COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (recast)
Date: 2022-04-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, foreign national, labour law, migrant worker, residence permit, third country, work permit

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.4.2022  SWD(2022) 656 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (recast) {COM(2022) 655 final} - {SEC(2022) 201 final} - {SWD(2022) 655 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

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

PROBLEM DEFINITION .....................................................................................................................6 

2.1.  What are the problems? ..............................................................................................................6 
2.2.  How will the problem evolve? ................................................................................................. 22 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ......................................................................................................... 23 

3.1. 
3.2. 
3.3. 

Legal basis ................................................................................................................................ 23 
Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ........................................................................................ 23 
Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action ................................................................................... 23 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ................................................................................ 25 

4.1.  General objectives .................................................................................................................... 25 
Specific objectives ................................................................................................................... 25 
4.2. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? ..................................................................... 25 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? ........................................................... 25 
5.2.  Description of the policy options ............................................................................................. 27 
5.3.  Options discarded at an early stage .......................................................................................... 29 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ............................................................ 31 

6.1.  Option  1:  Non-legislative  option  –  actions  to  enhance  complementary  and  supporting 

activities ................................................................................................................................... 33 
6.2.  Option 2: Basic legislative intervention ................................................................................... 36 
6.3.  Option  3:  Extensive  legislative  intervention  –  Option  2  +  introducing  admission 

conditions for low- and medium-skilled workers ..................................................................... 41 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ............................................................................................. 47 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION ....................................................................................................................... 51 

8.1.  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) ..................................................................... 53 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 54 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 58 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 62 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? ........................................................................................... 72 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ...................................................................................................... 77 

ANNEX 5: ASSESSMENT OF THE POLICY MEASURES ...................................................................... 88 

ANNEX 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE FITNESS CHECK ........................................................ 131 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AHQ  

CJEU  

DG   

EGEM  

EMN  

EU  

Ad Hoc Query  

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  

NGO  

RSB   

REFIT  

TCN  

Fundamental Rights Agency  

Full Time Equivalent  

Gross Domestic Product  

Joint Research Centre   

Non-governmental organisation  

Regulatory Scrutiny Board  

Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme  

Third country national  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

transfers4 

intra-corporate 

During the last 20 years, the EU has adopted seven directives laying down common rules for 
the admission, and the rights, of third-county nationals in the EU for purposes of study and 
research1,  seasonal  work2,  highly  skilled  work3, 
family 
reunification5,  and  concerning  the  status  of  third-country  nationals  who  are  long-term 
residents6.  This  legislative  framework  has  contributed  to  developing  safe  legal  pathways  to 
the  EU.  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 
(hereinafter  ‘TCNs’),  of  which  over  1  million  were  for  employment  purposes.  In  the  last 
decade, third-country workers filled a significant share of new jobs7, helping to meet labour 
market  needs.  During  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  contribution  of  TCNs  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 
migrants8.  

As  part  of  the  EU  framework  for  legal  migration,  Directive  2011/98/EU  on  a  single 
application  procedure  for  a  single  permit  for  TCNs  to  reside  and  work  in  the  territory  of  a 
Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a 
Member State9 – hereinafter 'the Directive' – was adopted on 13 December 2011. Ireland and 
Denmark are not taking part in the implementation of the Directive. 

The  Directive  establishes  a  single  application  procedure  –  this  means  that  an  eligible  TCN 
does  not  need  to  apply  for  a  work  permit  and  a  residence  permit,  but  can  obtain  them 
combined through the same procedure. It also guarantees a common set of rights for eligible 
TCNs,  based  on  equal  treatment  with  nationals  of  the  Member  State  that  grants  the  single 
permit. As an ‘umbrella’ Directive, it is therefore a key instrument in EU immigration policy. 

The following categories of TCNs are eligible to obtain a single permit: 

  TCNs who apply to reside in a Member State to work  
  TCNs who have already been admitted to a Member State for the purpose of work  
  TCN who have already been admitted to a Member State for purposes other than work 

but who are allowed to work  

The Directive nevertheless contains notable exceptions10. 

1   OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 21–57. 
2   OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 375–390. 
3   OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, p. 17–29. 
4   OJ L 157, 27.5.2014, p. 1–22. 
5   OJ L 251, 3.10.2003, p. 12–18. 
6   OJ L 16, 23.1.2004, p. 44. 
7   OECD (2018), “The contribution of migration to the dynamics of the labour force in OECD countries: 2005-

2015” 

8   https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/crucial-contribution-migrant-workers-europes-coronavirus-response  
9   OJ L 343 of 23.12.2011, p. 1. 
10   For  example:  posted  workers,  intra  corporate  transferees,  seasonal  workers,  beneficiaries  of  temporary  or 
international  protection,  beneficiaries  of  protection  under  national  low,  long  term  residents,  those  whose 
removal has been suspended, self - employed workers, seafarers (Article 3.2) 

3 

 
 
                                                           
In  201911,  2 984 261  single  permit  decisions12  were  reported  for  the  Directive,  of  which 
1 212 952 decisions were for issuing first permits. The other decisions were for renewing or 
changing  permits.  Of  all  the  permits  issued  in  2019,  1 172 028  (39 %)  were  issued  for 
‘remunerated  activities’,  928 483  (31 %)  for  family  reasons,  395 428  (13 %)  for  education 
and 368 509 (12 %) for other reasons based on available statistics13. 

Figure 1.  First permits issued for remunerated activities by reason, length of validity and 

citizenship  

GEO/TIME 
European Union - 27 
countries (from 2020) 
European Union - 28 
countries (2013-2020) 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

456.614 

589.552 

737.482 

905.331 

983.742  1.197.788 

903.398 

573.321 

707.632 

854.558  1.009.543  1.091.892  1.197.788  : 

Source: Eurostat [migr_resocc] 

During  the  10  years  of  application  of  the  Directive,  the  Commission  has  received  12 
complaints  on  the implementation  of  the  Directive  by  the  Member  States  (including  i.a.  on 
the issue of not respecting statutory deadlines for issuing a single permit or social security-
related  issues),  followed  up  by  6  EU  Pilots  and  4  infringement  proceedings14.  Two  of  the 
infringement  proceedings  (which  dealt  with  disproportional  fees  and  family  benefits)  have 
been now closed. The two pending proceedings cover mainly the area of social security and 
in particular access to family benefits. With regard to the EU Pilots, some of the issues raised 
have  been  solved  following  the  agreement  of  the  concerned  Member  States  to  adapt  their 
legislation notably in  the areas of recognition  of  titles, access  to  good and services  and not 
respecting of deadlines. The issues that remain open relate to access to some social security 
benefits and not respecting statutory deadlines.  

The Fitness Check on legal migration adopted in 201915 launched an in-depth evaluation with 
the  view  to  assessing  whether  the  EU  legal  migration  framework  is  still  fit  for  purpose, 
identifying  any  inconsistencies  and  gaps  and  looking  for  possible  ways  to  streamline  and 
simplify the existing rules. The evaluation of the Directive under the Fitness Check and the 
work  performed  in  preparation  of  the  implementation  report16,  also  adopted  in  2019, 
identified a number of personal and material gaps, inconsistencies and shortcomings as well 
as practical issues arising from the application of the Directive by the Member States. These 
included: 

11   Source: Eurostat (migr_ressing).  
12   As far as the reporting of statistics is concerned the ‘Single Permit’ is understood as a residence permit that 
includes both those that reside for the purpose  of  work and those admitted  for other reasons, but  have the 
right to work. The statistical definition of ‘Single Permit’ corresponds to Art. 2(c), Directive 2011/98/EU. 
13   The reason for issuing the permit is not available for about 4% of total single permits issued in 2019. Given 
the changes in migration flows in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, statistics for 2019 have been used in 
the analysis. 

14   Seehttps://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_17_4767; 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_20_2142 

15   See the Executive summary of the Fitness check in Annex 7 and the full report:  https://ec.europa.eu/home-

affairs/what-we-do/policies/legal-migration/fitness-check_en#:~:text 

16   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0160&from=EN 

4 

 
 
                                                           
  Complexity  and  inconsistencies  relating  to  the  single  application  procedure,  mainly 
as regards the participation of different authorities in the application process, which 
sometimes  adds  several  administrative  steps  to  the  process  of  obtaining  entry  visas 
and labour market-related authorisations;  

  Problems  with  the  transposition  of  the  equal  treatment  provisions,  including  the 
exclusion of some categories of TCNs and lack of coverage of some social security 
branches; and 
Issues with the practical application of procedural safeguards. 

 

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’.  

On the other hand, the Fitness Check also confirmed the numerous benefits of harmonisation 
in  the  field  of  legal  migration.  In  particular,  Member  States  clearly  stressed  the  EU  added-
value of the Single Permit Directive. Harmonised and simplified procedures and a common 
set  of  rights,  increased  legal  certainty  and  predictability  for  third-country  nationals  and 
employers  were  among  the  areas  in  which  EU  action  was  considered  to  have  brought  the 
most positive effects and the most EU added value. The Communication of the Commission 
on a New Pact on Migration and Asylum17, adopted on 23 September 2020, stressed that “the 
EU’s common migration policy needs to  reflect the integration of the EU economy and the 
interdependence of Member States’ labour markets. This is why EU policies need to foster a 
level  playing  field  between  national  labour  markets  as  migration  destinations.  They  should 
also help Member States use their membership of the EU as an asset in attracting talent.” The 
New  Pact  also  sets  out  that:  “More  could  be  done  to  increase  the  impact  of  the  EU  legal 
migration  framework  on  Europe’s  demographic  and  migration  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 New Pact announced a plan to address the main shortcomings in the area 
of  legal  migration  with  three  new  sets  of  measures,  responding  to  the  overall  objectives  of 
attracting the talent the EU needs and facilitating intra-EU mobility of third-country workers 
already in the EU. The review of the Single Permit Directive is part of these measures, with 
the objective – as set out in the New Pact – ‘to look at ways to simplify and clarify the scope 
of the legislation, including admission and residence conditions for low and medium skilled 
workers’. The other two measures announced are the revision of the Directive on long-term 
residents18, which is currently under-used and does not provide an effective right to intra-EU 
mobility,  and  exploring  the  feasibility  of  developing  an  EU  Talent  Pool  for  third-country 
skilled  workers  which  could  operate  as  an  EU-wide  platform  for  international  recruitment. 

17   COM/2020/609 final 
18   Directive  2003/109/EC;  an  impact  assessment  on  this  directive  has  been  prepared  and  presented  together 

with the present assessment. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
The  revision  of  the  Single  Permit  Directive  and  of  the  Long-Term  Residents  Directive  has 
been included in Annex II of the 2021 Commission work programme19. 

This  initiative  was  also  included  in  Annex  II  of  the  2021  Commission  work  programme  , 
therefore it is part of the regulatory fitness programme (REFIT). The Fit for Future Platform 
also  issued  its  opinion  on  how  to  simplify  and  reduce  unnecessary  burdens,  including  by 
modernising existing EU legislation through digitalisation, which is reflected in the proposal. 
The  opinion  was  adopted  on  10  December  2021.  The  Platform  made  the  following  two 
recommendations: 

Suggestion 1: Streamline and digitalise the single permit application and visa applications to 
reduce the administrative burden and costs on applicants and on authorities. 

Suggestion  2:  Simplifying  procedures  on  change  of  employer  and  increasing  ownership  of 
workers will provide concrete benefits to national administrations and applicants. 

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 
migration20,  welcomed  the  Commission’s  planned  review  of  the  Single  Permit  Directive, 
suggesting that ‘to reach a broader category of workers, the scope and the application of the 
directive should be expanded’. 

The  revision  of  the  Single  Permit  Directive  would  contribute  to  better  achieving  the 
Directive’s already existing objective of establishing a more level playing field for efficient 
management  of  migration  flows  by  ensuring  simplified  and  efficient  procedures  and 
addressing  identified  shortcomings  that  cannot  be  addressed  by  non-legislative  measures. 
This  would  also  contribute  to  the  fairer  treatment  of  the  third  country  nationals  and  have  a 
positive,  though  relatively  modest,  impact  on  addressing  the  EU  labour  shortages  and 
economic growth. 

2.  2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

2.1. What are the problems? 

The  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  current  Directive,  the  Fitness  Check  and  the 
consultation process carried out for this impact assessment have revealed a number of gaps, 
inconsistencies and shortcomings. 

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

legal 

labour  migration 

(2020/2010(INI)) 

6 

 
 
                                                           
The key identified problems can be grouped in three areas:  

1)  complex  and  inefficient  application  procedures  and  unclear  rights  which  decrease  EU 

attractiveness for third country nationals; 

2)  certain categories of migrants are not covered by the scope of the Directive or any other 
EU  legal  instruments;  there  are  differing  rules  on  admission  conditions  for  low-  and 
medium-skilled; 

3)  third-country workers are not sufficiently protected from exploitation. 

The  above-mentioned  evaluation  and  consultation  process  showed  that  migrants  already 
residing in, or considering moving to, the EU are negatively affected by the shortcomings of 
the  current  Directive,  which  result  in  administrative  burden,  lengthy  waiting  times, 
uncertainty and confusion as to applicable rules and outcomes, or may even discourage them 
from applying21. Diverse sets of rights and complex procedures resulting from a fragmented 
implementation of the Directive hamper the EU’s attractiveness in their eyes, as well as their 
integration in the host societies.  

EU  employers,  including  large  companies,  are  negatively  affected  by  the  identified 
shortcomings  of  the  Directive,  in  particular  by  the  complex  and  inefficient  application 
procedures,  which  often  deter  employers  from  resorting  to  international  recruitment  due  to 
the risk of prolonged procedures and high related costs. This is particularly true for start-ups 
and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) which are likely to bear a disproportionate burden 
when hiring TCNs in comparison to large enterprises due to more limited resources (e.g. legal 
fees,  understanding  of  immigration  law  and  process,  etc.)22.  Even  in  the  face  of  skills 
shortages which cannot be filled locally, employers rarely resort to international recruitment 
as  the  long  procedures  to  obtain  the  necessary  visas,  employment  authorisations  and  the 
single permit are deterrents for international recruitment23. 

EU  citizens  are  also  indirectly  negatively  affected  as  the  EU’s  labour  migration  system 
insufficiently  contributes  to  tackling  skills  shortages24,  shrinking  work  population  and 

21   Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the  Views  of  Migrants  of  2  March  2021; 
Consultation of the European Public Employment Services network of 10 March 2021; Fifth meeting of the 
Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration  (EGEM)  of  Wednesday  14  April  2021; Consultation  with 
representatives of the Civil Society of 20 April 2021; Second meeting of the EU legal migration practitioners 
network of 29 April 2021 (see Annex 2 for more details). 

22   For example: Bank aus Verantwortung (2017) Study: “Focus on Economics – Foreign workers in German 

SMEs: a strong plea for free labour markets", available at: https://www.kfw.de/KfW-
Konzern/Service/Download-Center/Konzernthemen/Research/Fokus-Volkswirtschaft/?redirect=78471  

23   Ibid. 
24   With  the  COVID-19  crisis,  the  contribution  of  migrants  to  the  European  economies,  labour  markets  and 
public services has become all the more evident. In the EU, 25% of the workers in the personal care and food 
preparation sectors are non-EU born. In the last decade, migrant workers accounted for a significant part of 
new  jobs  helping  to  fill  labour  market  needs.  A  study  quantifying  the  contribution  of  essential  workers 
suggests that 13% of key workers are immigrants. Furthermore, mobility restrictions due to COVID-19 have 
further increased existing shortages especially in the health care and agricultural sector. In spite of the short-
term  impact  on  global  unemployment  due  to  the  COVID  pandemic,  it  is  expected  that  some  of  these 
structural shortages will persist in the medium and long term. Nearly 7 in 10 (69%) of companies are already 
reporting talent shortages and difficulty hiring, which represents a 15-year high (ManPower Talent Shortage 
Report,  surveying  41700  hiring  managers  in  42  countries,  including  several  EU  Member  States: 
ManpowerGroup Talent Shortage Study).  

7 

 
 
                                                           
increasing old-age dependency ratio25. This can affect the financial viability of the Member 
States’ welfare systems and the overall EU economic growth.  

The  main  driver  for  these  problems  is  a  regulatory  failure,  i.e.  weaknesses  of  the  current 
overall EU regulatory framework on issuing single permits to TCNs. Many provisions of the 
Directive  give  a  large  margin  of  discretion  to  the  Member  States  for  their  implementation, 
allowing  for  inconsistent  rules,  more  or  less  favourable  to  third-country  workers.  This 
weakens harmonisation  of the rules at the EU level. There are also inconsistencies between 
the Single Permit Directive and other legal migration Directives adopted later, particularly as 
regards the definition of the categories of migrants excluded from its scope.  

The following table presents the main problems and underlying drivers. 

2.1.1.  Problem  area  1:  Complex  and  inefficient  application  procedures  and  unclear 
rights decrease EU attractiveness for third country nationals  

Individual decisions to migrate are determined by many factors, some of which are out of the 
influence  of  the  immigration  policy.  However,  the  role  of  an  efficient  labour  migration 
system  is  essentially  to  eliminate  barriers  and  facilitate  admission  while  assuring  a  focused 
selection,  as  well  as  to  increase  the  appeal  of  a  given  destination  by  granting  an  attractive 
package  of  rights  and  benefits  which  also  facilitates  integration.  Complex,  inconsistent  and 
sometimes inefficient procedures can act as a deterrent to legal migration which is becoming 
increasingly crucial to filling existing and emerging skills shortages26. 

Sub-problem 1.1: Procedures are complex and sometimes inefficient  

The  provisions  related  to  the  single  application  procedure  were  meant  to  contribute  to 
achieving the overall objective of the EU legal framework of establishing a level playing field 
for  management  of  migration  (comparable  procedures  across  the  Member  States)  and  to 

25   European  Commission,  Cedefop  (2018):  Skills  forecast:  trends  and  challenges  to  2030.  Available  at: 

https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/3077_en.pdf  

26  The  most  in-demand  occupations,  for  which  enterprises  are  competing  globally,  are  related  to  logistics, 
manufacturing,  sales,  IT  and  administrative  support.  ManPower  Talent  Shortage  Report,  surveying  41700 
hiring managers in 42 countries: ManpowerGroup Talent Shortage Study 

8 

 
 
 
                                                           
ensuring simplified and efficient procedures ('one-stop-shop', fixed deadlines, transparency). 
This also contributes to the fair treatment of the third country nationals.  

Prior to the adoption of the Single Permit Directive, a number of Member States had already 
a range of relevant legal instruments and domestic procedures applicable to the admission of 
third  country  nationals  for  the  purpose  of  paid  employment.  Out  of  21  Member  States  for 
which  information  was  available,  10  countries  already  had  in  place  some  form  of  a  single 
application  procedure  for  a  joint  resident  and  work  permit.  However,  the  other  11  Member 
States  had  two  separate  authorisations  and  procedures  in  place  for  work  and  residence 
permits. Thus, the  Directive introduced  an important simplification of procedures for third-
country nationals that was not in place in most of the Member States.  

As  stated  above,  during  the  Fitness  Check,  Member  States  clearly  stressed  the  EU  added-
value  of  harmonised  rules  under  the  Single  Permit  Directive.  However,  the  ten-year 
experience  with  the  Directive,  supported  by  the  conclusions  of  the  2019  Fitness  Check  on 
legal migration, calls for a review of some of the provisions. The evaluation of the Directive 
under the Fitness Check and the work performed in preparation of the implementation report, 
showed  that  in  practice  the  procedures  remain  often  complex,  sometimes  inefficient  and 
differ between Member States resulting in a degree of confusion about the steps to follow and 
some of the rights granted to TCNs under the Directive.  

The main identified problems are the following: 

a)  Inefficient rules on the place of application for a single permit  

The  Directive  leaves  up  to  the  Member  States  to  decide  where  applicants  can  lodge  an 
application whether in their country of origin or once they arrive to the Member State. Only 
in  three  Member  States  is  it  possible  to  lodge  any  application  and  receive  a  permit  while 
residing in a third country27. It  also emerged from the consultations28 that in some Member 
States TCNs already staying legally in a Member State could not apply for a single permit in 
the Member State where they were residing. This means that TCNs already staying in the EU 
may  be  forced  to  travel  back  to  their  country  of  origin  first.  An  example  provided  was  the 
case of students who had to return to their country of origin after finishing studies in the EU 
to apply for a new visa/permit allowing them to work.  

b)  Initial entry visa procedures create administrative inefficiencies and can prolong the 

overall single permit procedure 

In  cases  where  the  application  can  only  be  lodged  in  the  territory  of  a  Member  State, 
applicants have to obtain an entry visa. Once in the Member State, the TCN can apply for the 
single  permit.  What  is  considered  a  visa  for  initial  entry  is  not  defined  in  the  Directive.  In 
some cases, Member States issue short-stay visas for that purpose, in others a long-stay visas. 
Visa procedures are outside the scope of the Directive and the deadline for issuing decisions 

27   (CY,  HR,  SI)  https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2019-03/201903_en-legal-migration-check-

annex-2a-icf-201806.pdf  

28   Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the  Views  of  Migrants,  opinion  of  the  Fit  for 

Future Platform. 

9 

 
 
                                                           
on the single permit does not take account of the time needed to obtain a visa. The practical 
application  study  of  the  Fitness  Check29  shows  that  the  time  required  to  apply  for  a  visa 
sometimes  extends  considerably  the  overall  procedure,  in  some  cases  by  as  much  as  three 
months30.  Moreover,  complaints  showed  that  a  TCN  can  be  denied  admission  because  the 
entry visa is rejected or delayed, even though the substantive conditions for issuing a permit 
had in principle been fulfilled31.  

Eight Member States do not foresee any particular timeframe for the granting of an entry visa 
if  the  applicant  does  not  yet  hold  a  valid  permit  before  entering  the  Member  State32. 
Furthermore, some Member States require the documentation to obtain a single permit to be 
submitted and assessed twice, at the time of the entry visa application and for the application 
for the actual single permit, once the TCN is in the territory of the Member State concerned. 
This creates administrative burden for both the applicant and the employer, as well as for the 
authority handling the application.  It  can also  result in  unnecessarily prolonged procedures. 
There is a need for clear provisions that ensure coordination between the two processes, so as 
to provide for fair and transparent procedures. 

Representatives  of  the  Civil  Society  also  confirmed  the  need  to  ensure  a  reasonable  and 
uniform  application  processing  period  while  avoiding  duplication  of  efforts  from  both  the 
migrants' and employers’ perspective, and that of the national authorities33.  

Moreover,  from  the  migrants’  perspective,  transparency,  a  timely  application  process  and 
smooth  administrative  requirements  would  constitute  real  attraction  factors.  Participants  of 
the  consultations  representing  migrants  emphasised  the  need  for  digitalising  the  application 
process to simplify the procedures, improve coordination between the authorities, and avoid 
duplications in the requested documents and unnecessarily long procedures 34. 

Finally,  the  opinion  of  the  Fit  for  Future  Platform  highlighted  that  lack  of  coordination 
between different administrations, inefficiencies between national visa and single permit and 
national  requirements  create  duplications  and  lengthy  procedures.  The  opinion  quoted 
evidence  that  suggests  that  few  Member  States  issue  electronic  permits  or  procedures  for 
obtaining  a  physical  permit  after  the  authorities  have  already  taken  a  positive  decision  and 
after the arrival to the Member State on a visa, which can take months in some cases. In some 
Member States, a substantive check of underlying documents takes place twice, while other 
Member  States  suggest  that  there  are  no  indications  of  duplication  in  the  administrative 
checks  and  in  the  investigations  of  the  diplomatic  representations,  which  receive  the 

29   Annex 8, Assessment of practical implementation. 
30   According to the Fitness check and the information received from the Member States  via an EMN ad hoc 
query, deadlines for issuing visas vary between 15 days in BG and LV and 90 in LU and NL. Legislation of 
some Member States (SE) does not have deadlines. Eight Member States do not fix any particular timeframe 
for the granting of an entry visa if the applicant does not yet hold a valid permit before entering the Member 
State. 

31   However, this was clarified in the Ben Alaya judgment (Case C‑491/13), where the CJEU clearly stated that 

no admission conditions can be imposed other than those listed in the Directives. 

32   BE,  CY,  CZ,  DE,  EE,  LT,  MT,  SK    (https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2019-03/201903_en-

legal-migration-check-annex-2a-icf-201806.pdf).  
33   Consultation with representatives of Civil Society. 
34   Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group (EG) on the Views of Migrants. 

10 

 
 
                                                           
authorization  directly  from  the  “single  access  points  for  immigration”  at  the  prefectures  to 
issue entry visas. 

A  large  number  of  documents  for  issuing  residence  and  work  permits,  which  are  requested 
from  applicants  could  be  acquired  ex  officio,  except  documents  which  are  not  issued  by 
public  authorities  (travel  documents,  evidence  of  qualification/professional  qualifications, 
proof  that  they  have  not  been  convicted  in  their  country  of  origin,  etc.).  Information 
concerning  the  documentation  and  procedure  for  issuing  residence  and  work  permits  is  not 
easy  to  retrieve  and  is  difficult  to  interpret.  Traditional  paper  submissions  of  applications 
lengthens the processing and increases costs linked to applications. 

c)  Rules on labour market tests vary among Member States and excessively prolong the 

process for a TCN to get the single permit 

The  Directive  sets  out  a  four-month  deadline  for  the  adoption  of  a  decision  on  the  single 
permit application. However, some Member States carry out labour market tests first. Labour 
market  tests  are a mechanism that aims at  ensuring that migrant  workers are only admitted 
after  employers  have  unsuccessfully  searched  for  national  workers,  EU  citizens  or  legally 
residing  TCNs  with  access  to  the  labour  market35.  Member  States  are  allowed  to  establish 
such tests to determine the number of TCNs entering their territory for work purposes.  

These tests are not harmonised at EU level, therefore employers and TCNs face a variety of 
differing national procedures. Some Member States oblige the employer or the TCN to obtain 
an employment clearance before lodging an application for a single permit, while others36 – 
before the TCN can apply for a visa. In other Member States37, the employer is required to 
publish  the  vacancy  for  a  specific  period  of  time  (e.g.  a  month)  locally  before  offering  the 
position  to  a  TCN.  Labour  market  tests  last  generally  between  15  days  and  one  month, 
however  in  one  Member  State  the  average  time  in  2018  exceeded  two  months38.  This  can 
prolong  the  overall  procedure  even  up  to  six  months.  As  confirmed  by  representatives  of 
migrants  and  the  civil  society39,  such  a  long  waiting  time  discourages  many  potential 
employers  thus  limiting  the  chances  of  TCNs,  especially  less-skilled  migrants,  to  get 
employed and affecting people’s mobility in the labour market. 

Similar  concerns  emerged  from  the  Fitness  Check  public  consultation.  Employers,  non-EU 
service  providers  and  private  recruitment  agencies,  when  asked  to  identify  the  problems 
encountered  when  employing  or  transferring  non-EU  staff,  highlighted  among  others  the 
strict labour market tests imposed by national authorities40. Moreover, almost half of the TCN 
respondents agreed that the current conditions to enter, live and work in EU countries were an 

35   EMN Glossary. 
36   FR, RO, ES, BG, PT. 
37   E.g. LV and LT. 
38   EU pilots are currently ongoing with three Member States for excessively long proceedings. 
39   Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the  Views  of  Migrants,  Consultation  with 

representatives of the Civil Society. 

40   https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2019-03/201903_legal-migration-check-annex-3aii-

icf_201806.pdf  

11 

 
 
                                                           
obstacle  for  them  when  migrating  to  the  EU,  referring  in  particular  to  the  lengthy  and 
cumbersome application procedures and the labour market test41. In addition, the opinion of 
the  Fit  for  Future  platform  highlighted  that  a  number  of  Member  States  have  put  in  place 
additional  administrative  procedures  (e.g.  ‘labour  market  authorisations’  or  obligations  to 
register  with  local,  tax  and  social  security  authorities)  that  can  further  undermine  the 
simplification objective. 

d)  Applicants and general public are insufficiently informed of rights and procedures  

The Fitness Check and the Implementation Report highlighted a need to further improve the 
information that Member States have to make available, as well as the requirements for the 
presentation  of  the  information,  in  terms  of  language  availability,  explanations  of  the 
administrative  process  and  documentary  requirements  As  stated  in  the  Implementation 
Report,  some  Member  States  do  not  even  clearly  set  out  an  obligation  for  the  competent 
authorities  to  provide  adequate  information  on  the  documents  required  to  make  a  complete 
application 42. 

