other conditions and requirements for acquirement of the EU LTR status 
would remain unchanged. 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Members  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  the  Views  of  Migrants 
suggested  that  promotional  activities  which  Member  States  would  be 
encouraged  to  conduct  could  include  the  promotion  of  the  EU  LTR 
status’ intra-EU mobility advantages and modalities.178 TCNs would as a 
result be better informed about  the facilitation of intra-EU mobility and 
may, if they apply for this status, be more inclined to become mobile.  

174 Second meeting of the EU legal migration practitioner’s network, 29 April 2021 
175 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021 
176 Eight MS have such strategy in place: BG, DE, HR, IE, IT, LU, PL, SE 
177 14 MS have tools in place to promote the EU LTR status: BE, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, IT, LU, 

MT, PT, SE, SI, SK. 

178 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021. 

97 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

The indirect effect on better information is expected to be limited, given 
the non-binding nature of the policy measure and no direct effect would 
occur in facilitating intra EU-mobility, as other barriers limiting intra-EU 
mobility for mobile TCNs would remain unchanged. 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
term-
of 
residents  and  their 
family 

A  minor  positive  effect  on  this  objective  can  be  expected  in  Member 
States willing to implement this measure. Indeed, improving the visibility 
and  the  knowledge  of  national  authorities  and  TCNs  regarding  the  EU 
LTR status will increase the awareness of EU LTR applicants, EU LTR 
holders and their family members regarding the rights granted by the EU 
status. 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Different social impacts have been considered based on the effect chains 
above, on different stakeholder categories, including: 

Third-country nationals 

In Member States which currently do not provide sufficient information 
on  the  EU  LTR  status  (at  least  five,  including  France,  Estonia,  Latvia, 
Lithuania  and  the  Netherlands),  TCNs  will  become  more  aware  of  the 
rights  and  conditions  attached  to  the  EU  LTR  status  as  well  as  the 
existing differences  in  benefits  between national and EU LTR  schemes. 
This  could  also  have  a positive impact  on their integration in  their host 
country. Moreover, the improved level of information foreseen under this 
policy measure could also lead to a cost savings for TCNs who might be 
able to rely less on legal services to support their application for the EU 
LTR permit.  

EU workers 

This  policy  measure  is  not  expected  to  lead  to  any  significant  social 
impacts on EU workers. 

National authorities 

The increase of information and promotion regarding the EU LTR status 
may  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  number  of  applications  for  the  EU 
permit, but this would mainly entail a “displacement” of applications for 
the national LTR schemes to the EU LTR scheme. National authorities in 
MS  willing  to  implement  this  policy  measure  will  incur  some 
administrative  and  compliance  costs 
to  promotion  and 
advertisement  activities,  information  sharing  and  trainings  to  follow 
guidelines.  

related 

Legal practitioners 

98 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

This measure does not set minimum standards as to the kind and level of 
information that should be provided, which will ultimately depend on the 
willingness of Member States to implement this measure. 

Businesses/employers 

This  measure  would  increase  the  awareness  of  employers  regarding  the 
EU  LTR  status.  Businesses and employers hiring or interested in  hiring 
EU  LTR  holders  will  have  access  to  an  enhanced  level  of  information 
and  clarity  on  the  functioning  of  the  EU  LTR  status  and  the  intra-EU 
mobility  options.  Additionally,  the  potential  increase  in  the  number  of 
EU LTR permits issued as a result of this measure could help employers 
and  businesses  in  having  access  to  a  larger  pool  of  qualified  and 
potentially mobile TCNs with a long-term residence status and fill labour 
shortages. 

Third countries 

The  provision  of  information  is  likely  to  contribute  to  a  better 
understanding of the application procedure and rights associated with the 
EU  LTR  permit,  with  possibly  a  minor  positive  effect  on  the 
attractiveness  of  the  EU  as  a  destination.  This  could  in  turn  result  in  a 
minor loss of human capital and labour force in third countries. However, 
a  non-binding  provision  on  information  alone  can  only  have  a  very 
limited effect on this category of stakeholders. 

Economic impacts  The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

This type of impact is unlikely to take place. 

A better level and quality of information and promotion of the EU LTR 
status  is  likely  to  have  a  positive  effect  on  the  enjoyment  of  the  rights 
attached  to  this  status  for  EU  LTRs  and  prospective  applicants,  in 
particular regarding the rights to family and professional life (Article 33 
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) and freedom of movement and 
of residence (Article 45). 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This measure, in combination with policy measure 1.1 (above) will entail 
low administrative costs for the European Commission and for Member 
States. These costs are estimated as follows (per average yearly cost): 

European Commission 

99 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Simplification 

  Administrative  costs  for the  provision  of  training  and  guidelines 

to national authorities: 4,909 euro. 

National authorities 

  Administrative and compliance costs: 248,710 euro. 

This  measure,  in  combination  with  measure  1.1  (above),  is  expected  to 
lead to cost savings for TCNs resulting from the provision of additional 
information on the EU LTR status and greater awareness of the relevant 
procedures  for  the  acquisition  of  the  permit.  However,  these  savings 
cannot be quantified as the measures included are not binding, and may 
be implemented in varying ways. 

Overall assessment 

This policy measure will contribute positively to  the visibility and understanding of the EU 
LTR  status  for  MS  national  authorities,  EU  LTR  permit  holders  and  potential  EU  LTR 
applicants. While this could result in increasing the attractiveness and uptake of the EU LTR 
permit, any effect will be fully dependent on Member States’ willingness to implement this 
non-legislative policy measure. 

1.2  Policy option 2 – Targeted legislative revision of the Directive 

This sub-section presents the assessment of measures foreseen as part of the policy option 2 
aiming at a targeted legislative revision of the Directive.  

1.2.1  Policy Measures relating to introducing a level-playing field 

Policy Measure 2.1: Integration and resources requirements for acquiring the EU status 
are not stricter than the requirements to acquire the national status 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
the  EU 
acquire 

Article  5  establishes  the  conditions  for  acquiring  EU  LTR  status, 
including “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  (Article  5  (1)(a))  and  allows  Member  States  to 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

LTR status 

Assessment  

impose integration requirements in accordance with national law (Article 
5 (2)), which half of Member States opt for.179 In conjunction with this, 
Article 13 of the EU LTRD provides that national LTR schemes may run 
in parallel to the EU LTR but may not offer more favourable conditions. 
Currently, there are 21 Member States that have national LTR schemes, 
which would be impacted by this measure.180 

Nevertheless,  members  of  the  expert  panel  noted  that  in  some  national 
contexts,  the  integration  and  resources  requirements  for  EU  LTR 
applicants  are  more  stringent  than  for  national  LTR  applicants.  Indeed, 
initial findings of the ongoing FRA study on the Fundamental Rights of 
LTR  status  holders  find  that  across  Germany,  Italy  and  Poland  the 
requirements  for  EU  LTR  applicants  regarding  integration  (across  all 
three) and for stable and regular income (for Italy and Poland) are more 
restrictive than those laid out  in  the EU  LTRD.181 For instance, in  Italy 
some  migration  authorities  require  applicants  to  fulfil  the  resources 
requirement even when renewing their EU LTR permit, and even at the 
first application the regular and stable income is checked for three years 
prior to the application. In conjunction with this, members of the expert 
panel note that Member States tend to prefer their national LTR schemes, 
which  could  point  to  why  in  some  cases  EU  LTR  integration  and 
resources are more stringent. 

This discretion regarding these two requirements in Article 5 of the EU 
LTRD  was  addressed  in  respective  CJEU  rulings:  for  “stable  and 
regular” resources the CJEU 2010 Chakroun ruling182 and the 2015 P&S 
ruling183.  Nonetheless,  members  of  the  expert  panel  noted  that,  in 
addition to these clarifications, a revised EU LTRD must specify that the 
integration conditions and resources for the EU LTR must be similar or 
less than those asked through national permits, never exceeding them.  

Therefore,  this  measure  will  make  a  critical  contribution  to  ensuring  a 
level  playing  field  between  the  integration  and  resources  conditions  of 
EU LTR and national schemes. In addition, this measure could facilitate 
the conditions to acquire EU LTR status in the Member States where the 

179 DE, EL, HR, IT, NO, NL, PT – EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the period of validity of residence 

permits granted to third country nationals (update to GR EMN NCP Ad-Hoc Query on Duration of 
Residence Permits). 

180  BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK - EMN (2016) Ad 

Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the period of validity of residence permits granted to third country nationals 
(update to GR EMN NCP Ad-Hoc Query on Duration of Residence Permits). 

181 Initial findings shared by FRA from the ongoing study on the Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence 

status holders, p.8 

182 CJEU (2010), C-578/08, Chakroun ; CJEU (2019), C-302-18, X. / Belgium  
183CJEU (2015), C-579/13, P and S 

101 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

conditions  are  more  restrictive  than  stipulated  in  the  Directive  and 
national LTR schemes. 

This  measure  will  contribute  to  this  objective  as  these  integration  and 
resources  requirements  may  also  be  a  condition  to  move  to  a  second 
Member  State.  Whilst  Member  States  cannot  ask  EU  LTR  holders  to 
comply with this again if they have already done so in the first Member 
State,  at  least  four  of  them  still  require  long-term  residents  to  pass  an 
integration  test.184  This  points  to  a  second  layer  of  Member  States’ 
discretion and more restrictive integration requirements that may pose a 
barrier to TCNs taking advantage of their intra-EU mobility. 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
term-
of 
residents  and  their 
family 

This  policy  measure  will  have  a  positive  impact  on  this  objective,  by 
potentially leading to more TCNs being eligible for EU LTR status, and 
thus  enjoying  the  rights  intrinsic  to  it.  In  fact,  by  facilitating  the 
conditions  to  acquire  EU  LTR  status  in  Member  States  where  these 
conditions are more restrictive than the Directive and their national LTR 
schemes,  more  TCNs  may  become  eligible  for  EU  LTR  status  or  may 
more swiftly be able to acquire it. In consequence, more TCNs will be in 
a position to acquire EU LTR status, so them and their family members 
may enjoy the rights that come with it. 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  will  bring  more  clarity  for  TCNs 
wishing  to  apply  for  long-term  residence  across  the  EU  as  to  what  the 
conditions  are,  as  they  will  be  more  uniform  across  national  LTR 
schemes  and  EU  LTR  in  different  Member  States.  This  will  thus 
diminish  any  unfair  treatment  for  differing  integration  and  resource 
requirements  that  are  drastically  more  restrictive.  Additionally,  for  the 
Member  States  where 
these  requirements  are  significantly  more 
restrictive  than  the  Directive  and  national  LTR  schemes,  this  measure 
will facilitate the ability for TCNs to obtain EU LTR status by reducing 
this additional restriction. 

184 AT, DE, FR, LV - Bocker, A., Strik, T., (2011). Language and Knowledge Tests for Permanent Residence 

Rights: Help or Hindrance for Integration?. European Journal of Migration and Law. 13. P 179 

102 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

National authorities 

This  measure  will  impact  the  national  authorities  from  the  21  Member 
States that have national LTR schemes the most.185 As mentioned before, 
Member  States  tend  to  prefer  national  LTR  schemes  and  therefore  this 
measure  may  face  some  national  resistance.  The  changes  to  be 
introduced  at  national  level  will  be  minimal,  mostly  relating  to  internal 
procedures (e.g. altering guidelines and training) to ensure they are better 
aligned with the Directive and equal or more favourable to their national 
LTR scheme.  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

This measure will simplify the work of legal practitioners supporting EU 
LTR  applicants,  as  the  integration  and  resource  requirements  will  be 
more  uniform  across  EU  Member  States  and  between  EU  and  national 
LTR schemes. 

Businesses/Employers  

As  per  objective  1,  this  measure  may  contribute  to  more  TCNs  being 
eligible or attracted to becoming EU LTR holders. This potential increase 
in  EU  LTR  holders  means  that  employers  and  businesses  will  have 
access to a larger pool of qualified EU LTR holders. 

Third countries 

No specific impact on third countries identified. 

Economic impacts  The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead.  

Nevertheless,  a  qualitative  assessment  points  to  the  fact  that  a  minimal 
positive  economic  effect  could  be  anticipated,  as  TCNs  who  previously 
could not qualify for EU LTR status would now be able to access it. This 
facilitated access to EU LTR status will mean more TCNs with unlimited 
access to the labour market, which could bring greater economic stability 
to these LTRs and in turn allow them to contribute to the economy of the 
MS. 

Environmental 
impacts 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

185  BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK - EMN (2016) Ad 

Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the period of validity of residence permits granted to third country nationals 
(update to GR EMN NCP Ad-Hoc Query on Duration of Residence Permits). 

103 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

Simplification 

Assessment  

This measure will ensure that the EU LTRD sets minimum standards for 
integration  and  resource  requirements,  thus  ensuring  fair  treatment  and 
reducing  discrimination  (Article  21  of  the  EU  Charter  of  fundamental 
rights). 

This measure will only impact European Commission officials in making 
this clarification in the revised text of the EU LTRD.  

Overall, the costs resulting from this measure alone for the Commission 
are estimated at 2,455 euro (per average yearly cost). 

regular 

This measure foresees significant simplification, as it will ensure a more 
uniform  understandings  of  “stable  and 
resources”  and 
“integration conditions”. It will bring these requirements closer between 
EU  LTR  provisions  across  the  EU  (by  reducing  Member  States’ 
discretion)  as  well  as  with  national  LTR  schemes.  This  will  mean  that 
national  authorities  will  have  less  varied  applications  to  review,  and 
TCNs  and  their  legal  advisors  less  complex  differing  conditions  to 
familiarise themselves with. Due to the variety of factors at play, it will 
not  be  possible  to  quantity  the  cost  savings  resulting  from  this 
simplification 

Overall assessment 

Overall, this policy measure will make a significant contribution to levelling the playing field 
across Member States regarding the EU and national LTR schemes. Whilst it will primarily 
impact the 21 Member States that have national LTR schemes, and national authorities may 
pose some resistance due to their preference for the latter, it poses negligible administrative 
and compliance costs. This  measure will bring positive contributions  across the majority of 
the policy objectives, and most significantly positively impact TCNs, their legal advisers, as 
it will provide both  with  clearer and more facilitated conditions.  Employers and businesses 
may  also  reap  benefits  from  the  introduction  of  this  measure  as  facilitated  conditions  may 
mean a slight increase in potentially hire highly skilled TCNs. 

Policy Measure 2.2: Applicants for EU LTR permits pay the  same level of fees for the 
handling of their application as applicants for national permits 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More  Currently, all Member States, except for Austria, Italy, Luxembourg and 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Romania, operate parallel national schemes, as allowed by Article 13 of 
the  LTRD.  The  Directive  does  not  prescribe  a  specific  nor  a  range  of 
application  fees,  either  for  the  EU  permit  or  the  national  one,  the  only 
clarification  on  application  fees  for  EU  permits  stems  from  the  CJEU 
case  law.  In  line  with  this  approach,  this  measure  does  not  aim  to 
prescribe  an  exact  application  fee  –  determined  by  other  factors 
explaining  differences  in  fees  across  Member  States  (such  as  national 
income  level)  –  but  aims  to  streamline  application  fees  for  the  EU  and 
national permit at national level. 

A  preliminary  assessment  of  available  data186  shows  that  in  most 
Member  States  that  operate  national  permits,  same  or  very  similar  fees 
are applied to EU and national LTR permits. To date, notable differences 
between  application  fees  for  EU  and  national  LTR  (or  equivalent) 
permits were noted in Bulgaria and Cyprus.187 This measure would align 
the application fees for EU LTR and national LTR permits, ensuring that 
fees for EU LTR permits are not higher than the fees for national permits 
and that where EU LTR fees are lower than the national equivalent, they 
may remain the same. 

To  the  extent  that  the  payment  of  application  fees  is  only  one  of  the 
conditions to obtain a long-term residence status,188 aligning application 
fees for both types of permits would create the conditions for a reduced 
risk of competition between national and EU permits. By clarifying this 
aspect  of  the  application  process,  this  measure  will  contribute  to 
improving  the  level-playing  field  between  EU  and  national  LTR 
schemes,  to  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  permit,  and  to  facilitate  the 
conditions to acquire the EU LTR status. 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

This measure could have a limited positive impact on intra-EU mobility, 
as  the  harmonisation  of  national  and  EU  LTR  permit  fees  could  be  an 
additional incentive for TCNs to apply for the EU LTR status, which in 
turn would facilitate their intra-EU mobility. 

Objective 3 

No effect on this policy objective. 

Improve  the  rights 

186 Fitness Check of EU Legal migration Directives, Task II (Phase 3) and EMN 2016 (#1000) AHQ on national 

residence permits of permanent or unlimited validity (Question 3). 

187 In Bulgaria, application fees for EU LTR status is approx. EUR 110 and approx. EUR 60 for national 

permits. In Cyprus, the opposite trend was noted with an amount of EUR 30 EUR for EU LTR applications 
and EUR 500 fees for national permit applications. 

188 For example, consultations with legal practitioners (29 April 2021) highlighted that other differences 

between EU and national statuses play a bigger role in the attractiveness of national permits compared to EU 
LTR permits (e.g. periods of legal stay and resources requirements). 

105 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

long 

term-
of 
residents  and  their 
family 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 
This  measure  will  bring  certain  positive  impacts  for  third-country 
nationals. However, preliminary findings from a FRA study suggest that 
TCNs would not necessarily always choose a cheaper permit over a more 
expensive  one  if  the  requirements  for  this  permit  are  more  difficult  to 
meet  than for the more  expensive alternative.  For instance, in  Germany 
where the national  LTR  is  more expensive than the EU  LTR  permit,  in 
2019,  2,3  million  national  permits  were  issued  compared  to  only  13,2 
thousand  EU  permits.189  Application  fees  could  play  a  role  in  the 
application process or choice of applicants for a specific permit but to a 
large extent, applicant’s choice of permit is not driven by differences in 
application  fees.190  In  those  Member  States  applying  higher  application 
fees  for  EU  LTR  permits  than  for  national  permits,  third-country 
nationals could potentially be deterred from applying for an EU permit. 
In  Member  States  where  this  is  the  case,  the  attractiveness  of  EU  LTR 
permit  would  be  somewhat  increased  if  the  (higher)  fees  for  the  EU 
permits  are  aligned  with  the  (lower)  fees  for  national  permits.  Indeed, 
where application fees for EU permits would be aligned downwards then 
this measure would bring cost savings to those applicants.  

National authorities 

From a practical and operational perspective, this measure would imply 
changes only in few Member States, namely in those charging different 
application  fees.  Implementing  changes  would  likely  require  amending 
national  legislation  and  provisions.  So  far,  according  to  the  initial 
findings  of  the  ongoing  FRA  study  on  the  Fundamental  Rights  of  LTR 
status holders, the application fees were mentioned as a potential barrier 
only in Portugal.  

Legal practitioners/judiciary  

This measure will yield positive effects for legal practitioners providing 
advice  to  third-country  nationals.  It  will  bring  further  clarity  in  the 
implementation of national legislation and thus  allow legal practitioners 

189 Initial findings shared by FRA from the ongoing study on the Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence 

status holders, p.8 

190 Second meeting of the EU legal migration practitioners network, 29 April 2021  

106 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

to  provide  better  counselling  and  contribute 
implementation of the Directive.   

to  an  effective 

Employers/Businesses 

This  measure  could  have  a  small  positive  effect  on  this  stakeholder 
group,  if  the  lowering  of  the  fees  for  EU  LTR  permits  results  in  an 
increase  in  TCNs  applying  for  the  EU  permit,  which  in  turn  may  make 
them  more  attractive  for  employers  with  labour  shortages  in  other 
Member States, as their intra-EU mobility would be facilitated. However, 
it  remains  to  be  determined  to  what  extent  the  current  EU  LTR  permit 
fees might be acting as a deterrent and therefore an obstacle for potential 
TCNs who would otherwise wish to work in the EU.  

Third countries (including negative effects such as brain drain) 
No specific social impacts identified for this stakeholder group. 

Economic impacts  In  those  MS  implementing  different  application  fees  between  EU  and 
national LTR permits, this policy measure is assumed to overall lead to a 
reduction in revenue to the MS, as in most cases MS would need to lower 
the fee for the EU LTR status. 

The scale of the impact is driven by the number of national LTR and EU 
permits issued (and  expected to  be issued) in  those MS and the type of 
alignment  to  the  EU  LTR  permit  application  fees  (downwards  or 
upwards). 

While  some  MS  may  have  several  types  of  national  permits  (e.g. 
applicable also to minors, beneficiaries of international protection, family 
members), and charge different fees in case of renewal of permits, it will 
not be possible to take these differences into account.  

Nonetheless, the direct impacts (or losses in this case) of this measure on 
the economies of the affected MS are expected to be mitigated by the fact 
that some of the money not spent by TCNs on the permit fees is likely to 
be spent in the territory of the Member States to which the TCN applied 
for  a  permit  and  will  therefore  be  reinvested  in  the  economy.  Overall, 
these  effects  are  likely  to  have  only  a  marginal  impact  on  the  legal 
migration to the EU as a whole. 

In  terms  of  wider  economic  impact,  the  increased  attractiveness  of  the 
EU LTR permit will likely lead to an increased number of permits issued 
which  could  in  turn  participate  in  a  better  allocation  of  labour  demand 
and  supply  and  reducing  unemployment  in  some  countries  where  there 
are skill shortages. 

Overall, as stated above, due to the variety of factors at play, the potential 
economic  impacts  of  this  measure  will  not  be  possible  to  quantify,  but 
they  have  been  estimated  at  the  aggregate  level  of  the  policy  options 

107 

 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

instead. 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

No specific fundamental rights impacts identified. 

In  addition  to  some  administrative  costs  to  take  account  for  the  legal 
change, Member States operating different application fees between EU 
and national permits will also incur some compliance costs, linked to the 
need to  align the fees that  they charge to the two groups (BG, CY, PL, 
PT).  These  could  include  costs  for  preparing  updated  guidance  and 
potential training costs to caseworkers handling applications for EU and 
national  LTR  permits,  as  well  as  costs  related  to  providing  information 
on  updated  fees  (e.g.  on  websites  or  other  media  to  circulate 
information). The European Commission will also face costs relating to 
implementing and communicating the changes to the Directive.  

Overall,  the  costs  resulting  from  this  measure  for  the  Commission  are 
estimated  at  2,455  euro  (per  average  yearly  cost).  The  costs  for  MS 
national authorities are estimated at 59,375 euro. 

Simplification 

This  measure  will  result  in  alignment  between  the  fees  charged  for  the 
two  statuses,  which  will  contribute  to  some  degree  of  simplification.  In 
addition,  lower  EU  LTR  fees  will  result  in  cost  savings  for  TCNs 
estimated at 64,471euro per average yearly cost. 

Overall assessment 

This  measure  will  bring  positive  changes  to  third-country  nationals  who  will  benefit  from 
additional clarity and legal certainty in the application process for LTR status. The measure 
will affect those Member States which apply different application fees. Overall, this measure 
contributes to streamlining procedural differences and risks of competition between EU and 
national  LTR  statuses.  In terms  of costs, this  measure will have some minor administrative 
and compliance costs for MS national authorities while for TCNs, it will result in cost savings 
where the EU LTR permit is currently more expensive. 

108 

 
 
 
 
Policy Measure 2.3: Holders of EU LTR status do not enjoy a lower level of procedural 
safeguards and rights than holders of national residence permits 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
the  EU 
acquire 
LTR status 

According to Article 10 of the Directive, reasons must be given for any 
decision rejecting an  application for the EU  LTR status  or withdrawing 
the  status.  Such  decision  must  be  notified  to  the  TCN  according  to  the 
notification  procedures  set  out  in  relevant  national  legislation.  The 
notification must also specify the redress procedures available as well as 
the time in which a TCN may act. The Article provides further that TCNs 
have the right to mount a legal challenge in cases where an application to 
the EU LTR is rejected, the status withdrawn or lost and when the permit 
is not renewed. No implementation issues with regards to this provision 
were reported in the 2019 implementation report beside an infringement 
procedure launched against Romania. 

The Fitness Check on legal migration provided that all MS have appeal 
procedures in place in case of negative decisions but that there are some 
concerns  regarding  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  appeal  procedure.191 
In some MS, due to the length and the cost of the procedure, applicants 
would  rather  lodge  a  new  application  than  submitting  an  appeal.192 
Moreover,  only  three  Member  States  were  considered  to  provide 
sufficient  information  to  applicants  on  the  appeal  process  against  a 
negative  decision.193  It  was  also  reported  during  one  of  the  targeted 
consultations  that  in  France  the  large  level  of  discretion  left  to  national 
authorities  when  assessing  applications  for  the  EU  long-term  residence 
status is an issue.194 The EU legal migration practitioners’ network also 
mentioned that, in  their view, in  France it is  much easier to  acquire the 
national  status,  since  appealing  any  negative  decisions  on  the  national 
status  usually  leads  to  the  long-term  residence  permit  being  granted, 
however,  appeals  to  negative  decisions  relating  to  the  EU  status  will 
likely result in the negative decision being upheld. 

Considering that the provisions under Article 10 are covered by the EU 
Charter of Fundamental Rights, procedural safeguards and rights should 
in principle be aligned between the EU and national permits.195 However, 
ensuring  that  procedural  safeguards  and  rights  are  equally  implemented 

191 European Commission (2019) 1055 final, Legal Migration Fitness Check, Annex 2A, Evidence base for 

practical implementation of the legal migration directives, p.50  

192 AT, BE, FI. 
193 PL, RO, SE. 
194 Second meeting of the EU legal migration practitioners network, 29 April 2021  
195 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Article 41(2) regarding the obligation of the 

administration to give reasons for its decisions and under Article 47 related to the Right to an effective 
remedy and to a fair trial. 

109 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

the 

the  availability  of 

information  concerning 

in practice can have a positive effect in providing TCNs applicants with 
legal certainty concerning the processing of their applications. This could 
concern 
redress 
procedures, the time allowed to submit a legal challenge, the amount of 
time allowed to  submit missing documentary evidence, the accessibility 
of  information  concerning  the  procedure.  Possible  existing  differences 
between the EU and national permits could be addressed by introducing a 
similar  provision  to  the  one  included  under  Article  16(7)  of  the 
compromise  text  of  the  Blue  Card  Directive  (BCD).  This  would  mean 
adding  an  alignment  provision  according  to  which,  in  cases  where  MS 
have national schemes, they shall grant EU LTR permit holders the same 
equal  treatment  rights  as  the  ones  granted  to  holders  of  national  LTR 
permits, where these rights are more favourable than those provided for 
in  the  Directive.  For  this  measure,  it  would  mean  that  the  procedural 
safeguards  and  rights  provided  in  the  LTRD  will  be  aligned  with  any 
procedural  safeguards  existing  for  national  permits  that  are  more 
favourable than the ones laid down in the LTRD.  

Objective 2 

No effect on this policy objective. 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

This  measure  will  ensure  that  procedural  safeguards  and  rights  are 
equally  implemented  for  EU  LTR  applicants  and  national  permits 
applicants.  In  Member  States  where  differences  exist  in  the  level  of 
procedural  safeguards  and  rights  between  the  two  permits,  the  measure 
will improve the rights of prospective EU LTR applicants. 

Third-country nationals 

This  measure  will  ensure  that  applicants  to  the  EU  LTR  status  will 
benefit  from  the  same  procedural  safeguards  as  for  an  application  to 
national  residence  permits.  This  will  provide  TCNs  with  more  legal 
certainty with regard to the proceedings and outcome of their application 
to the EU LTR status. 

National authorities 

This  measure  would  lead  national  authorities  to  ensure  that  there  is  no 
difference  in  the  implementation  of  procedural  safeguards  and  rights 
between applications for national permanent residence and EU permits.  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

110 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

This  measure  will  simplify  legal  counsel  regarding  the  application 
procedure for the EU LTR. Judiciary authorities will have to ensure that 
procedural safeguards and rights are aligned regarding redress procedures 
and legal challenges against negative decisions.  

Employers/Businesses 

No specific impact identified on employers and businesses. 

Third countries 

No specific impact identified on third countries. 

The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead.  

In  qualitative  terms,  this  measure  is  not  expected  to  have  significant 
economic impacts. Any effect on the number of EU LTR permits issued 
will be minor and not be possible to quantify. 

No specific impact identified. 

This  measure  could  have  the  effect  of  giving  more  specific  attention  to 
procedural  rights  which  may  result  in  strengthening  the  fundamental 
rights  regarding  the  obligation  of  the  administration  to  give  reasons  for 
its decisions and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. 

Economic impacts 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
administrative  and  compliance  costs.  These  costs  are  estimated  as 
follows (per average yearly cost): 

European Commission 

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

change: 3,273 euro 

Member States’ national authorities 

  Administrative and compliance costs: 149,900 euro 

Simplification 

Some simplification will be introduced as national  authorities will offer 
the  same  safeguards  rather  than  –  where  relevant  –  different  ones 
depending  on  the  TCN  addressed.  However,  it  will  not  be  possible  to 
quantify the cost savings resulting from this. 

111 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Overall assessment 

Overall, ensuring that procedural  safeguards and rights  are equally implemented in  practice 
can  have  a  positive  effect  in  providing  more  legal  certainty  concerning  the  application 
process  for  EU  LTR  status.  This  measure  will  result  in  moderate  administrative  and 
compliance costs for Member States and marginal cost for the European Commission. 

Policy  Measure  2.4:  The  EU  LTR  status  benefits  from  the  same  level  of  information, 
promotion  and  advertising  activities  as  the  national  residence  permits,  for  example 
through  ensuring  adequate  information  on  the  national  websites  on  legal  migration, 
information campaigns and training programmes for the migration authorities 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

The lack of information or awareness about the LTRD and its benefits is 
seen  by  a  majority  of  stakeholders  as  one  of  the  main  reasons  of  the 
under-used of the EU LTR status.196  

The  measure  would  align  the  provision  of  information  on  the  EU  LTR 
status  with  what  is  currently  provided  on  the  national  LTR  status,  thus 
creating  a  greater  level-playing  field  between  the  two  schemes  in 
particular  in  those  Member  States  which  currently  do  not  have  a 
dedicated information strategy on the EU status,197 or which do not have 
any  specific  information  tools  in  place198  (France,  Estonia,  Latvia, 
Lithuania,  The  Netherlands).  Member  States  which  do  not  have  a 
national  equivalent  status  would  not  need  to  undertake  any  additional 
action  (Austria,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  and  Romania,  as  indicated  in  the 
2019 implementation report). Since the 2019 implementation report also 
identified  a  lack  of  information  among  national  administrations  on  the 
functioning  of  the  EU  LTR  status  and  LTRD,  this  measure  could  also 

196 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; Fifth meeting of 
the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021; Consultation with representatives of 
Civil Society, 20 April 2021; Consultation with the Economic and Social Partners, 5 May 2021; 
Consultation of the European Network of the Public Employment Services, 10 March 2021; Consultation 
with the Legal Migration Contact Group, 18 May 2021; Second meeting of the EU legal migration 
practitioners network, 29 April 2021. Only two MS disagreed within the Consultation with the Contact 
Group on Legal Migration (CZ, HU). 

197 Eight MS have such strategy in place: BG, DE, HR, IE, IT, LU, PL, SE. 
198 14 MS have tools in place to promote the EU LTR status: BE, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, IT, LU, 

MT, PT, SE, SI, SK. 

112 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

include  the  provision  of  training  to  key  administrative  case  officers  at 
national level. 

However,  by  only  requiring  MS  to  align  their  communication  and 
information  efforts  on  the  two  schemes,  the  measure  does  not  set  any 
minimum  standards  as  to  the  kind  of  information  which  has  to  be 
provided  (on  both  LTR  schemes)  or  how  the  information  should  be 
provided.  This  may  imply  that  in  some  Member  States,  TCNs  would 
receive  insufficient  information  on  both  types  of  statuses,  which  would 
still hamper their ability to make a well-informed choice. The provision 
of  implementation  guidelines  specifying  the  type  of  information  which 
should be provided on the websites of national authorities, and minimum 
number of languages in which the information should be made available, 
would  help  to  address  this  issue.  In  addition,  good  practices  could  be 
included as examples (e.g. links to the websites of LU and NL national 
authorities). Several suggestions to improve the level of information and 
awareness about the EU LTR status were made during consultations with 
stakeholders, such as: 

- Technical support or training for relevant authorities and administrative 
workers. 
-  Awareness-raising  campaigns  and  guidelines  addressed  to  competent 
authorities and potential EU LTR applicants. 
-  Introducing  a  legal  obligation  for  competent  authorities  to  provide 
information about the EU LTR status when they receive and application 
for the national LTR status.  

This measure would make an important contribution to the visibility and 
availability  of  information  on  the  EU  LTR  status,  which  in  turn  has  a 
positive impact on creating a more coherent, efficient and fair system to 
acquire the EU LTR status. However, this effect is expected to be minor, 
given that other conditions and requirements for acquirement of the EU 
LTR status remain unchanged. 

By  increasing  awareness  of  the  EU  LTR  status,  TCNs  would  be  better 
informed  about  the  facilitation  of  intra-EU  mobility  and  may,  if  they 
apply for this status, be more inclined to become mobile. 

By increasing the share of TCNs who will apply for the EU LTR status, a 
higher  number  of  TCNs  will  benefit  from  equal  treatment  rights 
harmonised across the EU. 

113 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
term-
of 
residents  and  their 
family 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Impacts 

Assessment  

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

TCNs, especially in those Member States which at present do not provide 
sufficient information on the EU LTR status (at least five Member States 
as  presented  above)  would  become  more  aware  of  the  rights  and 
conditions of the latter. This would allow them to make a better-informed 
choice  as  to  what  LTR  status  would  most  fit  their  needs  and  offers  the 
best  rights  and  conditions.  In  addition,  the  improved  quality  of 
information publicly available is expected to lead to a slight reduction in 
costs faced by TCNs who would otherwise consult legal services and pay 
legal fees for support with their application. 

National authorities 

The  increased  information  provision  on  the  EU  LTR  status  is  likely  to 
lead  to  a  higher  demand  for  the  latter,  although  this  would  mostly 
concern a ‘displacement’ of applications from the national LTR scheme. 
The measure is unlikely to lead to a net increase in LTR applications. 

Legal practitioners 

The  availability  of  additional  information  on  the  application  procedure 
for  the  EU  LTR  permit  may  result  in  a  minor  reduced  dependency  on 
legal  practitioners. However, as the measure does not  set  any minimum 
standards as to the kind of information which has to be provided (on both 
LTR schemes) or how the information should be provided, this will thus 
largely  depend  on  how  the  measure  is  implemented  by  national 
authorities. 

Third countries 

The provision of information alone is unlikely to have an effect on third 
countries.  The  increased  attractiveness  of  the  EU  LTR  permit  could 
result  in  more  third-country  nationals  moving  to  the  EU  for  work  or 
study purposes, which could in turn result in some loss of human capital 
and labour force in third countries however this impact is expected to be 
very minor. It will not be possible to estimate the expect impact due to a 
multitude of factors at play. 