Consultations  also  brought  to  light  strong  concerns  of  some  stakeholders  representing 
migrants as to the availability of information about the existence, procedures and benefits of 
the  single  permit  as  well  as  the  need  to  ensure  that  TCNs  receive  clearer  information 
regarding  the  requirements,  rights,  and  duties  stemming  from  the  Directive.  Consulates  are 
often  unaware  of  the  procedures  included  in  the  Directive  and  are  not  properly  trained  to 
provide  potential  applicants  with  this  key  information43.  All  this  results  in  increased 
vulnerability of migrants to exploitation, higher proportion of erroneous applications and the 
need  for  applicants  to  resort  to  services  of  intermediaries,  in  particular  in  cases  where  the 
application can only be done in the country of origin. Also the opinion of the Fit for Future 
Platform  highlighted  the  need  to  inform  third-country  nationals  about  the  conditions  of 
regulating  their  stay  and  about  their  rights,  as  well  as  to  inform  the  employers  about  the 
conditions  of  employment  and  work  for  third-country  nationals  through  professional 
associations. 

Lack  of  transparency  and  efficiency  has  also  been  highlighted  in  academic  literature, 
underlining  the  need  for  Member  States  to  always  have  information  available  online  in  at 
least English or another commonly used language44. 

Sub-problem 1.2: Insufficient clarity of certain provisions on equal treatment rights  

One  of  the  main  objectives  of  the  EU  legal  migration  framework  is  to  ensure  that  TCNs 
subject  to  the  EU  acquis  are  treated  fairly  and  fully  integrated  in  the  society  of  the  host 
Member State.  

41   https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2019-03/201903_legal-migration-check-annex-3aii-

icf_201806.pdf  

42   (BG, EE, PT and SI) COM(2019) 160 final, p.9. 
43   Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group (EG) on the Views of Migrants. 
44   Lange  T.  (2015),  The  Single  Permit  Directive:  A  limited  Scope,  A  Simple  Procedure  and  Limited  Good 

Administration Requirements. 

12 

 
 
                                                           
Under the terms of  Article 12 of the Directive,  single permit  holders enjoy  equal  treatment 
with  nationals  in  a  number  of  areas,  including  working  conditions,  freedom  of  association, 
social  security  benefits,  education,  recognition  of  academic  and  professional  qualifications, 
tax  benefits,  access  to  goods  and  services  and  employment  advice  services.  Pursuant  to 
Article 12(2), Member States have the option to restrict equal treatment. Most Member States 
have  not  applied  all  the  options,  only  Cyprus  has  chosen  to  adopt  all  optional  restrictions, 
whereas some (BG, CZ, ES, HR, LU, RO and SK) did not apply any of the options.  

The  reference  to  equal  treatment  with  regard  to  “procedures  for  obtaining  housing  as 
provided by national law, without prejudice to the freedom of contract…” and its relation to 
the exemption of Article 12(2)(d)(ii) (allowing Member States to restrict access to housing) is 
unclear, in particular as to whether it includes access to private housing. The Commission has 
received  a  number  of  complaints  related  to  national  legislation  not  allowing  TCNs  to 
purchase private property. 

In addition, Article 12(1)(e) provides for equal treatment with regard to “branches of social 
security,  as  defined  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  883/2004”.  These  branches  include  also  family 
benefits,  with  regard  to  which  problems  have  arisen  where  a  family  member  of  the  single 
permit  holder  continued  to  reside  in  the  country  of  origin.  Recital  24  of  the  Directive 
contributes  to  the  confusion  by  stating  that  the  Directive  “(…)  should  not  grant  rights  in 
relation to situations which lie outside the scope of Union law, such as in relation to family 
members  residing  in  a  third  country.  This  Directive  should  grant  rights  only  in  relation  to 
family members who join third-country workers to reside in a Member State on the basis of 
family reunification or family members who already reside legally in that Member State”. 

In  a  recent  judgment  referring  to  Italian  legislation45,  the  European  Court  of  Justice  found 
that  a  provision  excluding  children  residing  outside  the  EU  from  the  calculation  of  family 
benefits is not compatible with EU law if family members of the citizens of the Member State 
concerned living abroad are taken into account for this purpose46. 

The Court concluded that “it cannot be inferred from [recital 24] that Directive 2011/98 must 
be interpreted as meaning that the holder of a single permit whose family members reside not 
in  the territory of  the Member State concerned,  but  in  a third country is excluded from the 
right to equal treatment provided for by that directive”47. 

Also  with  regard  to  family  benefits,  the  Directive  allows  Member  States  to  exclude  from 
family benefits TCNs who are allowed to work on the basis of a visa. Some Member States 
issue long-stay visas that allow the holder to work before obtaining the single permit. In these 
cases, the duration of the visa can be longer than 6 months, leaving the TCN without access 
to family benefits merely on the basis of the type of permit issued. 

45   Case  C-302/19  - Istituto nazionale  della previdenza sociale  (INPS)  v WS.  Judgment of the Court of 25 of 

November 2020. 

46   The Court stated that “both the non-payment of the family unit allowance and the reduction of its amount, 
depending on whether all or some family members do not reside in the territory of the Italian Republic, are 
contrary  to  the  right  to  equal  treatment  laid  down  in  Article  12(1)(e)  of  Directive  2011/98,  since  it 
constitutes a difference in treatment between holders of a single permit and Italian nationals” Judgement in 
Case C-302/19, paragraph 42. 

47   Ibid, paragraph 31. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
Lack of clarity concerning equal treatment rights combined with insufficient information on 
procedures  and  rights,  as  highlighted  above,  can  lead  to  confusion  for  potential  applicants 
that  can  negatively  affect  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  or  TCNs’  integration  in  the  host 
society.  

Drivers 

The main driver for this set of problems is a regulatory failure, as the existence of numerous 
optional clauses in the Directive and wide discretion left to the Member States has led to  a 
very  complex  landscape  in  the  way  national  migration  authorities  implement  the  single 
application  procedure,  inefficiencies  and  lack  of  clarity  on  the  equal  treatment  rights.  The 
differences in the implementation by Member States of the Single Permit Directive are due 
mainly  to  the  'optional  clauses'  that  the  Directive  authorises  as  a  result  of  a  compromise 
achieved  by  co-legislators.  Divergences  also  result  from  different  interpretation  and  bad 
application of some provisions. This leads to fragmentation that many stakeholders identified 
as negatively affecting simplification and transparency. This is confusing for the prospective 
employers or TCN applicants and decreases attractiveness of the EU. In particular:  

a)  Article 4(1) obliges Member States to allow the application to be introduced by TCNs 
from  a  third  country  or,  if  so  provided  for  by  national  law,  in  the  territory  of  the 
Member State in which the TCN is legally present. Where the application can only be 
lodged from abroad, the TCNs may have to travel back to their country of origin first. 
b)  According to Article 4(3) the single application procedure is without prejudice to the 
visa procedures that may be required for initial entry. Where applications can only be 
lodged  in  the  destination  Member  States,  the  procedure  to  first  obtain  an  entry  visa 
can significantly extend the duration of the overall procedure; 

c)  Article  1(2)  of  the  Directive  states  that  its  provisions  are  “without  prejudice  to  the 
Member States’ powers concerning the admission of TCNs to their labour markets”. 
During the consultations, stakeholders  representing legal  migration practitioners and 
economic  and  social  partners  referred  several  times  to  the  impact  of  labour  market 
tests  on  the  duration  of  the  procedures  and  the  role  they  play  in  discouraging 
international recruitment48; 

d)  Article 9 obliges Member States to provide, upon request, adequate information to the 
third country national and the future employer on the documents required to make a 
complete application. However, it does not specify any minimum requirements in this 
regard.  The  wording  of  Article  14  is  very  general  and  only  requires  that  Member 
States  make  available  to  the  general  public  a  regularly  updated  set  of  information 
concerning  the  conditions  of  admission  and  residence  in  their  territory  in  order  to 
work.  

e)  In  relation  to  equal  treatment  rights,  regulatory  failure  takes  the  form  of  a  lack  of 
clarity with respect mainly to access to family benefits and housing and the exclusions 

48   Consultations  with  representatives  of  the  European  Public  Employment  Services  network,  Economic  and 

Social Partners and the EU legal migration practitioners network. 

14 

 
 
                                                           
of  specific  categories  of  third-country  workers,  which  may  lead  to  incorrect 
implementation and ambiguity. 

Problem  area  2:  Certain  categories  of  migrants  are  not  covered  by  the  scope  of  the 
Directive  or  by  any  other  EU  legal  instruments  and  there  are  differing  rules  on 
admission conditions for low- and medium- skilled TCNs 

Sub  problem  2.1:  The  Directive  is  not  clearly  aligned  with  other  EU  instruments 
covering some categories of TCNs 

The personal scope of the Directive, laid down in Article 3, excludes seasonal workers and 
intra corporate transferees. These two categories of TCNs are subject to sectorial directives 
which were adopted later49. As a result, the Single Permit Directive certainly does not apply 
to  seasonal  workers  and  intra-corporate  transferees  that  are  covered  by  the  sectorial 
directives, nor does it currently cover categories of TCNs considered as seasonal workers or 
intra corporate transferees under national law.  

Furthermore, it is currently unclear if the exclusion of workers posted from third countries 
in  Article  3(2)(c)  refers  only  to  TCNs  that  have  been  posted  from  one  Member  State  to 
another  or  also  those  posted  from  a  third  country.  Directive  96/71/EC  on  the  posting  of 
workers only applies to posting within the EU. Workers posted by an employer established in 
a third country are not covered by any other Directive. As a result, workers posted from third 
countries in the framework of the movement of persons under GATS Mode 450 may be also 
excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  Directive  and  not  benefit  from  the  single  permit  procedure 
and related rights.  

These problems result in administrative inefficiencies and in particular in the lack of clarity 
for  migrants’  employers,  who  do  not  know  exactly  what  legal  regime  and  attached  rights 
apply to them.  

Sub-problem  2.2:  Some  categories  of  TCNs  cannot  benefit  from  the  single  permit 
procedure and related rights 

Self–employed  TCNs  are  expressly  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  Directive  and  are 
therefore deprived of the benefits of a single application and procedure, as well as of certain 
procedural guarantees and equal treatment rights provided by the Directive. Unlike seasonal 
workers  and  intra  corporate  transferees  who  are  covered  by  EU  sectorial  directives,  self-
employed  TCNs  are  mostly  covered  by  national  rules.  For  self-employed  TCNs,  the 

49   Directive 2014/66/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the conditions of 
entry  and  residence  of  TCNs  in  the  framework  of  an  intra-corporate  transfer,  OJ  L157  of  27.5.2014  p.  1. 
Directive  2014/36/EU  on  the  conditions  of  entry  and  stay  of  TCNs  for  the  purpose  of  employment  as 
seasonal workers, OJ L 94 of 28 March 2014, p. 1. 

50   Under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), services can be traded internationally in four 
different ways — known as the four modes. Mode 4 refers to the presence of persons of one WTO member 
in the territory of another for the purpose of providing a service. It does not concern persons seeking access 
to the employment market in the host member, nor does it affect measures regarding citizenship, residence or 
employment on a permanent basis. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
coherence and the effectiveness of the legal framework are affected by the fragmented system 
in place.  

Some  consultations  saw  calls  for  a  clear  definition  of  self-employed  TCNs51  at  EU  level 
which  could  cover  third-country  nationals  who  would  like  to  move  to  a  Member  State 
without  a  job  offer  but  are  interested  in  starting  their  own  business  or  conducting  self-
employed  activities.  Stakeholders  representing  Public  Employment  Services,  however 
rejected  the  idea  of  EU-harmonised  admission  conditions  for  self-employed  TCNs,  rather 
advocating for admission of this category to remain regulated at the national level52.  

The  above  applies  also  to  the  beneficiaries  of  protection  according  to  national  law, 
international  obligations  or  the  practice  of  a  Member  State.  It  is  currently  not  clear 
whether, if allowed to work, they are covered by the procedure of Chapter II and the equal 
treatment  provisions  of  Chapter  III.  The  European  Migration  Network  study  on  national 
protection53  noted  that  in  a  number  of  areas,  such  as  labour  market,  education,  integration 
services and social benefits, beneficiaries of protection according to national law are unable 
to benefit from equal treatment. The Fitness Check concluded that there is currently a gap at 
EU level as regards the rights of holders of purely national protection statuses54. 

Sub-problem  2.3:  Differing  rules  on  admission  of  low-  and  medium-skilled  workers 
reduce attractiveness of the EU for legal migration 

Low-  and  medium-skilled  workers  encompasses  a  heterogeneous  range  of  workers  defined 
with  focus  on  their  qualifications55  or  with  regard  to  their  skill  levels56  ranging  from 
agricultural  workers  to  some  types  of  health  workers.  The  conditions  of  admission  and 
residence  of  low-  and  medium-skilled  TCNs  are  not  covered  by  the  EU  legal  migration 
directives, with the exception of seasonal workers covered under Directive 2014/36/EU. As a 
result, there is no level-playing field between the Member States in attracting such migrants 
who can contribute to addressing existing and future labour shortages in the EU. At the same 
time, the complexity arising from diverging rules is confusing for prospective migrants and 
acts as a deterrent of legal migration. In addition, certain rights of low- and medium-skilled 
workers are not guaranteed by EU law unlike those of other categories of workers regulated 
at EU level (e.g. EU Blue Card for the highly skilled, intra corporate transferees, etc.). These 
schemes  contain  a  number  of  advantages  like  for  example  the  right  to  intra-EU  mobility 
which can act as incentives to move to the EU. 

51   Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the  Views  of  Migrants;  Fifth  meeting  of  the 

Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration (EGEM). 

52   Consultation of the European Network of the Public Employment Services. 
53   EMN (2020). Comparative overview of national protection statuses in the EU and Norway. 
54   Swd_2019-1055-staff-working-part2.pdf (europa.eu) 
55   International  Organization  for  Migration  (IOM)  defines  low  and  medium  skilled  TCNs  based  on  their 

educational attainment. 

56   International  Labour  Organisation  (ILO)  ISCO-08  classification  is  also  used,  which  differentiates  between 

10 major groups – highly-skilled from 1 to 3, medium-skilled from 4 to 8, and with low skilled as 9. 

16 

 
 
                                                           
In terms of application procedure and the right to equal treatment, the Single Permit Directive 
covers most categories of third-country workers, including low- and medium-skilled workers, 
other than seasonal workers.  

The EU experienced significant labour shortages in the third quarter of 201957, i.e. vacancies 
not  covered  by  Member  States’  or  other  EU  nationals58,  in  those  Member  States  where 
unemployment  reached  a  record  low.  Despite  concerns  that  the  Covid-19  pandemic  would 
result in a long-term economic downturn, the unemployment rate in the EU has been steadily 
decreasing  since  March  2021,  albeit  still  exceeding  the  pre-crisis  levels59.  While  some 
Member  States  face  shortages  in  highly  skilled  jobs,  for  others  shortages  are  rather  in 
medium and low-skilled occupations, hence there are disparate labour market needs between 
different  Member  States.  In  several  Member  States  (for  example,  Greece  and  Spain),  there 
are no quantitative labour shortages, with unemployment levels not having recovered in the 
aftermath of the global financial crisis.  In contrast, in Belgium, the relatively high levels of 
unemployment  are coupled with  high vacancy  rates, indicating low levels of labour market 
matching efficiency, which is indicative of qualitative labour shortages. Czechia, on the other 
hand, stands out for its very high job vacancy rate and comparatively low unemployment rate, 
indicating that quantitative labour shortages are a major issue for the economy. 

Average job vacancy rate versus average unemployment rate by Member State  – Beveridge 
points, EU27, Q3 2020 

57   European Commission, Joint Employment Report, COM (2019) 653 final. 
58   European Commission, EMN (2015), Determining labour shortages and the need for labour migration from 

third countries in the EU.  

59   In June 2021, the EU 27 unemployment rate dropped from a peak of 7.7 in September 2020 to 7.1% (having 
been dropping for three consecutive months), although it remains still above a pre-pandemic low of 6.6%.  

17 

 
 
 
                                                           
Source: Eurofound, Tackling labour shortages in EU Member States 

The European Commission’s 2020 analysis identified sectors of most widespread shortages 
in  European  countries  and  regions  covered  by  the  report  (topped  by  four  healthcare  related 
occupations, five software related occupations and ten craft occupations), as well as the main 
sectors with most severe shortages (topped by the same four healthcare occupations and five 
software related occupations)60. 

Drivers 

On the one hand, one of the drivers of the problems above is the regulatory gap at EU level, 
which consists in excluding from the scope of the Directive several categories of TCNs that 
could potentially contribute to the Single Permit’s objectives, such as self-employed persons, 
or those benefitting from protection under national law. These gaps can affect the EU overall 
competitiveness,  particularly in  relation  to  innovative entrepreneurs that  could  contribute to 
job  creation  and  boost  innovation.  Although  these  categories  are  currently  regulated  at 
national level, the legal requirements are very different from one Member State to another. 

In addition, there are no references in Article 3 to some categories of TCNs that are excluded 
from the scope of the Directive since they are covered by sectorial directives of the EU legal 
migration framework that were adopted later or by other legal instruments. Consequently, the 
current wording results in an exclusion of similar categories of workers but that do not fall 
within the scope of those directives from the safeguards and rights provided by the Directive.  

On the other hand,  another  driver is  the lack of a specific EU instrument  for admission of 
medium-  and  low-skilled  workers  although  the  Directive  confers  certain  rights  (including 
equal treatment with nationals) and procedural guarantees.  

Problem area 3: Workers are not sufficiently protected from exploitation 

There are two main aspects of the problem: 

a)  Linking the single permit to one employer or activity increases the risk of exploitation 

and creates administrative burden 

This issue is one of the recurrent concerns raised by stakeholders in various consultations by 
representatives of migrants, economic and social partners, and legal migration practitioners61. 
In  all  Member  States  examined  under  the  Fitness  Check,  except  for  Greece  and  Portugal, 
certain  permits to  work are linked to  a specific  employer. The Directive establishes that on 
the basis of the permit, a TCN can exercise the specific employment activity authorised under 
the permit. Moreover, in all Member States except for Cyprus and Germany, TCNs need to 
apply  for  a  change  of  permit  if  they  lose  their  job  or  want  to  change  employment.  As 
highlighted by the opinion of the Fit for Future Platform, this results in higher risks of people 

60   European Commission, Analysis of shortage and surplus occupations 2020, using administrative data from 

Public Employment Services but also work permits issued from migration services, p. 9. 

61   Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the  Views  of  Migrants;  Consultation  with  the 
Economic  and  Social  Partners;  Second  meeting  of  the  EU  legal  migration  practitioners’  network,  Contact 
Group on Legal Migration. 

18 

 
 
                                                           
losing  their  residence  permit  when  they  lose  their  job  and  can  increase  exploitation,  as 
permits  which  are  linked  to  a  single  employment  relationship  lead  to  dependency  and 
exploitation and pull people into irregularity. This might create significant costs for workers, 
employers and public administration. 

The requirements in the event of changing the employer or occupation differ across Member 
States.  

•  In some Member States (e.g. Cyprus, Malta and Italy), if TCNs hold a permit that allows 
them  to  work,  they  only  need  to  request  a  permission  to  change  employer,  but  are  not 
required to apply for a change of their status.  

•  In  contrast,  in  some  other  Member  States,  TCNs  are  required  to  apply  for  a  new  work 

permit since the permit issued is limited to a specific employer.  

•  Yet  in  other  Member  States,  such  as  Finland  and  Estonia,  a  change  of  status  is  only 
necessary in case of a change of employment to a different sector than that authorised by 
the permit.  

This  creates twofold  issues:  firstly, where a change of status  is  required, such requirements 
create administrative burden both for permit holders who are forced to apply for a new permit 
and for the national authorities who, as a result, have to process more applications.  

Secondly,  stakeholders  representing  migrants  and  the  civil  society  have  highlighted  that 
permits  linked  to  a  single  employment  relationship  lead  to  dependency,  increase  the 
vulnerability of TCNs to exploitation and can pull people into irregularity. Migrants can feel 
prevented from complaining, denouncing abusive working conditions or exploitative episodes 
or resigning from their position, out of fear of losing their job and consequently their permit. 
This was also confirmed by the opinion of the Fit for Future platform. 

A position paper of a civil society organisation, shared in the framework of the 2020 public 
consultation  on  the  future  of  EU  legal  migration62,  advocated  for  the  revision  of  this 
particular  aspect  of  the  Directive.  Specifically,  it  emphasised  that  under  the  Directive, 
migrants  should  be  allowed  to  convert  their  permits  more  easily  into  other  types  of 
permits/authorisations  as  well  as  to  change  the  employer.  Consulted  stakeholders  were  in 
favour  of  making  the  possibility  to  change  the  employer  a  mandatory  provision  of  the 
Directive and stressed the importance of also allowing TCNs who had lost their employment 
to have adequate time to look for other employment opportunities without losing their permit. 
The  implementation  report  found  that  only  in  a  small  number  of  Member  States  did  third 
country workers have the same rights as nationals to change their job or employer (FI, FR, IT 
and SI)63. 

b)  Insufficient protection of third-country workers from labour exploitation 

62   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12594-Public-consultation-on-legal-

migration/public-consultation. 
63   See COM(2019) 160 final, p 9. 

19 

 
 
                                                           
Another  area  highlighted  by  stakeholders  was  the  need  to  improve  the  protection  of  TCNs 
from  labour  exploitation64  under  the  EU  legislative  framework.  Preventing  the  abuse  and 
exploitation of legally residing TCNs is highly relevant in relation to the overall objectives of 
the  legal  migration  acquis,  and  its  importance  has  been  emphasised  in  the  stakeholder 
consultations and in the literature. For example, the European platform on undeclared work 
considers  migrant  workers  as  particularly  vulnerable  to  the  effects  of  undeclared  work  and 
supports strengthening Member States' capacity to ensure equal treatment, notably as regards 
pay  and working conditions,  social security  and tax benefits.  Labour exploitation  is tackled 
differently across the EU in terms of sanctions and other legal consequences. Employers can 
face  a  number  of  sanctions,  among  the  most  common  are  administrative  and  criminal 
sanctions. How sanctions are calculated and applied differs substantially from Member State 
to Member State65. 

The  legal  migration  Directives,  except  for  Directive  2014/36/EU  on  Seasonal  Workers,  do 
not  provide  specific  mechanisms  to  ensure  the  enforcement  of  equal  treatment  provisions. 
(i.e.  there  are  no  provisions  relating  to  inspections,  monitoring  nor  sanctions  against 
employers). Directive 2009/52/EC (“the Employers' sanctions Directive”) only concerns the 
employment  of  illegally  staying  TCNs,  therefore  not  covering  TCNs  legally  residing  under 
the legal migration acquis. Moreover, the current rules at EU level that focus on withdrawing, 
or  not  renewing  permits  of  TCNs  if  the  employer  has  been  guilty  of  exploitative  practices, 
may constitute in practice a disincentive for third-country workers in vulnerable situations to 
report situations of abuse or exploitation66.  

Estimating the scale of the problem is challenging for a number of reasons67. First, there is no 
universally agreed definition of ‘labour exploitation’. This, combined with the fact that labour 
exploitation  is  hard  to  detect,  places  victims  of  exploitation  at  a  particular  risk  of  being 
sanctioned  for  illegal  work,  while  they  also  face  numerous  barriers  to  access  justice68. 
Although  data  on  third-country  nationals  working  undeclared  is  scarce,  there  are  hints  that 
they  could  be  more  often  engaged  in  undeclared  work  –  and  consequently  exposed  to 
exploitative working conditions. While irregularly staying third-country nationals are most at 
risk  of  labour  exploitation,  some  groups  of  regularly-staying  migrants  also  face  this  risk 

64   European Union  Agency for  Fundamental  Rights,  Severe  Labour Exploitation, Workers Moving  within or 

into the European Union, (2015). 

65   201903_en-legal-migration-check-annex-2a-icf-201806.pdf (europa.eu) 
66   Difficulties in proving labour exploitation: In an Austrian case, a man from Montenegro worked in forestry 
and agriculture in a rural area in Upper Styria. He worked for three months unpaid, but when he complained 
about the withheld wages, his employer told him to prove that money was owed to him. The worker lost his 
job and the accommodation which had been provided to him by the employer. He hitchhiked to Graz, where 
he was found by a member of the public with nothing to eat or drink. The victim was supported to report his 
case  to  the  Anti‑Discrimination  Office  in  Styria,  which  forwarded  it  on  to  the  Chamber  of  Labour.  The 
employer continues to emphasise the lack of proof, and alleges that he paid the worker in cash. 

67   Comparing and aggregating data on the range of practices linked to labour exploitation across the EU would 
imply availability of comparable: (1) criminal justice data on a range of reported crimes (from severe forms 
of labour exploitation, to forced labour, to trafficking for the purposes of labour exploitation); (2) data from 
institutions  issuing  sanctions  on  administrative  violations  linked  to  labour  laws  and  standards.  Second,  as 
with other categories of crimes, the levels of unreported crime are significant. 

68   Nierop,  P.  et  Al.  (2021),  Counteracting  undeclared  work  and  labour  exploitation  of  third  country  national 

workers. 

20 

 
 
                                                           
because of their vulnerability. Overall, legal  migration pathways for third-country nationals 
mainly focus on high-skilled sectors, and consequently, low and medium skilled migrants risk 
working in undeclared employment, especially in sectors with high workforce demand, such 
as domestic work or agriculture, despite this sector being covered by the Seasonal Workers 
Directive. The International Labour Organisation estimated that in 2016 there were 684,000 
victims of ‘modern slavery’ in the EU69. 

in 

the 

legal  migration 

During  the  targeted  consultations,  some  stakeholders  emphasised  the  need  for  a  more 
ambitious,  horizontal  approach 
legislation,  and  conveyed 
dissatisfaction with the implementation of the Directive in general in some Member States70. 
Others  considered  that  national  rules  already  adequately  addressed  protection,  inspections, 
monitoring, and sanctions71. The topic of labour exploitation is tackled differently across the 
EU in terms of sanctions and other legal consequences, with some Member States imposing 
financial  sanctions  to  punish  exploitation  while  others  foreseeing  a  combination  of  both 
financial penalties and deprivation of liberty72.  

Drivers 

The main driver of this problem is a regulatory gap:  

a)  Article  11(c)  of  the  Directive  establishes  that  the  permit  holder  has  the  right  to 
“exercise  the  specific  employment  activity  authorised  under  the  single  permit  in 
accordance  with  national  law”.  This  provision  can  result  in  difficulties  regarding 
changing a job as it results in the need to apply for a new permit; 

b)  Currently the Directive does not address directly the issue of exploitation of TCNs, as 
this issue remains regulated under national law in a very diverse and fragmented way.  

Though equal treatment provisions of the Directive aim at ensuring that TCNs have the same 
rights as EU nationals and therefore aim at preventing abuses and exploitation, not all equal 
treatment  provisions  are  applicable to all categories of third-country  workers.  For  example, 
self-employed  workers  are  explicitly  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  Directive  and  are  not 
covered by the EU acquis. Also, the provisions on equal treatment in the EU legal migration 
directives  are  subject  to  limitations  and  are  sometimes  optional  for  Member  States,  while 
mechanisms  to  ensure  their  enforcement  are  not  provided  for  in  the  Directives  with  the 
exception of the Seasonal Workers Directive.  

Moreover,  as  stated  above,  while  inspections,  monitoring  and  sanctions  against  employers 
constitute  a  further  means  to  address,  among  other  issues,  labour  exploitation,  the  scope  of 

69   International  Labour  Organization  (ILO),  Walk  Free  Foundation  and  International  Organization  for 
Migration (IOM), Global Estimates of Modern Slavery – Forced labour and Forced Marriage, (2017); The 
Walk Free Foundation, Global Slavery Index (2016), pp.58-66. The data does not include Malta. 

70   Stakeholders consulted by the EESC in the context of the Fitness check. 
71   Fifth meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration (EGEM). 
72   European  Commission  (2019).  Legal  Migration  Fitness  Check  Annex  2A  Evidence  base  for  practical 
implementation.  Ten  Member  States  (BG,  CY,  ES,  FI,  HR,  LU,  NL,  PT,  RO,  SK)  have  already  specific 
measures in place to prevent labour exploitation of TCNs. 

21 

 
 
                                                           
the  Employers'  sanctions  Directive  is  limited  to  the  employment  of  illegally  staying  TCNs, 
therefore not covering TCNs legally residing under the legal migration acquis.   

2.2. 

2.2. How will the problem evolve? 

Without EU action the identified problems will persist: prospective employers and TCNs will 
continue  facing  excessively  long  and  unnecessarily  complex  procedures  which  in  turn  will 
continue  to  be  one  of  the  factors  deterring  employers  from  filling  the  shortages  through 
international recruitment and affecting EU’s attractiveness for migrants with skills needed in 
Europe.  TCNs  will  continue  being  more  vulnerable  to  labour  exploitation  as  a  result  of 
insufficient safeguards and the dependency on a single employer. A number of the problems 
result from additional requirements introduced by the Member States in terms of duplicating 
procedures (such as by conducting a substantive analysis of underlying documents both at the 
stage  of  visa  application  and  single  permit  application  on  arrival)  or  by  requiring  third-
country nationals to apply for a new permit every time they want to change an employer. The 
revision  of  the  Single  Permit  Directive  can  contribute  to  alleviating  a  part  of  the  current 
administrative burden. 

Furthermore,  maintaining  the  status  quo  would  have  a  long-term  negative  impact  on  the 
Member  States’  ability  to  tackle  EU’s  increasing  demographic  challenges  and  the 
progressively shrinking labour force. Population projections of working age population 

Source: Eurostat, EUROPOP2019 (proj_19np) 

Therefore,  without  addressing  the  ineffectiveness  and  inefficiencies  of  the  EU  immigration 
system,  the  EU  as  a  whole  will  have  additional  self-imposed  difficulties  with  attracting 
workers of all skills levels it needs for its economy. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind 
that  the  proposed  revision  would  represent  merely  an  incremental  improvement  of  the 
procedure and increased protection of third country workers that already exists. The proposed 
measures  are  mainly  technical,  targeted  changes  that  will  contribute  to  further  facilitating 
current  procedures  that  can  bring  some  real,  if  modest  benefits,  to  EU  competitiveness  in 
areas where a global market for skills and talent exist.  

22 

 
 
 
Further  implementation  efforts  could  be  made  and  more  infringements  launched  on  the 
current  Directive  but  these  would  not  fix  the  main  problems  described  above.  The  main 
weaknesses  of  the  Directive  are  structural  and,  consequently,  cannot  be  solved  by  better 
compliance and stronger enforcement of the current rules.  

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 TCNs 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  TCNs  residing  legally  in  a  Member 
State,  including  the  conditions  governing  freedom  of  movement  and  of  residence  in  other 
Member States”. 

3.2. 

3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The  principle  of  subsidiarity  applies  since  this  is  an  area  of  shared  competence73.  A 
subsidiarity check was already carried out in the impact assessment at the moment of the first 
proposal on the Single Permit in 2007 (COM (2007) 638 final). 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 TCNs to 
enter and reside in the EU, and to lay down their rights following admission74. 

3.3. 

3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

  The  TFEU  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 
Single Permit 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,  NGOs,  businesses,  individual  migrants),  all  stakeholders, 

73   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 TCNs coming from third countries to their territory in order to 
seek work, whether employed or self-employed” (Article 79(5) TFEU). 

74   See Fitness Check, page 3. 

23 

 
 
                                                           
including  Member  States,  confirmed  the  continued  overall  added  value  of  the  EU  legal 
migration acquis75. 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  employers,  administrations  and  TCNs;  improved 
recognition of the rights of TCNs (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).  However,  despite  these  positive 
effects,  the  Fitness  Check  also  concluded  that  there  is  clearly  room  for  further 
harmonisation  and  simplification  at  EU  level.  Through  the  Single  Permit  Directive  the 
EU sought to address two issues which have not been fully achieved:  

o 

o 

to simplify administrative procedures for all third-country workers and employers 
throughout the EU by introducing a single permit application procedure76 and  

to eliminate a “rights’ gap” regarding eligible third country nationals as opposed 
to own nationals by introducing equal treatment in certain categories of rights (this 
way  the  EU  wanted  to  reduce  unfair  competition  emanating  from  that  gap,  thus 
protecting the EU citizens from a cheap labour and treating third country workers 
fairly). 

The revision of the Directive aims precisely at such further clarification and simplification to 
ensure  more  efficient  procedures  when  handling  an  application  and  an  improved  equal 
treatment  in  employment-related  fields  for  workers  admitted  to  the  Member  States.  The 
Directive only establishes equal treatment in employment related fields. Therefore, it does not 
interfere with Member States' competence to define the content of the actual rights. Since the 
Directive  covers different  categories of third-country  workers, including low- and medium-
skilled  who  may  be  more  susceptible  to  exploitation,  introducing  provisions  on  employer 
sanctions  similar  to  those  included  in  the  Seasonal  Workers  Directive  would  cover  a  much 
wider  range  of  workers.  By  prescribing  specific  common  processes  and  instruments  to 
prevent,  identify  and  sanction  labour  exploitation,  it  is  expected  to  contribute  to  the 
protection  of  all  third-country  workers  covered  by  the  scope  of  the  Directive  from  labour 
exploitation, thus contributing to strengthening the level playing field across Member States. 
Exploitation  and  sub-standard  working  conditions  of  third-country  workers  need  to  be 
overcome  by  granting  certain  socio-economic  rights  and  mechanisms  to  monitor  them  in  a 
binding, and thus enforceable, EU-level instrument. 

The  Directive  provides  only  for  a  minimum  level  of  harmonisation  as  regards  procedural 
simplification. It imposes only a general obligation for Member States to provide for a "one-
stop-shop"  system  and  a  general  prohibition  on  issuing  additional  documents.  Further 
simplification  of  the  procedure  would  not  interfere  with  the  Member  States  internal 
procedures when handling an application. 

75   Ibid, page 94. 
76 This means that an eligible third-country national does not need to apply separately for a work permit and a 

residence permit, but can obtain them combined through the same procedure. 

24 

 
 
                                                           
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, the general policy objectives of 
the initiative are: 

(1)  to ensure efficient management of migration; 
(2)  to foster competitiveness and growth in the EU; 
(3)  to ensure fair treatment and protection of TCNs legally residing in the EU. 

4.2. 

4.2. Specific objectives 

The specific policy objectives correspond to the problem areas analysed above: 
(1)  to simplify admission procedures; 
(2)  to ensure greater efficiency of application procedures;  
(3)  to address EU labour shortages; 
(4)  to enhance equal treatment of TCNs with EU citizens; 
(5)  to protect third-country national workers from labour exploitation. 

The  table  below  presents  an  overview  of  general  and  specific  objectives  and  their  relation 
with the identified problems and drivers: 

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.  However, 
existing monitoring and  enforcement activities of the current  legislation  would continue, as 
reported  in  the  Commission  implementation  report  of  2019.  This  would  include  ongoing 
follow-up to open infringement procedures and court cases, as well as EU Pilots.  

The baseline should also take into account the revision of the Long-term Residents Directive, 
which is expected to create a more coherent, efficient and fair system to acquire the EU long-

25 

 
 
 
term  resident  status,  facilitate  intra-EU  mobility  of  long-term  residents  and  improve  their 
rights  and  those  of  their  families.  However,  as  the  number  of  applicants  for  the  long-term 
resident status is very low and there is no clear link with single-permit holders, the likelihood 
that  the  change  in  rules  on  obtaining  long-term  resident  permit  would  significantly  affect 
third-country nationals’ decisions to migrate and apply for single permits is very limited. 

Without  EU  action,  the  problems  identified  will  continue  to  exist  and  possibly,  further 
exacerbate.  Third-country  nationals  falling  within  the  scope  of  the  Directive  will  continue 
facing difficulties when applying for a permit. They will still have to invest additional time 
and  resources  to  understand,  prepare  and  follow  their  applications,  and  encounter  long 
waiting times before receiving the permits. 

Along  the  same  lines,  Member  State  authorities  will  continue  to  encounter  inefficiencies 
caused  by  the  multi-step  procedures  (labour  market  test,  visa  application,  single  permit 
procedure)  and  as  a  result  of  the  duplication  of  efforts  and  complex  processes.  The 
consequences of these persisting inefficiencies may be that employers are likely to continue 
being deterred from resorting to international recruitment even in the face of skills shortages. 
For the same reason, TCNs are less attracted to the EU as a destination, as they are deterred 
by the administrative hurdles and delays. 

TCNs  will  also  continue  to  be  more  vulnerable  to  labour  exploitation  and  situations  of 
undeclared  work  due  to  the  fact  that  the  single  permit  in  some  Member  States  is  tied  to  a 
single  employer  and  to  the  overall  lack  of  monitoring  of  their  working  conditions  (and 
associated  protection  measures).  In  addition  to  potentially  placing  them  in  a  harmful  or 
irregular working situation, the current problems may also give rise to an increase in irregular 
stays (e.g. TCNs losing their job and hence their permit to stay, continuing to stay illegally). 

Problems associated with a lack of equal treatment will also persist, in particular with regard 
to  access  to  housing  and  family  benefits.  The  lack  of  equal  treatment  is  likely  to  have  a 
negative impact on the degree to which TCNs feel accepted by society and are able to fully 
integrate. 

As mentioned above, the majority of issues raised in  the ongoing infringement  proceedings 
and  EU  Pilots  concern  excessively  long  processing  times  and  equal  treatment  rights. 
However,  the  revision  of  the  Single  Permit  Directive  aims  at  further  facilitating  the 
application  procedure  and  clarifying  and  improving  the  equal  treatment  provisions.  The 
problems identified are not directly related to the incorrect implementation by Member States 
but to shortcomings of the current legal framework which can only be tackled by legislative 
action. The main areas to be revised cannot be followed-up through infringement proceedings 
as they either do not fall within the scope of the Directive or are subject to optional clauses 
and therefore to Member States discretion. 

For  the  assessment  of  the  policy  options,  the  following  main  baseline  assumption  has  been 
made: 

Whilst a lot has been published on how migration to the EU could evolve after the COVID-
19  pandemic,  views  expressed  in  literature  and  by  experts  vary  greatly.  For  example,  a 

26 

 
 
Commission  study  from  202077noted  that  the  EU  could  see  an  increase  in  third-country 
nationals wanting to move to the EU, as a result of the anticipated global economic downturn. 
Initial  2020  data  on  the  issuance  of  residence  permits  provide  a  mixed  picture,  with  some 
Member States witnessing a strong reduction in permits issued and others seeing an increase 
instead. Another study  assessing possible immigration scenarios78 noted that  experts expect 
an increase in migration towards the EU between 21% and 44 % from the recorded average 
annual  figure  for  the  2008–2017  period,  especially  in  future  scenarios  in  which  countries 
cooperate  multilaterally.  A  stronger  increase  is  expected  with  regard  to  highly  skilled 
immigration. Overall, however, the study  emphasises that experts  are not  confident  in  their 
responses,  and  disagree  substantially  on  the  size  of  international  migration.  Given  these 
divergences and uncertainty, a linear trend has been chosen, which envisages a slightly lower 
number of third-country nationals being granted a single permit than was the trend over the 
last two years before the COVID-19 pandemic (2018 and 2019) based on a lower take-up in 
previous years, which still results in a more than doubling of the number of permit issuances 
over a 10-year period. 

The detailed assumptions used to estimate the costs and the economic impacts of the policy 
options are presented in individual assessments, and further explained in Annex 3 and 4.  

5.2. 

5.2. Description of the policy options 

Based  on  the  problem  definition  and  objectives  described  above,  three  different  policy 
options have been identified, one non-legislative and two legislative.  

Option 1: Non-legislative option 

This  policy  option  would  involve  non-legislative  actions  aimed  at  enhancing  the 
implementation of the Directive:   

  performing  comparative  analyses  and  targeted  studies  (e.g.  in  the  framework  of  the 

EMN) on specific aspects of the implementation of the Directive,  

  developing non-binding guidelines on the interpretation of the provisions of the Directive 

 

in the form of the Single Permit Directive Handbook.  
recommendations  on  aspects  currently  not  deemed  to  be  covered  by  the  single  permit 
procedure  (such  as  the  duration  and  interplay  of  the  entry  visa  application  procedure, 
labour market tests with the single permit application process) or on the provisions of the 
directive which allow wide discretion to the Member States,  

  promoting innovative approaches e.g. to digitalisation and streamlining of processes, also 

possibly by adopting recommendations  

  evaluating experiences of the Member States and stakeholders in the context of enforcing 

the Directive, and  

  enforcement activities (including launching infringement proceedings). 

77   Focus on the impact of COVID-19 on migratory flows, asylum, smuggling and returns, study for internal use 

only. 

78   Acostamadiedo,  E.,  R.  Sohst,  J.  Tjaden,  G.  Groenewold  and  H.  de  Valk  (2020).  Assessing  Immigration 
Scenarios for the European Union in 2030 – Relevant, Realistic and Reliable? International Organization for 
Migration, Geneva, and the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, the Hague. 

27 

 
 
                                                           
Option 2: Basic legislative revision of the Directive 

The  option  aims  at  simplifying  the  application  procedure  and  clarifying  what  categories  of 
third-country  workers  are  covered  by  the  Directive,  as  well  as  covering  beneficiaries  of 
national protection with the single procedure. 

Application procedure:  

o  Facilitating the application procedure by allowing TCNs to lodge applications both from 
outside  and  within  the  Member  State  territory,  depending  on  the  circumstances  of  the 
application, and clarifying that the initial entry visa shall be issued if all the conditions to 
issue the single permit are fulfilled79. 

o  Specifying  that  only  one  substantive  assessment  of  documents  should  be  done  by  the 
competent authorities, either at the stage of the entry visa application or resident permit 
application, and that the visa procedure falls within the four-month period for processing 
the application for a single permit.   

o  Modifying Article 1(2) to clarify that the labour market test is considered to constitute a 
component  of  the  single  application  procedure  and  should  fall  within  the  four-month 
period.  

Personal scope: 

o  Further clarifying the categories falling outside the scope of application of the Directive 
(intra-corporate  transferees,  seasonal  workers  and  workers  posted  within  the  EU)  by 
making clear references to the relevant acquis. 

o  Including  beneficiaries  of  protection  according  to  national  law  in  the  scope  of  the 

Directive. 

This  option  would  also  foresee  adopting  soft  law  measures  (e.g.  recommendations)  to 
improve and harmonise the implementation of equal treatment rights foreseen by the Single 
Permit Directive. 

Option 3: Legislative revision of the Directive as in Option 2 plus regulating rights and 
protection 

The  option  builds  on  Option  2  and,  in  addition,  aims  at  improving  some  equal  treatment 
rights and improving protection from labour exploitation by legislative action. 

Rights: 

o  Ensuring  the  permit  is  not  only  linked  to  one  employer  to  avoid  excessively  frequent 
changes  to  the  permit  that  makes  the  permit  holder  too  dependent  on  the  employer.  In 
addition, ensuring the possibility to work while an application for a new permit is being 
processed in case of a change of employer (Art. 11(c)). 

79   To note that Article 5(3)of the Students and Researchers Directive states that the visa shall be issued if all 
conditions  are  fulfilled  to  reflect  the  Ben  Alaya  Court  case  (contrary  to  the  Intra-Corporate  Transferees-, 
Seasonal Workers- and Blue Card Directives etc. where the relevant provision only states that the issuance 
of the visa shall be facilitated). 

28 

 
 
                                                           
o  Clarifying Art. 12(2)(d) to stipulate that access to private housing is not  included in the 

derogation provided for by this Article. 

o  Clarifying  the  equal  treatment  of  TCNs  with  EU  nationals  with  regard  to  calculating 
family benefits: if calculation of family benefits of EU nationals takes into account family 
members residing outside the EU, this should also apply to TCNs. 

o  Removing the possibility for Member States to  exclude those working on the basis of a 

visa from family benefits if the visa has a duration of more than 6 months. 

Protection from labour exploitation: 

o  This  option  would  also  seek  to  expand  the  material  scope  of  the  Directive  to  include 
provisions  relating  to  inspections,  monitoring  and  sanctions  against  exploitative 
employers, similarly to the Seasonal Workers’ Directive. 

5.3. 

5.3. Options discarded at an early stage 

The  following  two  options  have  been  identified  but  not  retained  for  further  in-depth 
assessment. 

a)  Including self-employed TCNs in the scope of the Directive. 

The  considered  option  consisted  in  including  self-employed  TCNs  in  the  scope  of 
application  of  the  Directive,  without  regulating  the  respective  admission  conditions. 
Including  self-employed  workers  in  the  scope  of  the  Directive  would  mean  that  these 
workers, when coming from third countries to establish themselves in a Member State, would 
also be able to benefit from the single application procedure, procedural safeguards and the 
right to equal treatment, if such rights are not already provided in the national legal order. In 
order to include this category in the scope of the Directive, it might be necessary to introduce 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
a common definition of 'self-employed workers' in the Directive80, as the category represents 
a complex landscape of a diverse variety of workers81.  

Distinguishing  between  self-employed  workers  and  employees  is  difficult.  In  some  cases, 
self-employment has been used by companies to reduce labour costs for salaried employment 
and  to  gain  a  competitive  advantage  by  avoiding  social  security  contributions  and 
circumventing labour law regulations82. Hybrid forms of employment  – such as  'dependent' 
and 'bogus' self-employment – have emerged, especially in the platform-driven section of the 
economy  (for  example,  where  platform  workers,  previously  classed  as  self-employed,  have 
been  recognised  by  court  cases  as  employees,  e.g.  Uber83).  These  types  of  working 
arrangements can represent a significant challenge for national labour and social legislation 
as well as for the financing of social security systems84.  

While  some  experts  and  stakeholder  groups  representing  the  civil  society,  business 
organisations and trade unions expressed support for including self-employed workers in the 
scope of the Directive85, Member States consulted were opposed to including self-employed 
workers due to complexities surrounding this category86.  

Overall,  given  the  inherent  complexities  and  expressed  reluctance  of  Member  State 
authorities,  this  measure  would  merit  a  more  in-depth  assessment  and  wider  stakeholder 
discussion,  including  a  mapping  of  definitions  and  currently  available  pathways  for  self-
employed  workers  in  Member  States.  This  would  also  aim  at  ensuring  that  a  potential 
inclusion  of  this  category  in  the  scope  of  the  Directive  would  not  lead  to  abuses  of  this 
pathway and potential exploitation of workers (de facto employees).  

b)  Including admission conditions for low- and medium-skilled workers in the Single Permit 

Directive 

Admission  conditions  for  low-  and  medium-skilled  workers  are  currently  regulated  at 
national  level  and  present  a  complex  landscape.  Firstly,  Member  States  have  adopted 
different  approaches  to  labour  migration  and  admission  of  TCN  workers,  including  annual 
quotas  (e.g.  Italy),  points-based  systems  (e.g.  Austria),  market-based  approaches  (e.g. 
Sweden).  Secondly,  many  Member  States  have  specific  admission  channels  for  low  and 

80   Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group (EG) on the Views of Migrants (2 March 2021) and Fifth 

meeting of the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration (EGEM) (18 May 2021). 

81   Including  freelance  workers,  own-account  workers,  independent  professionals,  platform  workers  (also 

known as 'gig economy' workers), performers in the arts industry as well as innovative entrepreneurs. 

82   Social policy in the European Union (2018), Chapter 5 “The social situation of the self-employed in Europe: 

labour market issues and social protection” available at: 
https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/Chapter%205_9.pdf  

83   https://fair.work/en/fw/blog/landmark-case-recognises-uber-drivers-as-workers-what-are-the-implications-

for-gig-workers-in-the-uk-and-beyond/#continue  

84   Ibid. 
85   Fifth  meeting  of  the  Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration  (EGEM)  and  Consultation  with 

representatives of the Civil Society. 

86   Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion, Contact Group on Legal Migration. 

30 

 
 
                                                           
medium-skilled  workers  of  certain  nationalities87.  Thirdly,  labour  market  testing  across  EU 
Member States is organised differently.  

Introducing conditions for low- and medium-skilled workers in the Directive would thus have 
to marry these complexities to establish a level-playing field and leave flexibility to Member 
States where needed to adapt the admission framework to their national contexts and needs.  

Experts  representing  business  organisations,  trade  unions,  and  civil  society88  suggested  that 
for  highly  skilled  workers,  a  common  EU  strategy  indeed  does  make  most  sense,  while  a 
sectoral approach could be explored regarding low and medium-skilled workers, focusing on 
those  areas  in  which  most  labour  shortages  occurred.  However,  civil  society,  trade  union 
stakeholders have questioned the appropriateness of the sectoral approach, underlining that it 
would  limit  the  availability  of  legal  channels  to  Europe  and  the  matching  of  skills  (at  all 
levels) with  jobs  available89. Beyond these complexities, stakeholders representing business 
organisation,  trade  unions,  civil  society,  legal  practitioners  and  Member  States90  expressed 
scepticism  about  the  need  and  benefits  of  regulating  admission  conditions  of  low  and 
medium-skilled  workers  at  the  EU  level  as  in  their  view  they  are  sufficiently  addressed  by 
national  legislation  and  the  single  permit  procedure.  Furthermore,  some  experts  have 
expressed  the  view  that  as  the  Directive  is  a  horizontal  ‘procedural’  Directive,  it  is  not  the 
appropriate legal instrument to introduce admission conditions only for specific categories of 
workers.  

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

To determine the preferred option, the policy options have been assessed and compared in the 
light of the following criteria:  

-  Effectiveness, i.e. to what extent the option meets the policy objectives;  

-  Efficiency, i.e. the relative weight of the costs and benefits of the option;  

-  Coherence with the EU legal framework. 

No  significant  environmental  impact  is  expected  from  the  initiative  and  has  thus  not  been 
assessed further. 

The selected impacts are assessed qualitatively and, where possible, quantitative analysis has 
been done based on a number of key assumptions (see Annexes 3 and 4).  

The  table  below  presents  an  overview  of  policy  options  and  their  expected  effectiveness  in 
achieving the objectives of the initiative.  

87   Such  as  Belarus  and  the  Philippines  (Czech  Republic);  West  Balkan  countries  (Germany)  and  Belarus 
(Poland) as part of specific cooperation policies and partnerships with regions and third countries as well as 
specific occupations, such as chefs (Ireland) and drivers of international freight vehicles (Lithuania). EMN 
Annual Report on Migration (2020). 

88   Consultation with the Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration. 
89   European  Commission  (2019).  Legal  Migration  Fitness  Check,  Public  and  stakeholder  consultations  EU 

Synthesis Report. 

90   Consultation  with  the  Economic  and  Social  Partners (5 May 2021),  Fifth  meeting  of  the  Informal  Expert 

Group on Economic Migration (EGEM), Consultation with the Contact Group on Legal Migration. 

31 

 
 
                                                           
Obj 1: To 
simplify 
admission 
procedures 

Obj 2: To 
ensure 
greater 
efficiency of 
application 
procedures 

Obj 3: To 
address EU 
labour 
shortages 

Obj 4: To 
enhance 
equal 
treatment of 
TCNs with 
EU citizens 

Obj 5: To 
protect TCN 
workers 
from labour 
exploitation 

Policy Option 1: Non-legislative option 
1.1 Enhancing implementation 
of the Directive and practical 
cooperation between MS 
1.2 Single Permit Directive 
Handbook, Commission 
guidelines, promotion of 
innovative approaches 
Policy Option 2: Hybrid option 

No effect  Moderately 

effective 

No effect  Moderately 

effective 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

2.1 Amending the provision on 
the "place of application" 
2.2 Including the entry visa as 
part of the single application 
procedure 
2.3 Including labour market 
tests as part of the single 
application procedure 
2.4 Mandating the provision of 
adequate information 

Very 
effective 
Effective 

Effective 

Effective 

Very 
effective 

Effective 

Moderately 
effective 
Moderately 
effective 

Moderately 
effective 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

Moderately 
effective 

Moderately 
effective 

Moderately 
effective 

Moderately 
effective 

No effect 

2.5 Non-binding 
recommendations to harmonise 
the implementation of equal 
treatment rights 
Policy Option 3: Legislative revision 

No effect 

No effect  Moderately 

effective 

Moderately 
effective 

Moderately 
effective 

3.1 Ensuring the permits are not 
linked to only one employer 
3.2 Clarifying equal treatment 
for access to private housing 
3.3 Clarifying equal treatment in 
granting family benefits to 
family members residing in 
third countries 
3.4 Removing the possibility to 
exclude those working on the 
basis of a visa (valid for more 
than six months) from family 
benefits 
3.5 Further clarifying the 
categories falling outside the 
scope of application of the 
Directive 
3.6 Including beneficiaries of 
national protection at least in the 
equal treatment chapter 

Effective 

Effective 

Effective 

Effective 

Effective 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

Effective 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

Effective 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

Effective 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

Effective 

Effective 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

Effective 

Effective 

32 

 
 
  
3.7 Including provisions relating 
to inspections, monitoring and 
sanctions against exploitative 
employers 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

Effective 

Effective 

6.1. 

6.1. Option  1:  Non-legislative  option  –  actions  to 
enhance complementary and supporting activities 

Option  1  would  involve,  on  top  of  the  dynamic  baseline  activities,  several  new  non-
legislative actions aiming to enhance the implementation of the Directive and the promotion 
of complementary and supporting activities. These actions would include: 

  conducting additional comparative analyses and targeted studies (e.g. in  the framework 
of the EMN) on specific aspects of the implementation of the Directive, such as e.g. the 
implementation of equal treatment provisions with regard to access to property or social 
security benefits, the form and timing of labour market tests in different Member States 
and the related procedures,  

  developing non-binding guidelines on the interpretation of the provisions of the Directive 
in  the  form  of  the  Single  Permit  Directive  Handbook.  Such  a  handbook  would  be 
developed in close cooperation and extensive discussions with the Member State experts 
of  the  Contact  Group  Legal  Migration,  before  being  adopted  in  the  form  of  a 
Commission recommendation,  

  adopting recommendations on aspects that are currently not deemed to be covered by the 
single permit procedure (such as the duration and interplay of the entry visa application 
procedure,  labour  market  tests  with  the  single  permit  application  process)  or  on  the 
provisions of the directive which allow wide discretion to the Member States,  

  promoting innovative approaches e.g. to digitalisation and streamlining of processes, also 

possibly by adopting recommendations, and  

  evaluating experiences of the Member States and stakeholders in the context of enforcing 

the Directive. 

Effectiveness in achieving the objectives 

No major effects on simplification of admission procedures are expected. 

Under Option 1, the European Commission would seek to improve the implementation of the 
Directive and its clarity by introducing new, non-legislative actions. Firstly, the development 
of  guidelines  in  the  form  of  a  Single  Permit  Handbook,  which  would  be  developed  in 
discussions  with  the  Member  State  experts  of  the  Contact  Group  Legal  Migration  and 
adopted  as  a  Commission  recommendation,  which  is  expected  to  help  Member  States 
improve  the  interpretation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Directive.  Other  recommendations  on 
issues  going  beyond  the  current  scope  of  the  Directive,  such  as  e.g.  the  timing  and 
coordination  of  visa  and  labour  market  test  procedures  with  the  single  permit  procedure 
would  also  be  considered.  Comparative  research  is  expected  to  facilitate  the  improved 
collection of information and exchange of good practice between Member States which may 
focus on e.g. labour market tests, transition to digitalised application processes, but also the 
approaches  at  national  level  to  dealing  with  labour  shortages.  This,  combined  with  the 
promotion  of  innovative  approaches,  may  create  a  virtuous  circle  if  Member  States  are 

33 

 
 
incentivised to follow the most effective practices as a model. The Commission would also 
foster  sharing  best  practices  between  Member  States,  i.a.  on  providing  detailed,  clear  and 
user-friendly  information  to  TCNs  on  the  fees,  procedures  and  requirements  of  the  single 
permit  procedure,  digitalisation  and  streamlining  of  processes.  Some  Member  States91  have 
already developed migration portals aimed at providing clear information on the immigration 
requirements  while  highlighting  why  Member  States  constitute  attractive  destinations. 
Sharing  best  practices  in  this  area  and  coordinating  the  approach  to  the  provision  of 
information  application  across  Member  States  could  improve  the  quality  of  information 
provided to the employers and TCNs. As a result, applicants may become more aware of the 
process  and documentation requirements provided that Member States decide to  implement 
the  best  practices.  Other  Member  States  may  become  incentivised  to  consider  digitalising 
their  application  processes  more  or  look  into  improving  the  coordination  between  different 
procedures  and  competent  authorities.  Guidelines,  especially  if  endorsed  by  the  Member 
States  in  the  form  of  a  Handbook,  could  contribute  to  more  consistent  and  transparent 
application procedures among the Member States. 

In terms of effectiveness in achieving the objectives, actions aimed at improving transparency 
of the single permit procedure and facilitating the understanding of the scheme's functioning 
at  the  national  level  may  lead  to  some  improvement  in  attracting  TCNs.  However,  the 
potential is expected to be overall limited by the structural shortcomings of the Directive and 
the non-binding nature of the measures. In addition, if considered as a standalone option, the 
actual impact would remain marginal, given that the different labour market needs between 
Member States and shortages would remain mostly unaddressed. 

Limited effects are also  expected with regard to  enhancing equal treatment of third-country 
workers. Under Option 1, the enforcement of the Directive by launching and following-up on 
infringement  procedures  will  be  continued.  However,  the  scope  for  improvement  of  the 
implementation  is  very  limited,  as  the  differences  in  implementation  of  equal  treatment 
provisions  by  the  Member  States  are  linked  to  their  vague  wording  resulting  from  a 
compromise achieved by co-legislators. The legislative practices of Member States could be 
somewhat  approximated  through  an  improved  exchange  of  knowledge  and  information  or 
targeted  non-binding  recommendations.  Specific  attention  could  also  be  given  to  the  best 
ways  to  prevent  labour  exploitation  of  TCNs  although  this  would  require  enhanced 
cooperation  between  Member  States  migration  and  employment  authorities.  Member  States 
may also be encouraged to exchange best practices and share information on perceived trends 
and  possible  single  permit  scheme  abuses  and  to  inspire  Member  States  to  fight  against 
labour exploitation better and more effectively. This, in turn, would help in protecting TCNs 
from abuses. However, if not supported by stronger complementary actions, the measure may 
prove ineffective. 