The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

In qualitative terms, the economic impact of this measure will be low, as 
it will not lead to a higher number of holders of LTR statuses overall (it 
is  assumed  that  an  increase  in  applications  for  the  EU  LTR  status  will 
lead  to  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  applications  for  the  national  LTR 

114 

Economic impacts 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

Simplification 

status).  Some  impact  could  be  expected  with  regards  to    intra-EU 
mobility,  which  may  in  turn  have  an  impact  on  labour  shortages,  the 
wage  levels  of  mobile  TCNs  and  hence,  an  increase  in  the  second 
Member  State’s  tax  revenue.  However,  due  to  the  variety  of  factors  at 
plan, it will not be possible to quantify these impacts. 

This type of impact is unlikely to occur. 

No specific fundamental rights would be affected by the measure. 

Member States will face administrative and compliance costs incurred as 
a  result  of  the  legal  change.  Member  States  would  also  face  additional 
costs  related  the  identification  and  preparation  of  information  to  be 
disseminated  on  the  EU  LTR  status  and  to  organising  the  same 
information and communication activities as those carried out at present 
for the national  LTR status (including updating the websites of national 
authorities  and  printing  some  brochures).  These  costs  have  been 
estimated to 90,067 euro (per average yearly cost). 

As mentioned above, the increased information provision on the EU LTR 
status  is  likely  to  lead to a higher demand for the latter. However, as it 
would mostly concern a ‘displacement’ of applications from the national 
LTR scheme to the EU LTR, rather than leading to a net increase in LTR 
applications, 
to  pose  an  additional 
administrative burden for the national authorities in terms of the quantity 
of applications lodged. Additionally, the better quality of the information 
on  the  EU  LTR  status  will  reduce  the  need  for  legal  advice  and  reduce 
the legal fees paid by TCNs. 

the  measure 

is  not 

likely 

Overall assessment 

The measure will have a positive effect on creating a more coherent, efficient and fair system 
to acquire the EU LTR status and may contribute to increased intra-EU mobility. However, 
without setting minimum standards as to the information to be provided, there is a risk that 
information  on  both  statuses  will  be  insufficient  to  enable  TCNs  to  make  a  well-informed 
choice. This measure will result in moderate administrative and compliance costs for Member 
States but in significant cost savings for TCNs.   

115 

 
 
 
 
Policy Measure 2.5: Holders of national permits who apply for an EU LTR permit have 
a  facilitated  procedure  (i.e.  not  presenting  evidence  already  checked  for  the  national 
permit) 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Currently,  a  majority  of  Member  States  do  not  have  a  facilitated 
procedure 
implement 
in  place.  However,  some  Member  States 
procedures that could facilitate the change of status from national LTR to 
EU LTR199. In France, holders of national LTR do not have to prove the 
fulfilment of integration requirements when applying for the EU LTR. In 
Portugal,  if  a  TCN  already  proved  some  non-changeable  requirements 
(e.g. language proficiency) when applying for their national permits, and 
they are part of their digital file, such proofs do not need to be presented 
a second time while applying for the EU LTR status. In Greece, national 
permit holders do not pay application fees to change their permit into the 
EU LTR permit.  

This  measure  will  introduce  a  provision  according  to  which  TCNs  will 
not be required to prove the fulfilment of the conditions for acquisition of 
the EU LTR permit if those have already been proved for their national 
permit.  For  example,  if  sufficient  proof  of  fulfilment  of  the  resources 
and/or  integration  requirements  has  already  been  provided  by  a  TCN, 
then this would not be requested a second time for the EU LTR permit. 

By reducing administrative proceedings and the number of documentary 
evidence  required  to  access  the  EU  LTR  status,  this  measure  will 
facilitate  the  acquisition  of  the  EU  LTR  status  for  holders  of  national 
permits that have similar conditions. Additionally, according to the initial 
findings  of  the  ongoing  FRA  study  on  the  Fundamental  Rights  of  LTR 
status  holders,  national  authorities  in  Germany  and  Belgium  suggested 
that  when  the  requirements  for  the  national  long-term  permit  are 
assessed, the national authorities should be obliged to also assess whether 
the EU LTR permit can be granted. Another stakeholder of the ongoing 
FRA study suggested that at the moment of the renewal of a temporary 
residence  permit,  if  the  person  qualifies  for  an  EU  LTR  permit, 
authorities should set up an automatic system that informs the individual 
about  the  possibility  to  apply  for  the  EU  LTR  permit.  Such  obligations 
could  further  contribute  in  providing  a  level-playing  field  between  the 
EU and national LTR schemes.  

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-

By  facilitating  access  to  the  EU  LTR  status  for  those  TCNs  already 
holding  a  national  LTR  permit,  this  measure  would  facilitate  intra-EU 

199 EMN Inform (2020) Long-Term Resident Status in the EU p.9-10. 

116 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Assessment  

mobility for a slightly higher number of TCNs who may wish to become 
mobile. 

Facilitating  access  to  the  EU  LTR  status  will  improve  the  rights  of 
prospective  EU  LTR  applicants  in  Member  States  attaching  a  narrower 
set  of  rights  to  their  national  LTR  permit,  as  they  would  benefit  from 
equal  treatment  rights  guaranteed  at  EU  level  and  be  able  to  have 
facilitated access to the labour markets of other Member States. 

Third-country nationals 

TCNs making use of a facilitated procedure, in Member States attaching 
a narrower set of rights to their national LTR permit, would benefit from 
equal treatment rights guaranteed at EU level and be able to have access 
to the labour markets of other Member States.  

National authorities 

The measure will lead to simplified processes for national authorities as 
some  conditions  would  not  need  to  be  (re)checked.  The  impact  will  be 
higher  for  national  authorities  in  Member  States  where  conditions  for 
acquisition of national residence permits are similar to the conditions for 
acquisition of the EU LTR. 

Legal practitioners / judiciary 

A facilitated procedure is likely to reduce legal proceedings and judiciary 
proceedings in relation to the acquisition of the EU LTR.  

Employers/Businesses 

Facilitating the acquisition of the EU LTR to national permit holders will 
have a minor impact on employers and businesses as hired TCNs holding 
an  EU  LTR  will  have  a  stable  status  with  an  almost  automatic 
renewability.  

Third countries 

No specific impact identified on third countries. 

Economic impacts 

The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

Environmental 
impacts 

This type of impact is unlikely to occur. 

117 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

Simplification 

Assessment  

A  facilitated  procedure  to  access  the  EU  LTR  would  mean  a 
reinforcement  of  the  fundamental  rights  guaranteed  to  the  TCNs  by  the 
LTRD. 

In  addition  to  administrative  costs  related  to  the  legal  change,  Member 
States would incur some compliance costs resulting from the introduction 
of  a  new  procedure.  As  the  facilitated  procedure  targets  national 
residence permit  holders, it is  less likely that  the measure will decrease 
administrative  burden  for  national  administrations  that  will  still  have  to 
check  compliance  with  all  conditions  for  acquisition  of  the  permit.  The 
costs  faced  by  public  administrations  and  Member  States  as  a  result  of 
this measure have been estimated at 35,828 euro per average yearly cost. 

This  measure  will  reduce  the  number  of  documentary  evidence  that 
national permit holders will have to submit with their application to the 
EU  LTR  status,  resulting  in  minor  cost  savings  for  national  authorities 
and TCNs. Due to the number of factors at play, it will not be possible to 
estimate  the  cost  savings  for  TCNs.  The  cost  saving  for  national 
authorities is estimated at 460 euro (per average yearly cost). 

Overall assessment 

Overall,  the  measure  will  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  access  to  the  EU  LTR,  but  it  is 
difficult to determine if it will significantly increase the number of EU permits issued.  This 
measure will result in low administrative and compliance costs for Member States. 

Policy  measure  2.6:  Encouraging  Member  States  to  reinforce  checks  on  the  residence 
requirement with regard to investor residence schemes 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 

Investor  residence  schemes  in  the  EU  exist  to  date  in  19  Member 
States.200 As highlighted in the 2019 Commission report, in 14 Member 

200  BG, CZ, EE, IE, GR, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PO, PT, RO, SK, COM(2019) 12 final, 

Report on Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes in the European Union, p.6-9 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

States, continuous physical residence is not required to apply for investor 
residence  scheme.201  For  instance,  according  to  this  report,  in  Portugal, 
the physical presence of the investor is only required for seven days in a 
year  and  just  on  the  day  of  the  application  in  Malta,  Greece  and 
Bulgaria.202 As highlighted in the problem definition, this means that, in 
the absence of monitoring, investors that do not comply with the 5 years 
of  continuous  residence  requirement  could  still  acquire  the  EU  LTR 
status on the basis of their national investor permit for five years.  

Moreover,  in  all  Member  States  where  such  schemes  exist, the  renewal 
of  the  residence  permit  (temporary  or  permanent  when  the  permit  has 
been  issued  for  a  fixed  duration)  is  possible  except  for  Poland203. 
According  to  the  CJEU,  a  formally  limited  residence  permit  within  the 
meaning  of  national  law  cannot  be  classified  as  a  formally  limited 
residence permit within the meaning of Art 3(2)(e)204. The possibility to 
indefinitely  reinforces  such 
renew  a 
interpretation. This means that even if some investor residence schemes 
are of a temporary nature, it would not prevent an abusive acquisition of 
the EU LTR in Member States where an investor’s physical residence is 
not required.  

temporary  residence  permit 

Introducing  an  effective  mechanism  to  reinforce  checks  on  residence 
requirements  with  regard  to  investor  residence  schemes  will  help 
preventing  such  situation  of  abuse  in  the  acquisition  of  the  EU  LTR 
permit and will have a positive impact on ensuring a fairer system for the 
acquisition of the EU LTR status.  

However,  very  few  statistical  data  are  available  to  properly  assess  the 
impact  of  this  measure.  Where  statistical  data  on  residence  applications 
are  available,  they  are  often  not  disaggregated  between  investors  and 
family  members205.  Indicatively,  available  data  show  that  264  investor 
residence  permits  were  issued  in  Estonia  between  2012  and  2017;  531 
permits  were  issued  in  Spain  between  2013  and  2017;  30  permits  were 
issued in France between 2016 and 2017 and 112 in Malta over the same 
period. Specific reliable statistical data are available in six other Member 
States  over  different  time  period  and  show  relatively  low  numbers  of 

201  BG, CZ, EE, GR, FR, LV, LT, LU, MT, PO, PT, RO, SK. 
202 COM(2019) 12 final, Report on Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes in the European Union, p.9 
203 Milieu Ltd (2018), Factual analysis of Member States Investors' Schemes granting citizenship or residence to 

third-country nationals investing in the said MS, Study overview, p. 59 

204 CJEU (2012), C-502/10, Singh 
205 Milieu Ltd (2018), Factual analysis of Member States Investors' Schemes granting citizenship or residence to 

third-country nationals investing in the said MS, Study overview, p96 

119 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

investor  residence  permits  issued  compared  to  the  number  of  “regular” 
national long-term residence permits issued over the same period206. 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

No impact on this policy objective. 

No impact on this policy objective. 

Third-country nationals 

The  measure  will  affect  third-country  nationals  who  benefit  from 
investor  residence  schemes  in  Member  States  where  no  physical 
residence is required, as their access to the EU LTR will be limited.  

The  measure  will  also  affect  family  members  of  this  category  of  this 
category  of  third-country  nationals.  Indeed,  family  members  of  foreign 
investors  can  apply  for  a  residence  permit  in  all  Member  States  and  in 
most  of  them,  benefit  from  the  same  rights  as  the  investor.207  While 
family members usually include spouses and minor children, other types 
of  relatives  may  also  apply  for  a  residence  permit  based  on  the  permit 
granted  to  the  investor  in  some  Member  States.  For  instance,  in  the 
Czech  Republic,  parents  can  apply  to  a  residence  permit.  In  Cyprus 
parents and parents in-law can apply for a residence permit. In Portugal, 
the scope of the family members category extends to investor’s siblings. 
The  measure  will  particularly  impact  types  of  family  members  not 
covered by the LTRD as they, beside the obligation to comply with the 5 
years requirement, would not be able to join the EU LTR investors under 
the same conditions.  

National authorities 

This  measure  will  engage  national  authorities  to  effectively  monitor 
physical  absences  from  the  territory  of  their  Member  State.  It  appears 

206 Ibid p. 79 and 100 :  EE, ES,FR, IE, LT, LU, LV,MT, NL, PT and Eurostat (2021) Long-term residents by 

citizenship on 31 December of each year, migr_reslong. 

207 BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IE, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK; Milieu Ltd (2018), Factual 
analysis of Member States Investors' Schemes granting citizenship or residence to third-country nationals 
investing in the said MS, Study overview, p. 61. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

from  the information  available in  the  Fitness  Check on legal migration, 
that in a number of Member States, such absences are not monitored208. 
In  five  of  the  Member  States  that  do  not  require  continuous  physical 
residence  from  the  investor,  previous  residence  permits  issued  in  the 
Member  State  can  be  presented  as  a  proof  of  continuous  and  regular 
residence  for  the  issuance  of  a  EU  LTR  permit209.  The  national 
authorities of these Member States are likely to be the most impacted by 
the measure.  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

This measure will probably increase the legal and judiciary proceedings 
as it will result in an increase in rejections of applications of this category 
of third-country nationals. However, the impact might be limited due to 
the  relatively  low  numbers  of  national  residence  permit  issued  under 
investor residence schemes in Member States where physical residence is 
not required.  

Employers/Businesses 

The measure may, in the Member States that currently allow for the EU 
LTR  permits  to  be  granted  without  proof  of  continuous  and  regular 
residence and those which do not monitor this, lead to some decrease in 
investors from third countries. However, the impact is likely to be low as 
they  could  either  opt  to  remain  legal  residents  but  without  applying  for 
any long-term residence status, apply for the national LTR status (if the 
latter would allow this) or for naturalisation, again if national conditions 
allow for this. 

Third countries 

This type of impact is unlikely to occur. 

Economic impacts  As  set  out  above,  the  decrease  in  investors  is  likely  to  have  a  low 
economic impact as the measure will prevent them to access the EU LTR 
status  without  proof  of  continuous  and  regular  residence  but  will  not 
have  an  effect  on  their  national  residence  permits.  The  potential 
economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a  specific 
individual measure, but have been calculated at the aggregate level of the 
policy options instead. 

Environmental 
impacts 

No environmental impacts identified. 

208 Fitness Check on Legal Migration, Annex 2A p.120: AT, CZ, DE, EE, HR, HU, IT, MT, NL, PL, PT and SE. 
209 Fitness Check on Legal Migration, Annex 2A p.79: BG, EE, PO, RO, SK 

121 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Assessment  

No impact on fundamental rights identified. 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
some administrative and compliance costs. These costs are estimated as 
follows (average yearly costs): 

European Commission 

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

change: 2,455 euro 

Member States national authorities 

  Administrative  and  compliance  costs  related  to  legal  change, 
changes  to  internal  procedures  including  training  and  guidance 
for  national  authorities,  as  well  as  setting  up  and  running  a 
monitoring  mechanism  for  13  Member  States  where  continuous 
physical  residence  is  not  required  in  their  investor  residence 
schemes: 42,154 euro 

Simplification 

The  measure  will  not  lead  to  simplification,  but  rather  encourage  13 
Member  States  to  introduce  a  new  mechanism  to  check  whether  (a 
relatively  small  number)  of  TCN  comply  with  the  continuous  physical 
residence requirement. 

Overall assessment 

Overall, introducing a mechanism to reinforce checks on residence requirements with regard 
to investor residence schemes will help in preventing abuses and having a fairer system for 
the acquisition of the EU LTR status. The administrative and compliance costs faced by the 
Member States are expected to be marginal. However, very few statistical data are available 
to properly assess the impact of this measure. 

1.2.2  Measures relating to the facilitation of intra-EU mobility 

Policy  measure  2.7:  Not  allowing  the  second  Member  State  to  apply  a  labour  market 
test 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More  In the 16 Member States which apply a labour market test either to long-

122 

 
 
 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

term  residents  from  other  Member  States  or  to  persons  applying  for  a 
permit on grounds of employment, (see below), this measure would make 
the EU LTR scheme considerably more efficient and attractive, therefore 
considerably  contributing  to  this  objective.  In  particular,  this  measure 
will  considerably  facilitate  the  intra-EU  mobility  of  EU  LTR  for  work 
purpose  and,  thus,  the  acquisition  of  the  EU  LTR  status  in  a  second 
Member  State.  Mobile  EU  LTR  permit  holders  from  another  Member 
State would no longer have to undergo labour market tests, while holders 
of the national  equivalent  scheme might  still be obliged to  undergo this 
test if required already in the Member State. However, in Member States 
which  do  not  require  labour  market  tests  to  be  applied  for  persons 
requesting  a  national  long-term  residence  permit,  this  measure  would 
have no effect in terms of the level-playing field. 

At present, according to the second Commission implementation report, 
13 Member States apply labour  market  tests  (under Article 14(3) of the 
LTRD)  to  long-term  residents  from  other  Member  States  who  apply  to 
reside for the purpose of exercising an economic activity210. In addition, 
eight  Member  States  apply  a  labour  market  test  for  permits  on  the 
grounds of employment,211 which means that in these countries the future 
employer has to provide proof that no qualified worker (either a national 
or  an  EU/EEA  citizen)  can  fill  this  vacancy  within  a  reasonable  or 
determined  amount  of  time.  Member  States  generally  apply  the  same 
procedures  regarding  the  requirements  for  filling  a  vacancy  or  for 
exercising  an  activity  in  an  employed  or  self-employed  capacity212. 
Certain  categories  of  third-country  nationals,  such  as  highly  skilled 
workers and researchers, may be exempted from the labour market test. 

Members from three of the stakeholder groups consulted for the purposes 
of this impact assessment considered that labour market tests acted as a 
significant  barrier  or  limitation  to  the  intra-EU  mobility  of  EU  LTR 
permit  holders  and  that  these  should  not  be  conducted  in  the  second 
Member State213. In addition, members of the Informal Expert Group on 
Economic Migration and Civil Society representatives highlighted that in 
many  cases,  labour  market  tests  can  lead  to  delays  in  the  processing  of 
TCN  applications  to  work  in  a  second  Member  State  which  result  in 
missed  work  opportunities  or  demotivate  employers  from  even 
considering  the  hiring  of  TCNs.  However,  members  of  the  Legal 

210 AT, CY, CZ, DE, FI, FR, IT, MT, NL, PT, RO, SI, and SK. 
211 BE, FI, FR, LV, LU, NL, SI and SK. 
212 EMN (2020) Long-Term Resident Status in the EU, p. 12. 
213 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; Fifth meeting of 
the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021; Consultation with representatives of 
Civil Society, 20 April 2021. 

123 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Migration  Contact  Group  had  mixed  views  on  this  point,  with  some 
considering that labour market tests remain an essential tool for Member 
States  to  manage  the  admission  of  TCNs  so  that  it  is  in  line  with  their 
labour market needs and capacities.214 

Combining  the  groups  of  countries  mentioned  above,  in  a  total  of  16 
Member  States215  a  mobile  TCN  applying  for  work  in  the  second 
Member  State  would  need  to  apply  a  labour  market  test.  This  measure 
would therefore facilitate the mobility of long-term residents wishing to 
move  to  over  half  of  EU  Member  States.  It  would  not  facilitate  the 
mobility  to  the  other  11  Member  States  since  a  labour  market  test  is 
already not required there. 

This  measure  would  significantly  contribute  to  increasing  (long-term) 
intra-EU mobility within the EU of legally residing and integrated third-
country  nationals  by  simplifying  the  procedures  to  work  in  16  EU 
Member  States.  It  enables  EU  LTR  holders  which  have  found  work 
possibilities  in  another  Member  State  to  concretely  and  quickly  act  on 
such opportunities. This measure therefore supports the development of a 
single  internal  market,  whereby  EU  permits  should  facilitate  the  EU’s 
labour market growth as a whole.  

The assessment of this measure should be read in conjunction with other 
measures  aiming  to  facilitate  intra-EU  mobility  (e.g.  allowing  TCNs  to 
start working in the second Member State while their application is being 
assessed, granting mobile TCNs equal treatment as regards recognition of 
professional  qualifications  in  the  second  Member  State,  improving  the 
rules  on  access  to  the  labour  market  for  TCN  applicants  and  their 
family). 

This measure will make an important contribution to equal treatment by 
allowing  third-country  nationals  with  an  EU  long-term  resident  permit 
the  same  access  to  the  labour  market  of  the  second  Member  State  as 
nationals of that Member State and other EU citizens. 

By contrast, the measure could possibly have a minor negative effect on 
circular  migration  if  TCNs  find  better  employment  opportunities  in  the 
second Member State, which would reduce their incentive to return to the 
first  Member  State  or  to  their  country  of  origin.  However,  since  TCNs 
moving  to  a  second  Member  State  have  already  left  their  country  of 
origin, this measure would not lead to an increase in brain drain. 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

214 Consultation with the Legal Migration Contact Group, 18 May 2021. 
215 AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, FI, FR, IT, LV, LU, MT, NL, PT, RO, SI, and SK. 

124 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Impacts 

Assessment  

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

This measure considerably increases the possibilities for EU LTR status 
holders  to  exercise  their  right  to  intra-EU  mobility  in  a  clearer  and 
seamless  manner.  This  measure  significantly  increases  EU  LTR  status 
holders’  chances  to  be  recruited  as  they  can  move  immediately  to  the 
second Member State rather than having to wait - potentially for months - 
for  the  results  of  labour  market  tests  (and  thus  missing  on  the 
opportunity). In addition, this measure still implies for the third-country 
national  concerned  the  need  to  comply  with  the  other  conditions  to 
acquire another residence permit in the second Member State. 

The  impact  of  this  measure  is  also  dependent  on  the  implementation  of 
the  policy  measures  related  to  allowing  third-country  nationals  to  start 
working  in  the  second  Member  State  while  their  application  is  being 
assessed,  granting  mobile  TCNs  equal 
the 
recognition  of  their  professional  qualifications  in  the  second  Member 
State,  and  improving  the  rules  on  access  to  the  labour  market  for  the 
‘mobile’ long-term resident and their family members. 

treatment  concerning 

National authorities 

This  measure  would  have  an  impact  on  16  Member  States,  as  in  these 
countries  labour  market  tests  would  currently  apply  to  mobile  TCNs.  It 
would result in  administrative simplification and reduced costs in  terms 
of the human resources previously used to conduct labour market tests in 
these  countries.  It  would  also  allow  unfilled  vacancies  and  occupation 
shortages  in  these  countries  to  be  filled  more  easily  through  the 
recruitment  of  mobile  TCNs.  However,  national  authorities  would  lose 
some of their current control over the national labour market, no longer 
being  able  to  give  preference  to  national  and  EU  citizens  over  mobile 
TCNs.  A  national  authority  replying  to  the  legal  migration  and 
integration Public Consultation already stated that they did not wish for 
the revision of the LTRD to change or limit the ability of Member States 
to  conduct  their  own  labour  market  tests  before  employing  a  TCN.216 
There may therefore be some resistance from national authorities to this 
measure. 

Legal practitioners / judiciary 

Legal  practitioners  are  likely  to  be  confronted  with  initial  queries  for 
clarification  on  the  new  procedures  for  acquisition  of  the  permit  and 

216 Bavaria State Ministry of the Interior for Sport and Integration (2020), Contribution to European 

Commission Consultation on the Future of EU Legal Migration. 

125 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

recruitment  applicable  in  their  own  Member  State  or  need  to  clarify 
applicable  legislation  in  other  Member  States,  at  least  in  the  first 
months/year  of  their  introduction.  The  workload  and  need  for  legal 
counselling  (or  recourse  to  appeals)  is  expected  to  decrease  in  the 
medium to long-term following the application of this measure as it will 
simplify the procedure for hiring TCNs in 16 Member States. 

Employers/Businesses 

Surveys  of  employers  in  some  EU  countries  show  that  employers  are 
reluctant to hire workers from outside of the EU. In Germany, only one 
in  four  employers  who  struggled  to  fill  vacancies  tried  hiring  workers 
from  abroad,  and  only  about  half  succeeded.  In  addition,  faced  with 
growing shortages, only one in three large employers would consider the 
option  of  recruiting  foreign  workers  in  the  near  future  and  this  share 
halved for SMEs at 15%.217 In Sweden, a survey showed that only 4% of 
businesses  who  suffered  from,  shortages  eventually  recruited  migrant 
workers.218 This reluctance could be in part linked to the administrative 
requirements needed to be able to hire TCNs, such as labour market tests.  

Removing the requirement to apply a labour market test for mobile long-
term residents in 16 Member States would provide an important incentive 
to  employers  to  hire  TCNs,  as  suggested  also  by  Civil  Society 
representatives  consulted  for  the  purposes  of  this  impact  assessment.219 
Employers would also benefit from a larger pool of qualified and already 
legally  residing  third-country  nationals  from  other  Member  States,  as 
well as from faster and simpler hiring procedures for businesses to hire a 
third-country  national,  which  means  a  lower  administrative  burden.  In 
addition, the availability of a larger pool of qualified and already legally 
residing  third-country  nationals  from  other  Member  States  could 
contribute to the filling-in of shortages of workers in certain sectors. 

Third countries 

Since the TCNs impacted by this measure will already be residing in the 
territory of the EU, this measure is not likely to result in a net increase in 
third-country nationals applying for the EU LTR permit, so it is unlikely 
to  result  in  brain  drain  from  third  countries.  Since  the  measure  will 
facilitate the access of TCNs to the labour market in the second Member 
State  (and  possibly  access  better  professional  positions),  it  is  likely  to 

217 OECD (2013) Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Germany 2013, Recruiting Immigrant Workers, OECD 

Publishing, Paris. 

218 Chen, E. and R. Ward (2013), Employers’ Role and Influence in Migration: A literature review, Ministry of 
Business, Innovation and Employment, http://thehub.superu.govt.nz/project/employers%E2%80%99-role-
and-influence-migration-literature-review. 

219 Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021. 

126 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

result  in  an  initial  increase  in  the  remittances  sent  to  their  countries  of 
origin  by  mobile  TCNs,  which  will  benefit  the  economic  stability  of 
families  of  TCNs  residing  in  third  countries  and  in  turn  benefit  the 
economies of third countries. However, this measure alone as such may 
not  be  a  key  driver  for  remittances  and  hence,  the  extent  to  which  this 
could be the case is very difficult to estimate due to a multitude of factors 
at play. There are other positive factors at the interplay of migration and 
development, such as possibilities for circular migration promoting skills 
transfers. 

Economic impacts  Assuming  that  the  policy  measure  would  lead  to  increased  intra-EU 
mobility of LTR permit holders for the purpose of work, it is expected to 
lead to an increase in the wages of mobile TCNs (since it is assumed that 
they would move to the second Member State seeking better employment 
opportunities), which would in turn lead to higher tax revenue, increased 
productivity  and  consumption,  and  enhanced  economic  growth  in  the 
second Member State.  

This measure is likely to also have a limited negative impact on Member 
States  resulting  from  remittances  sent  by  mobile  TCNs  holding  an  EU 
LTR  status,  such  as  North  African  countries.  For  example,  85%  of 
remittances to Algeria,  Morocco  and Tunisia originate from the EU-27, 
with  the  largest  remittance  flows  being  those  sent  from  France  ($4.7 
billion), Italy ($2.0 billion), Spain ($1.9 billion), Belgium ($589 million) 
and Germany ($531 million).220 

Other economic impacts, for instance increased attractiveness of the EU 
permit  and  economic  growth  in  the  second  Member  State,  are  indirect 
and more challenging to quantify as a specific result of this measure. 

Due  to  the  variety  of  factors  at  play  which  could  have  an  impact  on 
economic  effects  and  the  type  of  assumptions  required,  the  potential 
economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a  specific 
individual measure, but have been calculated at the aggregate level of the 
policy options instead. 

Environmental 
impacts 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

220 Kalantaryan, S. and McMahon, S., (2021) Remittances in North Africa: sources, scale and significance, 

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-29685-0, 
doi:10.2760/085524, JRC123516, pp. 20-21. 

127 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

Simplification 

Assessment  

This measure positively affects the right to professional life of long-term 
third-country  nationals  as  it  would  enable  swifter  mobility  to  another 
Member State in the case of the 16 Member States where labour market 
tests  are  currently  applied  to  mobile  long-tern  residents  or  to  persons 
requesting a permit for an economic activity. 

In  those  16  Member  States  that  will  have  to  adapt  their  procedures 
through the removal of the requirement for labour market tests, national 
authorities will face costs relating to the legal changes required following 
the revision of the Directive, as well as monitoring, compliance and costs 
relating to reporting on progress made to the EU.  

The European Commission will also face costs relating to implementing 
and communicating the changes to the Directive. 

Overall,  the  costs  resulting  from  this  measure  alone  for  national 
authorities are expected to be low, estimated at 40,333 euro per average 
yearly cost. The costs for the Commission are estimated at 2,455 euro. 

This  policy  measure  will  reduce  administrative  costs  in  national 
administrations linked to the implementation of labour market tests in the 
16  Member  States  that  still  apply  them  to  mobile  long-term  residents. 
This cost saving is estimated at 4,404 euro (per average yearly cost). 

In  addition,  this  measure  concretely  reduces  costs  for  TCNs,  who  can 
become  immediately  active  in  the  second  Member  State,  and  thus 
reducing  the  costs  induced  by  administrative  procedures  linked  to  the 
labour  market  tests,  as  well  as  the  costs  linked  to  missed  employment 
opportunities.  Employers  will  also  benefit  from  reduced  costs  in  the 
hiring process (e.g. situations of vacancies left unfilled, or waiting for the 
result  of  a  labour  market  test).  Whilst  for  TCNs,  these  cost  savings  are 
difficult to estimate, due to the many factors at play, for employers, the 
change is expected to generate a cost saving of 112,727 euro (per average 
yearly cost). 

Overall assessment 

Overall, this policy measure increases the attractiveness and the efficiency of the system to 
acquire the EU LTR status by simplifying procedures for acquisition of the permit and hiring 
procedures,  further  promoting  the  possibility  for  third-country  nationals  to  pursue 
employment opportunities in  another Member State.  This  measure will lead to  cost  savings 
for  national  administrations,  employers  and  TCNs  resulting  from  simplification,  with  some 
minor administrative and compliance costs for national authorities. 

128 

 
 
 
 
Policy Measure 2.8: Allowing the long-term residents to start working or studying in a 

second Member State while their application is being assessed 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
the  EU 
acquire 
LTR status 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

By facilitating intra-EU mobility (see below), this measure contributes to 
increasing the attractiveness of the EU LTR status and  the efficiency of 
the system to acquire the EU LTR status. Thus, it brings an added value 
to the EU LTR status compared to national LTR permits. 

Furthermore,  this  measure  is  expected  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  the 
acquisition of the EU LTR status since it would facilitate the process for 
EU LTR permit holders to potentially obtain another LTR permit in the 
second  Member  State  to  which  they  move,  should  they  wish  to,  by 
allowing them to start working or studying in the second Member State 
while  their  application  for  a  residence  permit  is  still  being  processed, 
rather than having to wait in the first Member State for this process to be 
finalised. 

At present, holders of an EU LTR status cannot move to another Member 
State for (long-term) studies or employment purposes without obtaining 
an authorisation to reside in the second Member State beforehand. While 
some Member States allow EU LTR holders to apply for residence while 
they are still residing in the first Member State, they cannot move during 
the  assessment  of  their  application  (with  the  exception  of  Slovenia221). 
The LTRD sets a limit for the processing of applications to four months, 
a period which, as highlighted by stakeholders consulted for the purposes 
of this impact assessment, may often hinder EU LTR holders from fully 
benefitting  from  studies  or  work  opportunities  in  other  Member  States, 
leading to missed study or employment opportunities.222  

This measure will significantly contribute to facilitate intra-EU mobility 
of legally  residing and integrated third-country nationals  by simplifying 
the procedures to reside in another Member State. This could also lead to 
an increase of the currently low ratio of EU LTRs mobility (representing 
approximatively 2% of the EU LTR holders).223 The extent of the impact 
of  this  measure  will  differ  from  one  Member  State  to  another  as 
applications  from  EU  LTR  to  move  to  a  second  Member  State  vary 
considerably  across  Member  States.224  Where  data  are  available  for  the 

221 EMN 2020 Inform on long-term residence: EU LTR holders of another MS can already enter Slovenia before 
a final decision is taken on their application, in which case they will be issued a certificate of application that 
shall serve as a temporary residence permit until the final decision is taken. 

222 Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021. 
223 Consultation with experts from the informal Expert Group on Economic Migration.  
224  EMN (2021) AHQ for Impact assessment on revision of the Long-term Residents and Single Permit 

Directives (Question 1) 

129 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

year  2020,  they  show  that  the  number  of  applications  from  EU  LTR 
residing in another Member State amount to 5 in Cyprus, 26 in Slovenia, 
1602 in Sweden and 29 9897 in Germany. 

The  facilitation  foreseen  in  this  measure  will  enable  EU  LTR  holders 
which have found study or work possibilities in another Member State to 
concretely  act  on  such  opportunities,  avoiding  missed  work  or 
opportunities which could otherwise arise for TCNs from the delays for 
processing  applications  for  a  residence  permit  in  the  second  Member 
State.  This  measure  thus  supports  the  development  of  a  single  internal 
market,  whereby  EU  permits  should  facilitate  the  EU’s  labour  market 
growth as a whole.  

The assessment of this measure should be read in conjunction with other 
measures  aiming  to  facilitate  intra-EU  mobility  (e.g.  not  allowing  the 
second Member State to apply a labour market test, mutual recognition of 
professional qualifications). 

By allowing TCNs and their family members to start working or studying 
in the second Member State while their application is being assessed, this 
measure  enhances  the  right  of  EU  LTR  permit  holders  and  their  family 
members to intra-EU mobility provided under the permit. 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

This  measure  increases  the  possibilities  for  EU  LTR  status  holders  to 
exercise  their  right  to  intra-EU  mobility  in  a  clearer  and  seamless 
manner.  This  measure  significantly  increases  EU  LTR  status  holders’ 
chances  to  be  recruited  or  accepted  for  studies  as  they  can  move 
immediately  to  the  second  Member  State  rather  than  having  to  wait 
potentially  for  months  (and  thus  missing  on  the  opportunity).  As 
highlighted in stakeholder consultations,225 a long-term resident can thus 
nearly  immediately  start  employment  (after  recruitment)  or  studies  in  a 
second  Member  State,  without  losing  time  and  resources  on  obtaining 
first  a  residence  permit.  Nevertheless,  legal  certainty  of  TCN  could  be 
negatively  affected  if  the  assessment  of  their  application  for  a  work  or 
student  permit  by  the  authorities  in  the  second  Member  State  is  not 
framed in a clear timeline. 

In addition, this measure still implies for the TCN concerned the need to 

225 Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021. 

130 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

comply  with  the  conditions  to  acquire  another  residence  permit  in  the 
second  Member  State.  On  the  other  hand,  in  case  of  a  refusal  for  the 
application  in  the  second  Member  State,  this  measure  may  have  a 
detrimental  impact  on  the  TCN,  as  they  would  have  given  up 
opportunities  in  the  first  Member  State  and  would  risk  losing  the 
employment  or  study  opportunity  in  the  second  Member  State,  unless 
they  secured  an  alternative  status  (e.g.  the  national  equivalent).  The 
impact  of  this  measure  is  also  dependant  on  the  implementation  of  the 
policy measure related to not allowing the second Member State to apply 
a labour market test. 