Social impacts and impacts on fundamental rights 

National authorities are expected to  gain  a better understanding of the Directive and good 
practices  in  its  implementation  by  others  through  exchanges  of  best  practices  and  the 

91   Such as Finland https://enterfinland.fi/ or Germany: https://www.make-it-in-germany.com/en/. 

34 

 
 
                                                           
promotion  of  innovative  approaches  (e.g.  digitalised  procedures,  coordination  of  processes 
between different authorities), which may lead to some efficiency gains in the single permit 
procedures. However, the impact is expected to remain low as the measures under this policy 
option are not binding. 

The possible availability of clearer information on the single application procedure may result 
in a reduced dependency of applicants on legal practitioners. Nevertheless, considering that 
the policy option does not set minimum binding standards on the type of information given or 
how  the  information  should  be  provided,  this  will  thus  mostly  depend  on  how  national 
authorities implement the guidelines. 

Third-country  nationals  would  benefit  from  some  measures  under  Option  1  to  the  extent 
that  recommendations  and  good  practices  in  providing  easy  access  to  clear  and 
comprehensive information on the process and documentation requirements are promoted and 
followed  as  a  model.  TCNs  would  then  be  able  to  make  a  better-informed  choice  while 
having a more efficient application experience. However, given the non-binding nature of the 
measures,  the  impact  would  remain  limited  and  continue  to  depend  mostly  on  national 
decisions to enforce and make the best use of the recommendations/guidelines promoted by 
the Commission.  

Option 1 is not expected to have any significant social impact on EU citizens. 

No impacts are expected on third countries.  

No specific fundamental rights impacts of Option 1 have been identified. 

Economic impacts 

The  economic  effects  of  this  measure  are  expected  to  remain  marginal  given  that  the 
measures  are  not  legally  binding,  and  Member  States  would  not  be  forced  to  invest  and 
improve their systems.  

Efficiency 

Administrative compliance costs 

In  those  Member  States  where  information  provision  currently  is  insufficient,  some 
administrative costs might be generated if they decide to improve information provision, such 
as  staff  costs,  cost  of  materials  (incl.  online  information  portals,  leaflets),  IT  costs,  etc. 
(please see Annex 4 for further details). 

Enhanced  complementary  and  supporting  activities  and  better  exchange  of  information 
among  Member  States  would  also  generate  moderate  additional  administrative  costs  (i.e. 
organisation  of  meetings; 
for  national 
administrators/officers).  Expected  costs  also  relate  to  IT  adjustments  (i.e.  the  transition  to 
digitalised applications; improvement of online migration portals; campaigns).   

cost  of  materials; 

training 

tailored 

Also,  additional  compliance  costs  might  be  incurred  if  Member  States  national  authorities 
decide to implement additional changes following best practices shared.  

35 

 
 
Some  marginal  costs  might  be  envisaged  at  the  European  level  as  the  Commission  would 
implement  a  series  of  activities,  including  the  launching  of  studies,  tailored  research,  the 
organisation  of  additional  meetings  and  expert  exchanges,  in  particular  in  the  context  of 
developing  a  Single  Permit  Handbook.  This  could  lead  to  additional  procurement,  or  to 
providing funding to existing EU networks, such as the European Migration Network (EMN). 

Coherence with other EU policies 

Overall,  Option  1  would  contribute  to  ensuring  a  wider  awareness  of  the  Directive  among 
TCNs,  through  better-disseminated  information  and  improved  national  practices.  This 
increased  awareness  of  the  Directive  among  TCNs  is  coherent  with  the  New  Pact  on 
Migration and Asylum’s92 objective of attracting international skills and talent in the EU.  

Overall assessment 

Overall, Option 1 might moderately contribute to ensuring a wider awareness of the Directive 
and  could  help  contribute  to  administrative  simplification  and  ensuring  a  more  uniform 
application  of  EU  legal  migration  acquis.  However,  considering  that  it  is  a  non-binding 
solution, its impact will ultimately depend on the willingness of Member State authorities to 
implement  the  developed  guidelines  and  recommendations  and  adjust  their  actions  in  line 
with the best practices shared. It cannot, therefore, be expected to deliver fully the objectives 
of  the  Pact  and  the  calls  of  the  European  Parliament  for  legislative  action.  In  particular, 
increased enforcement (including launching infringement proceedings) would not contribute 
to resolving the identified problems since most of them result from regulatory failure. 

6.2. 

6.2. Option 2: Legislative revision of the Directive 
- application procedure  

Option 2 foresees legislative revisions, mostly focussing on improving the overall efficiency 
of  the  Directive  by  simplifying  the  application  procedure.  Option  2  includes  the  following 
policy measures: 

  2.1: Place of application (Article 4(1)). 
  2.2: Visa procedure for initial entry (Article 4(3)). 
  2.3: Including labour market tests as part of the single application procedure. 
  2.4: Mandating the provision of adequate information. 
  2.5: This option also foresees soft law measures (e.g. recommendations) to improve 
and harmonise the implementation of equal treatment rights foreseen by the Single 
Permit Directive.  

Effectiveness in achieving the objectives 

Option  2 is  expected to  contribute  to  simplifying admission procedures and  thus  to  address 
specific issues that have been identified as hampering the achievement of this objective of the 
Directive. 

92   European  Commission  (2020)  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a New Pact on 
Migration and Asylum, COM(2020) 609 final, p. 24. 

36 

 
 
                                                           
Four  specific  measures  under  Option  2  are  expected  to  particularly  contribute  to 
simplification and reduction of administrative burden: 

  Requiring Member States to always allow TCNs to lodge applications both from outside 

the EU and within the Member States (2.1.); 

  Clarifying that if an entry visa is required, visa processing is considered to form part of 
the single application procedure and should fall within the four-month period (2.2.);  

  Clarifying that the labour market test is considered to form part of the single application 

procedure and should fall within the four-month period (2.3.); 

  Mandating Member States to provide adequate information (2.4.). 

Together, these four measures will ensure that only one substantive assessment of documents 
is carried out by the competent authorities, either at the stage of the entry visa application or 
the  single  permit  application  and  that  the  labour  market  test  and  the  visa  procedure  (if 
required)  are  conducted  within  the  four-month  period  for  processing  the  application  for  a 
single permit.  Currently, there is  evidence93  that these additional procedures  can extend the 
timeframe for granting the single permit in some Member States. Requiring Member States to 
consider these procedures as part of the single permit procedure will ensure that the duration 
of the overall assessment does not exceed the four-month period. The perceived benefits of 
such administrative simplification were strongly confirmed by the stakeholder consultations. 

Some  of  the  measures  under  Option  2  will  help  harmonise  application  procedures  and 
establish a level playing field across EU Member States. Firstly, by allowing TCNs to apply 
from both outside the EU and the territory of the Member States (2.1.), Option 2 will ensure 
greater  harmonisation,  as  currently  Member  States  have  different  requirements.  Secondly, 
clarifying  that  the  four  month  period  also  includes  visa  and  labour  market  test  procedures 
(measures 2.2. and 2.3.) will also contribute to better harmonisation.  

Greater simplification and harmonisation are expected to contribute to improving the overall 
attractiveness of the EU and may have some positive effects on the labour market and skills 
matching  and  on  the  employers’  willingness  to  recruit  TCNs  to  address  skills  shortages. 
However, a direct correlation is difficult to be established due to a multitude of endogenous 
and exogenous factors that affect skills matching in the labour market. 

Measure  2.5  of  adopting  non-binding  recommendations  (soft  law)  on  equal  treatment  is 
expected  to  positively  contribute  to  enhancing  equal  treatment  of  TCNs  with  EU  citizens. 
Where ambiguities exist, such soft law interpretations would facilitate correct implementation 
for Member States. However, due to its non-binding nature, the expected effectiveness of this 
measure  is  lower  than  of  adopting  legislative  measures  which  would  bring  greater  legal 
certainty. 

Expected impacts 

Social impacts and impacts on fundamental rights 

93   Procedures lasting more than two months have been identified in the framework of EU pilots. 

37 

 
 
                                                           
Businesses/employers  are  expected  to  benefit  from  Option  2  in  terms  of  quicker,  and 
potentially  wider,  access  to  labour  resources  from  third  countries.  The  streamlining  of  the 
procedure  could  also  encourage  more  employers  to  hire  third-country  workers.  Any 
simplifications in the application process are expected to benefit SMEs as they are likely to 
bear a disproportionate burden when hiring TCNs in comparison to large enterprises due to 
more limited resources (e.g. legal fees, understanding of immigration law and process, etc.). 

Overall, based on the proposed simplification measures under Option 2, national authorities 
are expected to gain efficiencies in their application procedures due to further streamlining of 
their processes.  

Those  Member  States  whose  procedures  currently  exceed  the  four  months’  time  limit  are 
likely to incur some adaptation costs in the short run but with cost savings in the medium to 
long-term  due  to  streamlining  the  procedures.  Overall,  more  efficient  procedures  and 
improved  equal  treatment  and  prevention  of  exploitation  are  likely  to  improve  EU 
attractiveness which will benefit Member States in skills matching and potentially satisfying 
labour shortages through migration.  

Legal  practitioners  and judiciary at  Member States and EU level  will need to  familiarise 
themselves with the new provisions resulting from Option 2, but ultimately Option 2 will lead 
to a reduction in the demand for their services by TCNs and businesses, mostly as a result of 
the simplification and improved information provision.  

Third-country  nationals  are  expected  to  benefit  from  Option  2  by  simplifying  the 
application procedure, which will result in potential cost reductions for TCNs as well as their 
quick  integration  into  the  labour  market  due  to  resulting  efficiencies  of  the  application 
procedure.  They  may  also  benefit  indirectly  from  increased  clarity  and  possibly  improved 
Member States’ application of the Directive with regard to TCNs’ rights to equal treatment 

Option 2 may result in a moderate increase in the number of TCNs arriving to the EU as a 
result  of  faster,  simpler  procedures.  EU  citizens  would  benefit  from  the  positive  impact  of 
Option  2  on  overall  economic  growth  given  that  TCN  workers  would,  to  a  limited  extent, 
help fill labour shortages and indirectly contribute to reinforcing knowledge-based economy 
and  job  creation  in  the  EU.  Displacement  of  EU  workers  is  expected  to  remain  marginal, 
given  that  the  expected  increase  is  very  limited  and  the  fact  that  that  Member  States  will 
continue  having  the  option  of  conducting  labour  market  tests  to  determine  the  number  of 
TCNs  entering  their  territory  for  work  purposes  and  to  ensure  that  the  vacancies  cannot  be 
filled  by  EU  workers.  As  a  result,  also  the  expected  impact  on  domestic  labour  markets  is 
expected to be marginal.   

As  regards  third  countries  (including  negative  effects  such  as  brain  drain),  faster  and 
more streamlined application procedure may attract more TCNs wishing to work in the EU 
and apply for a single permit. This is likely to result in some loss of human capital and labour 
force in third countries. However, simplification and harmonisation alone may not be a key 
driver, hence the extent to which this could be the case is very difficult to estimate due to a 
multitude of factors at play.  

38 

 
 
The simplification measures (2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4) are not expected to have direct effects on 
fundamental  rights  as  they  focus  on  efficiency  and  reducing  the  administrative  burden. 
However,  measure  2.5  on  adopting  non-binding  recommendations  on  equal  treatment  is 
expected to positively contribute to several fundamental rights of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights  of  the  European  Union,  such  as,  inter  alia,  right  to  property  (Art.17),  non-
discrimination  (Art.  21)  and  social  security  and  social  assistance  (Art.  21).  The  non-biding 
recommendations  are  expected  to  provide  more  clarity  on  these  aspects.  However,  it  is 
difficult to assess to what extent the recommendations will have a positive effect, due to their 
non-binding nature as well as it is unknown to what extent this tool would be used (i.e. how 
often  would  the  need  for  such  recommendations  arise  and  the  specific  focus  of  such 
recommendations).  

Economic impacts 

The  key  assumptions  and  calculation  methods  are  detailed  in  Annex  4.  The  five  measures 
under  Option  2  focus  on  simplification  of  the  application  procedure  which  is  expected  to 
moderately  contribute  to  improving  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU,  which  in  turn  may  have 
some positive effect on the labour market and skills matching.  

The  following  types  of  economic  impacts  were  considered:  tax  revenue,  consumption, 
additional earnings, remittances, job vacancies and productivity. The main assumption for the 
Policy  Option  2  and  its  composite  measures  is  that,  as  a  result  of  simplifying  admission 
procedures, the EU becomes a more attractive place to live and work for TCNs, which in turn 
will  lead  to  several  positive  economic  effects,  provided  their  integration  into  the  economy 
and  society  is  successful.  As  the  majority  of  Member  States  apply  some  form  of  labour 
market  test,  it  is  assumed  that  these  third-country  nationals  would  nearly  exclusively  be 
accessing vacancies that are difficult to  fill, or be bringing skills that are unavailable in the 
EU  labour  market.  Additionally,  these  third-country  nationals  would  compensate  for  the 
ageing EU workforce.  

In  order  to  provide  a  better  understanding  of  the  possible  economic  impacts  resulting  from 
the issuance of additional single permits for remunerated activities, on top of the baseline, a 
(cautious)  two-step  approach  was  adopted.  First,  a  moderate  increase  of  the  number  of 
permits  was  assumed  at  the  level  of  2.5%.  Then,  on  this  basis,  some  quantifiable  impacts 
were  calculated  (according  to  the  methodology  detailed  in  Annex  4),  as  an  illustrative 
example  of  the  possible  size  of  effects  over  a  period  of  10  years  rather  than  as  firm 
predictable results of the proposed measures: 

-  An increase in tax revenue of about EUR 636.9 million 

- 

- 

Increased additional earnings by about EUR 6.6 billion  

Increased consumption for about EUR 2.9 billion. 

Resulting in a total economic benefit to the EU by approximately EUR 9.1 billion. 

Remittances are expected to increase by around EUR 995.1 million. 

39 

 
 
As  detailed  in  Annex  4,  it  was  not  possible  to  arrive  at  quantification  of  some  possible 
economic  impacts,  including  economic  growth  and  productivity  or  the  impact  of  covering 
self-employed workers by the single permit procedure given the high level of uncertainty and 
complexity of factors intervening at different levels. 

Efficiency 

Administrative compliance costs 

A  streamlined  and  simplified  procedure  for  single  permit  applications  would  result  in  a 
number of cost savings for employers, TCNs, as well as national authorities. 

For  TCNs,  there  are  a  number  of  costs  typically  incurred  by  applicants  (TCNs  and/or  their 
employers) in the application process, the costs of compiling the required documentation or 
the costs linked to legal counsel that may be needed to assist with the application process.  

In  addition,  indirect  and  opportunity  costs  are  likely  to  decrease.  For  example,  the  overall 
shorter  procedures would  mean  that  the  third-country  workers  would  commence  their  job 
sooner, which in turn could lead to more efficiency on the labour market in terms of greater 
job matching and shortages filled, as well as potential increases in productivity. This will also 
result in fiscal benefits in terms of tax contributions.  

National authorities are likely to encounter some adjustment and familiarisation costs in the 
short and mid-run (including costs for training, IT, etc.) but are expected to gain efficiencies 
due to more streamlined procedures in the long run. Possible administrative costs associated 
with  non-binding  recommendations  concerning  equal  treatment  rights  are  difficult  to 
estimate. This is due to uncertainty around the specific content of the proposed non-binding 
recommendations and the extent to which Member States will take up the recommendations 
in practice. 

The  cost  analysis  showed  that  the  following  average  annual  costs94  (taken  for  cost  figures 
between  year  2021  to  year  2030)  would  be  incurred  for  Option  2  (please  see  Annex  4  for 
further details):  

  One-off costs for national authorities: between EUR 2.2 million and EUR 4.9 million 

in year 1 

  Recurring costs for national authorities: between EUR 200,000 and EUR 400.000 

annually  

  Recurring cost savings for national authorities: between EUR 200,000 and EUR 3.6 

million annually  

  Recurring cost savings for TCNs: between EUR 129.4 million and EUR 545.7 million 

annually  

  Recurring  cost  savings  for  employers:  between  EUR  31.7  million  and  EUR  101.0 

million  annually. 

Coherence with other EU policies 

94   Figures are provided to the nearest hundred thousand or million. 

40 

 
 
                                                           
Overall, Option 2 is coherent with EU legal migration law and policy. Option 2 contributes to 
fulfilling the objective of the New Pact  on Migration and Asylum of better enforcement of 
current legislation in the area of legal migration.  

Overall assessment 

Overall, the further simplification and streamlining of the procedure foreseen by this option is 
expected  to  positively  impact  the  majority  of  stakeholders  concerned,  including  employers, 
TCNs  and  national  authorities  (despite  some  cost  adjustments  needed  in  the  short  run). 
Together,  the  measures  envisaged  under  Option  2  will  contribute  to  alleviating  the 
administrative  burden  for  applicants,  employers  and  national  authorities.  By  adopting  the 
specific  measures,  the  single  permit  procedure  is  expected  to  be  further  streamlined.  The 
perceived  benefits  of  such  administrative  simplification  were  widely  confirmed  by  the 
stakeholder  consultations95.  Adopting  non-binding  recommendations  (soft  law)  on  equal 
treatment  can  contribute  to  enhancing  equal  treatment  of  TCNs  with  EU  citizens  and 
improving information on the application procedure and related rights. 

6.3. 

6.3. Option 3: Legislative revision of the Directive 
to  simplify  the  procedure,  improve  rights  and 
protection from exploitation 

Option 3 builds on the measures included in Option 2 but, in addition, aims also at improving 
some equal treatment rights and improving protection from labour exploitation by legislative 
action  and  clarifying  what  categories  of  TCN  workers  are  covered  by  the  scope  of  the 
Directive. In addition, the option envisages covering beneficiaries of national protection with 
the single procedure. 

  3.1: Ensuring the permits are not linked to only one employer. 
  3.2: Clarifying equal treatment for access to private housing. 
  3.3: Clarifying equal treatment in granting family benefits to family members residing 

in third countries. 

  3.4: Removing the possibility to exclude those working on the basis of a visa (valid 

for more than six months) from family benefits. 

  3.5: Clarifying the categories falling outside the scope of application of the Directive. 
  3.6: Including beneficiaries of national protection in the scope of the Directive. 
  3.7:  Including  similar  provisions  to  Art.  17,  Art.  24  and  Art.  25  of  the  Seasonal 
Worker’s  Directive,  on  sanctions,  compensation,  monitoring,  assessment  and 
inspections, facilitation of complaints. 

Four measures aim to clarify and/or expand the scope of safeguards offered to TCNs:  

  Ensuring the permit is not only linked to one employer (2.4.) 

  Removing the restrictions on equal treatment for access to private housing (2.6.) 

95 The Contact Group on Legal Migration, the EU legal migration practitioners' network and the Informal Expert 
   Group on Economic Migration. 

41 

 
 
 
                                                           
  Clarifying  equal  treatment  in  granting  family  benefits  for  family  members  residing  in 

third countries (2.7.) 

  Removing the possibility for Member States to exclude TCNs working on the basis of a 

visa from equality of treatment in respect of family benefits (2.8.). 

In particular policy measure 2.4 on ensuring the permit is not only linked to one employer is 
likely  to  contribute  to  the  protection  of  TCNs  from  exploitation.  Several  stakeholders 
consulted,  namely  representatives  of  migrants  and  the  civil  society,  considered  that  linking 
the permit to a single employer placed migrants in a more vulnerable position, as they could 
feel  prevented  from  denouncing  abusive  and/or  exploitative  working  conditions  for  fear  of 
losing their job and consequently their permit96. Ensuring some flexibility regarding a change 
of employer would thus limit the dependence of workers on their respective employers while 
lowering the risk of abuse by unscrupulous employers97.  

Another  measure  concerns  extending  the  equal  treatment  rights  under  the  Directive  to 
beneficiaries of protection according to national law (2.11). 

In those Member States98, which at present do not guarantee equal treatment rights to national 
protection  status  holders,  the  measure  would  indeed  offer  a  higher  level  of  protection  from 
labour  exploitation,  as  TCNs  would,  for  example,  be  guaranteed  equal  working  conditions 
and  freedom  of  association.  In  these  Member  States,  some  impact  may  thus  be  expected, 
although the number of beneficiaries of a national protection status is relatively low (e.g. in 
2019 less than 2,000 first permits were issued in these countries, no stock data is available). 
In all Member States, the measure would help to reduce legal uncertainty for these categories. 

One of the key measures under this option is expanding the material scope of the Directive 
to  include  provisions  relating  to  inspections,  monitoring  and  sanctions  against 
exploitative employers, similarly to the Seasonal Workers' Directive 2014/36/EU.  

Since the Directive covers different categories of third-country workers, including low- and 
medium-skilled  who  may  be  more  susceptible  to  exploitation,  including  specific  provisions 
on employer sanctions similar to those included in the Seasonal Workers Directive will cover 
a much wider range of workers. It is also expected to strengthen the level playing field across 
Member  States  by  prescribing  specific  processes  and  instruments  to  prevent,  identify  and 
sanction labour exploitation and thus, it is expected to contribute to the protection of all third-
country workers covered by the scope of the Directive from labour exploitation.  

All categories of stakeholders generally agreed on the need to improve the protection against 
labour  exploitation  through  the  Directive.  At  the  same  time,  stakeholders  representing  the 
migrants  underlined  that  an  increased  number  of  inspections  could  lead  to  even  more 
underground  work  and  exploitation99.  In  their  view,  instead  of  requiring  more  stringent 

96   Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the  Views  of  Migrants  and  Consultation  with 

representatives of Civil Society. 

97   IOM (2009), Laws for Legal Immigration in the 27 EU Member States. 
98   BG,  EE,  IT,  LT,  MT,  NL,  PL  only  provide  access  to  core  social  benefits  for  some  national  statuses  - 
Comparative overview of national protection statuses in the EU and Norway, EMN Synthesis Report 2019 

99   Third meeting of the Commission Expert Group (EG) on the Views of Migrants. 

42 

 
 
                                                           
inspections,  clearer  monitoring  procedures  implemented  by  all  Member  States  could  be  a 
more  practical  solution.  Although  inspections  represent  the  primary  measure  for  tackling 
undeclared  work  of  TCNs,  they  are  often  not  as  frequent  and  effective  as  anticipated  by 
authorities.  Consultations  with  legal  migration  practitioners100  highlighted  that  introducing 
higher sanctions might have a counter-productive effect by increasing the reluctance from the 
employers’ perspective to hire TCNs. 

for  a  European  approach on  protection  against 

Moreover,  the  consultation  with  the  Legal  Migration  Contact  Group  showed  that 
representatives  of  some  Member  States  do  not  believe  that  the  issue  of  exploitation  can  be 
tackled  at  EU  level,  as  it  is  closely  connected  to  the  national  labour  market  system  or  it 
should  be  tackled  in  other  existing  instruments,  such  as  the  Employer  Sanctions  Directive, 
which does not apply to legally residing TCNs. Similarly, some members of the EGEM group 
considered that the  need 
labour 
exploitation was disputable as rules for on protection, inspections, monitoring, and sanctions 
already  existed  at  national  level. In  their  view, more coordination between  the  European 
Labour Authority and the national labour law enforcement should be sufficient, including the 
exchange of information on different procedures and good practices. However, it should be 
noted  that  the  mandate  of  the  European  Labour  Authority  is  limited  to  ensuring  fair  and 
effective  enforcement  of  the  EU  rules  on  labour  mobility  and  social  security  coordination, 
thus it does not extend to labour exploitation of single permit holders, who are not exercising 
intra-EU labour mobility. 

Finally,  experts  have  also  highlighted  that  any  provisions  should  be  aligned  with  the  ILO's 
Convention  on  Forced  Labour  Protocol  of  2014  to  the  Forced  Labour  Convention,  1930  to 
which many Member States are already signatories.101 

Expected impacts 

Social impacts and impacts on fundamental rights 

Businesses  and  employers  may  have  to  comply  with  new  rules  on  prevention,  inspections 
and  sanctions  against  labour  exploitation.  Potentially  tougher  measures  will  contribute  to 
preventing,  detecting  and  sanctioning  malicious  practices  of  employers  against  TCNs.  The 
measure  is  likely  to  have  positive  effects  and  strengthen  the  level  playing  field  for  law-
compliant businesses, as it would deter unfair competition. 

Expanding the personal scope of the Directive to beneficiaries of national protection and self-
employed workers will require adaptation of legislation and practices in Member States. With 
regard  to  including  provisions  relating  to  inspections,  monitoring  and  sanctions,  some 
adjustment  may  be  required  in  those  Member  States  where  the  systems  may  require 
adaptation to meet the standards of the Directive. 

Legal  practitioners  and  judiciary  at  Member  States  and  EU  level  are  expected  to  benefit 
from the clarifications made with regard to the equal treatment provisions as improved clarity 

100   Consultation with the EU legal migration practitioners’ network. 
101  https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:P029  

43 

 
 
                                                           
on a number of aspects is likely to facilitate their work, and reduce the extent to which third-
country nationals may need to rely on legal advice. 

Option  3  is  expected  to  boost  the  equal  treatment  of  TCN  workers  by  clarifying  some 
inconsistencies and ambiguities in the present Directive. Furthermore, by removing the link 
to one employer, Option 3 is expected to reduce dependency and the possibilities of labour 
exploitation by employers. In the Member States which currently do not guarantee the same 
level of equal treatment rights to the two categories of TCNs Option 3 suggests to add, these 
two categories of TCNs would benefit from enhanced and harmonised equal treatment rights. 
This  would  also  help  to  better  protect  them  against  possible  abuse  and  exploitation  and 
improve  their  integration.  Furthermore,  establishing  common  provisions  on  inspections, 
monitoring,  and  sanctions  against  exploitative  employers  is  expected  to  positively  impact 
TCN workers. This would help protect TCN workers from labour exploitation by establishing 
or  adapting  relevant  mechanisms  in  those  Member  States  where  the  systems  may  require 
adaptation to meet the Directive's standards. Introducing such provisions in the Directive may 
help strengthen the current framework at EU level. 

Option 3 may result in a moderate increase in the number of TCNs arriving to the EU as a 
result of improved rights (improved equal treatment and protection from labour exploitation 
and  self-employed  workers  and  beneficiaries  of  national  protection  included  in  the 
procedure). At the same time, the expected increase being moderate and subject to the control 
of Member State authorities my means of labour market tests, the impact on domestic labour 
markets  is  expected  to  be  marginal.  Considering  that  Option  3  will  also  likely  lead  to 
improved integration of TCN into the Member State of residence while contributing to more 
social  cohesion,  this,  in  turn,  benefits  both  TCN  and  EU  citizens.  Displacement  of  EU 
workers is expected to remain marginal, given that the expected increase is very limited and 
the fact that Member States will continue having the option of conducting labour market tests 
to determine the number of TCNs entering their territory for work purposes and to ensure that 
the vacancies cannot be filled by EU workers.  

Lastly,  Option  3  is  expected  to  contribute  to  improving  equal  treatment  of  TCNs,  by 
achieving a level-playing  field  regarding their employment,  and in  terms of access to  other 
benefits,  such  as  family  allowances,  access  to  private  housing,  etc.  This  is  expected  to 
contribute to  reducing downward pressure on wages and social dumping practices resulting 
from their vulnerable employment position, and as a result benefitting wider workforces. This 
may lead to fiscal benefits from tax collection. 

As  regards  third  countries  (including  negative  effects  such  as  brain  drain),  improved 
prevention of exploitation may positively affect remittances. 

Measures under Option 3 are expected to strengthen equal treatment provisions and facilitate 
improving  coherence  with  specific 
the  prevention  of  exploitation,  contributing 
fundamental rights, such as: prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 5 of the Charter 
of  Fundamental  Rights);  right  to  property  (Article  17);  equality  (Article  20);  fair  and  just 
working conditions (Article 31); family and professional life (Article 33 ) and social security 
and social assistance (Article 34). 

to 

44 

 
 
Economic impacts 

The key assumptions and calculation methods are detailed in Annex 4. 

Measure  3.1  (de-linking  permits  from  one  employer)  and  3.6  (including  beneficiaries  of 
national  protection)  and  3.7 (prevention against labour exploitation)  may  potentially have a 
measurable economic impact. The effects of 3.6 are expected to be marginal due to the small 
population  size  of  beneficiaries  of  national  protection.  Measure  3.7  is  expected  to  have  a 
more significant economic impact in terms of reduction of grey and shadow economy from 
labour  exploitation  of  third-country  workers.  Tackling  exploitation  is  expected  to  reduce 
downward pressure on wages resulting from exploitation and social dumping practices (and 
as  a  result  benefitting  wider  workforces).  Further  benefits  include  fiscal  benefits  from  tax 
collection. The positive outcomes would include fairer payment and employers investing in 
fair working conditions, which may increase labour productivity in the medium to long run. 

Reinforcing  equal  treatment  provisions  is  expected  to  only  marginally  contribute  to 
improving  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  and  may  have  some  positive  effect  on  the  labour 
market and skills matching. 

In  order  to  provide  a  better  understanding  of  the  possible  economic  impacts  resulting  from 
the issuance of additional single permits for remunerated activities, on top of the baseline, a 
(cautious) two-step approach was adopted. First, a moderate increase of permits was assumed 
at  the  level  of  5%  (i.e.  another  2.5%  on  top  of  Policy  option  2).  Then,  on  this  basis,  some 
quantifiable impacts were calculated (according to the methodology detailed in Annex 4), as 
an illustrative example of the possible size of effects over a period of 10 years rather than as 
firm predictable results of the proposed measures: 

-  An increase in tax revenue of about EUR 1.3 billion  

- 

- 

Increased additional earnings by about EUR 13.2 billion 

Increased consumption for about EUR 5.7 billion. 

Resulting in a total economic benefit to the EU of approximately EUR 18.3 billion. 

Remittances are expected to increase by around EUR 2.0 billion. 

Efficiency 

Administrative compliance costs 

The  administrative  compliance  costs  of  measure  3.2  clarifying  the  provisions  on  access  to 
private housing are expected to be marginal. As part of policy measure 3.3 (equal treatment 
with regard to family benefits), an increase in transfer payments is expected in those Member 
States which also take into account family members of EU citizens residing outside the EU 
for  family  benefits  Allowing  third-country  nationals  to  export  family  benefits  in  case  their 
family members reside outside the EU, if in analogical case EU citizens are entitled to do so, 
stems directly from a recent Court of Justice judgment referring to Italian legislation102.  

102  Case C-302/19 - Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v WS.  Judgment of the Court of 25 of 

November 2020. 

45 

 
 
                                                           
The judgement clearly states103 that the objective pursued by the Directive is to establish “a 
minimum  level  playing  field  within  the  Union,  to  recognise  that  third-country  nationals 
contribute  to  the  EU  economy  through  their  work  and  tax  payments,  and  to  serve  as  a 
safeguard to  reduce unfair competition  between a Member State’s own nationals  and third-
country nationals resulting from the possible exploitation of the latter”. 

To  conduct  a  comprehensive  impact  assessment  of  such  a  measure,  it  is  necessary  to 
understand which countries allow the EU citizens to claim family benefit for an EU citizen if 
the family member does not live in the Member State territory. Data gathered showed that in 
five Member States  (CY, FI,  DE, PL, PT) the  family members  residing  outside the EU are 
considered  when  calculating  the  amount  of  family  benefits  granted  to  EU  nationals  and 
legally staying third-country nationals. In the Netherlands, family members residing outside 
the EU are only provided with  family benefits  in the case of a bilateral  agreement between 
the Netherlands and the country of residence. 

It is not feasible to calculate the impact on social systems with the data currently available. 
The number of family members residing outside the EU is currently unknown. 

However, this measure merely aims at setting out in the revised Single Permit Directive an 
obligation that Member States need to in any case respect and afford financially in the light of 
the Court’s case-law.  

With regard to measure 3.4 on removing the possibility of excluding visa holders from family 
benefits after the 6 months period allowed by the Directive, the majority  of Member States 
already grant equal treatment with regard to  family benefits after six months. Therefore the 
impact of this measure will be limited but it would increase legal certainty and bring into line 
the  remaining  Member  States.  To  reinforce  protection  from  labour  exploitation,  Member 
States  are  likely  to  incur  administrative  costs  for  implementing  any  adjustments  in  their 
national  legislation.  However,  no  detailed  data  is  available  to  carry  out  such  cost  analysis. 
With regard to the cost impact to TCNs, given the hidden nature of the phenomenon of labour 
exploitation, any assumptions on this phenomenon would be too hypothetical.  

In addition to the administrative costs of implementing a new legal provision, the expansion 
of material scope would result in some additional compliance costs for Member States, and 
possibly some cost savings for employers. 

The  cost  analysis  showed  that  the  following  average  annual  costs104  (taken  for  cost  figures 
between  year  2021  to  year  2030)  would  be  incurred  for  Option  3  (please  see  Annex  4  for 
further details):  

  One-off costs for national authorities: between EUR 1.9 million and EUR 7.0 million 

in Year 1 

  Recurring costs for national authorities: between EUR 100,000 and EUR 12.4 million  

annually  

  Recurring cost savings for national authorities: between EUR 200,000 and EUR 3.6 

million annually  

103 See Jugement in Case C-302/19, paragraph 34. 
104 Figures are provided to the nearest hundred thousand or million. 

46 

 
 
                                                           
  Recurring cost savings for TCNs: between EUR 89.0 million and EUR 545.7 million 

annually  

  Recurring  cost  savings  for  employers:  between  EUR  22.2  million  and  EUR  101.0 

million annually. 

Coherence with other EU policies 

Overall, Option 3 is coherent with EU legal migration law and policy. Option 3 contributes to 
fulfilling the objective of the New Pact  on Migration and Asylum of better enforcement of 
current legislation in the area of legal migration. It will also improve the coherence with the 
other  legal  migration  directives  by  clarifying  the  categories  falling  outside  the  scope  of 
application of the Directive. 

Measure  3.1  (Ensuring  the  permits  are  not  linked  to  only  one  employer)  will  also  improve 
coherence as it is expected to offer similar conditions as the EU Blue Card (e.g. notification 
towards national  authorities of a change of employer; new labour market testing  conducted 
only  in  case  of  a  change  of  profession;  continued  permit  validity  unless  authorities  object 
based  on  a  negative  labour  market  test  or  eligibility  conditions  no  longer  met).  Overall 
assessment 

Overall, this option is expected to positively impact the majority of stakeholders concerned, 
including employers, TCNs and national authorities (despite some cost adjustments needed in 
the  short  run).  The  main  positive  impacts  of  Option  2  are  a  further  simplification  and 
streamlining  of  the  single  procedure,  clarification  of  the  personal  scope  and  strengthened 
equal treatment. 

Including  beneficiaries  of  national  protection  in  the  scope  of  the  Directive  would  offer  a 
greater degree of legal certainty and an enhanced set of rights for a category of TCNs, which 
in at least seven Member States are not fully treated equally. 

With  regard  to  expanding  the  material  scope  to  include  provisions  relating  to  inspections, 
monitoring and sanctions against exploitative employers, this may help strengthen the current 
framework at EU level. Option 3 is expected to bring about positive change by setting up a 
level playing field for the prevention, protection and sanction against exploitation of a much 
wider  range  of  workers  than  presently  with  such  provisions  regulated  only  for  seasonal 
workers. 

7.  7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

The table below provides an overview of the ratings of the impacts of each policy option, 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. 

Criteria 

Baseline 

  Non-

Legislative options 

legislative 
option 

(The cumulative scoring 
of Option 3 is presented 

47 

 
 
 
PO0 

Option 1 

Option 2  Option 3 

in italics 

Effectiveness 

Effectiveness in achieving the objectives 

Specific objective 1: simplifying admission 
procedures 

Specific objective 2: ensuring greater 
efficiency of application procedures 

Specific objective 3: addressing EU labour 
shortages 

Specific objective 4: enhancing equal 
treatment of TCN workers 

Specific objective 5: protecting TCN 
workers from labour exploitation 

Social impacts 

Impact on: TCNs,  

national authorities, legal practitioners and 
the judiciary, employers and businesses, 
third countries 

Environmental impacts 

Fundamental rights 

Coherence 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.5 

2 

1 

0.5 

  2 

3 

  3 

1 

  1.5 

0 

0 

0.5 

  3 

0 

  3 

0 

0 

0 

3 

3 

0.5 

1 

1.50 

  2.5 

0 

0 

  3 

0 

0 

0 

3 

1 

Coherence with the New Pact on Migration 

0 

0.5 

1.5 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and Asylum other legal migration 
Directives 

Efficiency 

Costs 

Administrative compliance costs 

Economic impacts 

  2.5 

0 

0 

-0.5 

-1.5 

-1.5 

-3 

0.5 

2 

0 

  2 

In  the  assessment  of  effectiveness,  in  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines105,  PO0 is 
considered  as  the  benchmark  against  which  all  other  options  are  assessed  and  scored. 
Therefore, to the baseline situation is attributed the value of 0/nil for all effectiveness criteria, 
whereby “0” means no impact compared to the baseline. 

In terms  of effectiveness  in  achieving the objectives, the highest-scoring policy options are 
Option 2 and  Option 3. Option  2 would be effective in  achieving most of the objective of 
simplifying  the  procedure,  however  the  effectiveness  of  enhancing  equal  treatment  of 
migrant-workers  via  non-legislative  actions  is  expected  to  have  a  modest  effect  due  to  its 
non-binding nature. Option 3 would have stronger similar effect on achieving the objectives, 
as  legislative  amendments  aimed  at  enhancing  equal  treatment  of  migrant-workers  and 
improving  protection  of  TCNs  from  labour  exploitation  are  expected  to  bring  more  legal 
certainty  and  tangible  results  than  the  soft  law  measure.  Finally,  Option  1  would  generally 
have a very limited impact  on achieving the objectives of the revision due to  the voluntary 
nature  of  the  non-legislative  actions.  While  guidelines  could  help  improve  the  practical 
implementation  of  the  Directive,  measures  under  Option  1  remain  not  binding  and  their 
outcomes are highly dependent on the willingness of Member States to follow guidelines and 
adapt administrative practices. 

As regards social impacts, different categories of stakeholders were considered as part of the 
assessment  and  the  scoring  reflects  the  cumulative  social  impacts  of  each  policy  option, 
considering all categories of stakeholders together. Each policy option with the exception of 
PO0  would,  to  a  greater  (Option  2  and  Option  3)  or  lesser  (Option  1)  extent,  achieve  a 
positive impact on TCNs, particularly when simplifying admission procedures, reducing legal 
uncertainty  and  boosting  equal  treatment.  Reducing  TCNs’  dependency  on  the  employer 
while  also  lowering  the  possibilities  of  labour  exploitation  by  abusive  employers  would  be 
another important benefit. For these reasons, Options 2 and 3 would have a very favourable 
impact  on  TCNs  and  employers,  given  that  they  aim  at  streamlining  the  single  permit 

105  See in particular: Sections 2.4 and 2.5. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
procedure  and  increasing  protection  from  labour  exploitation.  All  legislative  options  would 
potentially simplify the work of national authorities, who would gain important efficiencies 
when  processing  applications.  All  the  options  would  also  reduce  reliance  on  legal 
practitioners, leading to a reduction in the demand for their services by TCNs and employers 
alike.  At  the  same  time,  none  of  the  policy  options  proves  problematic  in  terms  of  social 
impacts.  

None of the policy options is expected to have significant environmental impacts. 

Most options (with the exception of PO0 which would not result in any changes to the current 
situation)  would  also  positively  impact  fundamental  rights,  with  Option  3  having  [a 
significantly stronger additional impact compared to Option 2 due to the legislative, and thus 
binding,  nature  and  legal  certainty  that  the  latter  is  expected  to  bring  about.  Particularly 
relevant  articles  impacted  by  most  of  the  policy  options  are  the  prohibition  of  slavery  and 
forced labour (Article 5), the right to property (Article 17), equality (Article 20), family and 
professional life (Article 33) and social security and social assistance (Article 34). 

Regarding  coherence  with  other  EU  policies  and  the  New  Pact  on  Migration  and  Asylum 
Pact, Option 2 and 3 are most in line with the spirit of the New Pact, which calls for boosting 
the attractiveness of new legal migration channels. Both policy options address a number of 
inconsistencies  highlighted  in  the  Fitness  Check  study  and  are  expected  to  create  closer 
synergies with other EU policies, including other EU legal migration Directives (notably for 
PO2), and with the ‘spirit’ of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights (specifically for PO3). 

In  terms  of  economic  impacts,  both  Option  2  and  Option  3  would  have  a  positive  impact. 
The key areas in which the POs are expected to contribute positively to economic impact are 
tax  revenue,  increases  in  earnings  and  consumption  (please  see  Annex  4  for  details).  Both 
Option 2 and Option 3 are also expected to increase remittances flows. The economic impacts 
of  Option  3  are  more  significant,  as  it  is  expected  to  make  the  EU  more  attractive  for 
migrants and enhance their living conditions.  

In terms of administrative compliance costs, all policy options other than PO0 and Option 1 
are expected to have a negative effect on administrative costs for national authorities, as they 
will  have  to  transpose  the  new  legislation,  organise  training  and  guidance,  implement  new 
and revised procedures, organise communication and information activities, etc.  

With regard to principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the proposed measures in the 
legislative  options  2  and  3  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.  

As regards measures against labour exploitation, by prescribing specific  common processes 
and  instruments  to  prevent,  identify  and  sanction  labour  exploitation,  Option  3  would 

50 

 
 
contribute to the protection of all third-country workers covered by the scope of the Directive 
from labour exploitation, thus expanding the group currently covered by these safeguards at 
EU level from seasonal workers only and contributing to strengthening the level playing field 
across Member States.  

Finally,  with  regard  to  the  political  feasibility,  the  fact  that  Option  1  would  not  require 
legislative  amendments  would  be  met  with  favour  by  those  Member  States  not  wanting 
further  legislation  on  legal  migration106,  but  would  contradict  the  call  of  the  European 
Parliament to improve the Directive.  

Option 2 and Option 3 would both require legislative amendments. Regarding Option 2, the 
majority of stakeholders consulted107 perceived a need to simplify the single permit procedure 
further,  including  civil  society,  practitioners,  migrant  representatives,  and  economic  and 
social partners. Member State representatives, although less convinced about the need  for a 
substantial  overhaul  of  the  Directive,  were  aware  of  the  shortcomings  of  the  Directive  and 
agreed  that  the  application  procedure  could  be  further  simplified  to  avoid  unnecessary 
administrative burdens and thus, political agreement on Option 2 is likely to be feasible.  

Regarding  Option  3,  more  opposition  from  Member  States  on  certain  measures  could  be 
expected  in  comparison  to  Option  2.  Most  Member  States108  considered  that  the  link  to  a 
single employer remained necessary, at least in the first one or two years, as the single permit 
is  granted  to  fill  a  specific  gap  in  the  labour  market.  Regarding  the  measures  aimed  at 
clarifying  the  scope  of  equal  treatment  provisions  in  Article  12  of  the  Directive,  Member 
States have acknowledged the benefits of enhancing legal certainty and further clarification. 
The majority of Member States also supported the idea of strengthening EU rules to prevent 
labour exploitation, albeit some considered that this issue was better tackled at national level.  

It can be expected that all elements of both Option 2 and Option 3 would be supported by the 
European Parliament. 

8.  8. PREFERRED OPTION 

After  the  assessment  of  the  impacts,  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  POs,  as  well  as  of 
their  political  feasibility  and  stakeholder  acceptance,  the  preferred  option  is  Option  3. 
Option 3 involves a large set of policy measures that would address existing shortcomings of 
the  Directive  and  further  simplifying  and  streamlining  the  single  application  procedure, 
strengthening equal treatment rights, as well as further improving coherence of the Directive 
with  the  wider  EU  legal  migration  acquis  by  clarifying  what  categories  of  third-country 
workers  are  not  covered  by  the  Directive.  In  this  respect,  Option  3  responds  partly  to 

106  See Annex 2 for more details on stakeholder consultations. 
107  Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the  Views  of  Migrants;  Fifth  meeting  of  the 
Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration  (EGEM);  Consultation  with  representatives  of  the  Civil 
Society; Second meeting of the EU legal migration practitioners’ network; Consultation with the Economic 
and Social Partners; Consultation of the European Public Employment Services network. 

108  Consultation with the Contact Group on Legal Migration. 

51 

 
 
                                                           
 
Suggestion  1  of  the  opinion  of  the  Fit  for  Future  Platform  proposing  to  streamline  and 
digitalise  the  single  permit  application  and  visa  applications  to  reduce  the  administrative 
burden and costs on applicants and on authorities. In addition, Option 3 expands the personal 
scope of the Directive to beneficiaries of protection under national law who are currently not 
fully  covered  by  equal  treatment  rights,  and  the  material  scope  of  the  Directive  to  include 
provisions relating to inspections, monitoring and sanctions against exploitative employers. 

The  impact  assessment  showed  that  Option  3  will  be  highly  effective  in  achieving  the 
objectives  and  will  benefit  from  good  political  feasibility  (based  on  the  views  expressed  as 
part  of  the  stakeholder  consultations).  Option  3  would  also  clarify  and  slightly  expand  the 
scope of the current Single Permit (i.e. to beneficiaries of protection under national law), as 
well as strengthen the rights of TCNs. Option 3 furthermore has the potential to bring strong 
societal benefits: including beneficiaries of national protection in the scope of the Directive 
would offer a greater degree of legal certainty and an enhanced set of rights for a category of 
TCN  who  currently  do  not,  or  only  to  some  extent,  benefit  from  equal  treatment.  It  would 
also  contribute  to  reinforcing  the  protection  of  all  third-country  workers  covered  by  the 
Directive against exploitation, i.a. by introducing the possibility to change employers. In that 
respect,  Option  3  would  respond  well  to  Suggestion  2  of  the  opinion  of  the  Fit  for  Future 
Platform,  recommending  to  simplify  procedures  on  change  of  employer  and  thus  increase 
ownership  of  workers.  Therefore,  Option  3  strikes  a  good  balance  between  extending  the 
personal and material scope and further simplification.  

The preferred option aims at further clarification and simplification to ensure more efficient 
procedures and improved equal treatment in employment-related fields for workers admitted 
to the Member States, but it does not interfere with Member States' competence to define the 
content of the actual rights or with their internal procedures for handling an application.  

The estimated costs (excluding cost savings) of the preferred option are as follows: 

  One-off  costs  for  Member  State  authorities  are  expected  to  range  between  EUR  2.0 
million  and  EUR  7.0  million  (or  an  average  of  EUR  2.0  million)  in  year  1  of  the 
implementation of the preferred option. 

  Recurring  costs  for  Member  State  authorities  are  expected  to  range  between  EUR 

100,000 and EUR 12.0 million (or an average of EUR 2.0 million) annually.  

Total cost-savings, as also presented below, are estimated to amount to: 

  Between EUR 200,000 and EUR 4.0 million annually for Member State authorities (or 

an average of EUR 700,000 annually). 

  Between EUR 22.0 million and EUR 101.0 million (or an average of EUR 26.0 million) 
annually for employers. These estimates are equally dependent on the number of third-
country  nationals  expected  to  apply  for  a  permit  –  savings  relate  to  reduced  fees 
associated with applications, reduced time spent on applications and a reduction in other 
application-related fees. 

52 

 
 
  Between EUR 89.0 million and EUR 546.0 million (or an average of EUR 121.0 million) 
annually for TCNs (these estimates are wide-ranging as they are highly dependent on the 
number  of  TCNs  expected  to  apply  for  a  permit  –  savings  relate  to  reduced  fees 
associated  with  applications,  reduced  time  spent  on  applications,  reduced  travel  costs, 
reduced intermediary fees, etc.) 

In  order  to  provide  a  better  understanding  of  the  possible  economic  impacts  resulting  from 
the issuance of additional single permits for remunerated activities, on top of the baseline, a 
(cautious) two-step approach was adopted. First, a moderate increase of permits was assumed 
to  range  between  2.5%  and  5%  as  a  reasonable  interval.  Then,  on  this  basis,  some 
quantifiable impacts were calculated (according to the methodology detailed in Annex 4), as 
an illustrative example of the possible size of effects rather than as firm predictable results of 
the proposed measures: 

-  An increase in tax revenue of about EUR 1.3 billion. 

- 

- 

Increased additional earnings by about EUR 13.2 billion. 

Increased consumption for about EUR 5.7 billion. 

Resulting in a total economic benefit to the EU of approximately EUR 18.3 billion. 

Remittances are expected to increase by around EUR 2.0 billion. 

8.1. 

8.1. REFIT 
efficiency) 

(simplification 

and 

improved 

REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option (Policy Option 2) 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Cost savings from reduced 
application costs 

Up to EUR 11.0 million per 
year (over a 10-year period) 

Third-country nationals (TCNs) 

Up to 3.0 million per year (over 
a 10-year period) 

Employers 

Cost savings from reduced 
time spent on processing 
applications 

EUR 89.0 million – EUR 278.0 
million per year (over a ten-
year period) 

TCNs 

EUR 22.0 million – EUR 70.0 
million per year 

Employers109 

EUR 200,000 – EUR 4.0 

National authorities110.  

109  Note:  a  wide  range  is  obtained  owing  to  differences  in  the  extent  of  cost  savings  estimated  across  policy 
actions/  measures associated  with the preferred option (driven  in part by differing assumptions around the 
number of affected applicants/ applications across these measures). 

53 

 
 
 
                                                           
million (over a ten-year period) 

Cost savings from reduced 
travel costs 

Up to EUR 137.0 million per 
year (over a 10-year period) 

TCNs, primarily entailed by measure 2.1 
(on place of application)  

Cost savings (reduced 
intermediary fees) 

Up to EUR 106.0 million per 
year (over a 10-year period) 

TCNs, primarily entailed by measure 2.1  

Up to EUR 25.0 million per 
year (over a 10-year period) 

TCNs, primarily entailed by measure 2.1  

Cost savings (reduction in 
other application-related fees 
– e.g. certification fees, 
translation of documents, etc.) 

Up to EUR 14.0 million per 
year (over a 10-year period).  

TCNs, primarily entailed by measure 2.1 

Up to EUR 4.0 million per year 
(over a 10-year period).  

TCNs, primarily entailed by measure 2.1  

8.2. 

8.2. One in, one out approach  

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

  Impacts on EU businesses 

Quicker access to labour resources from third countries. Businesses/employers are expected 
to benefit from Option 2 in terms of quicker, and potentially wider, access to labour resources 
from third countries. The streamlining of the procedure could also encourage more employers 
to hire third-country workers. Any simplifications in the application process are expected to 
benefit  SMEs  as  they  are  likely  to  bear  a  disproportionate  burden  when  hiring  TCNs  in 
comparison to large enterprises due to more limited resources (e.g. legal fees, understanding 
of immigration law and process, etc.).  

Cost  savings.  A  streamlined  and  simplified  procedure  for  single  permit  applications  would 
result in a number of cost savings for employers. In addition, indirect and opportunity costs 
are likely to decrease. For example, the overall shorter procedures would mean that the third-
country  workers  would  commence  their  job  sooner,  which  in  turn  could  lead  to  more 
efficiency on the labour market in terms of greater job matching and shortages filled, as well 
as  potential  increases  in  productivity.  This  will  also  result  in  fiscal  benefits  in  terms  of  tax 
contributions. 

110  Note: a reduction in administrative burden / cost savings can be expected in the medium-to-long term as the 
benefits of a more streamlined application procedure start to realise – savings will accrue as a result of fewer 
resources (staff and time) required on the processing of applications and, hence, used more efficiently across 
the organisations. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Compliance costs with new rules on labour exploitation. Businesses and employers may have 
to  comply  with  new  rules  on  prevention,  inspections  and  sanctions  against  labour 
exploitation.  Potentially  tougher  measures  will  contribute  to  preventing,  detecting  and 
sanctioning  malicious  practices  of  employers  against  TCNs.  The  measure  is  likely  to  have 
positive  effects  and  strengthen  the  level  playing  field  for  law-compliant  businesses,  as  it 
would deter unfair competition. 

The  preferred  option  is  not  expected  to  entail  significant  costs  (other  than  possible  limited 
compliance costs) or disadvantages for EU businesses vis-à-vis the status quo. On the other 
hand,  cost-savings  of  between  EUR  22.2  million  and  EUR  101.0  million  (or  an  average  of 
EUR 26.0 million) annually are estimated  for employers. These estimates are dependent on 
the  number  of  third-country  nationals  expected  to  apply  for  a  permit  –  savings  relate  to 
reduced fees associated with applications, reduced time spent on applications and a reduction 
in other application-related fees. 

  Impact on EU citizens 

Marginal  impact  on  the  displacement  of  EU  workers,  more  social  cohesion.  The  preferred 
option may result in a moderate increase in the number of TCNs arriving to the EU as a result 
of  improved  rights  (improved  equal  treatment  and  protection  from  labour  exploitation  and 
self-employed workers and beneficiaries of national protection included in the procedure). At 
the  same  time,  the  expected  increase  being  moderate  and  subject  to  the  control  of  Member 
State  authorities  my  means  of  labour  market  tests,  the  impact  on  EU  citizens  and  domestic 
labour  markets  is  expected  to  be  marginal.  Considering  that  the  preferred  option  will  also 
likely  lead  to  improved  integration  of  TCN  into  the  Member  State  of  residence  while 
contributing  to  more  social  cohesion,  this,  in  turn,  benefits  both  TCN  and  EU  citizens. 
Displacement of EU workers is expected to remain marginal, given that the expected increase 
is very limited and the fact that Member States will continue having the option of conducting 
labour  market  tests  to  determine  the  number  of  TCNs  entering  their  territory  for  work 
purposes and to ensure that the vacancies cannot be filled by EU workers.  

Reducing  downward  pressure on wages and social  dumping.  Lastly, the  preferred option is 
expected to  contribute to improving equal treatment  of  TCNs, by  achieving  a level-playing 
field  regarding  their  employment,  and  in  terms  of  access  to  other  benefits,  such  as  family 
allowances,  access  to  private  housing,  etc.  This  is  expected  to  contribute  to  reducing 
downward  pressure  on  wages  and  social  dumping  practices  resulting  from  their  vulnerable 
employment  position,  and  as  a  result  benefitting  wider  workforces.  This  may  lead  to  fiscal 
benefits from tax collection. 

The preferred option is not expected to entail any costs or disadvantages for EU citizens vis-
à-vis the status quo. 

55 

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

The monitoring and evaluation of the revised Directive will need to be assured at all stages of 
the  policy  cycle (including  implementation,  application  and  evaluation),  assessing  progress 
and achievements against the specific objectives:  

  To simplify admission procedures; 
  To ensure greater efficiency of application procedures for TCNs; 
  To address EU labour shortages; 
  To enhance equal treatment of TCNs with EU citizens; 
  To protect third-country national workers from labour exploitation. 

At the implementation stage, as for all other recasts and new 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.  

Once  the  transposition  period  has  expired,  the  Commission  will  launch  a  conformity 
assessment of the transposition of the amended Directive into national laws in all EU-25.  

In addition, 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 
next phase, namely the application stage.   

During the application stage, the practical  implementation  and functioning of the amended 
Directive will  be  monitored  against  the  specific  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.  Eurostat 
statistics  and  official  national  statistics  should  be  used  as much  as possible to  monitor  the 
issued,  while  existing  EU agencies  and networks,  such 
number  of  single  permits 
as the European Migration Network, can be used to undertake punctual research into themes 
related to single permit.   

To obtain stakeholder views, the Commission could consider launching a Special Barometer 
or a Public Consultation to obtain both quantitative and qualitative inputs. It will also be key 
for the Commission to continue making use of the existing expert groups who have also been 
contributing  to  the  impact  assessment  study.  Finally,  additional  research  may  also  be 
procured, where considered necessary, through public tendering.  

Indicators  to  monitor  progress  made  towards  the  objectives  of  the  initiative  have  been 
identified  on  the  basis  of  the  preferred  policy  option.  The  subsequent  monitoring  and 
evaluation  of  the  Directive  are  important  to  assess  its  efficiency  and  effectiveness  in 
addressing the underlying problems and meeting policy objectives. The table below includes 
a proposed list of indicators that could be used to assess the progress and effectiveness of the 
preferred  option  in  achieving  the  main  policy  objectives,  as  well  as  methods  of  data 
collection. 

Specific objective 

Indicators 

Sources 

56 

 
 
Specific objective 1: To 
simplify admission 
procedures  

Specific objective 2: To 
ensure greater efficiency 
of application procedures 
for TCNs 

Specific objective 3: To 
address EU labour 
shortages 

Specific objective 4: To 
enhance equal treatment 
of TCNs with EU citizens 

1.  Average and maximum administrative 
processing times for a single permit 
application (including additional 
procedures); 

2.  Number of information campaigns carried 

out 

3.  Degree of completeness of public 

information provided 

4.  Degree of coherence and harmonisation of 

Member States rules in regards to 
personal, material scope and equal 
treatment  

5.  Effective and correct transposition and 
application of the revised Directive 

6.  Estimated extent of the sector shortages at 
EU level (job vacancies rate in specific 
sector occupations according to 
employers’ requests)  

7.  Estimated extent of the skill shortages at 
EU/Member State level filled by third-
country workers  

8.  Extent to which equal treatment is granted 

to TCN  

9.  TCN views on equal treatment 
10. Other stakeholder views on equal 

treatment 

Specific objective 5: To 
protect third-country 
national workers from 
labour exploitation 

11. Extent to which Member States have put 
in place appropriate prevention, detection 
and sanction mechanisms to protect TCN 
workers from labour exploitation  

12. Number by Member States of successful 

prosecutions against employers for abuses 
on TCN workers or inadequate working 
conditions suffered by third-country 
workers 

Reporting by Member States 
authorities 

Evaluations of 
practical application of the 
Directive  

Reporting by Member States 
authorities 

Evaluations of 
practical application of the 
Directive  

ESTAT 

Labour Force Survey (LFS)  

Surveys at EU and national level 
(e.g. European Migration 
Network, Eurobarometer) 

Reporting by Member States 
authorities 

Evaluations of 
practical application of the 
Directive  

Consultation with stakeholder 
groups  

Reporting by Member States 
authorities 

Evaluations of 
practical application of the 
Directive  

European Platform for Undeclared 
Work 

57 

 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

10.  10. 