National authorities 

For  competent  authorities  of  all  Member  States,  this  measure  entails 
adapting  their  procedures  relating  to  the  acquisition  and  issuance  of  a 
residence  permit  to  holders  of  an  EU  LTR  status  (e.g.  assessing 
procedure for a month).  This may include, for example, providing them 
directly with a temporary authorisation to work or study, or temporarily 
recognising  the  authorisation  to  work  of  the  first  Member  State.  The 
social  impact  will  be  higher  for  national  authorities  in  Member  States 
receiving  the  highest  number  of  applications  from  foreign  EU  LTR 
(namely Germany and Sweden).  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

Legal practitioners are likely to be confronted with additional queries for 
clarification on the procedures for acquisition for the permit applicable in 
their own Member States or need to clarify applicable legislation in other 
Member  States,  at  least  in  the  first  months  /  year  of  their  introduction. 
The workload and need for legal counselling (or recourse to appeals) can 
thus be increased by the implementation of this measure. 

Employers/Businesses 

Employers in the second Member State will benefit from a larger pool of 
qualified and already legally residing third-country nationals from other 
Member  States.  More  specifically,  this  measure  simplifies  and  shortens 
the  process  for  businesses  to  hire  a  third-country  national  and  could 
result  in  a  decrease  in  the  labour  shortages  experienced  by  Member 
States in some sectors, such as the shortages reported in 2020 by at least 
nine  Member  States  when  it  comes  to  nursing  professionals,  plumbers 
and  pipe  fitters,  cooks,  applications  programmers,  generalist  medical 
practitioners,  and  software  developers.226  This  decrease  in  labour 
shortages  could  in  turn  potentially  result,  as  an  indirect  effect,  in  an 
increase in investments made by employers or their businesses, thanks to 

226 European Commission (2020) Analysis of shortage and surplus occupations, p. 5. 

131 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

greater  certainty  provided  by  the  increased  availability  of  qualified  and 
already legally residing third-country nationals. 

In  case  the  permit  in  the  second  MS  is  refused,  this  would  have  a 
detrimental  impact  on  the  employer,  who  would  lose  an  employee  and 
would  have  to  restart  the  hiring  process  to  fill  the  vacancy,  resulting  in 
additional administrative costs. 

Third countries 

Generally  speaking,  there  are  positive  factors  at  the  interplay  of 
migration  and  development,  such  as  possibilities  for  circular  migration 
promoting skills transfers and other forms of investments made by TCN 
within  diaspora  communities,  such  as  equity-based  mechanisms,  loan-
based  mechanisms,  bonds,  and  knowledge-based  mechanisms.  More 
specifically,  as  the  TCN  impacted  by  this  measure  will  already  be 
residing in the territory of the EU, this measure is not likely to result in a 
net increase in third-country nationals applying for the EU LTR permit, 
so  it  is  unlikely  to  result  in  brain  drain  from  third  countries.  Since  the 
measure will enable a TCN to begin working in the second Member State 
sooner, it is likely to result in an initial increase in the remittances sent to 
countries  of  origin  by  mobile  TCNs,  which  will  benefit  the  economic 
stability  of  families  of  TCNs  residing  in  third  countries  and  in  turn 
benefit the economies of third countries. However, this measure alone as 
such  may  not  be  a  key  driver  for  remittances  and  hence,  the  extent  to 
which  this  could  be  the  case  is  very  difficult  to  estimate  due  to  a 
multitude of factors at play. 

Economic impacts  Assuming  that  the  policy  measure  would  lead  to  increased  intra-EU 
mobility  of  LTR  residents  for  the  purpose  of  work,  it  is  expected  to 
contribute to an average increase in the wages of mobile TCNs (since it 
is  assumed  that  they  would  move  to  the  second  Member  State  seeking 
better employment opportunities), which would in turn lead to higher tax 
revenue, 
increased  productivity  and  consumption,  and  enhanced 
economic growth in the second Member State. 

This measure is likely to also have a limited negative impact on Member 
States  resulting  from  remittances  sent  by  mobile  TCNs  holding  an  EU 
LTR  status,  such  as  North  African  countries.  For  example,  85%  of 
remittances to Algeria,  Morocco  and Tunisia originate from the EU-27, 
with  the  largest  remittance  flows  being  those  sent  from  France  ($4.7 

132 

 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

billion), Italy ($2.0 billion), Spain ($1.9 billion), Belgium ($589 million) 
and Germany ($531 million).227 

This  measure  is  also  likely  to  have  a  limited  impact  on  other  types  of 
investments  made  by  TCNs  within  their  diaspora  communities,  as 
mentioned  above.  A  recent  JRC  report  identified  examples  of  diaspora 
finance  being  mobilised  for  development  purposes  in  over  54  sending 
countries  and  93  receiving  countries  across  the  world,  with  the  main 
region at the receiving end being Africa (97 initiatives) and with the EU 
being  the  second  region  with  the  most  diaspora  finance  sending 
mechanisms (after the Americas), with 37 initiatives identified. However, 
it  will  not  be  possible  to  quantify  the  impact  of  this  measure  on  other 
types of diaspora investments given their variation and fluidity.228 

The  abovementioned  impacts,  as  well  as  other  economic  impacts,  for 
instance  from  increased  intra-EU  mobility  for  study  purposes  or  the 
potential  increase  in  investments  made  by  employers  or  businesses 
(mentioned  under  social  impacts),  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

This  measure  positively  impacts  the  right  to  education  and  professional 
life of long-term third-country nationals as it enables swifter mobility to 
another Member State. 

Based on available evidence, this measure will impact all Member States. 
It  brings  additional  costs  to  national  authorities  that  will  have  to  adapt 
their  procedures  –  procedures  for  acquisition  of  permits,  as  well  as 
delivering  work  permits, 
timeliness  and  notification  processes. 
Competent authorities will have to invest in additional staff and training, 
as  well  as  information  material  for  both  staff  and  potential  interested 
applicants. 

In  addition,  this  measure  is  likely  to  result  in  an  initial  increased 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

227 Kalantaryan, S. and McMahon, S., (2021) Remittances in North Africa: sources, scale and significance, 

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-29685-0, 
doi:10.2760/085524, JRC123516, pp. 20-21. 

228 Gelb, Stephen; Kalantaryan, Sona; McMahon, Simon and Perez-Fernandez, Marta, Diaspora finance for 

development: from remittances to investment, EUR 30742 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-38762-6, doi:10.2760/034446, JRC125341, p. 24. 

133 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

workload  for  legal  practitioners,  as  they  are  likely  to  receive  additional 
queries  for  clarification  on  the  procedures  applicable  in  their  own 
Member  States  or  in  relation  to  applicable  legislation  in  other  Member 
States. However, this cost is expected to be negligible and has therefore 
not been quantified. 

The European Commission will also face costs relating to implementing 
and communicating the changes to the Directive, estimated at 2,455 euro. 

Overall,  the  costs  resulting  from  this  measure  alone  for  Member  States 
national authorities are estimated at 155,442 euro. The methodology used 
for  the  calculation  of  costs,  the  assumptions  made  and  the  detailed 
calculations are presented in annexes 4 and 6. 

This  measure  concretely  reduces  costs  for  TCNs,  who  can  become 
immediately  active  in  the  second  Member  State,  and  thus  reducing  the 
costs induced by lengthy administrative procedures, notwithstanding the 
costs  linked  to  missed  employment  or  study  opportunities.  Employers 
will  also  benefit  from  more  efficient  procedures  for  hiring  TCNs  and 
reduced  costs  in  the  hiring  process  (e.g.  situations  of  vacancies  left 
unfilled or waiting for an administrative decision). Due to the variety of 
factors at play, it will not be possible to quantify these cost savings. 

Simplification 

Overall assessment 

Overall, this policy measure increases the attractiveness and the efficiency of the system to 
acquire  the  EU  LTR  status  by  simplifying  the  procedures  for  hiring  TCNs  in  the  second 
Member  State.  It  also  promotes  and  significantly  enhances  the  possibility  for  third-country 
nationals  to  pursue  study  and  employment  opportunities  in  another  Member  State.  On  the 
other hand, in case of a refusal for the application in the second Member State, this measure 
may  have  a  detrimental  impact  on  the  TCN  and  on  the  employer.  While  this  measure  can 
potentially increase the number of EU LTR using their intra-EU mobility rights, the degree of 
facilitation will depend on its combination with all other measures under the same objective 
(measure  2.9  to  2.13).  This  measure  will  lead  to  cost  savings  for  TCNs,  with  moderate 
administrative and compliance costs for national authorities. 

Policy  Measure  2.9:  Allowing  long-term  residents  to  submit  the  application  while  still 

residing in the first Member State 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More  Allowing TCNs to submit the application to reside and work in a second 

134 

 
 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Member  State  while  still  residing  in  the  first  Member  State  would 
increase the attractiveness of the EU LTR status and contribute to a more 
efficient  system  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  status.  Currently,  only  12 
Member States allow long-term residents to submit the application to the 
authorities  of  a  second  Member  State  while  still  residing  in  the  first 
Member State. This measure will consequently impact the remaining 15 
Member States requiring TCNs to apply for national residence permits in 
their territory. In view of the travel restrictions implemented by Member 
the  COVID-19  pandemic,  several  Member  States 
States  during 
introduced temporary measures making it possible for TCNs to apply for 
national  residence  or  work  permits  from  outside  of  their  territory  (via 
online applications, through post, or via consular services). However, as 
of  December  2020,  seven  Member  States  (AT,  BG,  CY,  DE,  EE,  LU, 
NL)  still  required  the  application  for  a  national  residence  permit  to  be 
made by the TCN on their territory.229 

Currently, 12 Member States already apply the substance of this measure, 
as  they  allow  long-term  residents  to  submit  the  application  for  a 
residence  permit  to  the  competent  authorities  (i.e.  embassies  or 
consulates)  of  the  second  Member  State  while  still  residing  in  the 
territory  of  the  Member  State  where  they  hold  the  LTR  status.230  This 
means that this measure would facilitate intra-EU mobility to over half of 
Member States (15). 

The LTRD sets a limit for the processing of applications to four months, 
a period which, as highlighted by stakeholders consulted for the purposes 
of this impact assessment, may often hinder EU LTR holders from fully 
benefitting  from  studies  or  work  opportunities  in  other  Member  States, 
leading to missed study or employment opportunities.231  

While this measure would facilitate intra-mobility by allowing TCNs to 
lodge their application while still residing in the first Member State, other 
obstacles to this objective might remain, such as the fact that, in general, 
LTR of another Member State have to comply with the same provisions 
and regulations as a TCN who applies from outside the EU for filling a 
vacancy  or  for  exercising  an  activity  in  an  employed  or  self-employed 
capacity, except for the visa requirement. Furthermore, Estonia and Italy 
apply  a  quota  for  the  admission  of  LTR  holders  from  another  MS  (Art 
14(4) of LTRD). 

Objective 3 

This measure would facilitate the access of EU LTR permit holders and 

229 EMN (2020) Ad Hoc Query 2020.75 Residence permit and labour market needs. 
230 BE, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, LV, LU, NL, SE, SI, SK, in EMN (2020) Inform on Long-Term Residents, p. 12. 
231 Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021. 

135 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

their family members to intra-EU mobility, since it would allow them to 
begin the application process for a residence permit while still residing in 
the first Member State. 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

This measure is expected to have the following social impacts on: 

Third-country nationals 

This  measure  increases  the  possibilities  for  EU  LTR  status  holders  to 
exercise  their  right  to  facilitated  intra-EU  mobility  as  it  allows  them  to 
begin  the  application  process  to  work  and/or  reside  in  another  Member 
State  while  still  residing  in  the  first  one.  It  provides  EU  LTR  status 
holders more economic stability and legal certainty in the transition from 
one Member State to the other, as it allows them to continue working in 
the  first  Member  State  while  waiting  for  the  application  to  work  in  the 
second Member State. This measure also increases the chances of mobile 
LTR  status  holders  to  be  recruited,  as  they  can  begin  their  application 
process for a new job more in advance than would otherwise have been 
possible  if  they  had  to  apply  directly  in  the  territory  of  the  second 
Member State and wait there for the application to be processed. 

The  impact  of  this  measure  is  dependent  on  the  implementation  of  the 
policy  measures  relating  to  granting  mobile  TCNs  equal  treatment 
concerning  the  recognition  of  their  professional  qualifications  in  the 
second  Member  State  and  improving  the  rules  on  access  to  the  labour 
market for the ‘mobile’ long-term resident and their family members. 

National authorities 

This measure would have an impact on the 15 Member States which do 
not  already  implement  it.  In  these  countries,  the  measure  will  result  in 
initial  administrative  costs,  as  Member  States  will  have  to  adapt  their 
procedures  to  process  remote  applications  and  will  need  to  update  the 
information  provided  to  potential  applicants  (e.g.  on  their  websites) 
explaining  the  new  procedures  in  place.  The  procedural  steps  and 
requirements  to  apply  from  the  first  Member  State  will  need  to  be 
clarified and specified. 

Assuming that the intra-EU mobility of TCNs already residing in the EU 
is  similar  or  lower  than  the  intra-EU  mobility  of  EU  citizens, the  intra-
EU  mobility  of  TCNs  for  employment  purposes  is  estimated  to  be 

136 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

relatively  low,  if  based  on  the  intra-EU  mobility  of  EU  citizens  for 
employment purposes concerns only 3% to 4% of EU citizens.232 In view 
of the estimated low intra-EU mobility of TCNs  already  residing in  the 
EU, it is unlikely that this measure will significantly increase the number 
of  applications  made  and  it  is  therefore  unlikely  to  result  in  a 
substantially  increased  workload  for  national  authorities  besides  the 
initial costs mentioned above. 

Legal practitioners / judiciary 

Legal  practitioners  are  likely  to  be  confronted  with  initial  queries  for 
clarification  on  the  new  procedures  for  acquisition  of  the  permit  and 
recruitment applicable in their own Member State, or the need to clarify 
applicable legislation in other Member States, at least in the first months 
/ year of their introduction. The workload and need for legal counselling 
(or recourse to  appeals)  is  expected to decrease in  the medium  to  long-
term  following  the  application  of  this  measure  as  it  will  simplify  the 
procedure for hiring TCNs in 15 Member States. 

Employers/Businesses 

As  mentioned  previously  under  the  assessment  of  the  measure  not 
allowing the second Member State to apply a labour market test, surveys 
of employers in some EU countries show that employers are reluctant to 
hire  workers  from  outside  of  the  EU.  Such  reluctance  could  be  partly 
linked to the administrative requirements and lengthy procedures needed 
to hire TCNs, such as the waiting time for the applications of TCNs for 
residence or work permits to be processed. This measure would speed up 
the  processing  time  of  applications  by  a  TCN  already  living  in  the  EU, 
facilitating the hiring process and providing an incentive for employers to 
hire TCNs. As mentioned previously, employers would also benefit from 
a  larger  pool  of  qualified  third-country  nationals  from  other  Member 
States. 

Third countries 

No specific impact on third countries identified. 

Economic impacts  The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

Based on available evidence, this measure will impact 15 Member States. 

Assuming  that  the  policy  measure  would  lead  to  increased  intra-EU 

232https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8369#:~:text=The%202020%20Annual%

20report%20on,on%20mobility%20and%20demographic%20change.  

137 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

Simplification 

mobility  of  LTR  residents  for  the  purpose  of  work,  it  is  expected  to 
contribute  to  an  increase  in  the  wages  of  mobile  TCNs  (since  it  is 
assumed  that  they  would  move  to  the  second  Member  State  seeking 
better employment opportunities), which would in turn lead to higher tax 
increased  productivity  and  consumption,  and  enhanced 
revenue, 
economic growth in the second Member State. 

No specific environmental impacts identified. 

This  measure  positively  impacts  the  right  to  professional  life  of  long-
term third-country nationals as it allows TCNs to begin their applications 
for a residence permit earlier. It also facilitates their access to freedom of 
movement (Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). 

Based on available evidence, this measure will impact 15 Member States, 
bringing, as mentioned above, additional costs to national authorities that 
will have to adapt their procedures (e.g. the delivery of work permits, the 
timelines and notification processes). Competent authorities will have to 
invest in additional staff and training, as well as information material for 
both  staff  and  potential  interested  applicants.  This  measure  reduces  the 
costs  that  would  be  incurred  by  TCNs  who  would  need  to  travel  to  the 
second  Member  State  to  lodge  their  application  there.  It  could  also 
reduce the costs linked to missed employment opportunities, as it would 
allow TCNs to apply for a residence permit in advance and to plan ahead 
(see cost savings for TCNs below). 

The European Commission will also face costs relating to implementing 
and communicating the changes to the Directive estimated at 2,455 euro. 

National authorities will face costs estimated at 65,492 euro. 

This  measure  will  create  initial  administrative  costs  for  national 
authorities, as mentioned above. In the long-term it might contribute to a 
more efficient processing of applications from TCNs already residing in 
a  first  EU  Member  States,  as  it  might  lead  to  the  digitalisation  of 
administrative processes. EU LTRs will also benefit from simplification 
as  this  measure  will  enable  them  to  conduct  all  the  administrative 
requirements related to their residence in a second Member State around 
their actual place of residence. This will allow them an easier transition 
from the first Member State to the second. Due to the variety of factors at 
play, it will not be possible to quantify these cost savings. 

Overall assessment 

138 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Overall, this policy measure increases the attractiveness and the efficiency of the system to 
acquire  the  EU  LTR  status  by  making  it  possible  for  TCNs  to  lodge  their  work  and/or 
residence permit applications earlier, allowing for a smoother transition between the first and 
second Member State and providing them with more legal certainty and economic stability. 
This  measure  will  lead  to  cost  savings  for  TCNs,  with  moderate  administrative  and 
compliance costs for national authorities. 

Policy Measure 2.10: Shortening the deadline for processing the application (from four 

months to 90 days) 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
the  EU 
acquire 
LTR status 

Article  19(1)  of  the  EU  LTRD  establishes  that  “the  competent  national 
authorities  shall  process  applications  within  four  months  from  the  date 
that  these  have  been  lodged”,  except  for  in  exceptional  circumstances. 
However, as shown in the Fitness Check on legal migration the average 
number  of  days  set  for  processing  applications  of  EU  legal  migration 
directives is 86 days.233 

Nevertheless, research indicates that despite the deadlines set across the 
EU LTRD and other legal migration Directives, the real processing times 
can be far longer. The Fitness Check on legal migration found that there 
was  occasionally  discrepancy  between  the  deadline  set  and  the  “real 
time”  to  process  applications.  Nevertheless,  the  study  found  that  most 
Member  States  stayed  mostly  within  the  deadlines,  not  excessively 
exceeding  them,  except  for  a  few  outliers,  including  Italy,  the 
Netherlands,  Sweden  and  Greece.  More  specifically  for  the  EU  LTRD, 
initial findings of the ongoing FRA study on the Fundamental Rights of 
LTR status holders point to the fact that processing times are even longer 
than  the  time  frame  stipulated  in  the  EU  LTRD,  which  is  already 
lengthier than other legal migration Directives. The study also found that 
the  waiting  periods  to  issue  an  EU  LTR  permit  varied  across  Member 
States.234  For  example,  the  FRA  study  found  that  waiting  times  in 
Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain last from 300 days to a year.  

This  measure  would  be  able  to  provide  necessary  changes  to  the  LTR 

233 Fitness Check on Legal Migration, Annex 2A p.37 
234 Initial findings shared by FRA from the ongoing study on the Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence 

status holders, p. 10 

139 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

procedure  that  will  provide  more  coherence  with  both  other  EU  legal 
instruments and national practice. 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

The  introduction  of  this  measure  will  have  a  positive  influence  on  this 
policy  objective,  as  procedures  for  intra-EU  mobility  will  have  to  be 
addressed quicker. 

Objective 3 

No effect on this policy objective. 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals  

The  most  significant  positive  social  impact  of  this  measure  will  be  for 
TCNs. As mentioned under objective 1, the waiting times across Member 
States are varied and can be extremely lengthy. This extensive period of 
legal  uncertainty  can  be  taxing  for  TCNs  and  ensuring  a  shorter 
processing  time  in  line  with  other  EU  legal  migration  directives  will 
ameliorate their experience of the EU LTR scheme, as well as accelerate 
their access to more rights and to the labour market. 

National authorities  

The  most  negatively  impacted  stakeholder  group  will  be  national 
authorities, as they will have to do the same amount of work in a shorter 
timeframe. It will also consist of legislative changes, significant changes 
to internal procedures (e.g. training and guidelines). Whilst this measure 
will not bring any substantial changes to the process and documentation 
to  be  reviewed,  it  will  give  competent  national  authorities  less  time  to 
process the same number of applications. 

Legal practitioners / judiciary 

No specific impact on legal practitioners/judiciary identified. 

Employers/Businesses 

As  mentioned  in  objective  1,  quicker  application  processes  may  mean 
that  more  TCNs  are  attracted  to  becoming  EU  LTR  holders.  Also,  if 
TCNs  eligible  for  EU  LTR  status  obtain  their  status  more  quickly,  this 
gives them faster access to the labour market. Therefore, employers and 
businesses will have access to a larger pool of qualified EU LTR holders. 

140 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Third countries (including negative effects such as brain drain) 

No specific impact on third countries identified. 

Economic impacts  The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

Nevertheless, this measure is expected to bring some positive economic 
impacts. 

A  qualitative  assessment  points  to  the  fact  that  a  minimal  positive 
economic effect could be anticipated, as TCNs will have quicker access 
to intra-EU mobility. 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

No specific impact on fundamental rights identified. 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
administrative  and  compliance  costs.  These  costs  are  estimated  as 
follows (over a period of ten years): 

European Commission 

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

change: 2,455 euro 

National authorities 

  Administrative  and  compliance  costs  to  revise  the  application 
assessment  procedures,  inform  and  advice  those  authorities  and 
TCNs  concerned,  as  well  as  to  provide  guidance  and  training  to 
relevant authorities: 65,266 euro 

Simplification 

This measure promises simplification for TCNs, for whom the process of 
applying for intra-EU mobility will be far shorter. 

For national authorities too after an initial phase of adjusting to the new 
timeframe,  this  may  prove  to  be  a  more  streamlined  process,  avoiding 
potentially  unnecessary  lengthy  processes.  In  addition,  this  measure 
would  still  ensure  that  processes  can  go  beyond  the  90  days  in  case  of 
exceptional  circumstances  (such  as  issues  with  the  documentation 
provided)  –  aiding  national  authorities  to  navigate  more  complex 

141 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

applications. 

However,  due  to  the  variety  of  factors  at  play  it  will  not  be  possible  to 
quantify these cost savings. 

Overall assessment 

Overall,  this  measure  will  bring  important  coherence  with  other  legal  migration  directives 
and  significantly  help  to  reduce  the  extent  of  Member  States’  discretion  with  regards  to 
processing  times  of  intra-EU  mobility  applications.  The  stakeholder  group  to  benefit  from 
this policy measure the most are third country nationals who will face shorter periods of legal 
uncertainty  when  exercising  intra-EU  mobility,  and  employers  which  will  more  swiftly  be 
able  to  hire  them.  Whilst  this  measure  foresees  some  substantial  administrative  and 
compliance  costs  for  competent  national  authorities, 
it  also  promises  significant 
simplification due to a more streamlined process to administer these applications. 

Policy Measure 2.11: Granting ‘mobile’ long-term residents equal treatment with Union 
citizens  as  regards  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  in  the  second 
Member State, in accordance with applicable EU and national law 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Currently, under both the national and EU LTR statuses, TCNs wishing 
to move to a second Member State for work purposes must undergo the 
processes commonly required in the Member States for the recognition of 
their  professional  qualifications.  This  measure  would  significantly 
contribute  to  making  the  EU  LTR  status  more  attractive,  as  it  would 
allow  mobile  TCNs  to  benefit  from  a  facilitated  procedure  for  the 
recognition  of  their  professional  qualifications.  Moreover,  this  measure 
would facilitate the conditions to acquire the status for EU LTR holders 
should  they  wish  to  apply  for  an  LTR  permit  in  the  second  Member 
State. 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-

Mobile TCNs do not benefit directly from the EU regime of recognition 
of  professional  qualifications.235  Members  of  the  European  Network  of 
Public  Employment  Services  consulted  for  the  purposes  of  this  impact 

235 Directive 2005/36/EC as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU (as well as Articles 45 and 49 TFEU).  

142 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

EU mobility  

Assessment  

assessment  highlighted  this  as  one  of  the  key  barriers  preventing  third-
country nationals from accessing the EU labour market.236 In addition, a 
large  majority  of  respondents  to  the  Legal  Migration  Fitness  Check 
Public  Consultation  considered  that  it  was  difficult  to  ensure  the 
assessment  or  recognition  of  foreign  qualifications  in  the  EU  (84%  or 
n=838)  and  58%  of  respondents  agreed  that  there  should  be  more  EU-
level  action  to  facilitate  the  assessment  and  recognition  of  these 
qualifications.237  Indeed,  some  Civil  Society  representatives238  and 
academics239  have  called  for  the  application  of  EU  rules  on  the 
recognition of professional qualifications. 

Granting  mobile  TCNs  equal  treatment  for  the  recognition  of  their 
professional  qualifications  would  significantly  improve  their  chances  of 
finding  a  job  in  line  with  their  skillset  and  experience,  facilitating  their 
access  to  the labour market  and their integration in  the second Member 
State. This  measure would  therefore significantly facilitate the intra-EU 
mobility of EU LTR permit holders. 

the 

impact  of 

Nonetheless, 
the 
implementation  of  the  other  policy  measures  relating  to  intra-EU 
mobility, such as improving the rules on access to the labour market for 
‘mobile’ long-term resident and their family members. 

is  dependent  on 

this  measure 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Currently, under both the national and EU LTR statuses, TCNs wishing 
to move to a second Member State for work purposes must undergo the 
processes commonly required in the Member States for the recognition of 
their  professional  qualifications.  Recognition  usually  involves  several 
agencies (e.g. academic information centres) and, in the case of regulated 
professions, it involves professional chambers and a verification process 
to check that the TCN’s qualifications match national requirements (e.g. 
equivalence  of  professional  qualifications  in  Portugal  and  Germany). 
This is usually a lengthy and burdensome process.240 

This measure would considerably improve the rights of EU LTR permit 
holders and their family members, by providing them with similar rights 

236 Consultation of the European Network of the Public Employment Services, 10 March 2021 (see Annex for 

further details). 

237 European Commission (2019) 1055 final, Legal Migration Fitness Check, Summary of Replies to the public 

consultation on legal migration by non-EU citizens, pp. 46-47. 

238 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021(see Annex for 

further details). 

239 Lange T. de, Groenendijk, K. (2021) The EU’s legal migration acquis: Patching up the patchwork, Issue 

Paper, European Migration and Diversity Programme, European Policy Center, pp. 13-14. 
240 European Commission (2019) 1055 final, Legal Migration Fitness Check, Annex 2, p. 25. 

143 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

compared  to  Union  citizens  concerning  the  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications  when  moving  to  a  second  Member  State,  including  the 
recognition of qualifications obtained by the TCN during their residence 
in  the  first  Member  State.  In  this  sense,  this  measure  would  make  a 
significant contribution to equal treatment for recognition of professional 
qualifications  and  access  to  the  labour  market  in  the  second  Member 
State. 

Moreover,  this  measure  could  have  a  minor  negative  effect  on  circular 
migration,  as  TCNs  who  have  secured  stable  employment  in  line  with 
their qualifications and skills are less likely to want to return for work to 
their  country  of  origin.  This  measure  could  therefore  also  indirectly 
contribute  to  brain  drain  in  some  countries  of  origin.  However,  it  is 
unlikely that this  measure on  its  own would act as a key pull-factor  for 
migration  to  the  EU,  given  that  other  factors  also  act  as  push  or  pull 
factors  for  possible  migration  to  the  EU  (e.g.  conflict  and  insecurity  in 
third countries, high youth unemployment, climate change241). 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

This measure is expected to have the following social impacts on:   

Third-country nationals 

This measure would facilitate the access of TCNs to the labour market in 
the  second  Member  State,  increasing  their  chances  to  find  jobs  suitable 
for  their  professional  qualifications  and  skills,  and  also  contributing  to 
the integration of mobile TCNs and their families in the second Member 
State.  It  will  reduce  the  costs  faced  by  mobile  TCNs  and  their  families 
during  the  validation  of  their  professional  qualifications.  The  European 
Network  of  Social  Integration  Enterprises  has  highlighted  that  the 
validation of skills and recognition of qualifications is crucial in ensuring 
that  the  skills  of  individuals  are  used  to  their  full  potential,  particularly 
for refugees who “may not have necessary documentary evidence of their 
previous  learning  and  qualifications,  may  have  had  their  education 
interrupted or may not have participated in formal education”.242 

National authorities 

This measure would have an impact on all Member States. The measure 
will result in  Member States applying, in  the case of mobile  TCNs, the 
same  EU  rules  and  procedures  already  applied  for  EU  nationals  for  the 
recognition  of  professional  qualifications,  leading  to  the  automatic 

241 Lutz, W., Amram, G. et al (2019) Demographic Scenarios for the EU, p. 10. 
242 ENSIE (2020) What does ENSIE expect from the Action Plan for Integration and Inclusion, p. 1. 

144 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

recognition of professional qualifications in some cases. This would lead 
to  cost  savings  for  all  Member  States,  since  a  lower  number  of 
applications for recognition of professional qualifications would need to 
be processed by the authorities and relevant services. Authorities would 
also need to update the information provided to potential applicants (e.g. 
on their websites) explaining the new procedures in place.  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

This measure would result in a moderate reduction of workload for legal 
practitioners, as TCNs would require less support from intermediaries for 
the validation and recognition of their professional qualifications. 

Employers/Businesses 

This  measure  would  considerably  simplify  the  process  for  hiring  TCNs 
and avoiding skills mismatches by allowing employers access to a larger 
pool of medium and highly skilled legally residing TCNs. 

Third countries 

This  measure  could  have  a  minor  negative  effect  on  third  countries,  as 
TCNs  who  have  secured  stable  employment  in  line  with  their 
qualifications and skills are less likely to want to return to their country 
of  origin.  This  measure  could  therefore  indirectly  contribute  to  brain 
drain  in  some  countries  of  origin.  However,  as  mentioned  above,  it  is 
unlikely that this  measure on its own would act as a key pull-factor  for 
migration to the EU. In addition, it is highly likely to result in an increase 
in  remittances  to  third  countries,  as  more  TCNs  will  have  access  to 
highly-qualified jobs  with  higher salaries and will  be able to  send more 
money to family members or other dependants based in their country of 
origin. 

Economic impacts  The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

However, assuming that this measure is likely to result in an increase in 
TCNs moving to a second Member State, it is expected to contribute to 
an increase in  the wages of mobile TCNs (since it is  assumed that they 
would  move  to  the  second  Member  State  seeking  better  employment 
opportunities), which would in turn lead to higher tax revenue, increased 
productivity  and  consumption,  and  enhanced  economic  growth  in  the 
second  Member  State.  It  will  also  bring  increased  economic  benefits  to 
mobile  TCNs,  as  it  will  reduce  the  costs  linked  to  the  validation  of 
professional  qualifications  and  allow  them  access  to  employment  at  the 
right level. 

145 

 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

As  mentioned  above,  the  measure  is  likely  to  have  a  limited  negative 
effect  on  third  countries  linked  to  brain  drain  but  a  more  considerable 
positive economic effect for these third countries linked to an increase in 
the  remittances  sent  by  the  affected  mobile  TCNs  to  their  families  or 
other dependants based in their country of origin, such as for countries in 
North Africa. For example, 85% of remittances to Algeria, Morocco and 
Tunisia originate from the EU-27, with the largest remittance flows being 
those  sent  from  France  ($4.7  billion),  Italy  ($2.0  billion),  Spain  ($1.9 
billion), Belgium ($589 million) and Germany ($531 million).243 

Environmental 
impacts 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

Fundamental 
rights  

This  measure  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  the  right  to 
professional life. 

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This  measure  will  primarily  affect  national  authorities,  introducing 
administrative  and  compliance  costs.  These  costs  are  estimated  as 
follows (per average yearly cost): 

European Commission  

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

change: 2,455 euro 

Member States national authorities 

  Administrative and compliance costs for setting up and running a 
recognition mechanism for this category of TCNs: 356,713 euro 

The  measure  will  result  in  simplification  to  the  benefit  of  all  Member 
States,  as  it  will  reduce  the  workload  of  recognition  services  (as 
mentioned above under Social Impacts). Member States will only need to 
conduct  the  necessary  procedures  for  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications  for  those  TCNs  applying  for  an  EU  LTR  permit  for  the 
first  time. This measure will also  incur time and cost  savings for TCNs 
who  will  not  have  to  wait  or  pay  additional  costs  to  have  their 

Simplification 

243 Kalantaryan, S. and McMahon, S., (2021) Remittances in North Africa: sources, scale and significance, 

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-29685-0, 
doi:10.2760/085524, JRC123516, pp. 20-21. 

146 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

the  second  Member  State 
qualification  officially  recognised  by 
authorities; however, it will not be possible to quantify these cost savings 
due  to  the  variety  of  factors  at  play.  Therefore,  the  introduction  of  this 
measure  will  result  in  cost  savings  for  Member  States  authorities 
estimated at 5,113 euro (per average yearly cost). 

Overall assessment 

Overall, this measure will make the EU LTR status more attractive, facilitating the intra-EU 
mobility of mobile TCNs for work purposes. It will result in economic gains for mobile TCN, 
allowing them access to employment in line with their professional qualifications and skills, 
and  it  will  result  in  significant  simplification  for  national  authorities,  who  would  need  to 
apply  the  same  rules  already  applied  to  EU  citizens  for  the  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications.  This  measure  will  lead  to  cost  savings  for  Member  States  authorities  and 
TCNs,  with  moderate  administrative  and  compliance  costs  for  Member  States  national 
authorities. 

Policy  Measure  2.12:  Improving  the  rules  on  access  to  the  labour  market  for  the 

‘mobile’ long-term residents and their family members 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

In  10  Member  States,244  the  procedures  for  third-country  nationals 
holding  a  national  LTR  status  and  wishing  to  apply  for  a  work  or 
residence permit in a second EU Member State do not differ significantly 
from  the  procedures  for  a  first-time  applicant  under  the  national  LTR 
schemes,  with  the  only  exception  being  Slovenia.  In  addition,  as 
explained below, other Member States apply some restrictions for mobile 
TCNs applicants  and their family. This  measure  would no longer allow 
Member States to limit access to the labour market for family members 
of  LTR  permit  holders  and  would  remove  other  restrictions  faced  by 
LTR  permit  holders,  such  as  the  need  to  request  a  work  permit  and 
linking the permit to a single employer (which is, for example the case in 
at least four Member States under the SPD).245 Facilitating the rules for 
access to the labour market for EU LTR status holders would thus make 
the  EU  LTR  permit  significantly  more  attractive  and  facilitate  the 
conditions to acquire the status for EU LTR holders should they wish to 

244 AT, BE, DE, ES, HR, HU, LT, LV, NL, PT, see European Commission (2019) Legal migration Fitness 

Check, Annex 2A, p. 107. 