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. 

11.  11. 

ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The Communication for the New Pact on Migration and Asylum of 23 September 2020111 
announced, among various initiatives, a revision of the Single Permit Directive, in order to 
look at ways to simplify and clarify the scope of the legislation, including admission and 
residence conditions for low and medium skilled workers and to address the shortcomings 
identified under the Fitness Check on Legal Migration and its implementation report. 

Additionally, the 2021 Commission Work Programme announced on 19 October 2020 that 
the  revision  of  the  Single  Permit  Directive  is  part  of  the  number  of  measures  to  be 
proposed  on  legal  migration112.  The  proposal  is  included  in  the  Commission  Work 
Programme (Annex II), under the Commission priority “Promoting our European Way of 
Life”.113  

The Inception Impact Assessment report was published on [XXX] 2021.  

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.  

12.  12. 

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.  The  Board  issued  a  positive  opinion  with 
reservations on 25 October 2021. The Board pointed to a number of elements of the impact 
assessment 
the  main 
recommendations  for  improvement,  and  how  they  have  been  addressed  in  this  Impact 
Assessment report.  

that  should  be  addressed.  The 

table  below  summarises 

111  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  

112  COM(2020) 690 final, Commission Work Programme 2021, A Union of vitality in a world of fragility, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar%3A91ce5c0f-12b6-11eb-9a54-

p.7, 
01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF  

113  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  

58 

 
 
 
                                                           
Main 
recommendations 
for improvement 

1.  Clarify the narrow 

scope of the 
revision of the 
Directive 

2.  Explain 

better 

for 

underlying 
reasons 
the 
further 
proposed 
harmonisation  of 
procedure 
the 
into 
taking 
account  differing 
labour-market 
needs 
for 
migration between 
Member States. 

3.  Narrowing down 

and better 
justifying the 
scope of the 
revision. 

4.  Better  analyse  the 
domestic 
labour 
market  impact  of 
the  likely  inflow 
of 
third-country 
nationals. 

5.  Better assess the 
impacts on 

Changes in the Impact Assessment Report 

  The  problem  definition  has  been  revised,  also  based  on  the 
results  of  the  Fitness  check,  and  a  hierarchy  between 
problems  has  been  improved,  with  a  clearer  intervention 
logic linking problems, objectives and options better. 

 

  The  problem  definition  has  been  revised  to  strike  a  better 
balance between focusing on the identified problems and the 
indirect impacts of the lack of action. 
It  has  been  better  clarified  that  a  number  of  the  identified 
problems  result  from  the  implementation  of  the  Directive, 
however  not  as  a  result  of  additional  requirements 
introduced by the Member States, but in terms of duplicating 
procedures  (such  as  by  conducting  a  substantive  analysis 
both  at  the  stage  of  visa  application  and  single  permit 
application on arrival or by requiring third-country nationals 
to apply for a new permit every time they want to change an 
employer.  The  proposed  changes  can  contribute 
to 
alleviating a part of the current administrative burden. 

  Differences in labour market needs between Member States 

have been better reflected. 

  The  issues  and  measures  related  to  self-employed  and  to 
mid-  and  low-skilled  workers  were  discarded  from  the 
outset. 

  The policy options have been revised to follow the thematic 
areas  identified  in  the  problem  definition,  with  the  new 
Option  2  focusing  on  the  simplification  of  the  procedures, 
with  only  soft  law  measures  foreseen  with  regard  to  the 
equal  treatment,  while  Option  3  builds  on  the  measures  of 
Option  2,  but  in  addition  proposes  legislative  changes 
concerning  the  clarification  of  equal  treatment  rights  and 
new provisions aiming at improving the protection of third-
country workers from labour exploitation.. 

  The  baseline  option  has  been  modified  by  reflecting  the 
likely outcomes of the ongoing infringement procedures. 
  The  range  of  assessed  measures  has  been  expanded  to 
consider  alternative  solutions  per  thematic  area,  including 
those  proposed  by  stakeholders  (for  instance  for  sanctions 
and inspections).  

  The  report  has  been  revised  to  contain  a  more  balanced 
depiction  of  possible  impacts  of  the  proposed  targeted 
measures on the attractiveness of the EU labour market as a 
whole,  as  well  as  on  the  Member  States’  domestic  labour 
markets and administrative systems.  

  The  report  has  been  revised  to  contain  a  more  balanced 
depiction  of  possible  impacts  of  the  proposed  targeted 

59 

 
 
national 
administrations. 

6.  Reflect  the  views 
stakeholders 

of 
more 
systematically. 

measures on the Member States’ administrative systems. 
  The  calculation  of  costs  and  costs  savings  for  national 
administrations has been further elaborated in Annex 4. 
  Views  of  stakeholders  have  been  more  systematically  and 
clearly  presented 
report  and  clearly 
considered  in  the  assessment.  The  report  now  clearly 
differentiates  between  the  views  expressed  by  the  member 
types  of  stakeholders.  Visibility  of 
States  and  other 
dissenting opinions has been enhanced. 

throughout 

the 

13.  13. 

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 migration114 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’ portal115. 

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  TCNs  (residing  inside  or  outside  the  EU),  business  associations  and 
organisations,  non-governmental  organisations,  academic/research 
trade 
unions,  ministries,  public  service  entities.  Targeted  consultations  included  competent 
authorities 
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.  The  Inception  Impact  Assessment 
collected the feedback both from the public consultation and targeted consultations.  

institutions, 

in 

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. 

The analysis presented here has been partly constrained by limitations in data availability. 
The  Covid-19  pandemic  had  a  negative  impact  and  caused  distortions  on  the  incoming 
migration  flows  and  the  intra-EU  mobility,  with  led  to  a  limited  amount  of  reliable 

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

60 

 
 
                                                           
migration  statistics  for  the  years  2020-2021.  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".  

61 

 
 
 
 
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 
migration116 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’ portal117. In total, 226 responses were received to the questionnaire and 38 
written contributions from a wide range of actors representing all relevant stakeholders118. 

116  SWD(2019) 1055 final. 
117  https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/content/public-consultation-future-eu-legal-migration_en  
118  Contributions were received from EU citizens, organisations and third-country nationals (residing inside 
the  EU),  business  associations  and  organisations,  non-governmental  organisations, 

or  outside 

62 

 
 
                                                           
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. 

The European Union may, in the coming years, face shortages in certain occupations that 
may create the need to recruit third-country workers, also taking into account the economic 
impact  of  the  COVID-19  crisis.  In  spite  of  the  short-term  economic  impact  due  to  the 
COVID pandemic, it is expected that some of these - structural - shortages will persist in 
the medium and long term. Respondents considered that health professionals (77% or 175 
respondents) were the top shortage occupation; followed by personal care workers (68% or 
154 respondents), agricultural, forestry and fishery labourers (58% or 132 respondents) and 
information and communications technology professionals (51% or 115 respondents).  

Another key theme explored by the Public Consultation was the protection of third-country 
workers' rights and fighting against their exploitation. A majority of respondents strongly 
agreed  or  agreed  on  the  importance  of  developing  horizontal  EU  rules  on  labour 
inspections  and  employers'  sanctions  (77%  or  174  respondents)  and  with  the  idea  that 
through public employment services and the involvement of third-country workers into the 
labour  market  policies  the  EU  should  encourage  the  development  of  targeted  support 
measures  (74%,  or  168  responses).  A  majority  of  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed 
that  the  EU  should  strengthen  its  current  rules  to  sanction  those  employing  and  exploit 
irregular migrants, with 73% (or 166 responses). 

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.  

academic/research institutions, trade unions, ministries, public service entities, religious organisations, a 
law firm and a foundation. 

63 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                
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  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 Network119.  

Ad  hoc  queries  were  also  launched  in  the  framework  of  this  impact  assessment  to  the 
members of the European Migration Network120.  

During  all  targeted  meetings,  the  Commission  presented  the  Single  Permit  Directive's  
main  objectives  and  proposed  a  discussion  on  several  shortcomings  highlighted  in  the 
Fitness  Check  on  legal  migration  and  the  implementation  report  carried  out  it  2019.  In 
addition, the discussions focused on the main concerns relating specifically to the subject 
matters  regulated  by  the  Directive,  as  well  as  recommendations  to  address  them.  Topics 
and areas discussed included: 

 

 
 

 

 

The  simplification  of  the  single  application  procedure  (including  place  of 
application,  timeframes,  labour  market  tests,  the  digitalisation  of  the  application 
procedure and the duplication of effort between authorities); 
The right to equal treatment (including access to housing and family benefits); 
The exclusion of categories of TCNs from the scope of the Directive (namely, self-
employed, posted and seasonal workers); 
The  absence  of  a  harmonised  EU  instrument  for  admission  of  medium-  and  low-
skilled workers; 
The need for protection of TCNs against labour exploitation (including the topic of 
dependency  on  a  single  employer,  as  well  as  provisions  relating  to  inspections, 
monitoring and sanctions against exploitative employers). 

119  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. 

120  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. 

64 

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

3.  Results 

Need for simplification of the single application procedure 
The  majority  of  stakeholders121  perceived  a  need  to  simplify  the  procedure  further  to 
acquire a single permit. On the other hand, most representatives from the Contact Group on 
Legal  Migration  do  not  consider  that  further  simplification  of  the  single  application 
procedure is needed, while only three perceived the opposite.  

The main point shared by representatives from the Contact Group on Legal Migration, the 
EU  legal  migration  practitioners'  network  and  the  Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic 
Migration  is  that  the  application  procedure  should  be  further  simplified  to  avoid 
unnecessary administrative burden linked to a duplication of effort between authorities. 

Concerning  labour market tests,  representatives from  the European Public Employment 
Services  network,  the  Economic  and  Social  Partners  and  the  EU  legal  migration 
practitioners network specified that, while they do not fall under the scope of the Directive, 
labour market tests often further increase the time to process the single permit application. 
In addition, most members of the Contact Group on Legal Migration considered that labour 
market  tests  should  only  be  regulated  at  the  national  level,  with  one  representative 
suggesting  that  the  period  time  needed  to  conduct  the  labour  market  tests  should  not  be 
counted in the timeframe within which the single permit  application should be processed 
and another expressing the view that that the time to conduct the tests should be reduced.  

Regarding  timeframes,  representatives  from  the  Economic  and  Social  Partners,  the 
Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration,  the  European  Public  Employment  Services  network, 
the  Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration  and  the  EU  legal  migration 
practitioners  network  perceived  that  a  limited  timeframe  to  process  single  permit 
applications  should be included in  the revision of the Directive as the current  processing 
times  are  too  long.  In  addition,  representatives  from  the  Civil  Society  and  the  Economic 
and Social Partners recommended introducing a minimum validity period of the permit to 
ensure stability for both employers and employees. 

In addition, representatives from the Economic and Social Partners, the Contact Group on 
Legal  Migration,  Civil  Society  and  the  Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration 
shared the view that the digitalisation of the application procedure could be a solution to 
simplify  administrative  processes.  A  representative  from  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal 
Migration suggested also introducing residence permits in digital form. Members from the 
Civil Society underlined that digitalisation should be implemented as early as possible in 
the application process to avoid requesting information or documentation twice (visa and 
single permit) from the applicant or the employer. 

121  Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the  Views  of  Migrants;  Fifth  meeting  of  the 
Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration (EGEM); Consultation with representatives of the Civil 
Society;  Second  meeting  of  the  EU  legal  migration  practitioners’  network;  Consultation  with  the 
Economic and Social Partners; Consultation of the European Public Employment Services network 

65 

 
 
                                                           
Concerning  the  place  of  application,  representatives  from  the  Economic  and  Social 
Partners, the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, Civil Society and the 
EU  legal  migration  practitioners'  network  expressed  the  view  that  the  revised  Directive 
should include the possibility for TCNs already residing in a Member State to apply for a 
permit directly in that Member State. 

Equal treatment 

Regarding  the  right  to  equal  treatment,  representatives  from  the  Civil  Society  and  the 
Economic  and  Social  Partners  perceived  that  among  the  key  challenges  is  the  lack  of 
implementation  of  some  parts  of  the  Directive  and  the possibility  to exclude  certain 
aspects of social protection. In this sense, Civil Society representatives underlined that the 
creation of consistency in the area of social security and social assistance rights requires a 
horizontal approach and not a step-by-step approach in each individual Directive. 

In addition, the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants underlined a need to 
explicitly  include  in  the  Directive  the  possibility  to  open  a  procedure  against  national 
authorities in discrimination cases. It was also recommended that the lack of enforcement 
of  the  Directive  in  terms  of  equal  treatment  should  be  addressed  by  including  an 
"accountability  mechanism",  which  includes  a  conformity  assessment  and  work  with 
contact groups on the monitoring of its implementation. 

Finally, a representative  from  the EU legal  migration practitioners' network reported that 
regarding equal treatment in the area of housing in their Member State, access is limited 
as only persons with a permanent address may be eligible to make use of public housing 
opportunities,  while  TCNs  who  have  a  single  permit,  are  automatically  excluded  from 
public housing opportunities. Members of the network also underlined that the situation of 
family members of single permit holders needs to be addressed in the revised Directive. 
In  some  cases,  family  members  of  single  permit  holders  are  not  entitled  to  access  a 
Member  State's  healthcare  system  and  have  to  therefore  subscribe  to  private  insurance 
policies  that  might  have  insufficient  coverage.  It  was  also  recommended  that  the  revised 
Directive  clarifies  the  situation  where  single  permit  holders  are  not  entitled  to  be 
accompanied by their underage children.  

Exclusion of categories of TCNs 

Views on the inclusion of self-employed TCNs in the scope of the Directive varied among 
stakeholders. According to representatives of the Commission Expert Group on the Views 
of  Migrants  and  of  the  Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration,  the  definition  of 
self-employed workers is  not  clear and should be clarified before  extending the scope of 
the Directive122. 

122  Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the  Views  of  Migrants;  Fifth  meeting  of  the 

Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration (EGEM). 

66 

 
 
                                                           
A number of stakeholders supported the idea of extending the scope of the Directive to 
self-employed  TCNs123.  In  particular,  representatives  from  the  EU  legal  migration 
practitioners' network underlined that because self-employed TCNs are excluded from the 
scope of the Directive, this creates situations where the latter are compelled to enter fake 
employment  contracts.    In  addition,  a  representative  from  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal 
Migration highlighted that the possibility to include self-employed workers in the scope of 
the Directive should be done on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, while all Civil Society 
representatives  agreed  that  attracting  self-employed  TCNs  would  have  EU  added  value, 
some  suggested  being  cautious,  as,  in  situations  where  there  is  no  regular  pathway  to 
access employment, TCNs might choose to apply as self-employed when they are actually 
employees, which lead to further abuse and exploitation. 

Among those that opposed the idea of revising the scope of the  Directive to include self-
employed TCNs, representatives from the European Public Employment Services network 
underlined that this category should remain regulated at the national level. In addition, 
members of the Contact  Group on  Legal  Migration pointed out  that the category of self-
employed workers covers a wide range of working fields, making it difficult to harmonise 
legislation in this area and that the latter could be covered by the Blue Card Directive or 
the Long-term Residents Directive. 

Concerning other categories excluded from the scope of the Directive, representatives from 
the  Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration  and  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal 
Migration considered that the Directive should also include posted workers to harmonise 
procedural rights. In addition, Economic and Social Partners perceive that the exclusion of 
seasonal workers from the scope of the Directive needs to be also addressed.  

Absence of a harmonised EU instrument for admission of medium- and low-skilled 
workers 

Views on the conditions for medium and low-skilled workers varied among stakeholders. 
Representatives from the Commission Expert Group on the Views of Migrants perceived 
that  there  is  a  need  to  further  simplify  the  single  permit  procedure  by  introducing  a 
single  set  of  admission  conditions  for  low  and  middle-skilled  TCN  workers  in  the 
Directive. In addition, while some members of the Economic and Social Partners supported 
the  idea  of  facilitating  the  procedures  for  these  categories  of  workers,  stressing  the 
importance  of  simplifying  their  admission  in  view  of  skills  shortages,  others  argued  that 
the  EU  already  attracts  low  and  middle-skilled  workers  and  hence  there  is  no  need  for 
further  facilitation  of  the  procedures.  With  the  exception  of  one  Member  State,  most 
representatives  from  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration  perceived  that  no  change  is 
needed  regarding  the  admission  conditions  for  low  and  medium-skilled  workers  as  they 
are  already  covered  by  the  Directive.  It  was  further  elaborated  that  in  all  categories,  no 
differentiation should be made between low, medium, and high-skilled TCN workers, 
a  view  also  supported  by  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  the  Views  of  Migrants. 

123  Consultation  with  representatives  of  the  Civil  Society;  Second  meeting  of  the  EU  legal  migration 
practitioners’  network;  Consultation  with  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration  (only  4  members 
underlined that self-employed TCNs need to be included in the scope of the Directive). 

67 

 
 
                                                           
Representatives  from  the  Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration  shared  the 
view  that  there  is  no  need  to  have  a  common  approach  to  proactively  attract  low  and 
medium-skilled  workers  and  that  a  sectoral  approach  could  be  explored  in  the  case  of 
these  workers,  underlining  that  it  would  be  relevant  to  decide  at  EU  level  which  are  the 
sectors where the issuance of the permit would benefit from more streamlined procedures. 
Finally, members of the Civil Society considered that the ILO classification concerning the 
low  and  medium-skilled  workers  should  be  re-evaluated,  with  some  representatives 
advising to avoid these terms as they carry a negative connotation.  

Protection against labour exploitation 
The  majority  of  stakeholders124  perceived  that,  in  terms  of  protection  against  labour 
exploitation, the topic of permits being issued and valid in relation to a single employer 
should be addressed in a future revision of the Directive.  

Among  the  issues  underlined  by  stakeholders  in  relation  to  the  dependency  on  a  single 
employer  are  the  increased  vulnerability  of  TCNs  as  it  could  prevent  them  from 
complaining  about  abusive  working  conditions  (Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the 
Views of Migrants; Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration; Economic and Social 
Partners), the loss of the single permit when TCNs lose their jobs (Economic and Social 
Partners;  EU  legal  migration  practitioners'  network)  and  preventing  employees  from 
changing  employers  and  evolving  within  the  same  company  (EU  legal  migration 
practitioners network). 

In  this  sense,  representatives  from  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  the  Views  of 
Migrants,  the  EU  legal  migration  practitioners'  network  and  the  Economic  and  Social 
Partners  shared  the  view  that  the  revised  Directive  should  introduce  a  period  of  time 
during which unemployed TCNs are allowed to look for other opportunities without 
risking to  lose their permit.  In  addition,  members of the Civil  Society  and the Economic 
and Social Partners highlighted that it is important to ensure  the possibility of changing 
employers, which should allow a change of occupation and employment sector.  

On the other hand, most Contact Group members on Legal Migration considered that the 
link  to  a  single  employer  is  necessary,  highlighting  arguments  such  as  the  fact  that  the 
single permit is granted to fill a specific gap in the labour market and that labour migration 
is demand-driven. Nevertheless, two members saw room for more flexibility, underlining 
that the link to a single employer imposes a burden on immigration authorities in the event 
of  a  change  of  employer  and  suggests  that  the  transfer  of  "responsibility"  to  another 
employer changes jobs is facilitated.  

Views  on  the  provisions  relating  to  inspections,  monitoring  and  sanctions  against 
exploitative  employers  varied  among  stakeholders.  For  instance,  some  representatives 
from  the  Informal  Expert  Group  on  Economic  Migration  considered  that  the  need  for  a 

124  Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the  Views  of  Migrants;  Fifth  meeting  of  the 
Informal Expert Group on Economic Migration (EGEM); Consultation with representatives of the Civil 
Society;  Second  meeting  of  the  EU  legal  migration  practitioners’  network;  Consultation  with  the 
Economic and Social Partners. 

68 

 
 
                                                           
European  approach  to  protection  against  labour  exploitation  is  disputable  as  there  are 
already rules at the national level for the protection, inspections, monitoring, and sanctions. 
Moreover,  more  coordination  between  the  European  Labour  Authority  and  the  National 
Labour law enforcement should be enough. Other members shared the view that concerns 
about exploitation could also be addressed in the context of the revision of the Directive, 
suggesting  that  the  different  procedures  and  good  practices  of  Member  States  are 
embedded  in  the  revised  Directive.  In  addition,  representatives  from  the  Commission 
Expert Group on the Views of Migrants, the EU legal migration practitioners' network, the 
Economic  and  Social  Partners  and  the  Contact  Group  on  Legal  Migration  expressed 
concerns  regarding  increasing  inspections  and  sanctions,  as  this  could  have  a  negative 
effect  on  TCNs  as  it  might  lead  to  more  underground  work  and  exploitation  or  make 
employers reluctant to hire a TCN. With regard to monitoring mechanisms, members of 
the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  the  Views  of  Migrants  expressed  the  view  that  NGOs 
and trade unions should be included in monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, while the 
Economic  and  Social  Partners  underlined  that  specific  attention  should  be  paid  to 
professions  for  which  a  monitoring  system  is  difficult  to  implement,  such  as  domestic 
workers in private households.  

1.  Direct feedback on the inception impact assessment 

Direct input received on the inception impact assessment stressed the need for streamlined 
and  efficient  procedures,  stability  and  legal  certainty  for  migrant  workers,  possibility  of 
lodging 
in-country  applications.  Civil  Society  representatives  expressed  concerns 
regarding  a  full  amendment  of  the  Directive  due  to  the  risk  that  Member  States  might 
suggest modifications which would entail more restrictive measures.  

2.  Conclusion 

The  findings  from  the  targeted  consultation  meetings  showed  several  shortcomings  that 
need to be addressed in the revised Directive, according to stakeholders. 

Regarding the single application procedure, the majority of stakeholders perceived a need 
to  simplify  the  procedure  further  to  acquire  a  single  permit.  Among  the  points  raised  by 
representatives in favour of simplifying the single application procedure were: 

  Simplifying 

the  application  procedure  could  prevent 
administrative burden linked to a duplication of effort between authorities. 

the  unnecessary 

  Regarding labour market  tests,  the view was raised by some representatives that 
they  often  further  increase  the  time  to  process  the  single  permit  application  and 
that they should only be regulated at the national level. 

  A  limited  timeframe  to  process  single  permit  applications  should  be  included  in 

the revision of the Directive as the current processing times are too long. 

  The  digitalisation  of  the  application  procedure  could  be  a  solution  to  simplify 

administrative processes.  

69 

 
 
  Concerning  the  place  of  application,  representatives  expressed  the  view  that  the 
revised  Directive  should  include  the  possibility  for  TCNs  already  residing  in  a 
Member State to apply for a permit directly in that Member State. 

Concerning  the  right  to  equal  treatment,  representatives  perceived  that  among  the  key 
challenges is the lack of implementation of some parts of the Directive and the possibility 
to  exclude  certain  aspects  of  social  protection.  Among  the  recommendations  shared  by 
stakeholders  were  undertaking  a  horizontal  approach  in  the  area  of  social  security  and 
social  assistance  and  addressing  the  lack  of  enforcement  by  including  an  "accountability 
mechanism". 

In  addition,  the  definition  of  self-employed  workers  is  not  clear  and  should  be  clarified 
before  extending  the  scope  of  the  Directive  according  to  some  stakeholders.  Those  who 
supported  the  idea  of  extending  the  scope  of  the  Directive  to  self-employed  TCNs 
underlined  that  under  the  current  situation,  these  workers  are  compelled  to  enter  fake 
employment  contracts.    Among  those  that  opposed  the  idea  of  revising  the  scope  of  the 
Directive  to  include  self-employed  TCNs,  it  was  highlighted  that  this  category  should 
remain regulated at the national level. Some stakeholders also perceived that the Directive 
should also include posted workers to harmonise procedural rights  and that the exclusion 
of seasonal workers from the scope of the Directive needs to be also addressed.  

Views  on  the  conditions  for  medium  and  low-skilled  workers  varied  greatly  among 
stakeholders,  with  some  perceiving  there  is  a  need  to  further  simplify  the  single  permit 
procedure  by  introducing  a  single  set  of  admission  conditions  for  these  workers  in  the 
Directive.  Other  stakeholders  argued  that  the  EU  already  attracts  low  and  middle-skilled 
workers and hence there is no need for further facilitation of the procedures. Another point 
shared  on  the  topic  underlined  that  no  differentiation  should  be  made  between  low, 
medium, and high-skilled TCN workers. Stakeholders also shared the recommendation to 
undertake  a  sectoral  approach  in  the  case  of  these  workers,  underlining  that  it  would  be 
relevant to decide at EU level which are the sectors where the issuance of the permit would 
benefit from more streamlined procedures.  

Finally, in terms of protection against labour exploitation, the topic of permits being issued 
and valid in relation to a single employer should be addressed in a future revision of the 
Directive  according  to  stakeholders,  who  underlined  issues  such  as  the  increased 
vulnerability  of  TCNs,  the  loss  of  the  single  permit  when  they  lose  their  jobs  and  the 
inability  to  change  employers  and  evolve  within  the  same  company.  It  was  also 
recommended  that  the  revised  Directive  introduces  a  period  of  time  during  which 
unemployed TCNs are allowed to look for other opportunities without risking losing their 
permit  and  that  it  ensures  the  possibility  of  changing  employers,  which  should  allow  a 
change of occupation and employment sector. Among those who considered that the link to 
a  single  employer  is  necessary,  arguments  such  as  the  issuance  of  a  single  permit  in 
relation  to  a specific  gap in  the labour market  and demand-driven labour migration were 
raised.  

70 

 
 
Views  on  the  provisions  relating  to  inspections,  monitoring  and  sanctions  against 
exploitative  employers  also  varied  among  stakeholders,  with  some  considering  that  the 
need  for  a  European  approach  to  protection  against  labour  exploitation  is  disputable  as 
there are already rules at the national level for the protection, inspections, monitoring, and 
sanctions. Other stakeholders shared the view that concerns about exploitation could also 
be  addressed  in  the  context  of  the  revision  of  the  Directive,  suggesting  that  the  different 
procedures  and  good  practices  of  Member  States  are  embedded  in  the  revised  Directive. 
Concerns  regarding  increasing  inspections  and  sanctions  were  expressed,  underlining  the 
possible  negative  effects  on  TCNs.  It  was  finally  recommended  that  NGOs  and  trade 
unions are included in monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. 

71 

 
 
Annex 3: Who is affected and how? 

14.  14. 

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

Third country nationals already residing in, or considering migrating to, the EU are negatively 
affected by the shortcomings of the current complex EU immigration system, which results in 
administrative burden, lengthy waiting times, uncertainty and confusion as to applicable rules 
and outcomes, or may even discourage them from  applying.  Limited sets of rights  limit  the 
EU’s permit attractiveness in their eyes. 

Countries  of  origin  can  be  positively  affected  through  brain  gain,  circular  migration  and 
increasing remittance flows.  

EU  employers,  including  big  employers,  start-ups  and  SMEs,  can  be  positively  affected  as 
they currently face limitations and excessive (administrative) burden when attempting to hire 
TCNs and address skills shortages. 

National,  regional  and  local  authorities  of  Member  States,  including  ministries,  consulates, 
embassies,  can  be  positively  affected  by  streamlining  procedures  to  avoid  duplications  and 
better informed single permit applications. 

Indirectly, EU citizens are also negatively affected by the current situation as the EU’s labour 
migration  system,  in  addition  to  other  obstacles,  insufficiently  contributes  to  tackling  skills 
shortages,  demographic  ageing  and  increasing  old-age  dependency  ratio  efficiently.  This 
affects the financial viability of the Member States’ welfare systems. 

15.  15. 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

The tables below present the estimated costs and benefits associated with the preferred option 
(“moderate  legislative  intervention”).  Benefits  are  mainly  in  the  form  of  direct  cost  savings 
across  three  distinct  groups:  TCNs,  employers  and  national  authorities.  On  the  other  hand, 
costs  were  mainly  identified  for  national  authorities  and  include  both  one-off  and  recurring 
costs.  Where  applicable,  a  wide  range  is  obtained  owing  to  significant  differences  in  the 
extent  of  cost  savings  estimated  across  policy  actions/  measures  driven  in  part  by  differing 
assumptions around the number of affected applications – see Annex 4 for more details. 