245 EE, HU, MT, PL, Responses provided by the Legal Migration Practitioners’ Network. 

147 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

apply for an LTR permit in the second Member State. 

Under Article 21(2) of the LTRD, Member States may limit access to the 
labour market  for mobile long-term residents and their family members 
for  up  to  12  months.  In  practice,  in  15  Member  States,  mobile  TCNs 
must apply for a work permit in the second Member State and also have 
to  comply  with  the  same  provisions  and  regulations  as  a  TCN  who 
applied  from  outside  the  EU,  except  for  the  visa  requirement.246  In  the 
Netherlands,  the  mobile  long-term  resident  must  have  a  work  permit 
during  the  first  year.247  The  procedure  for  the  request  of  a  work  permit 
for  the  mobile  long-term  resident  could  be  facilitated  or  removed 
altogether, as is already the case in Poland,248 in order to facilitate intra-
EU mobility. 

In  addition,  based  on  available  evidence,  11  Member  States249  have 
restrictions  in  place  such  as  limiting  the  link  of  long-term  residence 
permit  holders  to  a  single  employer250  and/or  a  single  professional 
field,251  or  restricting  access  to  employed  and  self-employed  activities 
only  to  those  persons  holding  a  residence  permit  for  the  purposes  of 
studies,  vocational  training,  or  for  other  purposes.  This  measure  would 
therefore  facilitate  the  access  of  TCNs  and  their  family  (in  line  with 
Article 21(3) of the LTRD) to employment opportunities already during 
the  first  year  of  stay  in  the  second  Member  State,  also  facilitating  their 
intra-EU mobility and making the EU LTR status more attractive. 

The  impact  of  this  measure  is  also  dependent  on  the  implementation  of 
the  policy  measures  relating  to  granting  mobile  TCNs  equal  treatment 
concerning  the  recognition  of  their  professional  qualifications  in  the 
second  Member  State,  not  allowing  the  latter  to  apply  a  labour  market 
test  and  allowing  TCNs  to  start  working  in  the  second  Member  State 
while their application is being assessed. 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

This measure will improve the rights of TCNs and their family members 
by removing, as mentioned above (under objective 1), restrictions faced 
by  EU  LTR  permit  holders  and  their  family  members  when  trying  to 
access the labour market of a second Member State, such as the need to 
request a work permit and linking the permit to a single employer. 

246 AT, CY, CZ, EE, EL, HR, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, PT, RO, SI, see European Commission (2019) Legal 

Migration Fitness Check, Annex 2A, p. 104. 

247 EMN Inform (2020) Long-term residence status in the EU, p. 15. 
248 Consultation with the Legal Migration Contact Group, 18 May 2021. 
249 BE, DE, EE, FI, FR, HR, LV, LU, NL, PT, SK. 
250 FI, FR, LU. 
251 BE, EE, FI (for specific reasons, such as posted work), FR, HR, LV. 

148 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Impacts 

Assessment  

Social impacts 

This measure is expected to have the following social impacts on:   

Third-country nationals 

Mobile  LTR  permit  holders  and  their  families  will  benefit  from 
facilitated access to the labour market of the second Member State. This 
measure  will  facilitate  their  hiring  process  and  allow  them  economic 
stability  from  an  earlier  stage  than  might  otherwise  have  been  possible 
with  the  current  provisions  under  the  LTRD.  This  measure  may 
contribute to granting better access to the labour market to women, who 
according  to  the  European  Network  of  Social  Integration  Enterprises 
(ENSIE), tend to have particularly low employment and activity rates.252 

National authorities 

This  measure  would  have  an  impact  on  the  Member  States  which 
implement  restrictions  during  the  first  12  months  of  residence  of  a 
mobile TCN in the second Member State. The procedural steps and new 
rules on access to the labour market will require clarification at national 
level. On the other hand, the lifting of restrictions will also simplify the 
procedures that Member States have in place. 

In view of the estimated low intra-EU mobility of TCNs already residing 
in  the  EU  (see  previous  measures  relating  to  intra-EU  mobility),  it  is 
unlikely  that  this  measure  will  significantly  increase  the  number  of 
applications  made  and  it  is  therefore  unlikely  to  result  in  an  increased 
workload  for  national  authorities  besides  the  initial  costs  mentioned 
above. 

Legal practitioners / judiciary 

A change in the rules restricting access to the labour market would result 
in  an  initial  increased  workload  for  legal  practitioners,  as  they  would 
receive  requests  for  clarification  from  TCNs  and  employers  concerning 
the rules applicable in their country and potentially in other EU Member 
States, in the case of TCNs wishing to move to a second Member State. 

Employers/Businesses 

Employers  and  businesses  will  benefit  from  an  earlier  or  simpler 
possibility  to  recruit  qualified  and  legally  residing  TCNs.  This  measure 
will allow businesses to fill labour gaps and will encourage businesses to 
make decisions or investments which they would not otherwise make if 

252 ENSIE (2020) Written contribution to the European Commission’s Integration Public Consultation: What 

does ENSIE expect from the Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion, p. 1. 

149 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

they faced a shortage of workers. 

Third countries 

Since the TCN impacted by this measure will already be residing in the 
territory of the EU, this measure is not likely to result in a net increase in 
third-country nationals applying for the EU LTR permit, so it is unlikely 
to result in brain drain from third countries. As the measure will enable 
TCNs to begin working in the second Member State sooner, it is likely to 
result in an initial increase in the remittances sent to countries of origin 
by mobile TCNs, which will benefit the economic stability of the persons 
receiving  these  remittances  residing  in  third  countries  and  in  turn 
indirectly  benefit  the  economies  of  third  countries.  However,  this 
measure alone as such may not be a key driver for remittances and hence, 
the extent to which this could be the case is very difficult to estimate due 
to a multitude of factors at play. 

Economic impacts  The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

Based on available evidence, this measure will impact 20 Member States 
which,  as  mentioned  above,  apply  restrictions  to  access  to  the  labour 
market for TCNs.  

This  measure  reduces  the  potential  costs  for  TCNs  linked  to  missed 
employment  opportunities  in  the  second  Member  State  due  to  the 
restrictions currently in place during the first 12 months. It would provide 
TCNs and their families with greater economic stability. This measure is 
also  likely  to  result  in  positive  impacts  to  the  economy  of  the  second 
Member State, since TCNs, due to facilitated access to the labour market, 
are expected to start working earlier than they otherwise would have with 
the  restrictions  currently  in  place.  This  is  expected  to  contribute  to  an 
increase  in  the  wages  of  mobile  TCNs,  which  would  in  turn  lead  to 
higher  tax  revenue,  increased  productivity  and  consumption,  and 
enhanced economic growth in the second Member State. 

Lastly,  this  measure  is  likely  to  also  have  a  limited  negative  impact  on 
Member  States,  resulting  from  remittances  sent  by  mobile  TCNs, 
particularly  to  countries  in  North  Africa.  For  example,  85%  of 
remittances to Algeria,  Morocco  and Tunisia originate from the EU-27, 
with  the  largest  remittance  flows  being  those  sent  from  France  ($4.7 

150 

 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

billion), Italy ($2.0 billion), Spain ($1.9 billion), Belgium ($589 million) 
and Germany ($531 million).253 

No specific environmental impacts identified. 

This measure will contribute to the right to family and professional life. 
By facilitating access to employment, this measure also facilitates access 
to the social security and social assistance rights linked to employment. 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
administrative  and  compliance  costs.  These  costs  are  estimated  as 
follows (per average yearly cost): 

Simplification 

European Commission 

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

change: 2,455 euro 

Member States national authorities 

  Administrative  and  compliance  costs  in  the  20  Member  States 
affected  by  this  measure  to  adapt  national  procedures,  and 
potentially  invest  in  additional  staff  and  training,  as  well  as 
information  material  for  both  staff  and  potential  interested 
applicants: 118,346 euro 

By obliging Member States to lift the restrictions they have currently in 
place, national  authorities will also  incur cost  savings as  they would no 
longer need to  follow certain  procedural  steps. As  exact  information  on 
the restrictions in place in the 20 Member States is missing, it will not be 
possible to estimate these. 

This  measure  will  also  result  in  the  simplification  of  the  hiring  process 
for mobile long-term residents and their families from the perspective of 
the employers and EU LTRs and their family members. This will result 
in  cost  savings  for  Member  States  national  authorities  estimated  at 
47,293 euro over a period of 10 years.254 

253 Kalantaryan, S. and McMahon, S., (2021) Remittances in North Africa: sources, scale and significance, 

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-29685-0, 
doi:10.2760/085524, JRC123516, pp. 20-21. 

254 The methodology used for the calculation of costs, the assumptions made, and the detailed calculations are 

presented in annexes 4 and 6.  

151 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Overall assessment 

Overall,  this  measure  will  facilitate  the  hiring  process  for  mobile  TCNs  and  their  families, 
removing some barriers currently faced by this stakeholder group when accessing the labour 
market of the second Member State. This will in turn facilitate intra-EU mobility of EU LTR 
permit holders, making the EU LTR scheme more attractive and facilitating the conditions to 
acquire the EU LTR permit in the second Member State. The measure will contribute to the 
filling  of  labour  shortages  and  will  provide  greater  economic  stability  to  mobile  TCNs  and 
their families. This measure will lead to cost savings for TCNs and Member States national 
authorities,  with  moderate  administrative  and  compliance  costs  for  Member  States  national 
authorities. 

Policy  Measure  2.13:  Shortening  the  time  needed  to  acquire  EU  LTR  status  in  the 
second  Member  State  (three  years  instead  of  five  years)  for  those  TCNs  who 
already have EU LTR status in the first Member State 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Currently, as laid out in Article 14(1) of the LTRD, EU LTR holders can 
apply  for  long-term  resident  status  in  a  second  Member  State  after  five 
years of legal residence. This measure proposes to shorten this residence 
requirement to move to a second Member State from five to three years 
of legal residence. Whilst this measure applies to people who are already 
EU LTR status holders, it facilitates their ability to obtain EU LTR status 
in the second Member State through significantly reducing the period of 
legal  residence.  Experts255  note  that  five  years  of  continuous  legal 
residence  is  an  excessively  long  requirement  already  for  the  first 
application of EU LTR status, therefore reducing it to three years for the 
second Member State will remove a significant barrier to EU LTR status. 
However,  there  may  be  potential  resistance  from  Member  States  to 
accept such a lowering of the legal residence period, as in most cases it 
will be lower than those for national  permits which tend to  require five 
years of legal residence. 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-

As  mentioned  under  objective  1,  the  majority  of  national  LTR  permits 
require five years of legal residence for LTR status. Nonetheless, in some 
Member States, TCNs  could  apply  for the national  LTR  status  within a 

255 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; Consultation with 
representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021; Consultation with the Economic and Social Partners, 5 May 
202. 

152 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment  

shorter period: in Finland, Hungary and Sweden the requirement for legal 
residence to obtain a national long-term residence permit is less than five 
years, whilst in Cyprus there is no residence requirement at all.256  

With  this  in  mind,  the measure  would  increase  the  attractiveness  of  the 
EU  LTR  status,  as  third-country  nationals  could  thus  obtain  the  long-
term residence status in the second Member State within a shorter period, 
and  thus  fully  benefit  from  equal  treatment  and  other  rights  offered  by 
the status in that Member State too. This will prove as a strong incentive 
to move to a second Member State and thus increase intra-EU mobility.  

Stakeholders from the consultations with civil society and economic and 
social partners argued that removing the current barriers and simplifying 
the  access  to  mobility  to  second  Member  State  is  crucial  to  facilitate 
intra-EU mobility. Yet, stakeholders from the informal Expert Group on 
Economic Migration (EGEM) note that intra-EU mobility is currently so 
low (for the purpose of this impact assessment it is estimated that approx. 
2%  of  EU  LTR  holders  moving  to  a  second  Member  State257)  also 
because of the level of investment in the Member State a TCN has when 
applying to EU LTR, due to all the current requirements. 

The  measure  would  shorten  the  period  for  third-country  nationals  and 
their families to have access to equal treatment rights associated with the 
long-term status. 

Assessment 
criterion 

EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

This measure is expected to have the following social impacts on:   

Third country nationals 

This  measure  facilitates  the  possibility  for  third  country  nationals  to 
access  equal  treatment  rights  and  other  benefits  associated  with  the  EU 
LTR status also in the second Member State. Stakeholders258 highlighted 
that faster access to the long-term residence status in the second Member 
State  will  also  amplify  integration,  as  it  would  bring  them  closer  to  the 
EU citizens’ right to freedom of movement.  

256 Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021; EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on 
the period of validity of residence permits granted to third country nationals (update to GR EMN NCP Ad-
Hoc Query on Duration of Residence Permits). 

257 Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021. 
258 Second meeting of the EU legal migration practitioner’s network, 29 April 2021. 

153 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Whilst  this  measure  will  facilitate  the  temporal  burden  of  applying  for 
long-term  residence  in  a  second  Member  State,  it  will  not  be 
accompanied  by  any  changes  in  the  application  procedures  and 
requirements,  which  means  that,  depending  on  the  Member  State,  they 
would still face an additional burden due to the application procedure in 
reality not being ‘facilitated’ in many Member States.  

National authorities 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  will  result  in  competent  authorities 
across  all Member States to  adapt  their procedures to  accommodate the 
new  timeline,  although  the  changes  will  be  minor  as  they  only  concern 
the period of residence. National competent authorities will have to deal 
with  a  relatively  higher  number  of  applications,  as  more  TCNs  would 
already  become  eligible  for  the  status  after  three  years  instead  of  five. 
This impact will vary depending on the Member States since the quantity 
of applications received from another Member State varies significantly 
across  Member  States.259  This  will  mean  that  Member  States  like 
Germany and Sweden could face an additional burden, in comparison to 
Member  States  like  Cyprus  and  Estonia.  In  turn,  this  may  mean  that 
countries  processing  significant  numbers  of  applications  from  another 
Member State may pose resistance to this measure.  

Legal practitioners / judiciary 

As there are no changes to the application procedures and fees required, 
the  only  impact  for  legal  practitioners  and  judiciary  may  be  to  conduct 
the same work conducted previously, such as providing clarifications and 
counselling within a smaller timeframe. Potential additional clarifications 
may  be  necessary  should  a  reduction  in  scope  to  only  economically 
active EU LTR status holders apply. 

Employers/Businesses 

This  measure  would  mean  that  employers  and  businesses  would  more 
quickly have access to a pool of qualified legally residing TCNs in other 
Member  States.  This  will  limit  the  possibility  of  substantial  delays  in 
filling necessary vacancies and help to fill labour shortages.  

Third countries  

The  introduction  of  this  measure  is  not  expected  to  have  an  impact  on 
third countries. 

259 In 2020, applications from another MS from EU LTR in Estonia were 0, Cyprus 5, Slovenia 26, Sweden 
1602 and Germany 29897 - EMN (2021) AHQ for Impact assessment on revision of the Long-term 
Residents and Single Permit Directives (Question 1) 

154 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Economic impacts  The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

The main economic impact from this measure would concern the quicker 
access  of  qualified  legally  residing  TCNs  to  equal  treatment  and  other 
rights  guaranteed  under  the  EU  LTR  in  the  second  Member  State.  This 
may, in some Member States, provide them with faster access to certain 
benefits not available to them in their current migration status, leading in 
turn  to  some  increase  in  transfer  payments  by  the  respective  Member 
State. As the measure may also have an impact on intra-EU mobility, it 
may  also  bring  some  increased  tax  revenue  and  therefore  enhanced 
economic  growth  in  the  second  Member  State.  However,  given  the 
substantial  variety  between  applications  to  a  second  Member  State,  this 
economic  impact  may  be  reduced  to  a  few  Member  States  (such  as 
Germany, and Sweden).  

Other potential economic impacts such as mobility for study purposes or 
from the increased attractiveness of the EU LTRD, and consequently the 
EU, are indirect and even more challenging to quantify in relation to this 
specific measure. 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  would  positively  impact  long-term 
third-country  nationals’  right  to  education  and  professional  life,  by 
facilitating their access to employment and educational opportunities to a 
second Member State.   

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
administrative  and  compliance  costs.  These  costs  are  estimated  as 
follows (over a period of ten years): 

European Commission 

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

change: 2,455 euro 

Member States national authorities 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

  The  average  number  of  applications  receive  varies  significantly 
by  Member  State,  which  will 
a  varied 
administrative/compliance impact. Overall, this policy measure’s 
compliance  costs  will  be  minimal,  mostly  consist  of  updating 
internal procedures (i.e. guidelines), which will not change much 

result 

in 

155 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

as the procedure itself will  not  change. The most impact  will be 
caused by the likely surge in applications as a much larger pool of 
TCNs  would  become  eligible  for  the  status.  Thus  the  overall 
administrative  and  compliance  costs 
for  Member  States 
authorities will come to: 55,614 euro 

Simplification 

The measure would not  lead to simplification, as it would merely mean 
that TCNs  can apply for the long-term residence status  within a shorter 
time period. 

Overall assessment 

Overall, this policy measure will increase the attractiveness and added value of the EU LTR 
by  facilitating  the  acquisition  of  the  EU  LTR  status  in  the  second  Member  State  as  TCNs 
would only have to reside three years in the Member States. It is also expected that this will 
lead  to  a  small  increase  in  intra-EU  mobility,  as  more  status  holders  would  imply  a  higher 
share  potentially  being  interested  in  moving  to  a  second  Member  State.  This  increase  may 
result in some national reluctance due to additional administrative burden for Member States 
that already receive plenty of applications. This measure will result in low administrative and 
compliance costs for Member States. 

1.2.3  Measures  relating  to  improving  the  rights  of  third-country  nationals  and  their 

family 

Policy Measure 2.14: Introducing derogations from the rules on family reunification of 
Directive 2003/86/EC to facilitate the family reunification for long-term residents 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

This measure would significantly facilitate the conditions to acquire the 
EU LTR status for family members joining an EU LTR permit holder in 
the  second  Member  State,  as  it  would  allow  Member  States  to  count 
periods of time spent residing in another Member State. 

The  current  provisions  of  the  LTRD  frame,  to  some  extent,  family 
reunification for family members of long-term residents moving to other 
Member  States.  More  specifically,  Article  16  of  the  LTRD  grants  the 
right to certain family members (namely nuclear family members such as 
spouse  and  minor  children)  to  accompany  and  join  them  in  a  second 
Member State, if the family was already constituted in the first Member 
State and if family members apply for residence permit there within the 

156 

 
 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

first three months after entrance in the second Member State.  

Member States are obliged to apply these facilitated family reunification 
rules  only  with  regard  to  nuclear  family  members  (reference  made  in 
Article 16 LTRD to Article 4(1) FRD), while they may also apply them 
to other family members. Another requirement is for family to be already 
constituted  in  the  first  Member  State,  and  that  family  members  should 
bring evidence that they held an LTR permit in the first Member State or 
other type of permit. Formally, no other evidence is required (e.g. income 
or  accommodation)  and  as  such,  conditions  in  Article  16  are  simplified 
compared to the rules on family reunification in the FRD.  

In practice, a long-term resident wishing to be joined or wishing to move 
together  with  family  members  in  a  second  Member  State  will  have  to 
comply  with  ‘regular’  family  reunification  conditions  as  set  out  in  the 
FRD.  In  addition,  several  members  of  the  Informal  Expert  Group  on 
Economic Migration highlighted that family members of EU LTR permit 
holders often face barriers when trying to access the labour market of the 
Member States.260 

This  measure  would  entail,  as  mentioned  in  more  detail  below, 
introducing  two  derogations  from  the  FRD  to  the  LTRD.  One  of  these 
derogations  would  further  facilitate  intra-EU  mobility,  namely  the 
derogation  from  Article  15(1)  of  the  FRD,  so  that  when  calculating  the 
years of residence required for the acquisition of an autonomous permit 
under  Article  15  FRD,  residence  in  different  Member  States  shall  be 
cumulated. Member States may require two years of legal and continuous 
residence immediately prior to the submission of the relevant application 
within  the  territory  of  the  Member  State  where  the  application  for  an 
autonomous residence permit is submitted. 

This  measure  is  expected  to  increase  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  long-
term  residence  permit  and  encourage  intra-EU  mobility,  as  it  makes  it 
easier  for  family  members  of  long-term  resident  TCNs  to  move  to  a 
second Member State and become economically active. 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
term-
of 
residents  and  their 
family 

As  mentioned  above,  this  measure  would  introduce  similar  derogations 
from  the  FRD  to  those  introduced  under  Article  17  of  the  revised  Blue 
Card Directive,261 to align the rights provided to family members of the 
EU LTR permit holder closer to the rights  granted under the Blue Card 
Directive, contributing to harmonising the rights of TCN family members 
across key legal migration instruments.  

260 Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021. 
261 Council document 8585/21, LIMITE, 19 May 2021. 

157 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

The following derogations from the FRD would be introduced: 

 A derogation from  Article 14(1)(b) of the FRD, which would mean 
that  family  members  of  the  EU  LTR  permit  holder  shall  have 
access  to  any  employment  and  to  self-employed  activity  in 
accordance with applicable requirements under national law in the 
Member State concerned. This  derogation would apply to  family 
members joining  the EU  LTR  permit  holder in the first  and  also 
second Member State. 

A derogation from Article 15(1) of the FRD, so that when calculating 
the  years  of  residence  required  for  the  acquisition  of  an 
autonomous permit, residence in different Member States shall be 
cumulated.  Member  States  may  require  two  years  of  legal  and 
continuous  residence  immediately  prior  to  the  submission  of  the 
relevant  application  within  the  territory  of  the  Member  State 
where  the  application  for  an  autonomous  residence  permit  is 
submitted.  This  derogation  would  apply  to  family  members 
joining  the  EU  LTR  permit  holder  in  the  second  Member  State. 
This  is  in  line  with  the  suggestion  made  by  members  of  the 
Commission  Expert  Group  on  the  Views  of  Migrants,  who 
considered  that  the  family  members  of  EU  LTR  permit  holders 
should be entitled to facilitated access to the EU LTR permit.262 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

This measure would encourage more family members to join an EU LTR 
permit holder in the EU. This is expected to result in an increase in the 
number  of  family  members  joining  this  category  of  TCNs  in  the  EU, 
enhancing their integration in the Member State of residence. 

It  will  also  enhance  legal  certainty  and  transparency  around  the 
procedures  applicable  when  applying  for  family  reunification  in  the 
second Member State. 

In addition,  the measure would facilitate the intra-EU mobility  of those 
family members already residing with the EU LTR permit holder in the 
first  EU  Member  States  and  wishing  to  move  to  a  second  one.  These 
family members will be able to benefit from family benefits attached to 
family reunification in the second Member State, as well as to facilitated 
labour market access, in line with national requirements. Ultimately, this 

262 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021. 

158 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

to  employment 
measure  will  facilitate  family  member’s  access 
opportunities in the second Member State and allow the periods spent in 
other Member States to count to obtain an autonomous EU LTR permit, 
allowing  family  to  start  working  earlier,  which  would  enhance  their 
prospects for integration and contribute to economic stability. 

National authorities 

The  implementation  of  this  measure  will  lead  to  changes  in  national 
legislation  and/or  procedures  to  cater  for  the  situation  of  family 
reunification of long-term residents moving to the EU and those moving 
to a second Member State. Since this measure would align the EU LTR 
provisions  on  family  reunification  with  those  in  the  revised  Blue  Card 
Directive,  it  is  expected  to  result  in  more  harmonised  procedures  for 
these  categories  of  TCNs  and  their  families.  This  measure  will  imply 
some changes in terms of procedure and efforts to communicate on this 
change  internally  to  national  administrations  and  externally  to  potential 
applicants,  but  as  these  changes  will  be  similar  to  those  introduced  for 
the  Blue  Card  Directive,  this  is  not  expected  to  generate  a  high 
administrative burden. 

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

This  measure  would  provide  more  clarity  to  the  rules  on  family 
reunification  of  EU  LTR  permit  holders  when  moving  to  a  second 
Member  State,  this  being  likely  to  result  in  a  minor  decrease  in  cases 
raised before administrations and first instance courts for litigation.  

Employers/Businesses 

It  will  be  easier  for  employers  to  hire  family  members  of  long-term 
residents,  thanks  to  a  specified  and  reduced  processing  time  for 
applications  for  family  reunification  and  stronger  certainty  around  their 
status. 

Third countries 

No specific impact. 

Economic impacts  The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

This  measure  is  expected  to  have  some  positive  economic  impacts, 
however, as explained in more detail below, due to a variety of factors at 
play, it will not be possible to quantify. 

It is expected that the TCNs affected by this measure will have facilitated 
access  to  employment  and  family  benefits  in  the  Member  State  of 

159 

 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

residence, which will have a positive economic impact on these persons, 
but it will also allow them to make a greater contribution to the economy 
and  tax  system  of  the  Member  States.  This  impact  may  be  difficult  to 
quantify as it depends on the provisions in place in each Member State. 

This  measure  will  lead  to  some  administrative  costs  for  national 
authorities.  As  it  will  enable  a  few  family  members  of  TCNs  to  access 
the labour market more easily, it will result in a benefit to the tax regime 
and economy of the Member State of residence, with very minor costs to 
the  Member  States  resulting  from  the  family  benefits  granted  to  these 
family members. 

No specific environmental impacts identified. 

This  measure  will  strengthen  the  right  to  family  reunification  and 
movement  within  the  EU  for  long-term  residents  and  their  family 
members,  and  is  thus  expected  to  strengthen  the  right  to  family  life 
(enshrined in Article 33 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
administrative  and  compliance  costs.  These  costs  are  estimated  as 
follows (per average yearly cost): 

European Commission 

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

change: 2,455 euro 

Member States national authorities 

  Administrative  and  compliance  costs  to  potentially  invest  in 
additional  staff  and  training,  as  well  as  information  material  for 
both staff and potential interested applicants: 166,046 euro 

This  measure  is  expected  to  lead  to  simplification  as  the  procedures 
applied for the family members of EU LTR permit holders are similar to 
the proposed procedure for family members of Blue Card holders. It sets 
a limit for the processing, decision and notification time for applications 
for family reunification, contributing to greater administrative efficiency 

Simplification 

160 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

in  this  area.  This  will  result  in  cost  savings  for  Member  States  national 
authorities estimated at 12,781 euro per average yearly cost.263 

Overall assessment 

Overall, this measure will significantly benefit TCNs and their family members, as it limits 
the delay in  processing  applications for family reunification, facilitates access  to  the labour 
market,  and  allows  for  the  accumulation  of  time  spent  in  different  Member  States  when 
applying  for  an  EU  LTR  residence  permit  for  family  members.  By  facilitating  the  family 
members’ access to the EU LTR status, this measure will contribute to a more coherent and 
efficient  system.  It  will  result  in  some  simplification  and  harmonisation  as  it  aligns  the 
treatment of EU LTR permit holder family members to Blue Card family members, and will 
result in moderate administrative and compliance costs for national authorities in all Member 
States. 

Policy  Measure  2.15:  Automatically  granting  the  EU  LTR  status  to  children  of  long-

term residents born in the EU 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Currently,  it  is  only  national  legislation  that  regulates  the  status  of 
children of long-term residents. In some Member States, a minor child of 
a  third-country  long-term  resident  has  the  right  to  request  a  permanent 
resident  permit  or  access  to  a  national  permanent  status  (e.g.  in  Latvia, 
Sweden).  In  other  Member  States,  family  members,  including  minor 
children of long-term residents receive a temporary residence permit and 
they  would  have  to  satisfy  the  ‘regular’  requirements  to  obtain  a  long-
term residence status/i.e. unless they meet themselves this criteria (e.g. in 
Belgium,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Slovenia).  In 
Greece,  adult  third-country  nationals  who  were  born  in  Greece  or  have 
completed six  years of schooling in  Greece before reaching 21  years of 
age and who are legal residents in the country can obtain a permit of stay 
for  a  duration  of  5  years,  which  is  renewed  every  five  years.  In  its 
ongoing  study  on  the  Fundamental  Rights  LTR  status  holders,  FRA 
suggested that the revision of the LTRD consider a similar mechanism.264 

263 The methodology used for the calculation of costs, the assumptions made, and the detailed calculations are 

presented in annexes 4 and 6.  

264 Initial findings shared by FRA from the ongoing study on the Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence 

status holders, p. 16 

161 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Yet another element to be considered is the fact that, as found by a recent 
EMN study265, no EU Member State grants automatic and unconditional 
citizenship to children born on their territories (the ius soli approach) to 
non-nationals. However, all Member States but six266 grant citizenship on 
a  conditional  ius  soli  approach,  whereby  applicants  and/or  their  non-
national  parents  must  comply  with  a  minimum  residence  period  in  the 
country  (ranging  from  1  to  10  years).267  Therefore  such  conditional  ius 
soli may mean that citizenship may be semi-automatic for the majority of 
children  born  to  EU  LTR  status  holders  and  residing  in  the  country  for 
the stipulated minimum amount of time.  

The  introduction  of  this  measure  will  increase  the  attractiveness  of  the 
EU  LTR  status  in  comparison  to  existing  national  permits,  as  it  will 
significantly  increase  the  legal  certainty  and  access  to  rights  of  minors 
born in the EU. This is confirmed by stakeholders268 who underlined how 
the lack of clarity regarding the rights of family members decreases the 
attractiveness of the EU LTR status.  

Moreover,  the  introduction  of  this  measure  will  contribute  to  the 
objective of a more efficient and fair system by facilitating the conditions 
to  acquire  long-term  resident  status  for  children  of  EU  LTR  status 
holders by making it automatic. The extent of the impact of this measure 
to  this objective is mitigated by the fact  that some children of EU  LTR 
status holders may already have obtained citizenship through conditional 
ius soli. Nonetheless, many children may not be eligible as the residence 
requirement for their parent(s) is higher than that for EU LTR, or there is 
no  conditional  ius  soli.  Another  factor  influencing  the  extent  of  this 
impact  is  the quantity of children born to  EU  LTR holders in  the given 
Member State. Whilst the vast majority of Member States do not collect 
data on this269, it appears that this also varies by Member States.270  

Members of the expert panel also noted that if this measure is introduced 
in  conjunction  with  policy  measure  2.18,  which  prolongs  the  allowed 
period of absence outside the EU from 12 to 24 months, it will increase 

265 EMN (2020) Pathways to citizenship for third-country nationals in the EU 
266 AT, CY, EE, EL, IT, SK. See EMN 2020 study on Pathways to citizenship to third-country nationals in the 

EU:  https://ec.europa.eu/home-
affairs/sites/default/files/00_eu_emn_study_synthesis_report_citizenship_final_en_0.pdf, p.14 

267 See EMN 2020 study on Pathways to citizenship to third-country nationals in the EU:  

https://ec.europa.eu/home-
affairs/sites/default/files/00_eu_emn_study_synthesis_report_citizenship_final_en_0.pdf, p.5. 

268Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021. 
269 AT, BG, CY, EL, FI, FR, DE, HU, LU, NL, PL, SE - EMN (2021) AHQ for Impact assessment on revision 

of the Long-term Residents and Single Permit Directives (Question 2) 

270 EMN (2021) AHQ for Impact assessment on revision of the Long-term Residents and Single Permit 

Directives (Question 2) 

162 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

its impact  and contribution  to  this policy objective, as it will be able to 
capture children who may then not be eligible for citizenship. 

Currently, as set out in Article 16 of the EU LTRD, family members of 
EU LTR status holders may accompany or join the long-term resident in 
the second Member State they  choose to  move to, as  long as they have 
proof of stable and sufficient resources to maintain themselves and their 
family members. Therefore, for family members their intra-EU mobility 
is closely intertwined with the EU LTR status holder they are related to. 
In  addition  to  this,  the  2019  Commission  Implementation  report  notes 
that  some  Member  States  also  add  additional  requirements  for  family 
members  to  move  to  a  second  Member  State  with  the  EU  LTR  status 
holder,  such  as  additional  documentation  in  CZ.271  In  conjunction  with 
this,  stakeholders272  underlined  that  family  members  of  the  EU  LTR 
status holder will be in a more precarious and legally vulnerable situation 
in the second Member State. 

Therefore,  if  children  born  in  an  EU  Member  State  to  EU  LTR  status 
holders were to  automatically be  granted  LTR  status,  this would enable 
them  to  have  their  own  right  to  movement  independently  of  their 
families. Without  having to  submit a new application independently for 
EU  LTR  status,  they  will  thus  have  facilitated  access  to  intra-EU 
mobility rights. 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
term-
of 
residents  and  their 
family 

Overall, by granting EU LTR holders’ children automatic EU LTR status 
will  instantly  grant  them  the  rights  inherent  in  EU  LTR  status.  Indeed, 
stakeholders from the EG on the views of migrants, economic and social 
partners,  informal  EG  on  economic  migration,  legal  migration  contact 
group, civil society and legal practitioners agree that enhancing the rights 
and legal clarity of EU LTR holders’ family holders, especially children 
is  essential.  This  measure  would  significantly  contribute  to  enhancing 
their rights, by granting them automatically. 

However, this measure could have the adverse effect of reducing circular 
migration.  Experts273  noted  that  currently  family  members  of  EU  LTR 
status  holders  are in  a more precarious  and legally  vulnerable situation, 
as a lack of clarity on their rights pertains. Therefore, by increasing the 
legal  certainty  and  access  to  equal  rights  of  EU  LTR  status  holders’ 
children may reduce their propensity to return to their home country.  

271 European Commission (2019) 1055 final, p 8. 
272 Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021 
273 Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021; Second meeting of the EU legal migration 
practitioners network, 29 April 2021; Consultation with the Legal Migration Contact Group, 18 May 2021. 

163 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Impacts 

Assessment  

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  will  bring  positive  impacts  for  third 
country  nationals.  It  will  mean  that  family  members’  rights  will  not  be 
entirely contingent on the EU LTR status holders. Also, for children born 
in the EU to TCNs, whom have a close affinity to the host country and 
are  well-integrated274  the  automatic  granting  of  EU  LTR  status  will  fill 
the  gap  of  the  Member  States  that  do  not  grant  conditional  ius  soli  or 
those that do but require a minimum residence higher than the LTR. 

However, legal  migration experts from  the Odysseus Network note that 
the majority of children of EU LTR status holders may not seek to gain 
long-term  resident  status  as  children  but  apply  once  they  are  adults.275 
Therefore, the demand for such a measure may be limited. 

National authorities 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  will  impact  all  Member  States  to 
different  degrees.  The  changes  to  procedures  and  processes  for 
competent authorities will be minor due to the ‘automatic’ feature of the 
measure. These changes will primarily consist of altering guidelines for 
authorities  and  information  to  disseminate  to  EU  LTR  holders  on  new 
procedures.  However,  this  impact  will  differ  because  some  Member 
States  already  facilitate  residence  permits  for  minors  born  in  the  EU, 
whilst others do not.  