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

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Direct benefits 

Cost savings 
(application costs) 

Cost savings are estimated to be in 
the order of EUR 11.0 million 
every year (over a ten-year period).  

These cost savings would accrue to third-
country nationals (TCNs) as a result of a direct 
reduction in application costs (Measure 2.1) 

Please note that all  figures are 
rounded to the nearest million) 

Cost savings are estimated to be in 
the order of EUR 3.0 million every 
year (over a ten-year period).  

These cost savings would accrue to employers 
as a result of a direct reduction in application 
costs (Measure 2.1) 

72 

 
 
 
Cost savings (reduced 
time spent) 

Please note that all  figures are 
rounded to the nearest million) 

Cost savings are estimated to range 
between EUR 89.0 million and 
EUR 278.0 million every year (over 
a ten-year period).  

Please note that all  figures are 
rounded to the nearest million) 

Cost savings are estimated to range 
between EUR 22.0 million and 
EUR 70.0 million every year (over 
a ten-year period).  

Please note that all  figures are 
rounded to the nearest million) 

Cost savings are estimated to range 
between EUR 200,000 (rounded to 
the nearest 100,000) and EUR 4.0 
million (rounded to the nearest 
million) every year (over a ten-year 
period).  

These cost savings would accrue to TCNs as a 
result of a reduction in fees associated with and 
the time spent on the application process 
(Measures 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 3.1). A wide 
range is obtained owing to significant differences 
in the extent of cost savings estimated across 
policy actions/ measures (driven in part by 
differing assumptions around the number of 
affected applicants/ applications) 

These cost savings would accrue to employers 
as a result of a reduction in the fees associated 
with and the time spent on the application 
process (Measures 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 3.1). A 
wide range is obtained owing to significant 
differences in the extent of cost savings 
estimated across policy actions/ measures (driven 
in part by differing assumptions around the 
number of affected applications)  

These cost savings would accrue to national 
authorities as a result of a reduction in the time 
spent on the application process (Measures 2.1, 
1.2, 2.3, 2.4). A wide range is obtained owing to 
significant differences in the extent of cost 
savings estimated across policy actions/ 
measures (driven in part by differing 
assumptions around the number of affected 
applications)  

Cost savings (reduced 
travel costs) 

Cost savings are estimated to be in 
the order of EUR 137.0 million 
every year (over a ten-year period).  

These cost savings will be primarily entailed by 
Measure 2.1 (on place of application). These 
costs are assumed to be borne by TCNs only. 

Cost savings (reduced 
intermediary fees) 

Cost savings are estimated to be in 
the order of EUR 106.0 million 
every year (over a ten-year period).  

These cost savings will be primarily entailed by 
Measure 2.1 (on place of application) for TCNs.  

Cost savings are estimated to be in 
the order of EUR 25.0 million 
every year (over a ten-year period).  

These cost savings will be primarily entailed by 
Measure 2.1 (on place of application) for 
employers.  

Cost savings (reduction 
in other application-

Cost savings are estimated to be in 
the order of EUR 14.0 million 

These cost savings will be primarily entailed by 
Measure 2.1 (on place of application) for TCNs.  

73 

 
 
 
 
 
related fees) 

every year (over a ten-year period).  

Cost savings are estimated to be in 
the order of EUR 4.0 million every 
year (over a ten-year period).  

These cost savings will be primarily entailed by 
Measure 2.1 (on place of application) for 
employers.  

Indirect benefits 

Economic impacts 

An increase in tax revenue by EUR 
1.3 billion  

Based on a linear evolution of the number of 
single permits issued over the next 10 years, 
and an increase resulting from the preferred 
option (5%). 

Increased additional earnings by 
about EUR 13.2 billion 

As above 

Increased consumption by about 
EUR 5.7 billion 

As above 

Resulting in a total economic 
benefit to the EU of about EUR 18.3 
billion. 

As above 

Economic impacts for 
third countries 

Remittances are expected to 
increase by approximately 2.0 
billion. 

As above 

II. Overview of costs (by provision) – Preferred option (in EUR) 

Third-country 
nationals  

Employers 

National authorities 

One-off  Recurrent 

One-off  Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

0 

0 

0 

0 

150,000 - 
2,000,000 

20,000 - 200,000 
(70,000) 

(500,000) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

102,000 - 
2,000,000 
(500,000) 

10,000 - 100,000 
(40,000) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Policy 
measure 2.1 

Policy 
measure 2.2 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

74 

 
 
 
Policy 
Measure 
2.3 

Policy 
Measure 
2.4 

Policy 
Measure 
3.1 

Policy 
Measure 
3.2 

Policy 
Measure 
3.3 

Policy 
Measure 
3.4 

Policy 
Measure 
3.5 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

0 

0 

0 

0 

200,000 - 
600,000 
(200,000) 

20,000 - 200,000 
(40,000) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

800,000 - 
3,000,000 
(1,000,000)  

20,000 - 300,000 
(90,000) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

 Up to 600,000  20,000 - 200,000 

(60,000) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Up to 100,000 

5,000 - 50,000 
(11,000) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

200,000 - 
700,000 
(300,000) 

21,000 - 250,000 
(50,000) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

200,000 - 
900,000 
(400,000) 

300,000 - 
12,000,000 
(2,000,000) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

n/a125 

n/a126 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

125 Quantification was not possible 
126 Quantification was not possible 

75 

 
                                                           
Policy 
Measure 
3.6 

Policy 
Measure 
3.7 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

0 

0 

0 

0 

n/a127 

n/a128 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

300,000 - 
2,000,000 
(1,000,000) 

40,000 - 400,000 
(100,000) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Note:  average  estimates  are  provided  in  brackets.  Please  note  that  estimates  have  been 
reported to the nearest ten thousand, hundred thousand or million (as necessary) 

127 Quantification was not possible 
128 Quantification was not possible 

76 

 
 
 
                                                           
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.  

Annex  6  of  the  study  accompanying  this  impact  assessment  includes  the  assumptions  and 
methods used to estimate the costs and economic impacts of each measure and policy option, 
as well as Excel tables with detailed calculations. 

General  

For  the  assessment  of  the  policy  options  and  policy  measures,  the  following  main  baseline 
assumption has been made: 

Without  EU  action,  the  number  of  single  permit  holders  (stock  and  flow)  will  evolve  in  a 
linear way, based on extrapolation using Eurostat statistics from 2013129-2019130.  

Whilst a lot has been published on how migration to the EU could evolve after the COVID-19 
pandemic,  views  expressed  in  literature  and  by  experts  vary  greatly.  For  example,  a 
Commission study from 2020131 noted that the anticipated global economic downturn due to 
COVID-19 and the forecasted uneven speed of recovery across world regions may provide an 
incentive to for more third-country nationals to migrate to Europe, however no estimate was 
provided. Initial 2020 data on the issuance of residence permits provide a mixed picture, with 
some  Member  States  witnessing  a  strong  reduction  in  permits  issued  and  others  seeing  an 
increase  instead.  Another  study  assessing  possible  immigration  scenarios  noted  that  experts 
expect  an  increase  in  migration  towards  the  EU  between  21%  and  44%  from  the  recorded 
average  annual  figure  for  the  2008-2017  period,  especially  in  future  scenarios  in  which 
countries  cooperate  multilaterally.  A  stronger  increase  is  expected  with  regard  to  highly 
skilled immigration. Overall, however, the study emphasises that experts are not confident in 
their responses, and disagree substantially on the size of international migration. Given these 
divergences and uncertainty, a linear trend has been chosen, which envisages a slightly lower 
number of third-country  nationals being granted a single permit than was the trend over the 

129  No earlier data is available 
130  At  the  time  of  data  extraction  and  up  to  end  August  2021,  only  partial  and  not  yet  final  2020  data  was 

available on Eurostat, which meant that it could not be used for the purpose of this study. 

131  Focus on the impact of COVID-19 on migratory flows, asylum, smuggling and returns, study for internal use 

only 

77 

 
                                                           
last  two  years  before  the  Covid-19  crisis  (2018  and  2019)  based  on  a  lower  take-up  in 
previous years, which still results in a more than doubling of the number of permit issuances 
over a 10-year period.  

78 

 
Figure 1. Single permits baseline extrapolated based on 2018 and 2019 data 

Source of underlying data: Eurostat 

2020 
523.647 

Baseline scenario (linear trend assumed) 
2024 
801.158 

2023 
731.780 

2022 
662.402 

2021 
593.025 

2025 
870.535 

2026 
939.913 

2027 
1.009.291 

2028 
1.078.668 

2029 
1.148.046 

2030 
1.217.424 

9.575.888 

Accumulated 

Net effects compared to 
baseline 

Increase in SPH by 2.5% 

2020 
536.738 

2021 
607.850 

2022 
678.962 

2023 
750.074 

2024 
821.187 

2025 
892.299 

2026 
963.411 

2027 
1.034.523 

2028 
1.105.635 

2029 
1.176.747 

2030 
1.247.859 

9.815.285 

239.397 

Increase in SPH by 5% 
2020 
549.829 

2021 
622.676 

2022 
695.522 

2023 
768.369 

2024 
841.215 

2025 
914.062 

2026 
986.909 

2027 
1.059.755 

2028 
1.132.602 

2029 
1.205.448 

2030 
1.278.295 

10.054.682 

478.794 

79 

TIME201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030European Union - 27 countries (from 2020)192.285261.534371.572532.531523.647593.025662.402731.780801.158870.535939.9131.009.2911.078.6681.148.0461.217.424Belgium:::::::::::::::Bulgaria1391452774724485195916627338058769471.0191.0901.161Czechia5.63112.202:::14.75318.49322.23325.973:::29.71333.45437.194Denmark:::::::::::::::Germany (until 1990 former territory of the FRG)37.70350.87865.549160.575:143.203167.338191.473215.608239.743263.878:288.012312.147336.282Estonia1.3391.5321.7912.1022.3092.5472.7853.0233.2613.4993.7373.9754.2134.4514.689Ireland:::::::::::::::Greece0:0:::00:0:::00Spain32.89933.58940.15549.46541.19941.56741.93642.30542.67343.04243.41143.77944.14844.51644.885France20.92123.14328.59066.26754.46961.56768.66675.76482.86289.96097.058104.157111.255118.353125.451Croatia2.4236.54223.75446.586:43.79452.47661.15869.84078.52187.203:95.885104.567113.249Italy2.9191.9111.7751.745:-4.484-7.485-10.487-13.489-16.491-19.492:-22.494-25.496-28.498Cyprus7.2388.0689.63210.505:10.51011.10011.69112.28212.87313.463:14.05414.64515.235Latvia1.7302.1253.5904.412:4.8075.5036.1986.8947.5908.285:8.9819.67610.372Lithuania3.0007.0979.14817.911::19.69723.73227.76731.80135.836::39.87043.905Luxembourg6271.0981.2431.556:1.7511.9932.2352.4772.7192.961:3.2043.4463.688Hungary5.70714.26431.41738.511:43.19250.94958.70666.46374.22081.978:89.73597.492105.249Malta3.0105.4469.91112.441:14.11316.52718.94221.35623.77026.184:28.59931.01333.427Netherlands6001.3331.6552.511:2.6093.0073.4053.8034.2004.598:4.9965.3945.792Austria::02.658::0::5.3167.974::0:Poland32.38243.15158.87261.63876.21987.51298.805110.098121.391132.684143.977155.270166.563177.856189.149Portugal4.9836.60720.12920.11120.29722.89225.48628.08030.67433.26835.86238.45641.05143.64546.239Romania1.3672.4484.14114.51210.75212.54114.33016.11917.90819.69721.48623.27525.06426.85328.642Slovenia6.90312.23520.93820.271::27.58232.60937.63642.66447.691::52.71857.746Slovakia1.8525.35711.07216.087:16.94520.03723.12826.22029.31132.403:35.49438.58641.677Finland5.4406.2786.41315.137:12.84814.46416.08117.69819.31420.931:22.54824.16425.781Sweden13.47216.08521.520:21.05522.72424.39326.06227.73129.400:31.06932.73834.40736.076 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
Costs and cost savings 

The costs and possible cost-savings that the policy measures are expected to trigger have been 
calculated  by  three  main  stakeholder  groups,  namely  1)  national  authorities,  2)  employers  / 
businesses  and  3)  third-country  nationals.  Where  possible,  the  specific  costs  per  Member 
State were estimated, based also on evidence as to whether the policy measure would require 
a significant change in a Member State or not.  

For each policy option assessed in the main body of the report, a cost range has been provided 
per  cost  category  (one-off  /  recurrent  costs  or  costs  savings  per  main  stakeholder  group 
above). This  range is  based on an  extraction of the minimum  and maximum  values of  each 
cost  category  across  the  policy  measures  included  in  the  policy  option.  As  these  ranges  are 
wide, they can also accommodate moderate increases in the number of single permits issued 
which  go  beyond  the  baseline  (such  as  the  range  of  2.5-5%  used  to  calculate  the  economic 
impacts, as detailed further below). 

Estimation of costs / cost savings for national authorities 

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

Number of hours taken per FTE * number of FTEs * hourly wages * number of authorities 
affected 

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 own assumptions. Such activities are not dependent 
on the number of affected applications; hence they are not included in the above formula. 

The following sources and assumptions were used: 

  Hourly wages were sourced from Eurostat (“Mean hourly earnings by sex, economic 
activity  and  collective  pay  agreement”  [EARN_SES18_12__custom_1049436]; 
selection: “Public administration and defence; compulsory social security; education; 
human  health  and  social  work  activities;  arts,  entertainment  and  recreation;  other 
service activities”) 

  Number of affected authorities: assumed there are on average two authorities involved 

(e.g. agencies/ authorities dealing with immigration and employment matters) 

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

Number  of  hours  saved  per  application  *  number  of  FTEs/  application  *  hourly  wages 
*number of affected applications * number of authorities affected 

Typically cost savings for national authorities would be in the form of reduced time spent on 
processing  applications  (notably  as  a  result  of  simpler/  streamlined  application  procedures). 
The number of hours saved varied by measures, but was overall based on assumptions around 
the difference in current processing times (sourced primarily from the Fitness check on legal 
migration  and  EMN  ad-hoc  queries)  and  those  when  following  the  requirements  laid  out  in 
the policy measures. 

The following sources and assumptions were used: 

80 

 
  Hourly wages were sourced from Eurostat (“Mean hourly earnings by sex, economic 
activity  and  collective  pay  agreement”  [EARN_SES18_12__custom_1049436]; 
selection: “Public administration and defence; compulsory social security; education; 
human  health  and  social  work  activities;  arts,  entertainment  and  recreation;  other 
service activities”) 

  The  number  of  FTEs  per  application:  one  FTE  will  likely  look  after  multiple 
applications.  The  assumption  is:  0.0008  FTE/application  (based  on  own  calculations 
and data from Finland in the Fitness check) 

  The number of affected authorities: assumed there are at most two authorities involved 

(e.g. agencies/ authorities dealing with immigration and employment matters). 

Estimation of costs savings for employers and third-country nationals 

General cost savings across policy measures for third-country nationals/ employers include: 

1) Application cost savings (e.g., not having to complete a visa application):  

  Data were sourced on average visa/ application fees132 (primary source: Fitness Check 
on  legal  migration)  and  the  number  of  (potentially)  affected  applications/  applicants 
(primary source: Eurostat data – “Single Permits issued by type of decision, length of 
validity  [MIGR_RESSING__custom_1048120]”.  Linear  extrapolation  was  used  to 
obtain indicatives figures of applications over the period 2020-2030)133.  

  A  general  assumption  was  made  that  80%  of  all  applications  are  made  by  third-

country nationals themselves, the remaining 20% by employers 

  Cost savings were calculated as:  

Averaged visa / application fee * affected applications * 0.8 (third-country nationals) 

Averaged visa / application fee * affected applications * 0.2 (Employers) 

  These  cost  savings  were  assumed  to  occur  in  affected  Member  States  only  – 
determined  by  data  gathered  on  Member  States  that  are  not  yet  doing  what  the  new 
law mandates (primarily sourced from EMN data queries). Those Member States that 
already satisfy the requirements of the new rules were excluded from the calculation 
of cost savings 

2) Time savings (typically resulting from reduced time spent on visa/ permit applications):  

  Data were sourced on average time taken to complete an application, mainly from the 
Fitness  Check  on  legal  migration  (including  gathering  the  necessary  supporting 
documents  and  waiting  for  an  outcome  –  proxy  data  were  used  for  waiting  times 

132  Data may not have been available for all affected Member States but only a few. These estimates were used 

to calculate an average and used for Member States where data were not available. 

133  Please  note  that  further  assumptions  were  made,  where  necessary,  as  regards  the  number  of  affected 
applications – for example, in the context of Measure 3.1, not all applicants are required to apply for a visa 
(before the single permit application) – some third countries have special agreements with the Member States 
exempting  TCNs  from  a  visa  application.  It  is  therefore  assumed  that  25%  of  all  applications  would  be 
affected. 

81 

 
                                                           
drawing  on  data  available  on  time  taken  to  process  applications  by  national 
authorities) 

  Assumptions (drawing on expert judgment or actual wording of new law) were made 
as  regards  the  reduction  in  the  time  it  would  take  to  complete  an  application  once  a 
specific  measure  comes  into  effect  (e.g.  Member  States  would  need  to  process 
applications within a four-month timeframe, i.e. 4* 30 or about 120 days) 

  Data on hourly wages were sourced from Eurostat (“Labour cost levels by NACE Rev. 
2 
“Industry, 
construction  and  services  (except  public  administration,  defence,  compulsory  social 
security)”  

activity”[LC_LCI_LEV__custom_1078329]; 

selection  made: 

  Data  on  affected  applications  sourced  from  Eurostat  (see  previous  bullet  point). 
Depending  on  the  measure,  assumed  that  all  or  a  certain  proportion  of  applications 
would be affected 

  Time/ cost savings were calculated as:  

Number of  hours  saved * affected applications* 0.8 * foregone hourly wages (third-
country nationals) 

Number  of  hours  saved  *  affected  applications*  0.2  *  foregone  hourly  wages 
(employers) 

3) Travel cost savings (e.g., from being able to complete an application within the territory of 
a Member States):  

  Savings  assumed  to  accrue  in  Member  States  which  do  not  allow  third-country 
nationals  to  apply  within  their  territory  and  require  visas  (sourced  from  EMN  data 
queries).  

  Assumption made on proportion of applicants who have to travel back to apply from 

their home country  

  Data on travel fares sourced from air travel platforms – estimates gathered on average 
cost of a two-way ticket from Europe to the other continents. An overall average air 
fare across all continents was used.  

 

It was assumed that air fares are borne by third-country nationals themselves 

  Travel cost savings calculated as: 

Average travel costs / air fares * affected applications 

4) Other cost savings (e.g., not having to pay intermediary fees, not having to pay additional 
application- related fees – e.g. certification of documents, etc.):  

  Data  on  such  fees  gathered  from  (i)  Fitness  Check  on  legal  migration;  and  (ii) 

additional desk research (e.g. 2015 UNODC paper, 2019 FRA paper) 

  Again, specific assumptions were made regarding the number of affected applications 

depending on the measure under investigation 

82 

 
  Cost savings calculated as: 

Average fee saved * affected applications *0.8 (third-country nationals) 

Average fee saved * affected applications *0.2 (Employers) 

Reporting costs/ cost savings across policy options 

Each policy option comprises a package of policy measures. Reporting costs/ cost savings at 
policy  option  level  proved  challenging  as  cost  items  were  generally  repeated/  duplicated 
across  policy  measures  (e.g.  transposition  costs,  monitoring  costs,  etc.)  and  could  not 
therefore  be  aggregated.  To  avoid  double-counting,  it  was  decided  to  report  ranges.  Hence, 
the estimates reported across policy options should be treated as ballpark figures/ ranges, i.e. 
they  provide  a  mere  indication  of  the  extent  of  actual  costs/  cost  savings  associated  with  a 
particular option.  

The range of figures reported for one-off vs recurring costs and cost savings (across the policy 
options)  are  based  on  minimum  and  maximum  cost/  cost  savings  estimates  gathered  from 
estimations across policy measures. Average figures are often reported, though they should be 
treated  with  caution.  This  is  because  certain  policy  options  comprise  a  larger  number  of 
measures compared to others. Hence, where averages are calculated across a larger number of 
measures,  the  resulting  (average)  figure is  usually  smaller (owing to  total  cost/ cost  savings 
figures across a specific cost item/ category being divided by a larger number of measures). In 
the real world, however, the fact that average figures are smaller for policy options, where a 
larger number of measures are concerned, could be attributed to economies of scale - i.e. unit 
(administrative/ compliance/  enforcement) costs  fall as total  costs are spread across a larger 
number of policy actions/ measures.  

Reporting  ranges  may  also  give  a  sense  of  “under-representation”.  As  such,  some  policy 
options build on other policy options and contain additional measures/ actions (e.g. option 2). 
It would make sense for cost/ cost savings estimates to be higher for these options. However, 
this  is  not  necessarily  the  case  as,  when  comparing  option  to  option,  the following  must  be 
considered: 

  Costs/ cost savings could not be determined/ quantified for one or more measures (e.g. 
owing to a lack of data); hence overall costs/ cost savings for a particular option do not 
change significantly (even if that option comprises a higher number of measures than 
another option); 

  Some cost items (or categories of costs) do not apply in the context of certain measures 
(e.g., IT set-up costs, which are often substantial, may not be relevant to all measures); 
as a result, as before, overall costs for a particular option do not change significantly 
(even if that option comprises a higher number of measures than another option). 

Economic impacts 

The main assumption for the policy options and the measures included is that, as a result of 
simplifying  admission  procedures  and  strengthening  the  rights  of  single  permit  holders,  the 
EU becomes a more attractive place to live and work for third-country nationals, and that this 
in  turn  will  lead  to  several  positive  economic  effects,  provided  their  integration  into  the 
economy  and  society  is  relatively  successful.  Moreover,  as  the  majority  of  Member  States 
apply  some  form  of  labour  market  test,  it  is  assumed  that  these  third-country  nationals  will 
nearly exclusively be filling vacancies that are difficult to fill, or will be bringing skills that 

83 

 
are  unavailable  in  the  EU  labour  market.  Additionally,  these  third-country  nationals  would 
contribute to mitigating the ageing of the EU workforce.  
However,  the  economic  impacts  of  the  policy  options  were  difficult  to  quantify  given  the 
magnitude of uncertainty and complexity of factors intervening at different levels, in addition 
to  purely  administrative  and  procedural  ones.  Different  demographic,  social  and  economic 
pull and push  factors intervene and interact  with regard to  immigration, labour markets  and 
the  business  cycle  at  macro-level,  including  technological  transformation;  factors  which  are 
independent from the measures under consideration. 

Literature offers some clues on the links and, to some extent, interaction between patterns of 
migration  from  third  countries,  and  different  economic  impacts  based  on  theoretical 
assumptions.  For  example,  a  report  by  the  International  Monetary  Fund  (IMF)134  linked 
immigration inflows with beneficial impacts on the economic and employment growth of the 
receiving  country,  as  well  as  foreign  direct  investment  and,  in  the  long  run,  innovation. 
Migration  is  also  often  found  to  have  a  positive  effect  on  public  finances  in  the  long  term, 
with  its  overall  impact  estimated  to  be  around  0.5%  of  GDP  for  advanced  economies135. 
Increased migration has also been linked to the lowering of informational barriers through the 
knowledge  of  other  nations'  languages,  regulations,  and  market  opportunities.  Whereas  the 
impact  of  migration  on  wages  and  employment  of  natives  is  more  contentious,  there  is 
evidence to suggest this could be null or even positive in some cases. 

Limited evidence is available regarding the link between introducing more efficient admission 
procedures  and  strengthened  rights  on  the  one  hand,  and  increased  migratory  flows.  It  has 
however been suggested that the decision to migrate may be affected by 'external factors' such 
as visa requirements, work permits, bureaucratic processes surrounding migration and related 
costs136.  In  fact,  there  is  some  evidence  that  suggests  that  the  easing  of  immigration 
restrictions  on  foreign  workers  may 
these 
barriers/motivators  to  migration  do  not  seem  to  be  as  well  understood  as,  for  example, 
employment  opportunities  or  family  reunification.  Instead,  increased  migration  flows  are, 
within  the  literature  reviewed,  mostly  associated  with  economic  success  and  the  growth  of 
urban areas within countries137. 

increased  migration.  However, 

lead 

to 

To  address  gaps  and  validate  draft  assumptions  and  assessments  made,  the  study  team  also 
consulted,  at  several  points  during  the  study,  with  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, inviting them to review, discuss and validate aspects for which the evidence base 
was poor. 

In  what  follows,  where  it  was  considered  possible  to  provide  some  estimates  of  possible 
(policy options 2 and 3), an increase of respectively 2.5% and 5% was assumed on top of the 
baseline concerning the number of additional single permits issued for remunerated activities, 
rather  as  an  illustrative  example  than  as  firm  predicted  effects.  These  assumptions  were 
validated by our panel of experts. 

134  IMF  (2021).  Working  Paper:  The  Impact  of  International  Migration  on  Inclusive  Growth;  A  Review. 

Available at: The Impact of International Migration on Inclusive Growth: A Review (imf.org)  

135  IMF  (2021).  Working  Paper:  The  Impact  of  International  Migration  on  Inclusive  Growth;  A  Review. 

Available at: The Impact of International Migration on Inclusive Growth: A Review (imf.org)  

136  Migration Policy Institute (2013), How Free is Free Movement? Dynamics and Drivers of Mobility Within 
the European Union. Available at: How free is free movement? Dynamics and drivers of mobility within the 
European Union (migrationpolicy.org)  

137  IMF  (2021).  Working  Paper:  The  Impact  of  International  Migration  on  Inclusive  Growth;  A  Review. 

Available at: The Impact of International Migration on Inclusive Growth: A Review (imf.org)  

84 

 
                                                           
Unless mentioned otherwise, all economic impacts have been expressed over a period of 10 
years, with  the policy option and policy measure assessments presenting each time the total 
impact over that period.  

Estimation of tax revenue 

The impact  on tax revenues of higher TCNs  arriving and staying in  the  EU is  based on the 
assumption that they will  pay taxes on gross income. As these jobs  positions were unfilled, 
and  hence  additional  to  the  existing  workforce,  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  tax  revenues  would 
increase proportionally to the wages times the % tax rate.  

For the policy measures anticipating  an increase in  single permit  holders for the purpose of 
work, the increase in tax revenue, has been calculated as follows:  

[% of taxes paid on gross income] * [EU-average gross annual earnings] * [Number of 
additional third-country nationals] 

The  EU  average  gross  annual  earnings  in  industry  and  services  is  taken  from  Eurostat 
[TPS00175]. The average EU tax share is calculated based on Eurostat data (ICW_TAX_01) 

Estimation of consumption 

The  increase  in  consumption  is  calculated  based  on  the  assumption  that  third-country 
nationals  who  opt  to  come  to  the  EU  as  a  result  of  the  policy  measures,  become  ‘new 
consumers.  

The  additional  consumption  is  then  proportional  to  the  number  of  third-country  nationals 
times the average yearly household consumption. 

Yearly  consumption  is  based  on  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  has  been 
calculated as follows:  

[yearly consumption per household] *[Number of additional third-country nationals] 

Economic impact as additional earnings 

The  additional  number  of  TCNs  arriving  into  the  European  labour  market  is  expected  to 
contribute  to  additional  earnings.  This  means  that  job  vacancies  are  filled  in  and  assuming 
TCNs will be paid the average gross annual salary, the effect results in an additional mass of 
earnings that contribute to the European GDP.  This is calculated as follows: 

[EU-average gross annual earnings] * [Number of additional third-country nationals] 

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 come to the EU.  

85 

 
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”138. It represents a global, not EU-
specific share. This estimate must be taken with caution because it is based on a world-wide 
sample  and  the  patterns  of  remittances  may  vary  markedly  across  continents  and  type  of 
migrants.  

As the additional number of third-country nationals who additionally may come to the EU are 
expected  to  increase  consumption  and  economic  growth,  some  of  it  may  be  offset  by  the 
remittances  sent  abroad.  However,  the  negative  effect  of  remittances  is  not  expected  to 
dominate the positive benefits on the EU economy. 

Remittances are calculated as follows: 

[proportion of income sent as remittances]*[EU-average annual median income]*[Number of 
additional third-country nationals]  

Impact on skills shortages 

As the migrants are subject to labour market tests, we assume that nearly all of them would be 
accessing vacancies that are difficult to fill, or would provide skills that are unavailable in the 
EU labour market, these third-country will help ease skills shortages, by filling job vacancies. 
Statistics on job  vacancies provide information on the level  and structure of labour demand 
from enterprises.  