Moreover, the fact that most Member States provide children born in the 
EU to TCN parents the access to conditional ius soli citizenship, points to 
the  fact  that  national  competent  authorities  may  deem  this  measure 
unnecessary.  Another  example  is  that  for  France  residence  permits  are 
not  necessary  for  anyone  under  the  age  of  18,  and  therefore  the 
inessential.276 
introduction  of 
Conversely, the reduction in administrative burden of registering children 
born to EU LTR in some Member States (e.g. Slovenia) may be welcome 
to some national competent authorities. 

this  measure  could 

further  seem 

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  will  bring  fewer  requirements  and 
procedures  for  TCN  children  to  acquire  EU  LTR  status,  and  thus  less 

274 OECD/EU (2015) Indicators of Immigrant Integration – Chapter 14 ‘Third-country nationals in the European 

Union’, p 301 

275 Brainstorming session with legal migration experts from the Odysseus Network, 10 June 2021 
276 EMN (2019) Ad Hoc Query on long-term resident scheme for children 

164 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

inputs from legal practitioners. 

Employers/Businesses 

No significant effects of this measure can be observed for employers and 
businesses.  

Third countries 

No significant effects of this measure can be observed for third countries. 

Economic impacts  This  measure  is  expected  to  have  some  positive  economic  impacts, 
however, the potential economic impacts cannot be estimated at the level 
of  a  specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the 
aggregate level of the policy options instead. 

We can assume that the economic impact of this measure will be difficult 
to  estimate,  mainly  because  the  vast  majority  of  Member  States  do  not 
collect data on children born to EU LTR status holders.277 Those that do, 
show that numbers vary significantly across Member States (in 2021 two 
children born to  EU  LTR in  Latvia and 410 in  Slovenia). Nevertheless, 
data  shows  that  in  2019  there  were  483,448  million  births  to  TCN 
women  across  EU  Member  States,  which  accounts  for  approximately 
12% of the overall births across the EU that year.278 We can assume that 
a  large  amount  of  these  TCN  women  giving  birth  in  the  EU  and  who 
have not  yet  naturalised  will have  LTR  status,  or are at  least  eligible to 
the status. Therefore this may result in an increase in EU LTR holders. 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  will  strengthen  the  rights  accorded  to 
children  born  in  the  EU,  facilitating  their  access  to  opportunities  and 
services.  In  addition,  this  measure  will  mostly  strengthen  the  right  to 
family life as per Article 33 in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.279 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 

compliance 

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
administrative  and  compliance  costs.  These  costs  are  estimated  as 

277 AT, BG, CY, EL, FI, FR, DE, HU, LU, NL, PL, SE - EMN (2021) AHQ for Impact assessment on revision 

of the Long-term Residents and Single Permit Directives (Question 2) 

278 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/demo_faczc/default/table?lang=en  
279 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT&from=EN 

165 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

costs 

follows (average yearly cost): 

European Commission 

Simplification 

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

change: 2,455 euro 

Member States national authorities 

  Administrative  and  compliance  costs  to  conduct  changes  to 
legislation,  internal  guidelines,  as  well  as  human  resources  in 
determining how this measure will apply in their national context 
(i.e. how will the  automatic  LTR  status  be  communicated to  the 
EU  LTR  status  holder  parent).  The  amendments  to  the  internal 
guidelines and procedures will be minimal as it will just include 
the  renewed  communication  process  between  EU  LTR  status 
parents  and  competent  national  authorities,  as 
the  only 
requirement  will  include  that  at  least  one  parent  has  EU  LTR 
status: 83,902 euro. 

This measure foresees administrative simplification, as it will entail less 
EU  LTR  applications  to  be  processed  of  the  EU  LTR  status  holder 
children  that  were  submitting  applications  after  five  years  of  residence. 
To measure the reduced administrative burden for national authorities, it 
would  be  necessary  to  use  the  calculation  on  the  estimated  increase  in 
children eligible for EU  LTR  status,  and time spent  by  civil  servants  to 
process  an  EU  LTR  application  to  calculate  how  much  less  time  each 
Member State will have to spend processing EU LTR applications. This 
measure will impact Member States differently depending on how many 
EU  LTR  status  holders  they  have  on  their  territory  (thus  impacting  the 
top  four  Member  States  receiving  EU  LTR  status  applications280)  and 
thus  how many  children are born in  the host  country to  EU  LTR  status 
holders.  Considering  the  Member  States  staff  time  saved  by  no  longer 
processing  applications  for  children  born  from  EU  LTR  parents,  this 
measure  will  result  in  costs  saving  for  Member  States  national 
authorities, estimated at 76,688 euro over a period of 10 years.  

Additionally, this measure will bring significant simplification for TCNs 
who will no longer have to complete applications for their children after 
five  years  of  residence.  This  will  save  them  the  administrative  burden 
and costs in the form of certificates and legal counselling. 

Overall assessment 

280 AT, CZ, EE, IT, see Eurostat (2021) Long-term residents by citizenship on 31 December of each year, 

mgr_reslong. 

166 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Overall, this measure provides a positive impact for third-country nationals in the additional 
clarity, certainty and improved integration it will bring for TCN children. This impact may be 
limited  in  those  Member  States  where  children  born  to  EU  LTR  status  holders  may  be 
eligible  for  conditional  ius  soli.  Moreover,  this  measure  will  contribute  to  a  more  coherent 
and efficient system by facilitating the acquisition of the EU LTR status. In addition, despite 
potential  resistance  in  national  culture  this  measure  foresees  substantial  administrative 
simplification for the process of giving EU LTR status holders’ children long-term residence 
status. 

Policy  measure  2.16:  Clarifying  the  access  to  housing,  to  include  the  right  to  buy 

immovable property 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

No effect on this policy objective. 

Objective 2 

No effect on this policy objective. 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Article  11(1)(f)  of  the  LTRD  foresees  “equal  access  to  goods  and 
services  and  the  supply  of  goods  and  services  made  available  to  the 
public  and  to  procedures  for  obtaining  housing”.  In  reference  to  this 
provision,  Article  11  (2)  foresees  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to 
restrict  equal  treatment  to  cases  where  the  registered  or  usual  residence 
of  the  long-term  resident  lies  within  the  concerned  Member  States’ 
territory.  While  most  Member  States  extended  equal  treatment  to 
housing,  BG,  CZ,  LT,  LU,  and  LV  did  not  enact  any  relevant 
provisions.281  

In 2019, while 70.7% of EU citizens lived in their own dwelling, home-
ownership  rates  were  lower  among  non-EU  citizens.  Specifically,  only 
one  quarter  (23.8  %)  of  TCNs  owned  their  own  home  in  the  European 
territory.  However,  on  the  one  hand,  according  to  EUROSTAT,  the 

281 COM(2019) 161  

167 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

statistics  available  remain  unreliable,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  several 
factors  might  influence  the  low  rate  of  non-EU  citizens’  ownership.  It 
remains  unproven,  in  fact,  the  causal  link  between  the  low  rate  of 
ownership among non-EU citizens and the possible restrictions in  place 
in  some  Member  States  that  affect  the  individual  right  to  purchase 
immovable properties. 

No precise data are currently available on the exact number of Member 
States  that  restrict  TCNs’  right  to  buy  private  houses.  From  a  recent 
EMN AHQ we know that 11 of the 17 Member States responding claim 
to  not  apply  exclusions  from  the  right  to  access  to  private  housing 
pursuant to Article 11(1)(f) of the LTRD.282 Five Member States283 who 
do  apply  exclusions  mentioned  that  the  conditions  are  stipulated  in 
national  law,  and  can  either  be  security/defence-related,  or  subject  to 
national  quotas.  Among  these  five  Member  States,  Austria  is  the  one 
with  the  highest  rate  of  EU  LTR  permits,  and  Finland  the  lowest. 
Nonetheless,  across  the  five  Member  States  the  quantity  is  EU  LTR 
permits issued is varied, and due to the lack of data on the remaining 11 
Member States, the number of TCNs that could potentially be affected by 
this measure remains very difficult to estimate. 

In  addition,  multiple  stakeholders  (EU  legal  migration  practitioners 
network, Contact Group on Legal Migration, Representatives of the Civil 
Society)  argued that  the  issue of  Member States  reluctance to  let TCNs 
purchase  immovable  property  has  to  be  addressed.  No  stakeholders 
specified  any  aversion  to  this  policy  measure.  The  Expert  Panel  also 
noted the necessity for this measure to specify access to social housing. 
Only  two  Member  States  currently  limit  equal  treatment  in  respect  of 
social assistance and core benefits to EU LTR holders, showing that this 
addition may be a welcome addition.284  

Clarifying  the  Directive's  text,  specifically  Article  11,  to  stipulate  that 
access  to  housing  includes  social  housing  and  the  possibility  for  TCNs 
and  their  family  members  to  buy  immovable  property  would  give  them 
more housing rights, as well as reducing the difference in treatment exists 
between  TCNs  and  EU  nationals.  Third-country  nationals  and  their 
family members would be able to access housing opportunities, which is 
expected to improve integration into the receiving society and their living 
environment and conditions.  

282 CY, EE, EL, FR, DE, HU, LV, LU, NL, PT, SE, SI, SK - EMN (2021) AHQ for Impact assessment on 

revision of the Long-term Residents and Single Permit Directives (Question 3) 

283 AT, EE, FI, PL, SI - EMN (2021) AHQ for Impact assessment on revision of the Long-term Residents and 

Single Permit Directives (Question 3) 

284 CY, EL - EMN (2020) Long-Term Resident Status in the EU, p. 3. 

168 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

However, from a preliminary analysis, the scale of the issue appears to be 
limited. Only a few Member States may have restricted access to private 
housing  for  TCNs,  and  thus  only  those  countries  would  be  affected  by 
this (clarified) provision. 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

A  measure  aimed  at  ensuring  that  the  right  to  access  housing  as  per 
Article  11  of  the  Directive  also  includes  social  housing  and  buying 
immovable  properties  would  allow  third-country  workers  to  enjoy  a 
higher  degree  of  equal  treatment  in  those  Member  States  where 
limitations  are  in  place  and  reduce  discrimination.  The  clarification  is 
also  expected to  positively impact  TCNs’ access  to  private housing and 
improve  their  household's  living  conditions.  This  measure  is  also 
expected  to  increase  third-country  nationals’  integration  in  the  country 
they are residing in. 

Nevertheless,  as  mentioned,  only  few  Member  States  seem  to  restrict 
access  to  private  housing,  hence  the  scale  of  TCNs  that  would  benefit 
from  this  measure  is  likely  to  be  rather  small.  In  addition,  in  those 
Member  States  where  such  a  measure  would  be  implemented,  the 
provision  would  also  improve  housing  and  living  standards  for  family 
members residing in Europe who cohabitate with permit holders.  

National authorities 

While this provision is likely to affect only approximately five Member 
States, the impact on those countries would mainly entitle a greater level 
of integration of migrants in their respective society.  In some cases, the 
measure could also help reduce spatial segregation.  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

No expected impacts on this group of stakeholders.  

Employers/Businesses 

No expected impacts on this group of stakeholders.  

Third countries 

No expected impacts on this group of stakeholders. 

Economic impacts  This  measure  is  expected  to  have  some  positive  economic  impacts, 
however,  these  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a  specific  individual 
measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate  level  of  the  policy 
options instead. 

169 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Given that the scale of the problem appears to be small as it refers only to 
those  countries  where  national  legislation  limits  TCNs  from  purchasing 
real  estate,  the  overall  economic  impacts  might  be  particularly  limited 
and impossible to quantify. In addition, there is no available data on EU 
LTR holders’ access to social housing. Potential economic impacts relate 
to  slightly  increased  tax  revenues  and  the  economic  growth  of  those 
concerned Member States. 

Despite  the  small  scale  of  this  issue,  broadening  the  housing  market  to 
additional buyers is likely to impact the local economy positively. Local 
economies could, in fact, benefit from a small increase in fiscal revenue 
coming  from  the  relevant  real  estate  taxes  paid  by  TCNs  and  the  local 
housing  market  could  somewhat  improve,  yielding  better  prices  for 
sellers. 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  would  help  reduce  the  discrimination 
(Article 21 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights) faced by some EU 
LTR  holders  when  seeking  access  to  social  housing  and  buying 
immovable property. Therefore, this measure is also expected to promote 
the fundamental non-discrimination right. 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
some  very  minor  administrative  and  compliance  costs.  These  costs  are 
estimated as follows (average yearly costs): 

European Commission 

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

change: 2,455 euro 

Member States national authorities 

  Administrative and compliance costs to adapt the current national 

procedures in those Member States affected: 1,146 euro 

Simplification 

No specific simplification costs are expected from this measure 

Overall assessment 

Overall, this measure is expected to positively impact third-country nationals who will enjoy 
equal  treatment,  with  marginal  costs  to  national  competent  authorities.  The  measure  is  also 
likely to improve their household's living conditions in those Member States where restriction 

170 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

to  private  housing  is  now  in  place,  favouring  equal  treatment  and  non-discrimination  of 
TCNs.  This measure will result in moderate administrative and compliance costs for Member 
States. 

Policy  Measure  2.17:  Aligning  the  definition  of  social  security  (and  the  export  of 
pensions  and  family  benefits)  with  the  other  legal  migration  Directives,  and 
ensuring full equal treatment with regard to access to social assistance and social 
protection (beyond the concept of ‘core benefits’) 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Aligning  definition  of  social  security  with  other  legal  migration 
Directives  will  ensure  a  more  coherent  system  and  increase  the 
attractiveness  of  the  EU  LTR  status  by  clarifying  the  content  of  the 
provisions  on  equal  treatment  rights  and  enhancing  the  legal  certainty 
attached to the implementation of these rights. Limiting Member States’ 
discretion regarding limitation to equal treatment rights by removing the 
possible  derogation  allowing  Member  States  to  limit  equal  treatment  in 
respect  of  social  assistance  and  social  protection  to  core  benefits  will 
participate  in  increasing  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  LTR  status.  This 
could help in providing a level-playing field between the EU and national 
LTR  schemes  in  Member  States  where  EU  LTRs  have  less  or  similar 
entitlement to social security and social assistance protection rights. 

Objective 2 

No effect on this policy objective. 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

This measure aims to align the provisions under Article 11 of the LTRD, 
on equal treatment with regards to social security, social assistance, and 
social  protection,  with  other  more  recent  legal  migration  Directives. 
While  Article  11(1)(d)  refers  to  social  security,  social  assistance,  and 
social protection defined by national law, all more recent legal migration 
Directives refer to equal treatment as regards branches of social security 
as  defined  in  article  3  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  883/2004.  The  latter 
provide for a list of ten branches of social security which set a standard 
that limits Member States’ discretion in their interpretation of the concept 

171 

 
 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

of social security.  

Stakeholders  reported  a  lack  of  clarity  concerning  the  transfer  of  social 
contributions from one Member State to one other.285 More recent legal 
migration  Directives  provide  for  equal  treatment  with  regard  to  the 
transfer  of  statutory  pensions  in  case  a  TCNs  move  to  a  third  country. 
This  also  apply  for  TCNs’  survivors  who  reside  in  a  third  country  and 
who  derives  rights  from  TCNs.286  The  alignment  of  the  LTRD  with 
regards  to  this  provision  will  enable  and  clarify  the  transferability  of 
social contributions in case a EU LTR move to another Member State or 
to a third country.  

Furthermore,  this  measure  will  have  the  effect  of  taking  away  the 
possibility  for  Member  States  to  implement  such  derogation  and  will 
clarify further the extent to which Member States can limiting the scope 
of EU LTR’s equal treatment rights.  

No particular opposition was formulated by stakeholders concerning this 
measure. However, while representatives of the Civil Society agreed that 
clauses  concerning  social  security  and  social  assistance  should  be 
removed  or  reduced,  some  considered  that  it  should  be  done  through  a 
horizontal revision of all legal migration Directives concerned and not by 
just amending the LTRD. 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

TCNs  will  have  more  legal  certainty  regarding  the  extent  of  their 
entitlement to social security and social assistance protection. EU LTRs 
living  in  Member  States  where  these  rights  are  limited  will  have 
enhanced access to social security and social assistance protection as well 
as  the  possibility  to  transfer  their  statutory  pension  rights  in  case  of 
moving to a third country.  

National authorities 

This  measure  will  have  an  impact  on  national  authorities  of  Member 
States  where  national  law  regarding  equal  treatment  rights  to  social 
security  and  social  assistance  are  limited.  National  authorities  of  those 
Member States will need to ensure full access to such entitlements.  

285 Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021; Second meeting of the EU legal migration 

practitioners network, 29 April 2021. 

286 Article 12 of the SPD; Article 22 of the S&RD; Article 23 of the SWD; Art 16 of the compromised text of the 

BCD. 

172 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

This  measure  will  create  a  common  standard  in  the  field  of  social 
security and social protection which will facilitate legal counselling and 
judiciary  procedures.  By  clarifying  the  concept  of  social  assistance 
protection,  this  measure  will  make  the  law  more  clear,  precise,  and 
predictable, which will have the effect of increasing the "legal certainty" 
attached to the implementation of these rights.  

Employers/Businesses 

No significant impacts expected. 

Third countries 

No  significant  impacts  expected  on  third  countries,  besides  a  small 
positive effect on the portability of rights and pensions to third countries. 

Economic impacts  This  measure  will  improve  the  living  conditions  of  the  most  vulnerable 
EU  LTR  residing  in  Member  States  with  limited  access  to  social 
assistance.  Improved  living  conditions  could  in  turn  lead  to  better 
integration  in  the  society  and  possibly  better  employment  potential. 
While  it  could  contribute  to  economic  growth,  the  potential  economic 
impacts cannot be estimated at the level of a specific individual measure, 
but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate  level  of  the  policy  options 
instead. 

No specific environmental impacts identified. 

This measure will enhance the fundamental rights of social security and 
social  assistance  enshrined  under  Article  34  of  the  EU  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights. 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
administrative and compliance costs at differing degrees. These costs are 
estimated as follows (average yearly costs): 

European Commission 

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

change: 2,455 euro 

Member States national authorities 

173 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

  Administrative  and  compliance  costs  to  carry  out  legal  changes, 
as  well  as  provide  the  social  benefits  (in  terms  of  increased 
human  resources  and  a  higher  number  or  amount  of  transfer 
payments): 90,261 euro 

  The impact  will be higher in  Member States  where national  law 
regarding  equal  treatment  rights  to  social  security  and  social 
assistance offer a lower level of entitlement that the one provided 
in article 3 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004. 

The  harmonisation  of  the  legislation  in  the  field  of  social  security  and 
social protection assistance will simplify the work of legal  practitioners 
and the judiciary. The potential increase in the number of beneficiaries of 
social  benefits  will  increase  administrative  burden  for  the  authorities 
competent to provide those benefits but will simplify their access to EU 
LTR permits. 

Simplification 

Overall assessment 

Overall,  this  measure  will  improve  the  rights  of  EU  LTR  status  holders  and  their  family 
members  while  generating  moderate  administrative  and  compliance  costs  for  national 
authorities. Moreover, this measure will contribute to a more coherent system for acquiring 
the  EU  LTR  status.  However,  the  achievement  of  this  objective  ultimately  depends  on  the 
level of transposition of the provisions. Indeed, issues regarding equal treatment with regard 
to social security and social protection have been raised even within the framework of most 
recent  Directives,  the  main  issue  being  the  lack  of  or  incomplete  transposition  of  equal 
treatment provision by Member States.287 

Policy Measure 2.18: Prolonging the allowed period of absence outside the EU from 12 
to 24 months 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

The  measure  would  help  in  providing  a  greater  level-playing  field 
the 
between 
attractiveness  of  the  EU  LTR  permit  and  ensuring  a  more  coherent 
system. 

the  EU  and  national  LTR  schemes  by 

increasing 

287 Fitness check Annex 2A p 93. 

174 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Objective 2 

No specific impacts on this objective. 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

This  measure  will  further  develop  EU  LTR  holder’s  rights  by  allowing 
them  to  study  outside  the  EU,  to  maintain  family  relationship  in  their 
country of origin, and to work and study abroad for an extended period of 
time. 

Moreover, this measure will increase the period of time EU LTR permit 
holders can stay outside the EU without needing to provide a justification 
and/or invoke exceptional  circumstances. At present,  16 Member States 
apply  the  derogation  of  Article  9(2)  of  the  LTRD  according  to  which 
Member  States  can  allow  period  of  absences  exceeding  12  consecutive 
months  or  for  specific  or  exceptional  circumstances.288  Four  Member 
States do not clearly specify the specific or exceptional circumstances in 
their national legislations.289  

Extending  the  period  of  allowed  absence  will  strongly  facilitate  the 
circular migration of the EU long-term residents.  

The  extension  of  the  period  of  absence  meets  a  general  agreement 
amongst  stakeholders.  Some  voiced  that  this  measure  is  particularly 
relevant  in  a  world  where  mobility  is  a  global  phenomenon  and 
considering the Covid-19 pandemic restricting return travels to the EU.290 
The Covid-19 pandemic and the following economic crisis pushed many 
long-term  residents  who  lost  their  job  to  go  back  to  their  country  of 
origin  for  a  year  or  longer  and  thus  lost  their  EU  LTR  status.291  This 
measure  will  prevent  the  loss  of  status  of  such  persons  due  to  an 
extended stay out of the territory of the EU for more than a year. Amidst 
the Contact Group on Legal Migration, only Hungary expressed that the 
rules  related  to  absence  from  the  territory  of  the  EU  are  sufficient. 
Representatives  of  Lithuania  and  Croatia,  while  not  opposing  the 
extension  of  the  allowed  period  of  absence,  called  for  a  clarification  of 
the concept of absence as they have witnessed situations where some EU 

288 AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT and SI. Fitness Check of EU Legal 

migration Directives, Task II (Phase 8). 

289 EE, EL, FR and MT. 
290 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; Consultation with 

representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021.. 

291 Initial findings shared by FRA from the ongoing study on the Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence 

status holders, p. 9 

175 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

LTR only come back on their territory for very short periods to reset the 
counting of their absence period.292   

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

TCNs will be able to move for a longer period without fear of losing their 
EU LTR permit and thus providing them with a more stable legal status. 
The  measure  will  allow  EU  LTR  to  stay  outside  of  the  EU  without 
having  to  come  back  just  to  interrupt  the  counting  of  the  authorised 
period.  Additionally,  this  measure  may  encourage  skilled  professionals 
that are generally highly mobile to consider job posting in a third country 
at  different  stages  of  their  career.  The  is  also  true  for  unemployed  EU 
LTRs  who  will  be  able  to  consider  short-term  work  positions  abroad 
without fearing to lose their status.  

National authorities 

National  authorities  will  have  to  adjust  their  national  legislation 
regarding the period of allowed absence.  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

No specific effects are expected, although initially some TCNs may wish 
to  obtain  legal  advice  as  to  what  is  allowed  within  the  new  period 
established.  

Employers/Businesses 

In  addition  to  what  is  reported  under  third  countries,  this  measure  will 
have  a  positive  effect  on  employers  and  businesses  interested  in  being 
able  to  post  workers  in  third  countries.  Enabling  EU  LTR  holders  to 
study abroad for an extended period of time and come back to apply their 
acquired skills and knowledge on the EU labour market will also have a 
positive impact for employers and businesses.  

Third countries 

By facilitating circular migration, this measure could help to counter the 
“brain drain” phenomenon as it will allow EU LTR to stay longer in their 
country  of  origin,  for  instance  for  investment  or  business  purposes.  As 
reported  by  stakeholders,  the  measure  will  have  an  economic  impact  in 
the  country  of  origin  as  the  extension  of  the  period  of  allowed  absence 
will  promote  the  possibility  for  migrants  coming  from  developing 

292 Consultation with the Legal Migration Contact Group, 18 May 2021. 

176 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

countries  to  invest  back  in  their  countries  of  origin  and  to  share  their 
knowledge and skills.293 

Economic impacts  As mentioned above, the measure is likely to lead to a higher number of 
TCNs returning to their country of origin also for business. This may in 
turn  contribute  to  economic  growth  in  these  countries.  This  measure  is 
also likely to allow the EU to retain international talent, enabling students 
to  study  or  conduct  work  experiences  abroad  and  return,  or  enabling 
highly skilled and highly mobile workers to be posted abroad then return 
to the EU and put into practice the knowledge and skills developed. As 
the  calculations  require  a  high  number  of  assumptions,  and  involve  a 
variety of factors, the potential economic impacts cannot be estimated at 
the level of a specific individual measure, but have been calculated at the 
aggregate level of the policy options instead. 

Environmental 
impacts 

This type of impact is unlikely to occur. 

Fundamental 
rights  

By allowing a longer period of absence, the measure will have an impact 
on the following fundamental rights and freedoms: 

-Right  to  family  life,  as  an  EU  LTR  will  be  able  to  maintain  family 
relationship,  in  particular  with  family  members  not  covered  by  the 
Family Reunification Directive.  

-Freedom  to  choose  an  occupation  and  right  to  engage  in  work  as  EU 
LTR TCNs will be entitled to work opportunities equivalent to those of 
citizens of the Union where these opportunities involve working abroad. 

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
administrative  and  compliance  costs.  These  costs  are  estimated  as 
follows ( average yearly costs): 

European Commission 

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

change: 2,455 euro. 

Member States national authorities 

  Administrative and compliance costs to revise legislation, as well 
as introduce a mechanism that would allow for the monitoring of 
the absences: 95,373 euro. 

293 Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021. 

177 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Simplification 

Assessment  

A small effect on simplification as the measure may decrease the cost of 
pre-departure  legal  proceeding  to  justify  the  specific  or  exceptional 
nature of an absence exceeding 12 months. 

Overall assessment 

Overall,  by  extending  the  period  of  allowed  absence,  this  measure  will  facilitate  circular 
migration  and  have  a  positive  economic  impact  on  third  countries.  Moreover,  this  measure 
will also  further develop EU  LTR  rights  by bringing their treatment  closer to  the treatment 
given to EU citizens. This would help in providing a more coherent and attractive EU LTR 
status system and a greater level-playing field between national LTR schemes. Additionally, 
this measure will enable Member States and the EU to retain talent as EU LTR holders will 
be able to work and study abroad for an extended period of time and come back to apply their 
skills on the EU labour market. However, the impact of the measure will ultimately depend 
on a clarification of the concept of “absence” regarding whether even a short physical stay in 
the territory of the EU within 12 months period precludes the application of the condition for 
loss under art 9(1)(c ). Finally, this measure will generate low to moderate administrative and 
compliance costs for national authorities. 

Policy Measure 2.19: Regulating in more detail the procedure to reacquire the EU LTR 

status following absence 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Article  9(5)  of  the  LTRD  allows  Member  States  to  have  a  facilitated 
procedure  in  place  for  the  re-acquisition  of  the  EU  LTR  status  in  the 
event  of  absences  from  the  EU  territory  of  more  than  24  consecutive 
months. 14 Member States have implemented this provision,  albeit  in  a 
highly fragmented manner,294 while the remaining 11 have not.295 

By  introducing  a  regulated  procedure  allowing  TCN  to  reacquire  their 
long-term residence status in case it was withdrawn, the EU LTR status 
may  become  more  attractive,  as  the  measure  will  provide  TCN  with  a 
more  stable  status  and  procedural  safeguards  in  reacquiring  their  EU 
status. 

Moreover,  it  may  facilitate  the  conditions  to  (re)acquire  the  LTR  status 
by reducing the period of required residence, or reducing the number of 

294 BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, ES, FR, HU, IT, LV, LT, LU, LV, PO, PT.   
295 AT, HR, FI, DE, EL, MT, NL, RO, SK, SI, SE. 

178 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

the  ex-EU  LTR  may  have 

to  submit. 
documentary  evidences 
Furthermore, the Covid-19 pandemic  and the following  economic  crisis 
pushed  many  long-term  residents  who  lost  their  job  to  go  back  to  their 
country  of  origin  for  a  year  or  longer  and  thus  lost  their  EU  LTR 
status.296This  measure will help  those TCNs  to  (re)acquire the EU  LTR 
status  that  was  lost  for  involuntary  reasons  such  as  the  ongoing 
pandemic.   

Overall,  this  measure  would  contribute  to  the  objective  of  a  more 
coherent and efficient system to acquire the EU LTR status. 

Objective 2 

No specific impact on this objective. 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

By allowing a facilitated procedure to re-acquire the EU LTR status, ex-
EU  LTR  and  their  family  members  will  be  able  to  access  the  rights 
attached  to  the  EU  LTR  permit  and  enjoy  equal  treatment  in  areas 
covered by the Directive. 

Moreover, the measure is likely to somewhat enhance circular migration 
of  TCNs,  as  they  would  now  have  the  legal  certainty  that  they  can 
reacquire the status in case they are away for a longer period than what is 
allowed  by  the  LTRD.  Regulating  the  procedure  to  reacquire  the  EU 
LTR  status  will  also  regulate  Member  States’  discretion  in  their 
implementation as well as insure a certain level of procedural safeguard. 
Nevertheless,  the  impact  of  this  measure  on  the  increase  in  circular 
migration may be rather limited and difficult to quantify.  

This measure did not meet any particular opposition during stakeholders 
consultations. During the consultation with the Contact Group on Legal 
Migration,  only  Belgium  declared  not  being  in  favour  of  changing  the 
conditions  to  re-acquire  the EU  LTR  status  after exceeding the  allowed 
period of absence from the EU territory.297 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

This measure will ensure that concerned TCNs have legal  certainty that 
there  is  a  procedure  for  reacquiring  the  long-term  residence  status,  and 

296 Initial findings shared by FRA from the ongoing study on the Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence 

status holders, p. 9 

297 Consultation with the Legal Migration Contact Group, 18 May 2021 

179 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

that they do not have to start from scratch to obtain the status.  

National authorities 

National authorities in 10 Member States would need to introduce a new 
procedure  and  another  15  Member  States  would  have  to  adapt  the 
procedure they currently have in place.  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

Legal  and  judiciary  aspects  concerning  the  procedure  to  re-acquire  the 
EU  permit  will  be  clarified  which  will  result  in  simplified  proceedings 
for legal practitioners and judiciary systems.  

Employers/Businesses 

No specific effects expected, with the exception of what is reported under 
third countries. 

Third countries 

TCNs  who  are  able  to  re-acquire  their  EU  LTR  status,  will  be  able  to 
maintain a more stable economic situation which would ultimately allow 
them  to  maintain  the  level  of  remittances  sent  to  the  persons  receiving 
them in the country of origin. Some limited increase in circular migration 
may  also  lead  to  a  minor  increase  in  business  and  investments  in  third 
countries. 

Economic impacts  As mentioned above, the measure may lead to a minor increase of TCNs 
returning  to  their  country  of  origin,  also  for  business.  However,  the 
potential economic impacts cannot be estimated at the level of a specific 
individual measure, but have been calculated at the aggregate level of the 
policy options instead. 

This type of impact is unlikely to occur. 

This type of impact is unlikely to occur. 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
administrative and compliance costs at differing degrees. These costs are 
estimated as follows (average yearly costs): 

European Commission 

  Administrative  costs  for  implementing  and  communicating  the 

180 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

change: 2,455 euro. 

Member States national authorities 

  Administrative  and  compliance  costs  to  carry  out  the  legal 
changes,  as  well  as  introducing  a  new  procedure  in  11  Member 
States and 14 Member States which have to adapt their procedure 
(including training and  guidance  for national  authorities, as well 
as communication of the changes to TCN): 149,842 euro. 

Simplification 

The measure will introduce a harmonised procedure in all Member States 
for  reacquiring  a  lost  status.  It  may  lead  to  simplification  in  those  15 
Member States which already have a procedure in place, but it will add 
some burden to those 10 Member States which did not have a procedure 
(and merely required TCNs to reapply for LTR status when eligible). 

Overall assessment 

Overall,  regulating  the  procedure  to  re-acquire  the  status  will  help  to  limit  Member  States’ 
wide  discretion  in  their  implementation  of  such  procedure.  Thus,  this  measure  would 
contribute  to  the  objective  of  a  more  coherent  and  efficient  system  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR 
status.  Ultimately,  by  providing  TCNs  with  more  procedural  safeguards  and  a  more  stable 
status,  the  measure  will  facilitate  circular  migration  and  have  a  positive  impact  on  the 
attractiveness  of  the  EU  status.  This  measure  will  generate  low  administrative  and 
compliance costs for the Member States. 

1.3  Policy option 3 – Wider legislative revision of the Directive 

This option includes the  measures of option 2 while also addressing issues identified with 
regard to the conditions to acquire the EU LTR status. 

1.3.1  Measures relating to facilitating the conditions to acquire the LTR status 

Policy Measure 3.1: Allowing periods spent as students to be counted fully 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 

In  the  current  Directive,  Member  States  are  not  obliged  to  take  into 
account the residence periods spent as students for the acquisition of the 

181 

 
 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

EU  LTR status, and if they do it, these periods may only be counted as 
half298, so  that a student who, for example completed a Masters' degree 
and started working afterwards cannot apply for the LTR status yet, even 
if  he/she  can  demonstrate  to  be  fully  integrated.  On  the  other  hand,  for 
the national LTR permit, most Member States count half of the period of 
time spent as students, with a few exceptions (e.g. Latvia),299 making the 
national  scheme  more  attractive  in  this  sense.  This  measure  would 
therefore  contribute to a level-playing field,  making the EU  LTR  status 
more attractive for potential applicants. 

Moreover, currently Article 5 establishes that TCN out of scope for EU 
LTR  status  are those who “reside in  a Member  State in  order to  pursue 
studies or vocational training”. The vast majority of stakeholders agreed 
that  student  years  should  be  counted  fully  within  the  residence 
requirement  conditions  for  EU  LTR  status.300  This  shows  that  TCN’s 
time  as  a  student  or  for  vocational  training  can  result  in  long-term 
ambitions to put down roots in the Member State, and that this should be 
recognised within the EU LTR conditions. Recognising this through the 
introduction of this measure and facilitating the possibility for TCNs who 
have  study  years  to  be  eligible  for  EU  LTR  status,  would  significantly 
contribute  to  a  more  efficient  and  fairer  system  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR 
status. 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Facilitating  access  of  certain  TCNs  to  the  EU  LTR  permit  would  grant 
them a faster access  to  the right  to  move to  a second Member State for 
studies or employment purposes. This measure would therefore indirectly 
facilitate their intra-EU mobility. 

This  measure  would  grant  TCNs  who  formerly  resided  with  a  student 
residence permit the same treatment granted to other TCNs applying for 
the EU LTR status, thereby contributing to an improvement in the area of 
equal treatment. 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Impacts 

298  That  is  the  case  in  CZ,  DE,  ES,  PL  while  in  FR  and  IT,  none  of  the  student  years  count:  Initial  findings 
shared by FRA from the ongoing study on the Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence status holders, p. 
5 

299 EMN (2018) Attracting and retaining international students in the EU, p. 26. 
300 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; Fifth meeting of 
the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021; Consultation with representatives of 
Civil Society, 20 April 2021; Consultation with the Economic and Social Partners, 5 May 2021; Second 
meeting of the EU legal migration practitioners network, 29 April 2021; Initial findings shared by FRA from 
the ongoing study on the Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence status holders, p. 5 

182 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Social impacts 

Assessment  

Third-country nationals 

As  highlighted  by  members  of  the  Informal  expert  group  on  economic 
migration  and  of  the  EU  legal  migration  practitioner’s  network,  this 
measure  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  integration  of  TCNs  and 
their families in the Member State of residence, as students are often both 
qualified  and  integrated  after  many  years  spent  in  a  Member  State.301 
Indeed,  completing  studies  often  require  speaking  the  language  and 
interacting  with  nationals  of  the  host  country.  This  fosters  the 
development  of  cultural  and  social  capital,  which  former  students  carry 
beyond their graduation and into the labour market.  

In addition, by granting TCNs earlier access to the EU LTR status, this 
measure  would  grant  them  full  access  to  the  labour  market  sooner, 
including  the  possibility  to  move  to  a  second  Member  State  for 
employment  or  study  purposes.  This  is  likely  to  contribute  to  greater 
economic stability for TCNs and their families. 

National authorities 

National authorities may face an increase in TCNs interested in studying 
in their country, due to the possibility of accessing the LTR status nearly 
directly  after  their  studies.  Universities  and  other  educational  institutes 
may also witness a rise in students. 

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

This  measure  is  expected  to  have  a  very  limited  impact  on  legal 
practitioners,  with  some  initial  requests  for  clarification  received  from 
TCNs and intermediaries concerning the interpretation and application of 
the new measure. 

Employers/Businesses 

Employers and businesses will significantly benefit from this measure, as 
it will allow the EU to retain international talent, broadening the pool of 
available qualified and legally residing TCNs in the EU. This will allow 
employers  to  fill  vacancies  for  highly  skilled  workers  more  easily, 
without needing to recruit talent from outside the EU. 

Third countries 

Third countries will benefit  from  a  potential increase in  the remittances 
sent by the TCNs affected by this measure. There is, however, a risk that 
this  measure  will  contribute  to  brain  drain,  as  TCNs  having  completed 
their  studies  in  the  EU  will  be  less  likely  to  return  to  their  country  of 

301 See the Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021 and the Second 

meeting of the EU legal migration practitioner’s network, 29 April 2021. 

183 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

origin,  as  they will have more options to  legally  reside and work in  the 
EU. 

Economic impacts  This  measure  is  expected  to  lead  to  an  increase  in  tax  revenues, 
productivity,  consumption,  remittances,  as  well  as  in  economic  growth. 
Indeed, at an EU level, this measure would allow the EU to better attract 
and retain talent, encouraging TCNs who conduct their studies in the EU 
to  stay,  allowing  the  EU  labour  market  to  benefit  from  their  acquired 
talent and skills.302 Employers will benefit from a larger pool of qualified 
and  legally  residing  TCNs,  allowing  them  to  fill  vacancies  without 
needing  to  recruit  persons  outside  of the  EU,  therefore  avoiding  certain 
administrative  procedures.  Businesses  will  be  more  likely  to  make 
investments  than  they  otherwise  would  be  in  a  situation  of  labour 
shortages. This, in turn will contribute to economic growth. 

At the national level, Member States will be able to benefit earlier from 
the economic contributions made by employed TCNs to their tax regime. 

Rather, as mentioned above, this measure may contribute to an increase 
in the remittances sent to countries of origin. 

However, the potential economic impacts cannot be estimated at the level 
of  a  specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the 
aggregate level of the policy options instead. 

No environmental impacts identified. 

This  measure will contribute to  the right  to  professional  life and family 
life, as TCNs conducting their studies in the EU will be able to obtain EU 
LTR status sooner. 

As mentioned above, this measure will result in minor administrative and 
compliance  costs  faced  by  national  authorities,  for  adapting  the 
procedure  to  enable  former  students  to  request  the  EU  LTR  status  after 
five  years  of  continuous  residence.  The  measure  is  likely  to  lead  in  the 
first years of its application to a surge in the number of requests lodged, 
which would increase temporarily the burden on authorities, but this will 
even  out  in  time.  However,  some  cost-savings  could  also  occur  as 
national authorities would no longer have to apply a separate procedure 
for formerly studying TCN (i.e. checking the longer period of continuous 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

302 See the Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021 and the Second 

meeting of the EU legal migration practitioner’s network, 29 April 2021. 

184 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

residence). 

Simplification 

Overall,  the  costs  resulting  from  this  measure  alone  for  Member  States 
national authorities are estimated at around 69,355 euro (average  yearly 
cost). 

This  measure  promises  significant  simplification  as  national  authorities 
would apply the same procedure to obtain the EU LTR status to students 
too.  TCNs  having  resided  as  students  in  the  five  years  prior  to  their 
application. Accessing the EU  LTR  status  will be simplified for former 
TCNs  students  as  they  will  benefit  from  the  same  conditions  of 
acquisition  of  the  EU  permit.  This  will  also  simplify  the  administrative 
burden of TCNs wishing to remain in the territory of the Member State 
where  they  studied  as  they  will  have  access  to  a  stable  and  long-term 
residence permit. 

Overall assessment 

Overall,  this  measure  will  contribute  to  a  more  coherent  and  fairer  system  as  well  as  to 
increase the attractiveness  of the EU  LTR  status by reducing the period  of time needed for 
TCNs to obtain this status. It will allow the EU to attract and retain international talent, which 
will  contribute  to  the  economies  of  the  Member  State  of  residence.  It  may  have  a  positive 
impact on remittances sent to countries of origin, in addition to a potential negative impact on 
circular migration, with a risk of brain drain for countries of origin. By facilitating the access 
to the EU LTR status for TCNs who resided as students in the territory of the Member State 
and  are  often  fully  integrated  and  qualified,  this  measure  is  aligned  with  the  spirit  of  the 
LTRD  making  the  integration  of  TCNs  who  are  long-term  residents  a  key  element  in 
promoting  economic  and  social  cohesion  as  well  as  a  fundamental  objective  of  the 
Community stated in the Treaty.303 

Policy  Measure  3.2:  Opening  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  lower  the  required 
residence  period  to  apply  for  the  EU  LTR  status  from  five  to  three  years,  but 
with intra-EU mobility rights only granted after five years 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 

Article  4(1)  of  the  LTRD  lays  down  the  mandatory  five-year  legal 
residence  period  required  of  successful  EU  LTR  applicants.  The  EU 
LTRD emphasises that this residence requirement is the ‘main criterion’ 

303 Recital 4 of the LTRD. 

185 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

acquire 
LTR status 

the  EU 

to  establish  whether  a  TCN  has  the  intention  to  put  down  roots  in  a 
country.  Nevertheless,  a  variety  of  experts304  noted  that  this  five-year 
residence requirement for long-term residence is excessively long.  

In  the  majority  of  Member  States  either  acquiring  citizenship  or  long-
term  residence  permits  through  national  schemes  currently  takes  five 
years, or in some cases even less, therefore the added value of applying 
for long-term residence and intra-EU mobility through the EU scheme is 
not clear. Indeed, 12 Member States305 require five years of residence to 
obtain  citizenship  status  through  naturalisation  and  five  Member  States 
do  so  for  long-term  residence  status  through  national  schemes306.  In 
Denmark,  Finland,  Hungary  and  Sweden  the  requirement  for  legal 
residence  to  obtain  a  national  long-term  residence  permit  is  lower  than 
five years, whilst in Cyprus there is no residence requirement at all.307 In 
addition,  some  Member  States  reduce  the  required  residence  period  to 
three years for Stateless persons.308 

Inserting  this  measure  under  a  “may”  clause  will  mean  that  Member 
States  can  decide  whether  they  wish  to  implement  it  or  not,  which  is 
likely to  mean in  practice that those 12 Member  States  which require 5 
years of residence to obtain the citizenship status via naturalization might 
not apply it. In addition, including a “may” clause for this measure would 
mitigate potential resistance during the negotiations for the  LTRD from 
those  Member  States  who  might  be  reticent  to  lower  the  standard 
threshold  of  5  years  of  residence  for  the  attainment  of  long-term 
residence,  a  risk  highlighted  by  the  study  expert  panel,  legal  migration 
experts  from  the  Odysseus  Network,  and  members  of  the  Legal 
Migration Contact Group.309  

This measure would have a smaller but still positive effect on the level-
playing field, making the EU scheme more attractive than their national 

304 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021;, Consultation with 
representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021; Consultation with the Economic and Social Partners, 5 May 
2021; PICUM (2020), PICUM Priority recommendations for EU action on labour migration. 

305 BE, BG, CY, CZ, FI, FR, IE, LU, LV, NL, PT, SE, see EMN (2020) Synthesis Report on Pathways to 

citizenship for third-country nationals in the EU. 

306 BE, BG, LT, LV, SK, EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the period of validity of residence permits 
granted to third country nationals (update to GR EMN NCP Ad-Hoc Query on Duration of Residence 
Permits). 

307 Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021;, EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on 
the period of validity of residence permits granted to third country nationals (update to GR EMN NCP Ad-
Hoc Query on Duration of Residence Permits). 

308 EMN (2019) EMN Synthesis Report, Pathways to citizenship for third-country nationals in the EU p. 18. 
309 Brainstorming session with legal migration experts from the Odysseus Network, 10 June 2021; Consultation 

with the Legal Migration Contact Group, 18 May 2021. 

186 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

status  only  in  the  case  of  those  Member  States  which  opt  to  apply  it. 
Moreover,  it  would  contribute  to  a  more  efficient  and  fairer  system  by 
facilitating the conditions for TCNs with intent to put down roots in the 
Member  State  to  acquire  EU  LTR  status.  Nonetheless,  keeping  this 
measure under a ‘may clause’ will mean that the extent of the impact of 
this measure will depend on which and how many Member States adopt 
it. 

No impact on this objective, as intra-EU mobility rights would be granted 
in all cases only after five years. 

This measure will indirectly improve the rights of TCNs and their family 
by  reducing  the  required  residence  period  from  5  to  3  years,  making  it 
easier  for  potential  applicants  to  access  the  rights  provided  by  the  EU 
LTR permit in those Member States that would apply this measure. 

Moreover,  this  measure  is  likely  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  circular 
migration  as  migrants  will  have  more  freedom  to  leave  the  territory  for 
longer  periods  of  time  after  3  years  of  continuous  residence  in  the  EU 
Member  States  instead  of  5.  The  extent  to  which  this  impact  will  be 
significant  will  depend  on  the  number  of  Member  States  which  opt  to 
apply this measure. 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
term-
of 
residents  and  their 
family 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

This measure will significantly shorten the required period of continuous 
residence  to  obtain  the  EU  LTR  status  in  those  Member  States  which 
would  choose  to  apply  it,  which  will  provide  more  legal  certainty  to 
TCNs  and  their  families,  as  well  as  facilitate  their  integration  into  the 
first  Member  State.  The  acquirement  of  the  EU  LTR  status  facilitates 
intra-EU  mobility,  widening  the  options  of  TCNs  when  it  comes  to 
employment and studies. Stakeholders310 also highlighted that simplified 
and increased mobility for EU LTR holders will also amplify integration, 
as  it  would  bring  them  closer  to  the  EU  citizens’  right  to  freedom  of 
movement in the Member States which opt to apply this measure. 

The effects of this measure will however be dependent on the number of 
Member  States  which  apply  this  measure  as  well  as  the  other  optional 
measures of this policy option.  

310 Second meeting of the EU legal migration practitioner’s network, 29 April 2021. 

187 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

National authorities 

In those Member States which implement this measure, the introduction 
of this measure will result in competent authorities having to adapt their 
procedures to accommodate the new timeline, although the changes will 
be  very  minor  as  they  only  concern  the  period  of  residence  and  are 
expected to affect less than half of Member States. Especially during the 
first  years,  they  will  have  to  deal  with  a  relatively  higher  number  of 
applications, as TCNs would already become eligible for the status after 
three years instead of five.  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

As this measure does not entail changes to the application documentation 
and  fees  required,  the  main  impact  for  legal  practitioners  and  the 
judiciary will be to conduct the same work conducted previously, such as 
providing clarifications and counselling. 

Employers/Businesses 

This  measure  would  mean  that  employers  and  businesses  would  have 
more quickly access to a pool of qualified legally residing TCNs in other 
Member  States.  This  will  limit  the  possibility  of  substantial  delays  in 
filling necessary vacancies and help to fill labour shortages.  

Third countries 

The reduced period of residence needed for TCNs to obtain the EU LTR 
status may result in TCNs being able to secure more stable work in the 
EU. This in turn would have a positive impact on the remittances sent by 
these TCNs to their countries of origin, benefiting the economic stability 
of the persons  receiving these  remittances and indirectly  benefitting the 
economy of the country where they reside. 

Economic impacts  This  measure  is  expected  to  contribute  to  positive  economic  impacts  in 
those Member States that would opt to apply this measure. However, the 
potential economic impacts cannot be estimated at the level of a specific 
individual measure, but have been calculated at the aggregate level of the 
policy options instead. 

Environmental 
impacts 

No impact on this objective foreseen. 

188 

 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

Assessment  

This measure would indirectly contribute to the right to professional and 
family  life  by  allowing  TCNs  to  become  legal  residents  sooner  and 
therefore  allowing  them  to  benefit  from  facilitated  access  to  the  labour 
market and from the ability for family members of TCNs holding the EU 
LTR permit to join them. 

Overall, this measure will mostly incur minimal additional administrative 
and compliance costs for national competent authorities.  

Indeed, this measure will result in some administrative costs to national 
authorities in those Member States that choose to apply it. The Member 
States  applying  this  measure  will  need  to  adapt  their  procedures  to 
shorten the timeline for delivery of the EU LTR status. However, as the 
procedure  itself  will  not  change,  compliance  costs  are  expected  to  be 
minimal,  with  most  impact  being  caused  by  the  likely  surge  in 
applications  as  a  much  larger  pool  of  TCNs  would  become  eligible  for 
the status. Overall, the costs resulting from this measure are estimated to 
be (per average yearly cost): 

European Commission 

  Costs relating to implementing and communicating the changes to 

the Directive: 2,455 euro. 

Member States national authorities 

  Administrative and compliance costs 23,211 euro. 

Simplification 

The measure would not  lead to simplification, as it would merely  mean 
that TCNs  can apply for the long-term residence status  within a shorter 
time period. 

Overall assessment 

Overall, the benefits of this measure to TCNs, employers and businesses and third countries 
are expected to be lower than the scenario in which this measure would be integrated under a 
“shall” clause (measure 4.1), the costs to national authorities are also  expected to be lower. 
Integrating  this  measure  under  a  “may”  clause  would  reduce  the  potential  reticence  of 
Member States to adopt this measure, providing more flexibility for Member States compared 
to under measure 4.1. 

189 

 
 
 
 
Policy  Measure  3.3:  Opening  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  allow  cumulating 
residence  periods  in  different  Member  States  (subject  to  a  residence  in  the 
Member State of application of at least two years) 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Article  4(1)  and  (3)  of  the  LTRD  strictly  enshrine  that  the  five-year 
mandatory residence requirement must be continuous and uninterrupted. 
Recital 6 also emphasises that five years is the main criterion to establish 
whether  a  TCN  is  well-integrated  and  wishes  to  put  down  roots  in  the 
country.  Nonetheless,  experts311  note  that  the  length  and  continuous 
nature of the residence requirement is excessive.  

Stakeholders  from  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  the  Views  of 
Migrants highlighted the impossibility to count periods of legal residence 
spent in two or more Member States as lowering the attractiveness of the 
EU  LTR  permit.  This  measure  would  make  the  EU  LTR  permit  more 
attractive  for  those  Member  States  that  choose  to  implement  it. 
Moreover, this measure would significantly contribute to help TCNs who 
may  have  to  go  to  other  Member  States  for  their  studies  or  other 
opportunities, as long as they have the proof of having legally resided in 
the EU to  obtain EU  LTR status.  Thus, by facilitating the conditions  to 
acquire  the  EU  LTR  status,  this  measure  would  contribute  to  the 
objective of having a more efficient and fairer system. 

If the cumulative residence period is accompanied by other proof of the 
EU LTR applicant’s intent to stay in the Member State long-term, there 
should be no issues in rendering the residence period cumulative. 

This  measure  would  encourage  intra-EU  mobility,  as  TCNs  would  be 
able  to  cumulate  the  periods  spent  in  another  Member  State  in  order  to 
apply for the EU LTR permit. However, Member States may opt  not to 
implement  this  measure,  there  is  therefore  a  risk  that  the  impact  of this 
measure will be considerably weakened if implemented only by a small 
number  of  Member  States.  TCNs  would  in  this  case  be  encouraged  to 
move  only  between  the  Member  States  implementing  this  measure, 
which would limit their intra-EU mobility. 

Objective 3 

 No specific impact on this objective. 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

311 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021 

190 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Impacts 

Assessment  

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

Depending on the number of Member States which opt to implement this 
measure,  it  will  facilitate  the  access  of  affected  TCNs  to  the  EU  LTR 
status as well as facilitate their access to the labour market of the country 
where  they  reside.  Depending  on  other  measures  relating  to  intra-EU 
mobility,  this  measure  may  facilitate  the  access  that  TCNs  have  to  the 
labour market of the second Member State. 

This  measure will also  contribute to  improving the integration of TCNs 
in  the  Member  State  of  residence,  allowing  them  to  enjoy  the  rights 
granted by the EU LTR status earlier. 

The  effects  of  this  measure  will  largely  depend  on  the  number  of 
Member States implementing it. 

National authorities 

National  authorities  in  those  Member  States  which  implement  this 
measure  would  need  to  introduce  information  exchange  mechanisms 
such as EU MOBIL (coordinated by the Commission) to be able to check 
the validity of the time spent in other Member States. They could either 
ask  TCN  to  provide  certificates  from  other  Member  States  or  exchange 
this information with other Member States directly. This measure would 
require  coordination between the  authorities of  different  Member States 
to verify the periods of residence and ensure that conditions to obtain the 
EU  LTR  permit  are  satisfied  throughout  the  period;  such  coordination 
could  take  place  within  the  existing  information  exchange  mechanisms 
mentioned  above.  The  roles  played  by  the  authorities  in  the  first  and 
second  Member  State  would  need  to  be  clarified,  for  example 
integration 
responsible 
establishing 
requirements. 

for  assessing 

the  authority 

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

The  measure  will  lead  to  an  initial  increase  in  questions/  consultations 
with  legal  practitioners,  since  applicants  may  wish  to  obtain  greater 
clarity  on  how  their  time  spent  in  other  Member  States  can  be  proven 
through documentary evidence as well as how it will be counted. 

Employers/Businesses 

This measure would shorten the length of time needed before some TCN 
can obtain the EU LTR permit in those Member States which choose to 
implement it. This will limit the possibility of substantial delays in filling 
necessary vacancies and help to fill labour shortages.  

Third countries 

191 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

This  measure  is  not  expected  to  have  a  significant  impact  on  third 
countries. 

Economic impacts  The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

The  economic  impacts  will  depend  on  the  number  of  Member  States 
which choose to implement it. 

As  a  result  of  this  measure,  some  TCNs  will  benefit  from  greater  legal 
certainty  and  economic  stability.  In  addition,  by  allowing  TCNs  to  de 
facto be mobile and still obtain the EU LTR status within a 5-year period 
(or  shorter  in  combination  with  the  measure  reducing  the  minimum 
period of continuous residence), they could make a better contribution to 
addressing  labour  shortages  in  Member  States.  However,  as  prior  to 
becoming eligible for the EU LTR status their applications would not be 
facilitated, the number of those TCNs actually being mobile is expected 
to  be  low  and  the  economic  effect  negligible,  therefore  it  will  not  be 
possible to quantify this impact. 

No specific environmental impacts foreseen. 

This  measure  will  indirectly  contribute  to  the  right  to  professional  life 
and the right to family life of those TCNs affected, where Member States 
have chosen to implement the measure. 

The administrative and compliance costs envisioned within this measure 
are  mostly  for  national  competent  authorities.  The  Member  States 
national  authorities  which  opt  to  implement  this  measure  will  face 
significant  additional  administrative  and  compliance  costs  from  this 
measure,  as  they  will  have  to  adapt  their  procedures,  issuing  guidance 
and training, as well as communicate the change to EU LTR applicants. 
In terms of compliance costs, the measure is likely to require additional 
efforts  as  national  authorities  would  need  to  verify  that  TCNs  indeed 
spent  the  required  period  of  residence  in  the  other  Member  State. 
Overall, the costs are estimated to be (per average yearly cost): 

European Commission 

  Costs relating to implementing and communicating the changes to 

the Directive: 2,455 euro. 

Member States national authorities 

192 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

  Administrative and compliance costs: 133,261 euro. 

Simplification 

This measure is not expected to have an effect in terms of simplification 
as it would introduce some additional procedural steps. 

Overall assessment 

Overall, this measure will facilitate the access of TCNs to the EU LTR status, making the EU 
LTR  permit  more  attractive  and  contributing  to  a  more  efficient  and  fairer  system.  It  will 
bring economic stability to TCNs, allowing them to count the periods of time spent in other 
EU  Member  States.  However,  it  will  entail  some  administrative  and  compliance  costs  for 
those  Member  States  implementing  it  and  its  impact  on  TCN  will  largely  depend  on  how 
many  Member  States  choose  to  implement  it.  Including  this  measure  with  a  “may  clause” 
will significantly limit  the potential positive effects  of the measure for TCNs. However, by 
leaving  scope  for  national  decision  in  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  Directive’s 
revision  as  well  as  respecting  national  arrangements  and  circumstances,  this  measure  is 
particularly conformed to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This could help to 
overcome  possible  Member  States’  reticence  in  the  following  negotiations  regarding  the 
introduction of this measure by making it  an option not mandatory to implement while still 
having the possibility to satisfactorily achieve the objectives of the revision. 

Policy  Measure  3.4:  Opening  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  include  in  the 
Directive permits issued on temporary grounds  

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Article  3(2)(e)  of  the  LTRD  settles  that  TCN  who  have  been  admitted 
solely  on  temporary  grounds  or  on  permits  formally  limited,  such  as 
temporary work, may not apply for EU LTR status. The implementation 
of Article 3(2)(e) varied across Member States, with 14 Member States312 
transposing the categories of exclusion in  Article (3)(2)(e), six Member 
States313 adding categories for exclusion and five Member States314 with 

312 BE, BG, CY, CZ, EL, HR, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PT, SI and SE; EMN (2020) Long-Term Resident Status in 

the EU, p 3  

313 FR, HR, HU, NL, PL and SK; EMN (2020) Long-Term Resident Status in the EU, p 4 
314 DE, EE, ES, FI and LT; EMN (2020) Long-Term Resident Status in the EU, p 4 

193 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

shorter  lists  of  third-country  nationals  not  within  the  scope.  At  least 
seven315  Member  States  also  count  legal  residence  on  temporary  or 
limited  periods  for  the  residence  requirements  for  their  national  LTR 
schemes.  In  an  attempt  to  clarify  the  ambiguous  wording  of  Article 
3(2)(e)  which  may  have  led  to  this  patchy  implementation,  the  2012 
CJEU  Singh  judgement ruled  that  the  exclusion  of  such  residence  is  on 
the basis that temporary or limited residence permit does not “prima facie 
reflect any intention on the part of such nationals to settle on a long-term 
basis.”316  

issues  were 

Implementation 
first  Commission 
reported 
Implementation  Report.  Nonetheless,  the  vast  majority  of  experts317 
highlight that the blanket exclusion of temporary and/or limited residence 
permit holders still accounts for a sizeable barrier for TCN with intent to 
put  down  roots  in  the  Member  States  wishing  to  apply  for  EU  LTR 
status. 

the 

in 

This  measure  would  give  Member  States  the  option  to  include  TCNs 
with temporary or formally limited residence permits as eligible for EU 
LTR  status,  whilst  also  clarifying  what  is  within  scope  under  Article 
3(2)(e) for those who choose to keep the exclusion.  

The compulsory clarification of Article 3(2)(e) which applies will impact 
all  Member  States,  and  this  definition  will  have  to  be  in  line  with  the 
2012  CJEU  Singh  judgement,  and  thus  all  Member  States  will  already 
have  to  be  familiar  and  applying  it.  Therefore,  by  ensuring  all  Member 
States  have  a  uniform  understanding  of  what  TCNs  with  temporary  or 
formally limited permits are within the scope of the EU LTR will ensure 
a more uniform implementation of Article 3(2)(e). This will facilitate the 
conditions  for TCNs to  obtain EU  LTR  status  and contribute to  a more 
coherent,  efficient  and  fair  system.  This  will  limit  Member  States’ 
discretion  understanding  which  Member  States  with  such  residence 
permits have intentions to put down roots in the relevant Member State.  

In addition to this, giving Member States the opportunity to also remove 
this  exclusion  from  the  conditions  to  acquire  EU  LTR  status  in  their 
Member  State  will  significantly  contribute  to  this  policy  objective. 
Whilst the extent of the impact will be limited by the fact that this is an 
optional  measure, we can assume that at  least  the seven Member States 
who already include this in their national LTR will incorporate it. 

The  optional  inclusion  of  TCNs  with  temporary  or  formally  limited 

315 CZ, DE, ES, HR, PT, SE, SI ; EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the period of validity of residence 

permits granted to third country nationals (update to GR EMN NCP Ad-Hoc Query on Duration of 
Residence Permits). 

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

194 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

residence  permits  in  the  scope  of  EU  LTR  will  apply  to  those  Member 
States  who  choose  to  adopt  it:  we  can  assume  that  at  least  the  seven 
Member States318 that already  include TCN with  temporary  or  formally 
limited residence permits will choose to remove this exclusion from their 
conditions  to  acquire  EU  LTR.  Given  that  the  remaining  14  Member 
States319,  which  have  national  LTR  schemes  include  this  exclusion  of 
temporary  residence  permits,  this  aspect  of  this  measure  may  reinforce 
inequalities between EU LTR and national LTR schemes.   

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

For the Member States that will choose to remove the exclusion of TCNs 
with  temporary  or  formally  limited  residence  permits  from  EU  LTR 
status, there may be an increase in EU LTR holders. This will mean that 
more TCNs will be eligible for intra-EU mobility. 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

The varied implementation of Article 3(2)(e) has resulted in not all TCNs 
having equal treatment when applying for EU LTR status.  

As  clarified  in  the  CJEU  Singh  judgement  the  exclusion  of  such 
residence  is  on  the  basis  that  temporary  or  limited  residence  permit  do 
not  “prima  facie  reflect  any  intention  on  the  part  of  such  nationals  to 
settle  on  a  long-term  basis.”320  Enshrining  this  clarification  in  the  EU 
LTRD will help strengthen its implementation.  

For the Member States that would opt for the optional inclusion of TCN 
with temporary or formally limited residence permits in the scope of EU 
LTR,  more  TCNs  would  have  access  to  the  better  rights  of  EU  LTR 
status as opposed to temporary permits. Additionally, experts321 note that 
in  some  cases  such  TCNs  may  be  victims  of  labour  exploitation  who 
remain  stuck  in  situations  of  precarious  and  temporary  work,  and  that 
long-term  residence  status  would  significantly  help  to  ameliorate  their 
situation.  Stakeholders322  also  highlighted  that  women  and  vulnerable 
groups  are  more  likely  to  have  temporary  permits,  and  thus  are 
disadvantaged in their access to the EU LTR. Nonetheless, the extent of 
the  impact  of  this  measure  will  depend  on  the  quantity  of  and  which 
Member States choose to adopt it. The extent of the impact also depends 

318 CZ, DE, ES, HR, PT, SE, SI ; EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the period of validity of residence 

permits granted to third country nationals (update to GR EMN NCP Ad-Hoc Query on Duration of 
Residence Permits). 

319  BE, BG, CY, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, SK - EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the 
period of validity of residence permits granted to third country nationals (update to GR EMN NCP Ad-Hoc 
Query on Duration of Residence Permits). 

320 CJEU Judgement of 18 October 2012 in case C-502/10 (Singh).   
321 https://picum.org/focus-area/labour/  
322 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021 

195 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

on  whether  the  Member  States  that  choose  to  adopt  it  are  those  with 
many EU LTR applications323 or many temporary permit holders.324 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Across all stakeholder categories,  the extent of the impact  is  contingent 
on  how  many  and  which  Member  States  (i.e.  whether  it  is  the  Member 
State  with  many  EU  LTR  permits  and/or  with  many  temporary  permit 
holders)  choose  to  remove  the  exclusion  of  TCNs  with  temporary  or 
formally limited residence permits.  

Third-country nationals 

This  measure  may  bring  positive  impacts  for  third-country  nationals 
considering to apply for EU LTR status. With regards to the clarification 
of  Article  3(2)(e)  in  line  with  the  CJEU  Singh  judgement,  this  measure 
will  clarify  their  possibilities  to  be  eligible  for  EU  LTR  status.  TCNs 
with  temporary  or  formally  limited  residence  permits  with  an  intent  to 
stay  and out  down  roots in  a country  will have  more clarity  about  their 
eligibility,  and  thus  when  obtaining  EU  LTR  status  will  have  a  more 
stable permanence in the EU Member States, and in turn facilitated rights 
to intra-EU mobility and access to the labour market. This clarity will be 
ensured  across  all  Member  States,  however  in  the  Member  States  that 
choose  to  remove  the  exclusion  of  TCNs  with  temporary  and  formally 
limited  residence  permits  from  the  conditions  to  acquire  EU  LTR 
altogether,  TCNs  will  have  a  significantly  higher  access  to  EU  LTR 
status  and  the  rights  and  stability  it  comes  with.  However,  in  these 
Member  States  such  a  measure  may  require  additional  bureaucratic 
requirements  to  prove  different  temporary  or  limited  periods  of 
residence,  which  may  be  complex  when  temporary  permits  have  been 
renewed multiple times.  

National authorities 

The impact of this measure on competent national authorities will depend 
on whether they only accept the clarification of Article 3(2)(e) or decide 
to remove it altogether. In Member States who accept the clarification of 
Article  3(2)(e)  this  measure  will  introduce  minor  legislative  and 
administrative changes, as well as the necessity to update information to 
disseminate  to  EU  LTR  applicants.  For  the  Member  States  that  already 
have such procedures in place for their national LTR permits or already 
produced material to disseminate the clarifications from the 2012 CJEU 

323 AT, CZ, EE, IT account for 88% of EU LTR in 2019, see Eurostat (2021) Long-term residents by citizenship 

on 31 December of each year, mgr_reslong. 

324 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tesem110/default/table?lang=en  

196 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Singh clarification, the extent of the impact will be significantly less.  

For  the  Member  States  removing  the  exclusion  altogether,  this  measure 
will  require  some  changes  to  administrative  procedures  to  process  EU 
LTR  applications,  including  necessary  legislative  changes,  training, 
revision  of  guidelines  and  information  to  disseminate  on  EU  LTR  to 
clarify  what  is  within  and  beyond  the  scope  of  the  EU  LTRD.  For  the 
seven Member States325 that already include temporary economic agents 
within the scope of their national LTR schemes, the extent of the impact 
will be smaller, than Member States that will be introducing this anew.  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

The clarification of Article 3(2)(e) will help legal counsellors in having a 
clearer  idea  on  how  to  counsel  EU  LTR  applicants  on  the  eligibility  of 
TCNs with temporary or formally limited residence permits. This will be 
particularly  relevant  to  provide  counselling  on  the  additional  evidence 
that may have to be provided. 

In  the  Member  States  removing  Article  3(2)(e)  this  will  result  in  legal 
practitioners  providing  extra  counselling  at  the  initial  phase,  to 
understand the new requirement and new additional evidence required. 

Employers/Businesses 

We can assume that this measure will most likely help TCNs on several 
renewed  temporary  permits  or  formally  limited  residence  permits  gain 
EU  LTR  status.  Therefore,  this  measure  would  bring  potential  positive 
impacts 
reduction  of 
administrative  processes  by  renewing  temporary  permits  of  TCNs 
employees.  Stakeholders326  highlight  how  employers  must  comply  with 
administrative  processes  and  costs  when  renewing  temporary  permits, 
which would happen far less frequently with EU LTR status holders.  

for  employers  and  businesses,  such  as 

Third countries 

As a result of this measure,  more TCNs will have access  to  more long-
term,  and  thus  potentially  more  profitable  employment.  Therefore,  this 
will result in significantly higher remittances for third countries. 

Economic impacts 

The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

325 CZ, DE, ES, HR, PT, SE, SI ; EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the period of validity of residence 

permits granted to third country nationals (update to GR EMN NCP Ad-Hoc Query on Duration of 
Residence Permits). 

326 Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021. 

197 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

to  better 
Any  potential 
information/clarity  on  the  exclusion/eligibility  of  TCNs  with  temporary 
or formally limited residence permits, is too difficult to quantify. 

in  EU  LTR  applications  due 

increase 

However,  for  the  Member  States  that  will  choose  to  remove  Article 
3(2)(e)  the  expected  economic  impact  is  driven  by  the  assumption  that 
more  TCNs  with  temporary  permits  will  become  EU  LTR  holders. 
Therefore,  here  too  the  scale  of  the  economic  impact  is  driven  by  the 
expected  increase  of  EU  LTRs  issued,  leading  to  more  TCNs  as  long-
term  active  participants  in  the  labour  market  of  the  respective  Member 
State.  

However,  given  that  in  this  measure  the  removal  of  Article  3(2)(e)  is 
optional, the potential economic impact is too difficult to quantify, as we 
cannot know who may or may not opt for it. The scale of the impact will 
depend not only by how many Member States choose to adopt it, but also 
which Member State. For instance, the extent of the impact will depend 
on  whether  the  Member  States  who  choose  to  adopt  it  are  those  who 
process  many  EU  LTR  applications327  or  those  who  issue  more 
temporary work contracts328 (e.g. Cyprus) than others (e.g. Romania). 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

This  measure  will  enhance  long-term  TCNs’  right  to  education  and 
professional  life  by  facilitating  their  access  to  employment  and 
educational  opportunities  in  the  Member  State  they  reside  in.  As 
mentioned  in  objective  3,  it  is  possible  that  TCNs  in  temporary  and 
limited  work  situations  can  be  victims  of  labour  exploitation,  and 
experts329  argue  that  granting  facilitated  access  to  long-term  residence 
status  helps  them  leave  situations  of  such  exploitative,  irregular  and 
undeclared work. 

The  administrative  burden  and  compliance  costs  of  this  measure  will 
mostly  be  faced  by  national  authorities.  Nonetheless,  the  extent  of  the 
costs will differ for Member States depending on whether they opt for the 
clarification of Article 3(2)(e) or its removal.  

All national authorities in the Member States adopting this measure will 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

327 AT, CZ, EE, IT account for 88% of EU LTR in 2019 see Eurostat (2021) Long-term residents by citizenship 

on 31 December of each year, mgr_reslong. 

328 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tesem110/default/table?lang=en 
329 https://picum.org/focus-area/labour/ 

198 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

have  to  adapt  national  procedures,  legislation  and  information  to  be 
disseminated to third country nationals. For the Member States accepting 
the clarification of Article 3(2)(e) this should have already been to some 
extent  adopted  in  national  procedures  from  the  2012  CJEU  Singh 
clarification.  For  Member  States  removing  Article  3(2)(e)  the  extent  of 
the  change  to  administrative  procedures  will  be  less  for  the  seven 
Member  States  who  already  apply  this  in  their  national  LTR  schemes, 
than for those who need to start afresh.  

Overall,  the  costs  resulting  from  this  measure  alone  for  Member  States 
national  authorities  per  average  really  cost  are  estimated  at  around 
47,104 euro. The costs for the Commission are estimated at 2,455 euro. 

Simplification 

A  more  clarified  understanding  of  Article  3(2)(e),  but  also  generally  of 
what  ‘temporary/formally  limited  residence  permits’  potentially  within 
scope  of  the  EU  LTR  will  help  simplify  the  processing  of  EU  LTR 
applications.  

For the Member States  accepting the clarification of Article 3(2)(e) this 
will  be  because  EU  LTR  applicants  will  have  a  better  idea  on  whether 
they  are  eligible  or  not  (which  may  lead  to  less  applications  of  non-
eligible  applicants)  and  national  authorities  are  more  aware  and  less 
frequently  should  request  external  counsel  on  whether  an  application  is 
successful or not.  

to 

remove 

For  Member  States  choosing 
the  exclusion  of 
temporary/formally  limited  TCN,  this  measure  will  also  provide  a 
clarified uniform understanding of which TCN with temporary/formally 
limited residence permits will be in scope of the EU LTR. This help limit 
the  high  level  of  discretion  and  thus  discrepancy  between  Member 
States’ readings and interpretations of this exemption. 

Overall assessment 

Overall,  this  measure  has  the  potential  to  bring  positive  effects  for  national  authorities  and 
TCNs  by  facilitating  the  process  and  bringing  more  clarity  on  Article  3(2)(e).  Given  the 
twofold approach of this measure (allowing Member States to either accept the clarification 
of  Article  3(2)(e)  or  to  remove  the  exclusion  of  TCN  with  temporary/formally  limited 
residence permits) will ensure that some impact is obtained in all Member States, despite the 
inclusion  of  temporary  economic  agents  in  long-term  residence  schemes  being  a  politically 
contentious  theme.  This  will  allow  that  the  most  Member  States  possible  will  clarify  the 
eligibility  of  TCN  with  temporary/formally  limited  residence  periods,  bringing  clarity  for 
national authorities processing applications and TCN considering to apply for EU LTR status. 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
Policy Measure 3.5: Clarifying and limiting the discretion of Member States in applying 
the requirement of stable and regular resources, by codifying the CJEU case law 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
the  EU 
acquire 
LTR status 

Article  5  of  the  LTRD  prescribes  that  Member  States  shall  ensure  that 
TCN  comply  with  certain  conditions.  Among 
the  mandatory 
requirements is that TCN prove they have “stable, regular and sufficient 
resources  without  having  recourse  to  the  social  assistance  systems”.  In 
most  Member  States  a  TCN  has  to  provide  proof  of  having  regular 
income  that  is  at  least  equivalent  to  a  minimum  monthly  salary  or 
monthly income or benefit, which differs widely across Member States. 
Practices also vary on whether family members’ salaries are included and 
on  definitions  on  how  ‘stable’  and  ‘regular’  a  salary  is.330  Moreover,  it 
appears  in  the  answers  of  the  2016  EMN  Ad-hoc  query  that  in  some 
Member  States,  national  permanent  residence  permits  are  issued 
especially  in  cases  where  TCNs  cannot  meet  the  “stable  and  regular” 
resources requirement of the EU LTR permit331. 

Moreover, according to the initial findings of the ongoing FRA study on 
the Fundamental Rights of EU LTR status holders, the stable, sufficient 
and  regular  resources  requirement  is  one  of  the  main  challenges  for 
TCNs  to  successfully  apply  for  an  EU  LTR  permit  in  all  countries 
covered by the project and in particular in Czechia, France and Germany. 
As mentioned above, Member States have applied the “stable and regular 
resources” in a wide variety of ways, based on the discretion offered by 
the  LTRD.    For  instance,  during  the  consultation  conducted  with  the 
Commission  Expert  Group  on  the  views  of  migrants,  stakeholders 
underlined that the resources requirement is particularly difficult to meet 
for low skilled TCNs working on low wages, students that often can only 
work  part-time  or  artists  and  other  individual  participating  in  social 
activities that do not have regular income.332 The experts interviewed as 
part of the ongoing FRA study mentioned that in several Member States 
(BE,  CZ,  DE),  providing  proof  of  “stable  and  regular  income”  is  a 
greater challenge for women than for men as the latter are more likely to 
be  employed  or  to  have  a  sufficient  income.333  In  fact,  as  mentioned 
under objective 1, some Member States give TCN access to national LTR 
status  particularly  because  they  struggle  to  have  stable  and  regular 
resources.  In  Latvia,  for example, national  permanent  residence permits 
are  issued  to  persons  who  cannot  qualify  for  the  EU  LTR  due  to  the 

330 EMN (2020) Long-Term Resident Status in the EU, p. 12. 
331 EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query on National residence permits of permanent or unlimited validity 
332 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021 
333 Initial findings shared by FRA from the ongoing study on the Fundamental Rights of Long-Term residence 

status holders p. 4 

200 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

inability to prove the necessary regular financial means. 
Therefore,  integrating  the  ruling  of  the  CJEU334  and  introducing  a 
specification  to  clarify  and  limit  Member  States’  discretion  will 
eventually enhance the level-playing field as TCNs who would currently 
opt  for less restrictive national  permanent  residence permits would then 
be  able  to  apply  for  the  EU  LTR  permits.  This  would  facilitate  the 
conditions  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  status  and,  therefore,  contribute  to  a 
more efficient and fairer system. 

As  the  stable,  regular  and  sufficient  resources  requirement  is  also  a 
condition to prove for residence in a second Member States, the measure 
can have an effect of the objective to facilitate intra-EU mobility for the 
same  reason  as  above.  Moreover,  considering  the  differences  in  the 
implementation  of  this  requirement  amongst  Member  States,  it  is  very 
likely that the resources requirement already proved in the first Member 
States differs from the level of resources required in the second Member 
States.  Limiting  Member  States  discretion  and  taking  in  account  the 
resources  acquired  in  the  first  Member  States,  could  have  the  effect  of 
streamlining  this  aspect  of  the  procedure  to  move  in  a  second  Member 
States. 

TCNs  who  could  not  apply  to  the  EU  LTR  status  for  not  meeting  the 
resources requirement but who would be able to apply if the measure is 
implemented,  will  have  access  to  the  rights  ensured  by  the  LTRD.  In 
addition, 
the 
this  measure  will  clarify  and 
consideration of family members’ resources. 

limit  discretion  on 

This measure is expected to have the following social impacts on:   

Third-country nationals 

TCNs who are  residing  in  a Member States for  at  least  five  years, who 
are fully integrated in the society and wish to apply for the EU LTR but 
are currently not able to do so because of not meeting the threshold of the 
resources  requirement  will  be  able  to  apply  for  the  EU  LTR  and  enjoy 
the  benefits  of  the  status.  These  potential  EU  LTR  will  have  access  to 
intra-EU mobility and, depending on the Member States, enhanced equal 
treatment rights.  

National authorities 

334 CJEU (2010), C-578/08, Chakroun ; CJEU (2019), C-302-18, X. / Belgium  

201 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Narrowing the discretion left to the authorities to assess if the resources 
condition is fulfilled may lead to a simplification of the procedure as the 
measure could establish more explicit indicators for this requirement.   

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

Clarifying and limiting Member States discretion will simplify legal and 
judiciary  procedures  in  relation  to  proving  that  the  self-sufficiency 
requirement is fulfilled.   

Employers/Businesses 

No specific impacts identified on employers and businesses. 

Third countries 

No specific impact on third countries identified. 

Economic impacts  This  measure  is  expected  to  have  some  positive  economic  impacts, 
however,  these  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a  specific 
individual measure, but have been calculated at the aggregate level of the 
policy options instead. 

Indeed, some minimal  positive economic effect  could  be anticipated, as 
TCN who previously could not qualify for the EU LTR status would now 
be  able  to  access  it,  which  could  also  mean  that  they  would,  from  that 
moment onwards, have unlimited access to the labour market. This could 
have  a  small  positive  impact  in  economic  growth,  but  it  will  not  be 
possible to quantify. 

No specific environmental impacts identified. 

In line with Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on non-
discrimination,  this  measure  will  limit  Member  States  discretion  and 
ensure  that  clearer  parameters  are  set  for  the  “stable,  regular  and 
sufficient resources” condition, taking account of exemptions. 

This  measure  will  primarily  impact  national  authorities,  introducing 
minor administrative and compliance costs. 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

regarding 

the  administrative  procedures 

This  measure  will  require  national  authorities  to  conduct  legislative 
changes 
for  EU  LTR 
applications.  Administration  processing  the  application  will  have  to 
revise their guidelines for assessing whether the resources requirement is 
met  and  communicate  the  changes.  In  terms  of  compliance  costs,  the 
measure is likely to increase the number of applications for the EU LTR 

202 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Simplification 

status, but on the other hand to a decrease in the applications for national 
statuses, with the net effect thus being close to zero.  

The European Commission will also face costs relating to implementing 
and communicating the changes to the Directive. 

Overall,  the  costs  resulting  from  this  measure  alone  for  Member  States 
national  authorities  per  average  yearly  cost  are  estimated  at  around 
71,128 euro. The costs for the Commission are estimated at 2,455 euro. 

As  mentioned  above,  limiting  the  discretion  left  to  the  authorities  to 
assess if the resources condition is fulfilled may lead to a simplification 
of  the  procedures  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  permit.  It  will  ensure  all 
competent  national  authorities have  a uniform understanding of “stable, 
regular and sufficient resources” across the EU. Moreover, clarifying the 
elements  to  take  in  account  in  the  proportionality  assessment  of  the 
resources requirement will simplify the evaluation of the resources level 
by  competent  authorities  and  facilitate  the  submission  of  documentary 
evidences for applicants. 

Overall assessment 

Overall, the measure will have a positive effect on contributing to a more efficient and fairer 
system  by  facilitating  the  conditions  to  acquire  the  EU  LTR  status.  The  significance  of  the 
impact  will  depend  on  the  content  of  the  clarification  and  the  limits  to  Member  States 
discretion that the measure will introduce.   

Policy  Measure  3.6:  Clarifying  and  limiting  discretion  of  Member  States  in  applying 
integration conditions, by codifying the CJEU case law 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
the  EU 
acquire 

Article 5 of the LTRD stipulates that Member States may require third-
country  nationals  to  comply  with  integration  conditions  in  accordance 
with  national  law.  A  majority  of  Member  States  require  applicants  for 
long-term residence to  comply with  integration conditions335, in  general 

335  

AT, BE, CY, EE, EL, FR, HR, IT, LT, LV, LU, MT, NL, PT, RO. 

203 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

LTR status 

Assessment  

requiring knowledge of their official language. Some Member States also 
require the attendance of civic knowledge courses336.  

Member States have large discretion in applying optional provisions such 
as  the  integration  requirements.  Integration  conditions  across  the  15 
Member  States337  that  require  them  from  EU  LTR  applicants  vary 
significantly  in  substance.  Whilst  all  Member  States  with  integration 
conditions  (except  for  Luxemburg)  include  a  language  requirement,  the 
level  of  proficiency  differs  greatly  from  very  basic  proficiency  in 
Portugal,  B1  level  in  Croatia,  Estonia,  Germany  and  Poland,  and  no 
defined level of proficiency in Czechia and Greece. Six Member States338 
also  require  a  proof  of  knowledge  of  the  Member  States,  such  as 
knowledge of history and culture or civic education, either through a test 
or mandatory course. 

Complex  integration  requirements  act  as  a  barrier  for  third-country 
nationals to apply for EU LTR.339  According to the initial findings of the 
ongoing FRA study on the Fundamental Rights of LTR status holders, in 
Member States where no integration conditions apply, accessing the EU 
LTR status is easier than in countries which apply such conditions. 
Moreover,  experts340  highlighted  how  the  understanding  of  ‘integration 
conditions’ was ambiguous, which led to this varied implementation. The 
integration  requirement  was  clarified  in  the  2015  P&S  CJEU341  ruling 
that  specified  integration  conditions  as  a  pre-condition  to  LTR  status. 
The  ruling  confirmed  that  integration  conditions  may  include  the 
“acquisition  of  knowledge  of  the  language  and  the  society  of  the  host 
Member States”, which will help with the TCN’s integration. The ruling 
also  confirmed  that  such  conditions  need  to  respect  human  rights  and 
proportionality, as well as not be excessively costly to the TCNs.  
Indeed, experts342 note that the diversity of integration conditions should 
not necessarily be seen as a deficit, since an understanding of integration 
is closely interlinked with concepts of national identity. Therefore, rather 
than setting fixed integration requirements, the measure would introduce 
minimum  and  maximum  parameters  to  limit  Member  States  discretion, 
aligned with and complementary to those of the CJEU P&S ruling which 
already  cover  human  rights,  proportionality  and  level  of  fees.  Of  the 

336  
337 CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT - EMN Inform (2020) Long-Term Resident 

BE – Flanders, FR, HR, LT, LU, RO. 

Status in the EU  

338DE, FR, IT, LT, MT, NL -  EMN Inform (2020) Long-Term Resident Status in the EU  
339 Bocker, A., Strik, T., (2011). Language and Knowledge Tests for Permanent Residence Rights: Help or 

Hindrance for Integration?. European Journal of Migration and Law. 13. P 178 

340 Thym, Daniel (2016), Long-term Residents Directive 2003. Official Journal L 16. P 458 
341CJEU (2015), C-579/13, P and S 
342 Thym, Daniel (2016), Long-term Residents Directive 2003. Official Journal L 16. P 458 

204 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

stakeholders  consulted,  experts  from  the  EG  on  the  views  of  migrants 
and  civil  society  representatives  specified  a  necessity  to  further  clarify 
integration conditions for acquiring EU LTR to mitigate Member States 
discretion,  especially  with  regards  to  the  language  requirement  and 
protecting more vulnerable stakeholders.  

Therefore,  this  measure  will  help  clarify  integration  requirements 
through  minimum  and  maximum  parameters  which  may  simplify  the 
application process for EU LTR applicants. These will mean that in some 
Member States integration conditions for acquisition of EU LTR will be 
clarified  and  simplified,  thus  giving  EU  LTR  status  holders  a  more 
facilitated access and contributing to a more effective and fairer system. 
Moreover, in  the  P&S  case343, the CJEU also  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.  

Therefore,  integrating  the  ruling  of  the  CJEU  and  introducing  a 
specification  to  clarify  and  limit  Member  States’  discretion  will 
contribute  to  ensure  more  coherence  and  eventually  enhance  the  level-
playing  field  as  TCNs  who  would  currently  opt  for  less  restrictive 
national permanent residence permits would then be able to apply for the 
EU LTR permits. 

integration  measures 

Article  15  of  the  EU  LTRD  specifies  that  Member  States  may  require 
third  country  nationals 
in 
to  comply  with 
accordance with  national  laws, as long as the third country national  did 
not already comply with integration requirements under Article 5 in the 
first Member States. The only exception are language lessons, which are 
currently required in France, Germany and Italy.344 Complex integration 
requirements  can  be  seen  as  a  significant  barrier  for  third  country 
nationals to submit LTR application and result in fewer applications from 
third  country  nationals.345    The  fact  that  these  are  also  faced  a  second 
time for when third country nationals wish to move to a second Member 
States may then also pose a barrier to intra-EU mobility.  

A  further  clarification  on  the  integration  requirement  in  Article  15  may 
incentivise third country nationals to make use of the intra-EU mobility 
offered with EU LTR status. 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Judgement of 4 June 2015 in case C-579/13 (P&S). 

343  
344 EMN Inform (2020) Long-Term Resident Status in the EU pp. 9-10. 
345 Bocker, A., Strik, T., (2011). Language and Knowledge Tests for Permanent Residence Rights: Help or 

Hindrance for Integration?. European Journal of Migration and Law. 13. P 178 

205 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

Assessment  

As  mentioned  under  objective  1,  the  level  of  Member  States  discretion 
for integration conditions to acquire EU LTR highlights the necessity to 
clarify a common understanding of ‘integration conditions’ to ensure all 
third-country  nationals  are  treated  equally  when  applying  for  EU  LTR 
status across the Member States.  

As  mentioned  under  Objective  1,  complex  integration  requirements 
which  vary  across  Member  States  act  as  a  barrier  for  third-country 
nationals to apply for EU LTR, which can result in fewer applications for 
long-term  residence.346    In  addition,  stakeholders347  argued  that  the 
integration  conditions  disproportionately  affect 
less  educated, 
economically  disadvantaged,  very  young  or  very  old,  women  and 
vulnerable groups. 

the 

Therefore,  this  measure  could  play  a  role  in  creating  closer  synergies 
between  integration  requirements  across  Member  States  and  thus 
working  towards  equal  treatment  and  better  rights  for  EU  LTR 
applicants.  As  mentioned  in  objective  1,  this  measure  could  introduce 
minimum  and maximum parameters  for Member States  discretion. This 
is  particularly  relevant  for  the  language  requirement,  where  a  study348 
found  that  in  some  countries  it  was  too  low  to  improve  the  candidates’ 
labour market position or in other cases too high thus excluding potential 
immigrants.  

the 

impact  of 

This measure could be better aligned with the parameters on integration 
requirements  as  regards  proportionality  and  human  rights  as  set  in  the 
CJEU 2015 P&S ruling, as well as further contributing to mitigating the 
integration  requirement  on  more 
disproportionate 
vulnerable  stakeholders,  by  specifying  exceptional  circumstances  in 
which  EU  LTR  status  can  be  granted  without  fulfilling  integration 
requirements. Experts349 suggest a ‘hardship clause’ could allow the most 
disproportionately  affected  vulnerable  third-country  nationals  to  obtain 
the  status  in  light  of  their  individual  case.  Additionally,  experts350 
remarked  that  more  cases  of  exemptions  should  be  made  clear.  For 
example, TCN changing their status from national LTR to EU LTR status 
should  be  exempt,  and  it  is  counter-productive  to  require  language 
classes/tests from  third countries  where the Member States’ language is 

346 Bocker, A., Strik, T., (2011). Language and Knowledge Tests for Permanent Residence Rights: Help or 

Hindrance for Integration?. European Journal of Migration and Law. 13. P 178 

347 Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021. 
348 Bocker, A., Strik, T., (2011). Language and Knowledge Tests for Permanent Residence Rights: Help or 

Hindrance for Integration?. European Journal of Migration and Law. 13. P 182 

349 Thym, Daniel (2016), Long-term Residents Directive 2003. P 460 
350 Acosta, Arcarazo, D. (2015), Long‐Term Residence as a Post‐National Form of Membership. European Law 

Journal, 21, p 212 

206 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

an official language. 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  could  have  the  most  impact  on  third-
country nationals applying for LTR status in the 15 Member States that 
currently  require  integration  conditions,  which  would  benefit  from 
improved legal certainty when applying and fairer integration conditions.  

National authorities 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  will  mean  that  the  15  Member  States 
with  integration conditions  in  place will have to amend their legislation 
and  procedures  to  comply  with  and  amend  their  existing  integration 
condition  requirements.  It  will  however  mean  that  national  authorities 
will have more clarity on how to implement this article. Nonetheless, the 
INTEC  project  found  that  increasing  integration  requirements  usually 
results  in  decreasing  numbers  of  applications,  which  could  mitigate  the 
requirements  and 
impact  of  Member  States 
procedures.351  
Additionally, three Member States352 adamantly drove the introduction of 
Article 5(2) and thus may pose some resistance to its revision. Indeed, it 
appears  that  this  article  and  requirement  sparked  an  “intense  debate”  in 
the  Council  and  thus  may  also  face  resistance  from  more  competent 
national  authorities.353Such  resistance  may  be  tampered  by  the  fact  that 
this  measure  will  be  coherent  with  the  CJEU  P&S  ruling,  which  most 
Member States already abide by. 

introducing  new 

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

This measure would facilitate legal practitioners providing advice to third 
country  nationals.  By  providing  clarifications  in  what  is  meant  by 
‘integration  conditions’  legal  practitioners  will  be  able  to  provide  more 
accurate  and  efficient  counselling  and  thus  contribute  to  more  effective 
implementation of the EU LTRD.  

Employers/Businesses 

integration 
Clarifying  and 
conditions,  which  as  mentioned  before,  have  proven  to  be  a  barrier  for 
some TCNs  to  acquire EU  LTR  status,  may mean that more TCNs will 

limiting  Member  States  discretion  on 

351 Bocker, A., Strik, T., (2011). Language and Knowledge Tests for Permanent Residence Rights: Help or 

Hindrance for Integration?. European Journal of Migration and Law. 13. P 178 

352 AT, DE, NL - Thym, Daniel (2016), Long-term Residents Directive 2003. Official Journal L 16. P 457 
353 Thym, Daniel (2016), Long-term Residents Directive 2003. P 460 

207 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

become  eligible  for EU  LTR  status.  This  will mean that  employers  and 
businesses will have access to more TCNs with full access to the labour 
market.  Another  positive  effect  of  this  measure  for  employers  and 
businesses is that more realistic language requirements may also result in 
more  qualified  third-country  national  EU  LTR  holders  available  to  be 
hired. 

Third countries 

No significant effects of this measure can be observed for third countries. 

Economic impacts  This  measure  is  expected  to  have  some  positive  economic  impacts, 
however,  these  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a  specific 
individual measure, but have been calculated at the aggregate level of the 
policy options instead. 

We can assume that a clarification of the requirement and limitation  on 
discretion  of  Member  States  in  setting  it  will  mean  that  some  Member 
States may reduce their integration requirement whilst others may add or 
introduce new procedures. Based on a previous study354 that suggests that 
more  integration  requirements  result  in  fewer  applications  for  some 
Member  States,  this  measure  may  result  in  increases  in  applications  as 
the integration conditions are reduced, which may lead to an increase in 
tax  revenue.  In  addition,  should  this  measure  result  in  higher  language 
requirements,  this  may  lead  to  more  qualified  third-country  nationals 
which can be more readily absorbed into the labour market in the EU.  

However,  given  that  there  are  too  many  variables  in  this  measure  (i.e. 
what  recommended  maximum/minimum  parameters  for  integration 
conditions  could  be,  how  these  will  be  incorporated  into  national 
contexts  and  how  many  TCNs  are  not  applying  due  to  barriers  from 
that 
integration  conditions)  an  estimated  shift 
meaningfully reflects the economic impact of this measure is difficult to 
measure. 

in  applications 

Environmental 
impacts 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

354 Bocker, A., Strik, T., (2011). Language and Knowledge Tests for Permanent Residence Rights: Help or 

Hindrance for Integration?. European Journal of Migration and Law. 13. P 178 

208 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

Assessment  

Clarifying  exemptions  from  integration  conditions  and  including  a 
‘hardship clause’, will help reduce the disproportionate impact they have 
on  vulnerable  stakeholders.  Some 
third-country 
nationals may not fulfil integration conditions on the basis of their level 
of  education,  disabilities,  gender  or  vulnerabilities.  Therefore,  in  line 
with  Article  21  of  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  on  non-
discrimination, this measure will ensure that vulnerabilities impeding the 
fulfilment of integration conditions are considered. 

‘well-integrated’ 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  foresees  a  variety  of  additional 
administrative  and  compliance  costs.  The  stakeholder  category 
shouldering the most costs from this measure are national authorities. 

With  regards  to  costs  for  national  authorities,  current  data  points  to  the 
fact that this measure will most likely introduce minimal costs which will 
impact the 15 Member States that currently have integration conditions. 
This  measure  will  less  likely  also  impact  Member  States  that  do  not 
currently have integration requirements, should they choose to introduce 
them after the measure comes into force. 

Overall, Member States would face compliance costs at differing degrees 
depending on the existence of integration requirements in the revision of 
legislation  and  internal  procedures  (i.e.  training  and  guidelines  to  be 
amended  for  Member  States  with  integration  requirements  and  to  be 
produced anew for other Member States). This measure would also mean 
additional  human  resources  to  identify  how  the  national  integration 
requirement  would  be  aligned  with  the  new  clarifications,  both  for 
acquiring EU LTR status within their Member States but potentially also 
national LTR permits.  

These resources will vary significantly depending on whether a Member 
States  has  integration  requirements  considering  introducing  them  and 
how  big  the  difference  between  the  Member  States’  integration 
requirement and the new clarifications is. 

Costs to third country nationals 

Depending  on  the  clarifications  provided  in  the  integration  requirement 
(whether  it  will  result  in  more  or  less  integration  conditions)  it  could 
cause  some  more  costs  for  third-country  nationals,  in  having  to  obtain 
more certifications and attend courses/tests. However, the extent of these 
costs will be mitigated by the CJEU P&S case, ruling that they must not 
be  excessive  (in  the  case  where  they  cost  hundreds  of  euros  this  was 
considered  excessive),  and  the  policy  measure  could  even  lead  to  some 

209 

 
 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

simplification. 

Overall,  the  costs  resulting  from  this  measure  alone  per  average  yearly 
cost  for  Member  States  national  authorities  at  around  80,716  euro.  The 
costs for the Commission are estimated at 2,455 euro. 

Simplification 

The introduction of this measure could potentially lead to a reduction in 
complexity of integration conditions required of third country nationals. 
This could result in a simplified process both for third-country nationals 
and competent national authorities once it is fully transposed. 

Overall assessment 

Overall,  this  measure  would  help  overcome  the  varied  implementation  across  EU  Member 
States  on  the  “integration  requirements”  condition,  by  ensuring  a  level  playing  field  with 
national LTR schemes and facilitating the conditions for the acquisition EU LTR status. Most 
importantly, this measure will ensure equal treatment of all EU LTR applicants across the EU 
with  regard  to  this  provision,  and  improve  the  rights  of  some  EU  LTR  holders  and  family 
members  moving  to  a  second  Member  States.  In  addition,  further  provisions  to  protect  the 
most vulnerable, through clearer exemptions from the integration requirement and a ‘hardship 
clause’ for  applicants  in  particular situations of vulnerability, will significantly improve the 
equal  treatment  of  EU  LTR  applicants.355  The  clarifications  already  provided  in  the  CJEU 
P&S ruling should make this provision more politically palatable, and less costly in terms of 
administrative and compliance costs. 

0.4 Policy option 4 – Major legislative revision of the Directive 

This option includes the relevant measures of option 3 (improved rights, facilitated circular 
migration,  prevention  of  abuse,  facilitated  conditions  to  acquire  the  status),  plus  three  new 
policy measures. 

Policy Measure 4.1: Create a fully harmonised EU permanent residence status, by not 
allowing Member States to keep their national permanent residence schemes 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 

Under  Article  13  of  the  LTRD,  Member  States  can  still  have  their 

355 For instance, some MS (CZ, DE, FR, IT) waive language and/or integration requirements for persons with 

learning difficulties or disabilities: Initial findings shared by FRA from the ongoing study on the 
Fundamental Rights of Long-term residence status holders, p.6 

210 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

parallel  national  long-term  residence  schemes.  Currently  21  Member 
States have national permits356, meaning that such a measure would only 
impact them. 

transferees 

EUROSTAT  data  points  to  the  fact  that  in  many  Member  States  the 
national LTR permits are used far more than EU LTR permits, as in 2019 
71%  of  LTR  permits  were  under  national  and  29%  under  EU  LTR 
schemes.357  Some  other  EU  legal  migration  directives  tackle  this  issue 
through  abolishing  the  use  of  national  statuses,  namely  the  “intra-
(ICT)  directive”  Directive  2014/66/EU358, 
corporate 
“seasonal  workers  directive”  2014/36/EU359  and  the  “students  and 
researchers  directive”  Recast  Directive  (EU)  2016/801.360  Nonetheless, 
the expert panel noted that this is a particularly politically sensitive and 
problematic proposition, very reluctantly agreed upon by Member States. 
In  addition  to  this,  whilst  all  stakeholders  agree  that  the  EU  LTR  is 
under-used in comparison to national schemes, none proposed abolishing 
national  schemes  as  a  policy  measure.  In  particular,  members  from  the 
contact group on legal migration argued that this measure should not be 
introduced.  

Nonetheless, abolishing the national statuses, rather than creating a level-
playing  field  between  the  EU  and  national  LTR  schemes,  would  only 
allow  a  single  status  which  provides  the  same  conditions  and  rights 
across the EU. 

As the conditions for acquisition between national and EU LTR permits 
varies, in some Member States where the national permit conditions are 
more favourable than EU LTR this measure would have an adverse effect 
on  this  policy  objective,  and  vice  versa.  Nonetheless,  the  expert  panel 
noted that Member States have a preference towards their national LTR 
permits,  and  thus  are  likely  to  make  the  conditions  equal  if  not  more 
favourable  to  EU  LTR  status.  In  addition,  the  more  opportunities  there 
are  for  long-term  resident  status  (through  national  and/or  EU  schemes) 
the more TCNs are likely to find a scheme under which they are eligible 
and  which  suits  their  residence  within  the  EU.  Therefore,  this  measure 
may  not  always  have  a  positive  contribution  to  facilitate  conditions  for 
TCNs to obtain general long-term status.   

The  impact  of  this  measure  on  the  policy  objective  of  creating  a  more 

356  BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK - EMN (2016) Ad 

Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the period of validity of residence permits granted to third country nationals 
(update to GR EMN NCP Ad-Hoc Query on Duration of Residence Permits). 

357Eurostat - Data Explorer (europa.eu) [migr_reslong] 
358 Article 4: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0066&from=EN  
359 Article 4 : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0036&from=EN  
360 Article 4 :https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0801&from=EN  

211 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

coherent  and  efficient  system  to  acquire  the  EU LTR  status  would  thus 
be significant. 

The  main  added  value  and  central  novelty  brought  by  the  LTRD  in 
comparison  with  national  permits  is  its  access  to  intra-EU  mobility.361 
Indeed Articles 14, 15, 16 and 18 enshrine the conditions for an EU LTR 
holder  to  reside  and  work  in  another  Member  State.  Nonetheless,  the 
2019 Commission  Implementation Report argues that intra-EU mobility 
as being one of the most problematic issues, with patchy Member States’ 
implementation and transposition.  

Once the measure would be in  place, all those entitled to  the long-term 
residence  status  would  be  able  to  benefit  from  facilitated  intra-EU 
mobility  as  per  the  LTRD,  which  would  thus  have  a  substantial  impact 
on this policy objective. However, stakeholders362 highlight that the main 
barriers  to  intra-EU  mobility  are  the  disproportionate  pre-conditions, 
which would still remain – thus limiting the extent of the impact. 

The  impact  on  this  policy  objective  would  be  varied  across  the  21 
Member  States  with  national  LTR  schemes.  Firstly,  across  all  Member 
States this measure would have a very high impact in ensuring that TCNs 
wishing to apply for long-term residence scheme are all treated equally. 
However,  with  regards  to  improving  the  rights  accessible  to  EU  LTR 
holders and their family members this will depend on the Member States. 
The  expert  panel  noted  that  in  some  Member  States  the  rights  and 
conditions  offered  under  national  LTR  schemes  are  considered  more 
favourable than for EU LTR, therefore this may result in a reduction of 
rights. For example, in Finland, Hungary and Sweden the requirement for 
legal  residence  to  obtain  a  national  long-term  residence  permit  is  lower 
than  five  years,  whilst  in  Cyprus  there  is  no  residence  requirement  at 
all.363  However,  the  inverse  situation  applies,  where  national  LTR 
schemes  offered  less  rights  ensuring  that  all  TCNs  must  apply  for  EU 
LTR  status  will  offer  more  rights.  An  example  of  this,  in  conjunction 
with  objective  1,  is  the  fact  that  the  facilitation  to  reside  and  work  in  a 
second Member States is not offered under national permits. 

361 Thym, Daniel (2016), Long-term Residents Directive 2003. Official Journal L 16. P 498 
362 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; Consultation of 
the European Network of the Public Employment Services, 10 March 2021; Fifth meeting of the Informal 
Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021; Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 
April 2021; Consultation with the Economic and Social Partners, 5 May 2021;  

363 Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021; EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on 
the period of validity of residence permits granted to third country nationals (update to GR EMN NCP Ad-
Hoc Query on Duration of Residence Permits). 

212 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Impacts 

Assessment  

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

TCNs  who  are  entitled  to  the  long-term  residence  status  would  all  be 
subject to the same conditions to acquire long-term residence, and benefit 
from the same rights across the EU. Legal certainty would be enhanced 
as  they  would  no  longer  have  to  choose  between  one  status  or  another, 
without  possibly  being  well  informed  of  the  benefits  and  disadvantages 
of  each.  They  may,  as  a  result,  also  become  more  inclined  to  become 
mobile across the EU.  

However, in some Member States currently offering better conditions in 
some  areas  as  part  of  the  national  status,  as  mentioned  in  objective  4, 
TCN would be somewhat disadvantaged.  

National authorities 

National authorities may be reluctant to abolish the national status, which 
in some of the 21 Member States having such status in place, may have 
pre-dated  the  LTRD.  As  mentioned  under  objective  1,  the  expert  panel 
noted  how  difficult  this  provision  was  to  introduce  to  other  legal 
migration directives, and that regardless national implementation was not 
smooth due to this Member States reluctance.  

Nonetheless,  as  further  described  below,  having  a  single  long-term 
residence status would bring important simplification, as Member States 
would no longer have to operate two separate application procedures, and 
guarantee different rights depending on the status granted.  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

The measure would also lead to simplification for legal practitioners and 
the judiciary, as they would provide assistance and review a single status, 
instead of two different ones, in 21 Member States. 

Employers/Businesses 

Assuming  that  the  measure  contributes  to  a  rise  in  intra-EU  mobility, 
employers in the second Member States would be able to benefit from a 
larger  pool  of  TCNs  with  facilitated  access  to  the  labour  market  in  the 
second Member States. As detailed under measure 2.7 above (Allowing 
TCNs  to  start  working  or  studying  in  the  second  Member  States  while 
their  application  is  being  assessed),  this  is  expected  to  help  decrease 
labour  shortages  in  Member  States  and  allow,  as  an  indirect  effect, 
businesses  to  increase  their  investments  as  they  would  have  increased 
certainty  of  being  able  to  attract  qualified  and  already  legally  residing 
TCNs.  Also,  there  may  be  some  displacement  effect  as  TCN  may  be 
more drawn to higher-income Member States). 

213 

 
 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Third countries 

The introduction of this measure will mean more TCNs eligible for long-
term residence will have intra-EU mobility rights, as the EU LTR status 
is  the  only  scheme  they  can  opt  for.  This  will  lead  to  access  to 
opportunities  across  EU  Member  States,  and  thus  potentially  access  to 
higher wages, which in turn could have a minimal impact on increases in 
remittances. 

The  potential  economic  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the  aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. 

The  assumption  driving  the  economic  impact  of  this  policy  measure,  is 
that it will lead to increased intra-EU mobility of TCNs, as they will all 
have EU LTR status which accords intra-EU mobility rights, in contrast 
to national LTR schemes which did not. This will lead to an increase in 
tax  revenue,  economic  growth  and  remittances,  as  well  as  productivity 
and consumption.  
Such  a  measure  would  mean  that  in  the  21  Member  States364,  which 
currently  have  national  permits,  there  would  be  an  increase  in  TCNs 
acquiring EU LTR status. However, since access to the labour market is 
the  same  for  EU  LTR  holders  and  national  LTR  permit  holders,  we  do 
not foresee an economic impact change in this instance. 

However,  assuming  that  the  policy  measure  would  lead  to  increased 
intra-EU mobility of LTR residents for the purpose of work, since TCNs 
who previously had national LTR status without intra-EU mobility rights 
would  now  obtain  them.  This  could  induce  increased  tax  revenue  and 
enhanced  economic  growth  in  the  second  Member  States,  more 
specifically on its labour market. 

No specific impacts on environmental impacts identified. 

This  measure  positively  impacts  the  rights  to  education,  to  freedom  of 
movement, and professional life of long-term third-country nationals as it 
enables  a  larger  pool  of  TCN  to  benefit  from  facilitated  admission  to 
another Member States. 

Economic impacts 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

364  BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK - EMN (2016) Ad 

Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the period of validity of residence permits granted to third country nationals 
(update to GR EMN NCP Ad-Hoc Query on Duration of Residence Permits). 

214 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

Assessment  

Overall,  this  measure  would  mostly  impact  national  authorities  with 
regards  to  additional  administrative  and  compliance  costs.  Based  on 
available evidence, this measure will impact the 21 Member States with 
national LTR schemes. The policy measure brings some initial additional 
administrative and compliance costs to national authorities that will have 
to  adapt  their  procedures.  The  extent  of  these  compliance  costs  will 
depend  on  how  different  the  conditions  for  their  national  LTR  status 
were to EU LTR status.  

National  competent  authorities  will  also  face  a  heavy  administrative 
burden  in  the  initial  phases  of  this  measure,  to  ensure  all  national  LTR 
holders are transitioned to obtain EU LTR status. National authorities in 
these  countries  will  also  have  to  amend  information  to  disseminate  to 
TCNs.  The  extent  of  the  burden  felt  in  individual  Member  States  will 
depend significantly on the number of national  LTR  statuses in  a given 
Member States.365 

In addition, Member States which offered better or worse rights to TCNs 
under  the  national  status  may  now  experience  either  a  decrease  or  an 
increase  in  costs  for  social  benefits,  etc.  However,  these  costs  are 
assumed  to  be  rather  low,  considering  that  most  Member  States  offer 
similar  rights  under  both  statuses.  It  will  not  be  possible  to  provide  an 
estimate, as data on the exact rights offered under the national statuses is 
not available. 

The European Commission will also face costs relating to implementing 
and communicating the changes to the Directive.  

Overall,  the  costs  resulting  from  this  measure  alone  for  Member  States 
national  authorities  per  average  yearly  cost  are  estimated  at  around 
129,190 euro. The costs for the Commission are estimated at 8,182 euro. 

Simplification 

This  measure  will  bring  important  simplification  and  a  reduction  in  the 
administrative  burden  for  Member  States,  as  they  would  operate  one 
single long-term residence procedure. 

Overall assessment 

Overall,  the  measure  will  have  a  strong  positive  effect  on  TCNs  and  employers,  mostly 
because  of  the  assumed  increase  in  intra-EU  mobility.  Whilst  the  measure  also  promises 
substantial simplification for national authorities, the measure may not be politically viable as 
national  authorities  will  be  reluctant  to  give  up  a  status  which  may  have  been  in  place  for 

365 Eurostat - Data Explorer (europa.eu) [migr_reslong] 

215 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

many  years.  Also,  TCNs  may  no  longer  benefit  from  better  conditions  and  rights  offered 
under the national statuses.   

Policy Measure 4.2: Lower the required residence period to acquire the EU LTR status 

from five to three years 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
the  EU 
acquire 
LTR status 

that 

the  five-year  residence  period 

Article  4(1)  of  the  LTRD  lays  down  the  mandatory  five-year  legal 
residence period required of successful EU LTR applicants. Recital 6 of 
the EU LTRD defines this as the ‘main criterion’ to establish whether a 
TCN  has  effectively  “put  down  roots  in  the  country”.  Nonetheless, 
several  experts366  argued 
is 
excessively  long.  In  the  majority  of  Member  States  either  acquiring 
citizenship  or  long-term  residence  permits  through  national  schemes 
currently takes five years, or in some cases even less, therefore the added 
value of applying for long-term residence and intra-EU mobility through 
the  EU  scheme  is  not  clear.  Indeed,  12  Member  States367  require  five 
years of residence to obtain citizenship status through naturalisation and 
five Member States do so for long-term residence status through national 
schemes368.  In  Finland,  Hungary  and  Sweden  the  requirement  for  legal 
residence  to  obtain  a  national  long-term  residence  permit  is  lower  than 
five years, whilst in Cyprus there is no residence requirement at all.369 In 
addition,  some  Member  States  reduce  the  required  residence  period  to 
three years for Stateless persons.370  

The fact that for the majority of Member States the minimum residence 
requirement for citizenship is five years (or in some cases slightly more) 
shows  that  reducing  the  residence  period  will  enable  EU  LTR  status  to 

366 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; Consultation with 
representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021;Consultation with the Economic and Social Partners, 5 May 
2021; PICUM (2020), PICUM Priority recommendations for EU action on labour migration 

367 BE, BG, CY, CZ, FI, FR, IE, LU, LV, NL, PT, SE, see EMN (2020) Synthesis Report on Pathways to 

citizenship for third-country nationals in the EU. 

368 BE, BG, LT, LV, SK, EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on the period of validity of residence permits 
granted to third country nationals (update to GR EMN NCP Ad-Hoc Query on Duration of Residence 
Permits). 

369 Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021;, EMN (2016) Ad Hoc Query 2016.2013 on 
the period of validity of residence permits granted to third country nationals (update to GR EMN NCP Ad-
Hoc Query on Duration of Residence Permits). 

370 EMN (2019) EMN Synthesis Report, Pathways to citizenship for third-country nationals in the EU p. 18. 

216 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

become  a  more  achievable  precursor  (rather  than  competitor)  to 
citizenship. This measure would imply an improved use of the EU LTR 
status  as all legally  residing third-country  nationals  in the EU would be 
able  to  apply  after  three  years  instead  of  five,  while  at  the  same  time 
complying  with  the  other  conditions.  Therefore,  a  lower  residence 
requirement,  accompanied  by  the  other  EU  LTR  requirements  can 
facilitate the conditions to acquire EU LTR status for TCNs that have a 
meaningful  intention to  ‘put down roots in  the  country’. Therefore, this 
measure would contribute to the objective of a more efficient and fairer 
system. 

However,  as  highlighted  by  the  expert  panel  and,  also  by  other  legal 
migration experts,371 this measure is  likely to  face significant  resistance 
from  Member  States,  since  a  similar  measure  was  proposed  during  the 
Blue  Card  Directive  negotiations  for  highly  skilled  migrants  and  it  was 
not  accepted.  Members  of  the  Legal  Migration  Contact  Group  voiced  a 
similar concern, stating that Member States might be reticent to lower the 
standard threshold of 5 years of residence for the attainment of long-term 
residence.372 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

This  measure  would  make  the  EU  LTR  status  more  attractive,  which 
would lead to an increased number of TCNs applying for the status and 
making  use  of  intra-EU  mobility.  This  measure  therefore  contributes  to 
intra-EU  mobility  becoming  a  tool  to  rectify  labour  mismatches  by 
facilitating  the  filling  of  shortages  and  alleviating  the  burden  of 
unemployment in other Member States. 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
term-
of 
residents  and  their 
family 

This measure will indirectly improve the rights of TCNs and their family 
by  reducing  the  required  residence  period  from  5  to  3  years,  making  it 
easier  for  potential  applicants  to  access  the  rights  provided  by  the  EU 
LTR permit. 

Moreover,  this  measure  is  likely  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  circular 
migration  as  migrants  will  have  more  freedom  to  leave  the  territory  for 
longer  periods  of  time  after  3  years  of  continuous  residence  in  the  EU 
Member States instead of 5. 

Impacts 

Social impacts 

Third-country nationals 

This measure will significantly shorten the required period of continuous 
residence for acquiring the EU LTR status, which will provide more legal 

371 Brainstorming session with legal migration experts from the Odysseus Network, 10 June 2021. 
372 Consultation with the Legal Migration Contact Group, 18 May 2021. 

217 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

certainty to TCNs and their families, as well as facilitate their integration 
into  the  first  Member  States.  Stakeholders373  also  highlighted  that 
simplified and increased mobility for EU LTR holders will also improve 
integration,  as  it  would  bring  them  closer  to  the  EU  citizens’  right  to 
freedom of movement. 

This measure would also facilitate the access of TCNs and their family to 
the  labour  market,  allowing  permit  holders  to  benefit  earlier  from  the 
rights  granted  by  the  EU  LTR  scheme,  including  for  example  the 
possibility  to  become  self-employed.  It  may  also  lead  to  a  minor 
reduction in labour exploitation, as obtaining the LTR status would mean 
that  TCNs  are  no  longer  bound  to  a  single  employer  (as  they  are  for 
example  in  at  least  four  Member  States  under  the  Single  permit 
Directive).374 

National authorities 

The  introduction  of  this  measure  will  result  in  competent  authorities 
across  all Member States to  adapt  their procedures to  accommodate the 
new  timeline,  although  the  changes  will  be  minor  as  they  only  concern 
the period of residence. Especially during the first  years, they will have 
to  deal  with  a relatively  higher number of applications, as  TCNs would 
already  become  eligible  for  the  status  after  three  years  instead  of  five. 
The  number  of  TCNs  applying  wanting  to  move  to  a  second  Member 
States may also increase, for the same reason. The increased burden will 
affect  in  particular  those  Member  States  with  high  numbers  of  TCNs 
with  resident  permits  (stock)  and  possibly  those  Member  States  where 
demand  for  labour  may  be  high,  as  they  become  attractive  to  TCN 
interested in intra-EU mobility. 

The  quantity  of  applications  received  from  EU  LTR  holders  differs 
greatly across national contexts. According to Eurostat data on long-term 
residents by citizenship, in 2019 four Member States accounted for 88% 
of  all  EU  long-term  residence  permits  issued.375  These  four  Member 
States  are  therefore  likely  to  be  the  most  heavily  affected  by  this 
measure. 

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

As this measure does not entail changes to the application documentation 
and  fees  required,  the  main  impact  for  legal  practitioners  and  the 
judiciary will be to conduct the same work conducted previously, such as 

373 Second meeting of the EU legal migration practitioner’s network, 29 April 2021. 
374 EE, HU, MT, PL, Responses provided by the Legal Migration Practitioners’ Network. 
375 AT, CZ, EE, IT, see Eurostat (2021) Long-term residents by citizenship on 31 December of each year, 

mgr_reslong. 

218 

 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

providing clarifications and counselling. 

Employers/Businesses 

This  measure  would  mean  that  employers  and  businesses  would  have 
quicker  access  to  a  pool  of  qualified  legally  residing  TCNs  in  other 
Member  States.  This  will  limit  the  possibility  of  substantial  delays  in 
filling necessary vacancies and help to fill labour shortages.  

Third countries 

The reduced period of residence needed for TCNs to obtain the EU LTR 
status  may  result  in  TCN  being  able  to  secure  more  stable  work  in  the 
EU. This in turn would have a positive impact on the remittances sent by 
these TCNs to their countries of origin, benefiting the economic stability 
of the persons  receiving these  remittances and indirectly  benefitting the 
economy of the country where they reside. 

Economic impacts  This  measure  is  expected  to  have  some  positive  economic  impacts, 
however,  these  impacts  cannot  be  estimated  at  the  level  of  a  specific 
individual measure, but have been calculated at the aggregate level of the 
policy options instead. 

This  measure  will  facilitate  quicker  access  of  qualified  legally  residing 
third-country nationals to the EU labour market. It could also reduce the 
necessity to recruit people from outside the Union and make the best use 
of  the  already-residing  workforce  across  the  EU.  At  national-level,  this 
measure  will  bring  increased  tax  revenue  and  therefore  enhanced 
economic  growth  in  the  second  Member  States.  However,  due  to  the 
small number of EU LTR holders that look to legally reside in a second 
Member States the potential economic impact may be limited. 

In  addition,  as  mentioned  under  social  impacts,  this  measure  will  allow 
TCNs to benefit sooner from facilitated access to the labour market and it 
will make a positive contribution to their integration. This is also likely 
to result in economic gains for TCNs, however due to the many factors 
involved, it will not be possible to quantify these gains. 

The  measure  will  bring  economic  stability  and  legal  certainty  to  TCN 
receiving  the  EU  LTR  permit  and  will  contribute  positively  to  the 
remittances these TCNs send to their countries of origin. 

From the perspective of the employer/business sector, this measure will 
contribute  to  making  a  larger  pool  of  qualified  and  legally-residing 
labour-shortages. 
candidates,  which  may  help  fill  vacancies  and 
However, due to the variety of factors at play, it will not be possible to 
quantify these effects. 

219 

 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Environmental 
impacts 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Assessment  

No environmental impacts identified. 

This measure would indirectly contribute to the right to professional and 
family life by allowing TCNs to become long-term residents sooner and 
therefore allowing them sooner to benefit from full access to the labour 
market. 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

The introduction of this measure will incur additional administrative and 
compliance  costs,  especially  for  national  authorities  and  European 
Commission officials. These costs are estimated to be the following: 

National authorities 

  Administrative  and  compliance  costs:  48,418  euro  (average 

yearly cost). 

European Commission 

Simplification 

  Costs relating to implementing and communicating the changes to 

the Directive, estimated at 2,455 euro (average yearly cost). 

Since  a  facilitated  access  to  the  EU  LTR  permit  would  mean  that  less 
TCNs need to renew their temporary permits, the measure would lead to 
simplification  from  the  perspective  of  the  authorities  and  services 
processing applications for the renewal of temporary permits. This would 
in  turn  result  in  cost  savings  incurred  by  these  authorities  thanks  to  a 
lower workload. 

Overall assessment 

Overall, this measure  will increase the attractiveness  and contribute to  a  more efficient and 
fairer system by facilitating the acquisition of the EU LTR status as TCNs would only have to 
reside three years in the Member States. It is also expected that this will lead to an increase in 
intra-EU  mobility,  as  more  status  holders  would  imply  a  higher  share  potentially  being 
interested in  moving to  a second Member States.  It  will result in  greater legal  certainty  for 
TCNs  applying  to  the  EU  LTR  status,  granting  them  the  rights  associated  with  this  status 
earlier and enhancing also their integration. It will entail some  costs for national authorities 
from  a  potential  increase  in  applications  for  the  EU  LTR  permit,  but  some  simplification 
resulting  from  a  lower  number  of  applications  submitted  for  the  renewal  of  temporary 
permits.  However,  the  measure  is  likely  to  encounter  significant  resistance  from  Member 
States which might be reticent to reduce the standard residence requirement of 5 years for the 
attainment of long-term residence. 

220 

 
 
 
 
Policy  Measure  4.3:  Introduce  an  automatic  right  to  move  and  reside  in  a  second 
Member State for EU long-term residents, with conditions similar to the ones applicable 
to EU citizens exercising free movement rights 

Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Policy objectives 

Objective  1:  More 
coherent,  efficient 
and  fair  system  to 
acquire 
the  EU 
LTR status 

Objective 2 

Facilitate the intra-
EU mobility  

No direct effect identified on this objective. 

The vast majority of stakeholders376 argue that there are disproportionate 
pre-conditions for EU LTR holders to make use of the intra-EU mobility 
provisions. Therefore, granting an automatic right to move and reside in 
another Member States would put TCNs at the same level as EU citizens 
in  terms  of  freedom  of  movement,  hence  it  would  lead  to  the  full 
achievement  of  this  objective.  Additionally,  studies  found  that  migrants 
are more likely to move in response to labour market opportunities than 
native  born  citizens,  therefore  granting  them  equal  mobility  rights  will 
significantly facilitate intra-EU mobility.377 

Nonetheless,  the  measure  granting  automatic  intra-EU  mobility  would 
not  be  coherent  with  the  other  legal  migration  Directives,  as  Member 
States  would  need  to  allow  residence  on  the  basis  of  residence  permits 
issued by other Member States. 

Objective 3 

long 

Improve  the  rights 
of 
term-
residents  and  their 
family 

This measure would make a significant contribution to equal treatment as 
it would provide the same mobility rights to long-term resident TCNs as 
EU  citizens.  This  would  allow  EU  LTR  holders  and  their  family 
members to freely move across the EU and grant them additional access 
to  further  employment  and  educational  opportunities  without  fulfilling 
additional bureaucratic and costly procedures. 

However, the measure may have a negative effect on circular migration 
between  the  EU  and  third  countries,  as  TCNs  rather  than  returning  to 
their  country  of  origin  may  be  drawn  to  staying  in  EU.  Indeed,  studies 
have  shown  that  big  drivers  of  circular  and  return  migration  are 

376 Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, 2 March 2021; Consultation of 
the European Network of the Public Employment Services, 10 March 2021.; Fifth meeting of the Informal 
Expert Group on Economic Migration, 14 April 2021; Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 
April 2021; , Consultation with the Economic and Social Partners, 5 May 2021 

377 Poeschel, F. (2016), “Raising the mobility of third country nationals in the EU. Effects from naturalisation 
and long-term resident”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 187, OECD 
Publishing, Paris. P 6 

221 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Impacts 

Social impacts 

unemployment in the destination country and employment opportunities 
in the country of origin.378 Therefore, if EU LTR holders have facilitated 
access  to  more  rapidly  capitalise  on  employment  opportunities  in 
different  EU Member States, rather than just in  the first  Member States 
where  they  have  EU  LTR  status,  it  reduces  the  probability  they  will 
return  to  their  country  of  origin  for  other  opportunities.  Nevertheless, 
other  factors  such  as  familial  ties  and  socio-political  conditions  in  the 
country of origin play an important role in facilitating circular migration, 
which remain unaffected by this measure. 

Third-country nationals 

The  measure  would  strongly  facilitate  access  of  TCNs  to  the  labour 
market  in  a  second  Member  States,  as  they  could  move  without  any 
restrictions, which would increase their chances to find jobs suitable for 
their skills and qualifications, thus also contributing to their integration. 
The measure could also lead to some cost-savings, as although they may 
still have to apply for some authorisation to reside in the second Member 
States,  the  conditions  and  restrictions  of  their  access  are  likely  to  no 
longer apply.  

As  emphasised  by  the  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the 
Views of Migrants, removing the barriers to intra-EU mobility is likely to 
increase interest of TCNs in such mobility. Furthermore, members of the 
European Public Employment Services network also considered that the 
intra-  EU  mobility  for  employment  purpose  should  be  further  boosted 
and managed in a more automatic manner. 

National authorities 

National authorities are likely to oppose this measure, as it would lead to 
a significant  loss of control  as to  who enters their territory. Participants 
of the Legal practitioners network indeed wondered whether, in view of 
the  current  wave  of  anti-immigrant  sentiment  in  Europe,  national 
governments  might  be  lacking  incentives  to  further  facilitate  intra-EU 
mobility,  as  doing  so  would  seem  to  them  to  be  further  limiting  their 
discretion to control immigration.  

On the other hand, the  measure would lead to  significant simplification 
of procedures, as long-term resident TCNs would now have to follow a 
similar (simplified) procedure that applies to EU citizens when moving to 
a second Member States and have an automatic right of residence. 

378 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9d3d05d2-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/9d3d05d2-en  

222 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment 
criterion 

Assessment  

Legal practitioners/judiciary 

As the measure would remove often complex procedures and provide an 
automatic right of residence in the second Member States, it would lead 
to a reduced need for legal support and judicial / administrative review. 

Employers/Businesses 

This  measure  would  considerably  simplify  the  process  for  hiring  TCN, 
allowing employers direct, unrestricted access across the EU to a larger 
pool of medium and highly skilled legally residing TCNs. This will limit 
the  possibility  of  substantial  delays  in  filling  necessary  vacancies  and 
help to fill labour shortages.  

Third countries 

The  measure  could  have  a  negative  effect  on  third  countries,  as  the 
freedom of movement in the EU may act as a pull factor and may deter 
those  who  already  have  the  status  from  returning  to  their  countries  of 
origin. This would thus indirectly contribute to brain drain. On the other 
hand,  because  of  the  anticipated  higher  level  of  integration  of  TCNs, 
including  their  better  employment  prospects,  remittances  to  third 
countries are likely to increase. 

Economic impacts  This  measure  is  expected  to  have  some  positive  economic  impacts, 
however, the potential economic impacts cannot be estimated at the level 
of  a  specific  individual  measure,  but  have  been  calculated  at  the 
aggregate level of the policy options instead. 

This  measure  is  likely  to  result  in  an  increase  in  TCNs  moving  to  a 
second Member States, this will result in additional contributions to the 
tax regime of the second Member States as well as money spent by the 
TCNs and their family in this Member States. It will also bring increased 
economic benefits  to  mobile TCNs, as it will  reduce the costs linked to 
the  validation  of  professional  qualifications  and  allow  them  access  to 
employment at the right level.  

As mentioned above, the measure is also likely to have a limited negative 
effect  on  third  countries  linked  to  brain  drain  but  a  more  considerable 
positive economic effect linked to an increase in the remittances sent by 
the  affected  mobile  TCNs  to  their  families/  other  dependants  based  in 
their country of origin. 

Environmental 
impacts 

No environmental impacts identified. 

223 

 
 
Assessment 
criterion 

Fundamental 
rights  

Costs 

Administrative 
and 
costs 

compliance 

Simplification 

Assessment  

This measure will make a considerable contribution to the right to family 
and  professional  life  (Article  33  of  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights). 

This  measure  foresees  the  highest  administrative  and  compliance  costs 
within this policy option package, mostly impacting national authorities.  

With regards to the additional costs for national authorities, this measure 
will result in initial administrative costs for Member States, as they will 
need to modify their procedures and update the information provided to 
potential applicants. In addition, the introduction of this measure will see 
significant  changes  to  administrative  procedures  in  cooperation  with 
other migration management units (e.g. border management).   

Overall,  the  costs  resulting  from  this  measure  alone  for  Member  States 
national  authorities  per  average  yearly  cost  are  estimated  at  around 
211,197 euro. The costs for the Commission are estimated at 8,182 euro. 

This  measure  will  lead  to  a  reduction  in  compliance  costs  as  Member 
States  would  no  longer  need  to  have  a  separate  (albeit  facilitated) 
application procedure for TCNs, possibly applying the same procedures 
as those in place for EU citizens. However, while it may be possible to 
estimate  the  cost  saving  resulting  from  the  second  Member  States  no 
longer  having  a  procedure  in  place  for  intra-EU  mobile  TCNs,  it  is  not 
possible  to  calculate  the  costs  of  the  possible  procedures  that  would  be 
put in place in lieu of the latter. 

Overall assessment 

The policy measure would  bring some very significant  benefits  to  TCNs, as they would be 
able to move freely in the EU, which in turn is expected to bring positive social and economic 
impacts.  Nonetheless,  this  measure  would  likely  face  major  resistance  from  national 
authorities, as well as challenges of coherence with other EU legislation and policies, which 
would seriously hamper its practical and political feasibility. 

224 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: CASE LAW OF THE CJEU ON DIRECTIVE 2003/109/EC 

Case  
C-502/10  
Singh 

Date 
18/10/12  NL  Article 3(2)(e) - residence 

MS  Legal issue  

based on a formally limited 
permit 

C-571/10  

24/04/12  IT  Article 11(1)(d) - equal 

Kamberaj 

treatment regarding housing 
benefits 

Article 11(4) - requirement to 
state clearly in advance that 
use is made of derogation 

C-508/10 
Commission v 
Netherlands 

26/04/12  NL  Application for a residence 

permit in a second  MS made 
by a LTR - Disproportionate 
fees 

Ruling 
Article 3(2)(e) of the LTRD must be interpreted as meaning that the 
concept of ‘residence permit [which] has been formally limited’ does 
not  include  a  fixed-period  residence  permit,  granted  to  a  specific 
group of persons, the validity of which may be extended indefinitely 
without  however  offering  any  prospect  of  a  residence  permit  of 
indefinite  duration  where  such  a  formal  limitation  does  not  prevent 
the long-term residence of the TCN in the MS concerned, that being 
a matter for the referring court to ascertain. 

Article 11(1)(d)  of  the  LTRD  must  be  interpreted  as  precluding  a 
national  or  regional  law,  such  as  that  at  issue  in  the  main 
proceedings,  which  provides,  with  regard  to  the  grant  of  housing 
benefit, for different treatment for TCNs enjoying the status of long-
term  resident  conferred  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  that  directive 
compared to that accorded to nationals residing in the same province 
or  region  when  the  funds  for  the  benefit  are  allocated,  in  so  far  as 
such a benefit falls within  one of the three  categories referred to  in 
that provision and Article 11(4) of that directive does not apply. 

By applying (i) to TCNs seeking LTR status in the Netherlands, (ii) 
to  those  who,  having  acquired  that  status  in  a  MS  other  than  the 
Netherlands,  are  seeking  to  exercise  the  right  to  reside  in  that  MS, 
and  (iii)  to  members  of  their  families  seeking  authorisation  to 
accompany  or 
them,  excessive  and  disproportionate 
administrative  charges  which  are  liable  to  create  an  obstacle  to  the 
exercise  of  the  rights  conferred  by  the  LTRD,  the  Kingdom  of  the 

join 

225 

 
 
 
C-469/13  

17/07/14  IT  Articles 2, 4(1), 7(1) and 13 – 

Tahir 

terms for conferring LTR 
status (5 years)– family 
members  – more favourable 
provisions 

C-579/13  

04/06/15  NL  Article 5(2) and Article 11(1) - 

P and S 

integration measures - civic 
integration obligation attested 
by examination under pain of a 
fine   

Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive 

1. Articles 4(1)  and  7(1)  of  the  LTRD,  must  be  interpreted  as 
meaning  that  family  members,  as  defined  in  Article 2(e)  of  that 
directive,  of  a  person  who  has  already  acquired  long-term  resident 
status  may  not  be  exempted  from  the  condition  laid  down  in 
Article 4(1),  under  which,  in  order  to  obtain  that  status,  a  third-
country  national  must  have  resided  legally  and  continuously  in  the 
MS concerned for five years immediately prior to the submission of 
the relevant application. 

2. Article 13 of the LTRD must be interpreted as not allowing a MS 
to issue family members, as defined in Article 2(e) of that directive, 
with  long-term  residents’  EU  residence  permits  on  terms  more 
favourable than those laid down by that directive. 

Article 5(2) and Article 11(1) of the LTRD, do not preclude national 
legislation,  such  as  that  at  issue  in  the  main  proceedings,  which 
imposes on TCNs who already possess long-term resident status the 
obligation  to  pass  a  civic  integration  examination,  under  pain  of  a 
fine, provided that the means of implementing that obligation are not 
liable to jeopardise the achievement of the objectives pursued by that 
directive, which it is for the referring court to determine. Whether the 
long-term resident status was acquired before or after the obligation 
to pass a civic integration examination was imposed is irrelevant in 
that respect. 

226 

 
 
C-309/14 

CGIL and 
INCA  

C-636/16 

López 
Pastuzano 

03/09/15  IT  Disproportionate fees for 
issuing or renewing LTR 

07/12/17  ES  Article 12 – expulsion - scope 
of application – matters to be 
considered 

C-557/17 

14/03/19  NL  Article 9(1)(a) - withdrawal of 

Y.Z. and others 

permits in the case where the 
acquisition is based on 
fraudulent information but the 
holder was unaware of the 
fraudulent nature of that 
information 
Article 16(2)(a) FRD 

The LTRD  precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the 
main  proceedings,  which  requires  third-country  nationals,  when 
applying  for  the  issue  or  renewal  of  a  residence  permit  in  the 
Member  State  concerned,  to  pay  a  fee  which  varies  in  amount 
between  EUR 80  and  EUR 200,  inasmuch  as  such  a  fee  is 
disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by that directive 
and  is  liable  to  create  an  obstacle  to  the  exercise  of  the  rights 
conferred by that directive. 

Article 12 of the LTRD must be interpreted as precluding legislation 
of a MS which, as interpreted by some of the courts of that Member 
State,  does  not  provide  for  the  application  of  the  requirements  of 
protection against the expulsion of a third-country national who is a 
long-term  resident 
to  all  administrative  expulsion  decisions, 
regardless of the legal nature of that measure or of the detailed rules 
governing it. 

Article 9(1)(a)  of  the  LTRD  must  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that, 
where  long-term  resident  status  has  been  granted  to  third-country 
nationals  on  the  basis  of  falsified  documents,  the  fact  that  those 
nationals  did  not  know of the fraudulent nature  of those documents 
does not preclude the MS concerned, in application of that provision, 
from withdrawing that status. 

227 

 
 
 
C-677/17 

19/05/19  NL  EEC-Turkey Association 

M. Çoban 
v Uwv 

C-302/18 

X 

Agreement - Decision No 3/80 
– withdrawal supplementary 
benefits following LTR return 
to CO  

03/10/19  BE  Article 5(1)(a) – concept of 
resources  

C-448/19 

11/06/19  IT  Article 12 - expulsion of LTR 

WT v 
Subdelegación 
del Gobierno 
en 
Guadalajara 

– relevant elements assessment 
-  link between Article 12 LTR 
and definitions in Directive 
2001/40 

The  first  subparagraph  of  Article 6(1)  of  Decision  No 3/80  ,  in 
conjunction  with  Article 59  of  the  Additional  Protocol,  must  be 
interpreted as not precluding a national provision which withdraws a 
supplementary  benefit  from  a  Turkish  national  who  returns  to  his 
country of origin and who holds, at the date of his departure from the 
host Member State, long-term resident status, within the meaning of 
the LTRD.  

Article 5(1)(a) of the LTRD must be interpreted as meaning that the 
concept of ‘resources’ referred to in that provision does not concern 
solely  the  ‘own  resources’  of  the  applicant  for  long-term  resident 
status,  but  may  also  cover  the  resources  made  available  to  that 
applicant by a third party provided that, in the light of the individual 
circumstances of the applicant concerned, they are considered to be 
stable, regular and sufficient.  

Article 12 of the LTRD must be interpreted as precluding legislation 
of a MS which, as interpreted by national case-law with reference to 
Council Directive 2001/40/EC concerning the mutual recognition of 
decisions  on  the  expulsion  of  TCNs,  provides  for  the  expulsion  of 
any  third-country  national  who  holds  a  long-term  residence  permit 
who  has  committed  a  criminal  offence  punishable  by  a  custodial 
sentence of at least one year, without it being necessary to examine 
whether  the  third  country  national  represents  a  genuine  and 
sufficiently serious threat to public order or public security or to take 
into account the duration of residence in the territory of that MS, the 
age of the person concerned, the consequences of expulsion for the 
person concerned and family members and the links with the country 
of residence or the absence of links with the country of origin. 

228 

 
 
03/03/20  ES  Article 6(1) LTR - refusal of 

LTR status for public order 
reasons – previous convictions 
– assessment relevant elements 

C-503/19 and 
592/19 

UQ and SI v 
Subdelegación 
del Gobierno 
en Barcelona 

C-303/19 

25/11/20  IT  Article 11 - equal treatment – 

VR v Istituto 
nazionale 
della 
previdenza 
sociale  

social security  - family 
benefits - family members 
living in third countries not 
counted  

On SPD see also: C-302/19 

WS and VR v  Istituto 
nazionale della previdenza 
sociale  

Article 6(1)  of  the  LTRD,  must  be  interpreted  as  precluding  the 
legislation of a MS as it is interpreted by some of the courts of that 
State,  which  provides  that  a  third-  country  national  may  be  refused 
long-term  resident  status  for  the  sole  reason  that  he  or  she  has 
previous criminal convictions, without a specific assessment of his or 
her  situation,  in  particular,  the  nature  of  the  offence  committed  by 
that national, the threat he or she may pose to public policy or public 
security, the length of his or her residence on the territory of that MS 
and the links he or she has with that State. 

Article 11(1)(d)  of  the  LTRD  must  be  interpreted  as  precluding 
legislation  of  a  Member  State  under  which,  for  the  purposes  of 
determining  entitlement  to  a  social  security  benefit,  the  family 
members of a long-term resident, within the meaning of Article 2(b) 
thereof, who do not reside in the territory of that MS, but in a third 
country are not taken into account, whereas the family members of a 
national of that Member State who reside in a third country are taken 
into account, where that Member State has not expressed its intention 
of  relying  on  the  derogation  to  equal  treatment  permitted  by 
Article 11(2) of that directive by transposing it into national law. 

C-94/20 

10/06/21  AT  Article 11(d) – equal treatment 

Land 
Oberösterreich 

social security, social 
assistance and social 
protection – Derogation – 

Article 11(1)(d) of the LTRD must be interpreted as precluding, even 
where  use  has  been  made  of  the  option  to  apply  the  derogation 
provided  for  in  Article 11(4),  legislation  of  a  MS  under  which  the 
grant  of housing  assistance to  TCNs who are long-term residents  is 

229 

 
 
 
 
 
v KV 

language requirements - 
concept core benefits – 
applicability Art. 21 CFR 

C-462/20 

ASGI 
and Others v 
Presidenza del 
Consiglio dei 
Ministri 

28/10/21  IT  Article 11(1)(d) and (f) LTRD 
– equal treatment – exclusion 
TCNs  from discounts on 
supplies of goods and services 
by public and private entities 

Article 12(1)(e) SPD + Art 
14(1)(e) BCD + Art. 14(1)(g) 
QD 

subject to the condition that they provide proof, in a form specified 
by that legislation, that they have a basic command of the language 
of  that  MS,  if  that  housing  assistance  constitutes  a  ‘core  benefit’ 
within the meaning of that latter provision, this being a matter for the 
referring court to assess. 

Where  use  has  been  made  of  the  option  to  apply  the  derogation 
provided  for  in  Article 11(4),  Article 21  of  CFR  is  not  intended  to 
apply  to  legislation  of  a  MS  under  which  the  grant  of  housing 
assistance  to  third-country  nationals  who  are  long-term  residents  is 
subject to the condition that they provide proof, in a form specified 
by that legislation, that they have a basic command of the language 
of that Member State, if that housing assistance does not constitute a 
‘core benefit’ within the meaning of Article 11(4) of that directive. If 
the housing assistance in question does constitute such a core benefit, 
Article 21 of CFR, in so far as it prohibits any discrimination based 
on ethnic origin, does not preclude such legislation. 

Article 12(1)(e) of the SPD, and Article 14(1)(e) of the BCD , must 
be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which 
excludes TCNs covered by those directives from eligibility for a card 
granted  to  families  allowing  access  to  discounts  or  price  reductions 
when  purchasing  goods  and  services  supplied  by  public  or  private 
entities  which  have  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  government 
of that MS. 

Article  11(1)(d)  of  the  LTR,  must  be  interpreted  as  not  precluding 
such  legislation  either,  in  so  far  as  such  a  card  does  not  come, 
according to the national legislation of that Member State, within the 
concepts  of 
‘social 
protection’. 

‘social  assistance’  or 

‘social  security’, 

230 

 
 
 
C- 432/20 

Pending  

AT  Art. 9(1)(c) – concept of 

N/A 

absence – interruption absence  

ZK 

AG 
Opinion 
– 
21/10/21 

C-624/20 

Pending 

Dependents’ residence rights   N/A 

231