Data  on  the  quarterly  and  annual  number  of  job  vacancies  is  published  by  Eurostat139  for  a 
number  of  European  countries140.  Aggregated  data  at  the  EU-27  level  are  not  available 
because  some  Member  States  do  not  provide  harmonized  data  and  there  are  differences  in 
coverage  because  of  divergent  criteria.  Nonetheless,  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.  

However, given the magnitude of job vacancies and the expected number of additional TCNs, 
such a gap would be addressed only to a limited extent when assuming an increase in single 
permit  issuances  from  2.5%-5%,  namely,  between  1.45  and  1.7%.  Considering  that  the 
number of third-country nationals would be far below the total number of job vacancies, it is 
unlikely  any  effect  on  salaries  in  the  domestic  labour  market  resulting  from  the  additional 
third-country nationals.  

At the same time, if the number of job vacancies in the EU per quarter tended to remain stable 
between  2013  and  2019,  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  resulted  in  a 
dramatically reduced number of vacancies notified to the Public Employment Services (PES) 
in the first two quarters of 2020 compared to similar periods in 2019 (-30 p.p. in 2020Q1 and 
-60 p.p. in 2020Q2). Correlatively, the job vacancy rate, not seasonally adjusted, showed an 
increasing  tightness  of  the  labour  market  since  2017  and  a  sharp  decrease  and  rebound  in 
2020,  corresponding  to  the  height  of  the  COVID-19  crisis141.  In  fact,  the  job  vacancy  rate 
reflects, in part, the actual unmet demand for labour as well as potential mismatches between 
the offer and demand of skills in the labour market. 

138  https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/remittances-matter.html 
139  Job vacancy number by NACE Rev. 2 activity - quarterly data (from 2001 onwards) Eurostat [jvs_q_nace2] 
140  BG, HR, CZ, EE, DE, HU, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, SE 
141  Job vacancy rate by NACE Rev. 2 activity - quarterly data (from 2001 onwards) Eurostat [jvs_q_nace2] 

86 

 
                                                           
Partly  due  to  steep  recovery  trajectory,  job  vacancy  rates,  especially  in  the  Euro  Area,  are 
likely  to  return  to  and  remain  at  pre-COVID  19  crisis  levels  Additionally,  regular  and 
comprehensive surveys of companies recruitment needs are signalling a historically high level 
of  employers  worldwide  (69%)  experiencing  difficulties  to  attract  and  retain  suitable 
candidates  for  their  recruitment  needs142.  Such  difficulties  were  intensified  by  the  COVID 
crisis  and  are  likely  to  last,  increasing  the  level  of  employers  experiencing  recruitment 
difficulties and the time during which unfilled vacancies will remain open in the foreseeable 
future  in  advanced  economies,  because  of  the  global  and  simultaneous  competition  for 
suitable candidates and in-demand skills. However, while some Member States face emerging 
shortages in highly skilled jobs, others rather in medium and low-skilled occupations, hence 
there  are  disparate  labour  market  needs  between  different  Member  States,  also  due  to 
divergent  professional  credentials  requirements  for  certain  occupations  such  as  healthcare 
assistants.  The  European  Commission’s  2020  report  on  shortage  and  surplus  occupations 
identified sectors of most widespread shortages in European countries and regions covered by 
the report  (topped by four healthcare related occupations, five software related occupations 
and ten craft occupations), as well as main sectors with most severe shortages (topped by the 
same four healthcare occupations and five software related occupations)143.  

Estimation of productivity 

The estimation of productivity is based on the assumption, reviewed together with the expert 
panel, that if third-country nationals who migrate to the EU are able to integrate successfully, 
this  will  lead  to  an  increase  in  their  productivity.  Although  higher  productivity  could  be 
estimated by an increase in wages, the exact figure is difficult to obtain given the uncertainty 
described above about the increase in migration and its effect on wage levels. For this reason, 
no quantification or monetisation has been attempted. 

142  ManPower  Talent  Shortage  Report,  surveying  41700  hiring  managers  in  42  countries:  ManpowerGroup 

Talent Shortage Study 

143  European  Commission,  Analysis  of  shortage  and  surplus  occupations  2020,  using  administrative  data  from 

Public Employment Services but also work permits issued from migration services.  p. 9 

87 

 
 
 
                                                           
Annex 5: Assessment of the Policy Measures 

Option 2: Legislative revision of the Directive - application procedure and non-
legislative measure on equal treatment 

Policy  Measure  2.1:  Place  of  application  (Art.  4(1))  Allowing  applications  both  from 
within and outside the Member States  

Figure 1.  Place  of  application  (Art.  4(1))  Allowing  applications both from  within  and 

outside the Member States  

Assessment 

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 
procedures  

At present, where Member  States  require third-country  nationals  to  submit 
the  application  (without  or  together  with  the  employer),  Art.  4(1)  of  the 
Directive also requires these Member States to either allow such application 
to be lodged from a third country, or from the territory of the Member States 
in  which  the  TCN  is  legally  present.  This  provision  is  applied  in  a  highly 
diverse  way,  which  has  meant  in  practice  that  TCNs  often  have  to  go 
through duplicate procedures (e.g. visa and the single permit).   CY,  EE, 
FI, HR, LT, MT, RO, SE, SI, SK. 
Five of the 17 Member States who responded to the EMN AHQ only allow 
applications  for  a  single  permit  from  the  country  of  origin  or  residence 
(other  than  the  territory  of  the  Member  State).144  Furthermore,  in  Cyprus, 
Germany,  Slovakia  and  Sweden  require  some  specific  categories  of  TCNs 
residing in the Member State and changing their migration status to file the 
application in the country of origin which would mean that they would need 
to  exit  the  Member  State  and  re-apply  for  the  permit.  Member  States  that 
allow  both  submissions  from  within  the  Member  State  and  outside  the 
Member State and which were able to provide data on the disaggregation of 
place of application as follows: 

Estonia:  In 2020, approximately 18% of applications are submitted 
via  consulates/embassies,  77%  of  all  applications  are  submitted 
within the country. 
Finland:  In  2020,  62  %  of  the  first  residence  permit  applications 
based  on  employment  (5  466  applications)  were  lodged  outside  of 
Finland and 38 % (3 305 applications) were lodged in Finland. 
The Netherlands: Applications almost exclusively submitted within 
the Netherlands.  

144  AT, CY, FR, LU and SE. In SE, there are certain exceptions from this main rule and most applications are 

made electronically. 

88 

 
 
                                                           
Slovenia:  For  2020,  203  applications  were 
lodged  abroad 
(diplomatic  representations  or  consular  posts),  while  15.664 
applications were lodged in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia 
The policy measure would facilitate and simplify the application procedure 
if  Member  States  permitted  lodging  applications  both  from  outside  and 
within their territory.  No matter their location, third-country nationals could 
thus opt for the application process, which is most cost-effective for them in 
their current situation. 
Allowing third-country nationals to apply from outside the EU for a single 
permit  is  expected  to  shorten  the  procedure  and  the  time  for  processing  of 
the application in those Member States which require additional steps, such 
as  short  or  long-term  visas.  Such  additional  steps  would  no  longer  be 
required  and  applications  would  be  reviewed  by  competent  national 
authorities only once. In the spirit of simplification, eligibility for the single 
permit should be assessed by one single authority and other authorities that 
may be involved should not reassess eligibility. 
This measure is expected to positively benefit national authorities and third-
country nationals applying for single permits in terms of simplification and 
reduction  of  administrative  burden  by  facilitating  the  procedure  which 
would be adapted to the different circumstances of the applicant. (see below 
for assessment of impacts on different stakeholders) 
The  perceived  benefits  of  administrative  simplification  were  strongly 
confirmed  by  the  stakeholder  consultations,  including  the  EGEM  meeting 
and  the  Consultation  with  representatives  of  the  Civil  Society145,  where 
many members expressed concerns of the current practices in some Member 
States.  
A  streamlined  procedure  of  single  permit  application  would  result  in  a 
number  of  cost  savings  for  employers,  national  authorities  and  TCNs. 
National  authorities of the Member States which do not  allow applications 
from third countries will incur some adjustment costs in the short to medium 
term  but  in  the long-run, the measure is  expected to  result in  cost  savings. 
The different types of cost savings are examined below under Costs.  
Furthermore,  as  the  current  practices  differ  across  Member  State,  the 
measure will result in a uniform application modality across the EU. This in 
turn  is  expected  to  improve  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  as  third-country 
workers would be allowed to apply from a third country as well as from the 
territory of the Member State. The ultimate impact of this measure is more 
efficient labour market access and ultimately better economic growth at EU 
level.  
As there is a multitude of factors influencing attractiveness and decision to 

2: 
ensure 

Objective 
To 
greater 
efficiency  of 
application 
procedures 

145  Consultation held on 20th April 2021 

89 

 
 
                                                           
4: 
enhance 

Objective 
3: 
To address EU 
labour 
shortages 
Objective 
To 
equal 
of 
treatment 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 
Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 
workers  from 
labour 
exploitation 
Impacts  
Social 
impacts  

5: 
protect 

migrate at macro, meso and micro (personal) level, the extent to which this 
specific  measure  will  contribute  to  better  attractiveness  is  difficult  to 
calculate and to isolate the effects of other factors.  
See Objective 2 above 

No specific effects expected on this objective  

No specific effects expected on this objective 

Different  social  impacts  will  be  considered  based  on  the effects chains 
above, on different stakeholder categories, including:  
Employers/businesses 
Employers  are  expected  to  benefit  from  this  measure  in  terms  of  quicker 
access  to  labour  resources  from  third-countries.  The  facilitation  of  the 
procedure  could  also  encourage  more  employers  to  hire  third-country 
workers.  SMEs  are  likely  to  bear  a  disproportionate  burden  when  hiring 
TCNs in comparison to large enterprises due to more limited resources (e.g. 
legal fees, understanding of immigration law and process, etc.) and thus any 
simplifications in the application process are expected to benefit SMEs.146 
National authorities 
National  authorities  in  those  Member  States  which  currently  do  not  allow 
applications  from  a  third  country  will  be  encouraged  to  further  streamline 
their processes resulting in  some adaptation  costs in  the short run but  with 
cost  savings  in  the  medium  to  long-term  due  to  facilitating  the  application 
process.  This  will  alleviate  any  duplication  of  effort  in  examining 
application  procedures.  Overall,  this  measure  is  expected  to  have  positive 
impact on national  authorities despite some cost  adjustments needed  in the 
short run.  

146  For example: Bank aus Verantwortung (2017) Study: “Focus on Economics – Foreign workers in German 

SMEs: a strong plea for free labour markets", available at: https://www.kfw.de/KfW-
Konzern/Service/Download-Center/Konzernthemen/Research/Fokus-Volkswirtschaft/?redirect=78471  

90 

 
 
                                                           
Furthermore, streamlining of processes across Member States will lead to a 
more harmonised approach at EU level. Such streamlining is also relevant in 
the  context  of  new  developments  in  the  digitalisation  of  application 
procedures that is currently ongoing in some Member States. The COVID-
19  pandemic  has  encouraged  many  Member  States  as  well  as  countries 
globally  to  explore  further  processing  of  digital  applications  rather  than 
physical and in-person applications. Such developments may further render 
the  place  of  applications  irrelevant  due  to  the  wider  adoption  of  online 
processing  of  applications  and  Member  States  may  become  more  open  to 
processing applications from third countries. 
Third-country nationals  
The measure would allow third-country workers to submit applications both 
from  the  third  country  and  when  in  the  EU.  This  will  positively  impact 
TCNs  as  they  would  no  longer  need  to  travel  to  some  EU  Member  States 
and wait for the permit  to be issued, nor force those already legally in the 
EU to return to their country of origin to lodge the application. This will also 
result in cost savings (as discussed above). TCNs will be able to commence 
their  employment  quicker  and  will  not  be  subject  to  time  waste  in  limbo. 
Thus,  TCNs  will  not  be  subject  to  legal  uncertainty  whilst  in  the  Member 
State and waiting to obtain their single permit.  
Legal practitioners/judiciary 
Familiarisation with new procedures  
Third countries 
This  simplification  measure  is  likely  to  contribute  to  faster  and  more 
streamlined  application  procedure  which  in  turn  may  attract  more  third-
country  nationals  wishing  to  come  to  the  EU  and  applying  for  a  single 
permit. Typically, due to the simplification, high to medium skilled workers 
in shortage occupations will be recruited directly from third countries which 
is  likely  to  result  in  some  loss  of  human  capital  and  labour  force  in  third 
countries. However, this simplification measure alone as such may not be a 
key  driver  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 inter 
alia  remittance  flows  to  developing  countries,  possibilities  for  circular 
migration promoting skills transfers.  
Overall, as detailed in Annex 4, a specific quantification of the extent of the 
potential economic impact cannot be calculated at the level of the individual 
measures,  due  to  the  level  of  uncertainty  and  complexity  of  factors. 
Nevertheless, a qualitative assessment of measure 2.1 points to the fact that 
it  is  expected  to  contribute  to  improving  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  and 
may have some positive effect on the labour market and skills matching.  
Firstly,  the  main  economic  impact  of  this  measure,  as  described  above  is 

91 

Economic 
impacts 

 
 
Environmental 
impacts  

Fundamental 
rights  
Costs  
Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

availability of labour on the EU labour market – i.e.  third-country workers 
would have quicker access to the labour market.  This in turn could lead to 
more efficiency on the labour market in terms of greater job matching and 
vacancies and shortages filled as well as potential increases in productivity. 
Second,  other  indirect  impacts  from  the  increased  attractiveness  of  the  EU 
are economic growth, increased tax revenue, productivity and consumption. 

However, this measure alone is unlikely to have sizable economic impact on 
its own.  

No specific environmental impacts from this measure. 

No specific impacts on fundamental rights from this measure.  

A  streamlined  procedure  of  single  permit  application  would  result  in  a 
number  of  cost  savings  for  TCNs,  their  employers  as  well  as  national 
authorities. The different types of cost savings include: 

-  Reduced  application  costs  as  the  visa  application  is  no  longer 

required 

-  Reduced time spent on applications and reduced travel costs 
-  Reduced intermediary fees 

Some one-off and recurring costs would be incurred by national authorities, 
including  for  transposition,  training,  IT  systems  updates  and  maintenance, 
monitoring, evaluation and reporting. 
It is estimated that Measure 2.1 could confer yearly benefits/cost savings (a 
yearly average is taken from estimates computed for the period 2021- 2030) 
of  almost  EUR  400.0  million  and  EUR  63.0  million  for  TCNs  and 
employers  respectively.  As  for  Member  State  authorities,  (overall)  one-off 
costs are expected to amount to about EUR 3,000,000 in the first year, while 
(overall)  recurring  costs  EUR  300,000  every  year  thereafter.  Cost  savings 
are expected in the medium to long term, amounting to about EUR 200,000 
(per annum).  
Annex  6  of  the  accompanying  study  includes  the  main  assumptions  and 
methods used to estimate the costs of each measure, as well as Excel tables 
with detailed calculations. 

Overall assessment  
Overall,  this  simplification  measure  is  expected  to  positively  impact  the  majority  of 
stakeholders  concerned.  Overall,  this  measure  is  expected  to  have  a  positive  impact  on 
employers  and  third-country  workers  as  well  as  national  authorities  despite  some  cost 
adjustments needed in the short run. 

92 

 
 
 
Policy Measure 2.2: Visa procedure for initial entry (Article 4(3))  

Figure 2.  Visa procedure for initial entry (Article 4(3)) Visa to be issued if all single permit 

conditions are met, only one substantive assessment allowed, deadline 4 months  

Assessment 

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 
procedures  

2: 
ensure 

Objective 
To 
greater 
efficiency  of 
application 
procedures 

Article 4(3) establishes that the single application procedure shall be without 
prejudice to the visa procedures that may be required for initial entry. In the 
Member States where an entry visa is required, the procedure does not fall 
within  the  four-month  deadline  for  processing  a  single  permit  application, 
thus delaying the overall application process. This provision is applied in a 
highly diverse way, which has meant in practice that TCN often have to go 
through duplicate procedures (e.g. visa and the single permit). 
The policy measure would facilitate and simplify the application procedure 
if Member States are required to complete the entire application assessment 
within 4 months period, including the processing of the visa application.  
In  combination  with  the  previous  measure  on  Place  of  application  (i.e. 
allowing  third-country  nationals  to  apply  from  outside  the  EU  for  a  single 
permit), this measure is expected to shorten the procedure and the time for 
processing  of  the  application  where  short  or  long-term  visas  are  needed. 
This measure is expected to positively benefit third-country applications and 
those Member States in which currently such procedures are placed in terms 
of  simplification  and  reduction  of  administrative  burden.  (see  below  for 
assessment of impacts on different stakeholders) 
The  perceived  benefits  of  administrative  simplification  were  strongly 
confirmed  by  the  stakeholder  consultations,  including  the  EGEM  meeting 
and  the  Consultation  with  representatives  of  the  Civil  Society147,  where 
many members expressed concerns of the current practice in some Member 
States.  
A  streamlined  procedure  of  single  permit  application  would  result  in  a 
number  of  cost  savings  for  TCNs,  their  employers  as  well  as  national 
authorities.  National  authorities  of  the  Member  States  which  do  not  allow 
applications  from  third  countries  will  incur  some  adjustment  costs  in  the 
short to medium term but in the long-run, the measure is expected to result 
in  cost  savings.  The  different  types  of  cost  savings  are  examined  below 
under Costs.  
Furthermore,  as  the  current  practices  differ  across  Member  State,  the 
measure permit will result in a uniform application modality across the EU. 

147  Consultation held on 20th April 2021 

93 

 
 
 
                                                           
This  in  turn  is  expected  to  improve  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  as  third-
country  workers  would  no  longer  have  to  wait  for  the  visa  application  in 
addition to the 4 months period during which the single can be issued.  The 
ultimate impact of this  measure is more efficient labour market access and 
ultimately better economic growth at EU level.  
As there is a multitude of factors influencing attractiveness and decision to 
migrate at macro, meso and micro (personal) level, the extent to which this 
simplification specific measure will contribute to improved attractiveness is 
difficult to calculate and to isolate the effects of other factors.  
See Objective 2 above 

No specific effects expected on this objective  

No specific effects expected on this objective 

4: 
enhance 

Objective 
3: 
To address EU 
labour 
shortages 
Objective 
To 
equal 
treatment 
of 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 
Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 
workers  from 
labour 
exploitation 
Impacts  

5: 
protect 

Social 
impacts  

Different  social  impacts  will  be  considered  based  on  the effects chains 
above, on different stakeholder categories, including:  
Employers/businesses 
Employers  are  expected  to  benefit  from  this  measure  in  terms  of  quicker 
access to labour resources from third-countries due to increase efficiencies. 
Although  TCNs  may  be  allowed  to  commence  work  on  certain  visas,  they 
would not benefit of the full extent of rights that a single permit would offer. 
The  facilitation  of  the  procedure  could  also  encourage  more  employers  to 
hire  third-country  workers.  SMEs  are  likely  to  bear  a  disproportionate 
burden  when  hiring  TCNs  in  comparison  to  large  enterprises  due  to  more 
limited  resources  (e.g.  legal  fees,  understanding  of  immigration  law  and 
process,  etc.)  and  thus  any  simplifications  in  the  application  process  are 
expected to benefit SMEs. 
National authorities 

94 

 
 
National  authorities  in  those  Member  States  where  visa  application  is  also 
required and which in addition to the single permit procedure, exceeds the 4 
months  period  will  be  encouraged  to  further  streamline  their  processes 
resulting in some adaptation costs in the short run but with cost savings in 
the medium to long-term due to the faster and more efficient processing of 
the  application.  This  will  alleviate  any  duplication  of  effort  in  examining 
application  procedures.  Overall,  this  measure  is  expected  to  have  positive 
impact on national  authorities despite some cost  adjustments needed in the 
short run.  
Furthermore, streamlining of processes across Member States will lead to a 
more harmonised approach at EU level. Such streamlining is also relevant in 
the context of new developments in digitalisation of application procedures 
that is currently ongoing in some Member States. The COVID-19 pandemic 
has  encouraged  many  Member  States  as  well  as  countries  globally148  to 
explore further processing of digital applications rather than physical and in-
person  applications.149    Such  developments  may  exacerbate  efficiency  and 
streamline of processing of applications.   
Third-country nationals  
The measure would speed up the application procedure in those EU Member 
States  where  visa  application  is  also  required,  and  which  exceeds  the  4 
months  period  as  per  Art.  4(3).  This  will  positively  impact  TCNs  as  they 
would  no  longer  have  to  wait  for  the  permit  to  be  issued  for  more  than  4 
months as stipulated in the Directive. This will also result in cost savings (as 
discussed  below).  TCNs  will  be  able  to  commence  their  employment 
quicker and will not be subject to time waste in limbo. Thus, TCNs will not 
be  subject  to  legal  uncertainty  whilst  in  the  Member  State  and  waiting  to 
obtain their single permit. 
Legal practitioners/judiciary 
Familiarisation with new procedures  
Third countries 
This  simplification  measure  is  likely  to  contribute  to  faster  and  more 
streamlined  application  procedure  which  in  turn  may  attract  more  third-
country  nationals  wishing  to  come  to  the  EU  and  applying  for  a  single 
permit. Typically, due to the simplification, high to medium skilled workers 
in shortage occupations will be recruited directly from third countries which 
is  likely  to  result  in  some  loss  of  human  capital  and  labour  force  in  third 
countries. However, this simplification measure alone as such may not be a 

148  OECD(2019) 

https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/what-is-the-impact-of-the-covid-19-

pandemic-on-immigrants-and-their-children-e7cbb7de/ 

149  EMN  (2020),  The  impact  of  COVID-19  in  the  migration  area  in  EU  and  OECD  countries,  Available  at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/home-
affairs/sites/default/files/docs/pages/00_eu_emn_covid19_umbrella_inform_en.pdf  

95 

 
 
                                                           
Economic 
impacts  

Environmental 
impacts  

Fundamental 
rights  
Costs  

Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

key  driver  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 inter 
alia  remittance  flows  to  developing  countries,  possibilities  for  circular 
migration promoting skills transfers.  
While it is not possible to estimate the specific potential economic impact of 
the individual measure (an assessment has, where possible, been carried out 
at the level of the policy options), qualitatively, this measure’s contribution 
to  increasing  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  will  positively  impact  the  EU 
labour market and economic growth. 
Indeed,  such  a  qualitative  assessment  points  to  the  fact  that  the  main 
economic impact of this measure is availability of labour on the EU labour 
market – i.e. third-country workers would have quicker access to the labour 
market.  This  in  turn could  lead to  more efficiency  on the labour market  in 
terms of greater job matching and vacancies and shortages filled as well as 
potential increases in productivity. 
Other indirect impacts from the increased attractiveness of the EU, due to a 
potential increase in third country nationals in the EU, are economic growth, 
increased tax revenue, productivity and consumption. 
No specific environmental impacts from this measure. 

No specific impacts on fundamental rights from this measure.  

Measure 2.2 is estimated to attract yearly benefits/cost savings of over EUR 
300.0  million  to  TCNs.  Estimated  yearly  benefits  for  employers  are  an 
estimated EUR 70.0 million. For Member State authorities, (overall) one-off 
costs  are  expected  to  amount  to  about  EUR  2.0  million  (rounded  to  the 
nearest  million)  in  the  first  year,  while  (overall)  recurring  costs  EUR 
200,000 every year thereafter. Cost savings are also expected to be accrued 
in  the  medium  to  long  term,  amounting  to  about  EUR  2.0  million  yearly 
(rounded  to  the  nearest  million).  Annex  6  of  the  accompanying  study 
includes  the  main  assumptions  and  methods  used  to  estimate  the  costs  of 
each measure, as well as Excel tables with detailed calculations. 

Overall assessment  
Overall,  this  simplification  measure  is  expected  to  positively  impact  the  majority  of 
stakeholders  concerned  by  reducing  the  timeframe  for  assessing  applications  by  national 
authorities.  Overall,  this  measure  is  expected  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  employers  and 
third-country workers as well as national authorities despite some cost adjustments needed in 
the short run. 

96 

 
 
 
 
Policy  Measure  2.3:  Including  labour  market  tests  as  part  of  the  single  application 
procedure 

Figure 3.  Clarifying when the labour market test is to be launched in the procedure and that 
the labour market test (Art. 1(2)) is to be undertaken within the 4-months deadline 
for the processing of applications  

Assessment 

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 
procedures  

2: 
ensure 

Objective 
To 
greater 
efficiency  of 
application 
procedures  

Article 1(2) of the Single Permit Directive lays down that its provisions are 
"without prejudice to the Member States' powers concerning the admission 
of third-country nationals to their labour markets". The obligation to obtain 
an employment clearance for market needs tests before applying for a single 
permit  can  sometimes  also  cause  unnecessary  prolongation  of  the  single 
application  procedure.  Indeed,  some  Member  States  reported  that  labour 
market test (LMT) process is not part of the 4-months maximum duration of 
the single permit application.150 
The  measure  would  aim  at  clarifying  when  the  labour  market  test  is  to  be 
launched in the procedure and that the labour market test (Art. 1(2)) is to be 
conducted within the 4-months deadline for the processing of applications – 
and by doing so, it is expected to positively contribute to simplification and 
reduction of administrative burden.  
Similarly  to  the  measures  on  Place  of  application  and  Visa  procedure,  this 
measure  will  also  contribute  to  streamlining  procedures,  including  the 
assessment of the Labour Market Test within the 4-months maximum period 
for the assessment of the single permit application.  
A  streamlined  procedure  of  single  permit  application,  including  the  labour 
market  tests,  would  result  in  a  number  of  cost  savings  for  employers, 
national  authorities  and  TCNs.  From  the  perspective  of  TCNs,  a  more 
efficient  procedure  would  result  in  cost  savings  related  to  indirect  costs 
associated  with  waiting  to  obtain  the  permit  and  legal  uncertainty  (e.g.  in 
case  of  rejection).  From  the  perspective  of  national  authorities,  a  more 
efficient  and  streamlined  process  would  mean  less  FTEs  spent  per 
processing an application.  
Furthermore,  as  the  current  practices  differ  across  Member  State,  the 
measure will result in a uniform application modality across the EU. This in 
turn  is  expected  to  improve  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  due  to  more 
streamlined and efficient procedures.  The ultimate impact of this measure is 

150  EMN Ad-Hoc Query (June 2021): EE, EL, DE, LU, PL, PT (from 18 Member States responding to the AHQ) 

97 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
more efficient labour market access and ultimately  better economic growth 
at EU level.  
As there is a multitude of factors influencing attractiveness and decision to 
migrate at macro, meso and micro (personal) level, the extent to which this 
simplification will contribute to better attractiveness is difficult to calculate 
and to isolate the effects of other factors.  
A more streamlined and efficient assessment of the application could result 
in encouraging employers to resort to international recruitment which in turn 
can alleviate labour shortages.  

No specific effects expected on this objective  

No specific effects expected on this objective 

4: 
enhance 

Objective 
3: 
To address EU 
labour 
shortages 
Objective 
To 
equal 
of 
treatment 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 
Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 
workers  from 
labour 
exploitation 
Impacts  

5: 
protect 

Social 
impacts  

Different  social  impacts  will  be  considered  based  on  the effects chains 
above, on different stakeholder categories, including:  
Employers/businesses 
Employers  are  expected  to  benefit  from  this  measure  in  terms  of  quicker 
access  to  labour  resources  from  third-countries.  The  facilitation  of  the 
procedure  could  also  encourage  more  employers  to  hire  third-country 
workers.  SMEs  are  likely  to  bear  a  disproportionate  burden  when  hiring 
TCNs in comparison to large enterprises due to more limited resources (e.g. 
legal fees, understanding of immigration law and process, etc.) and thus any 
simplifications in the application process are expected to benefit SMEs. 
National authorities 
National  authorities  in  those  Member  States  labour  market  tests  are 
conducted  outside  the  4  months  period  will  be  encouraged  to  further 
streamline their processes resulting in some adaptation costs in the short run 
but with cost savings in the medium to long-term due to the faster and more 
efficient  processing  of  the  application.  In  the  spirit  of  simplification,  the 
applicant  should  apply  to  one  single  authority  (one  entry  point).  Other 

98 

 
 
authorities  may  be  involved  (e.g.  authorities  assessing  the  labour  market 
test) and should provide their opinion/decision as part of the process. 
Overall,  this  measure  is  expected  to  have  positive  impact  on  national 
authorities despite some cost adjustments needed in the short run.  
Furthermore, streamlining of processes across Member States will lead to a 
more harmonised approach at EU level. Such streamlining is also relevant in 
the context of new developments in digitalisation of application procedures 
that is currently ongoing in some Member States. The COVID-19 pandemic 
has  encouraged  many  Member  States  as  well  as  countries  globally151  to 
explore further processing of digital applications rather than physical and in-
person  applications.152    Such  developments  may  exacerbate  efficiency  and 
streamlining of processing of applications.  
Third-country nationals  
The measure would speed up the application procedure in those EU Member 
States  where  labour  market  test  is  an  additional  step  in  the  process  and 
which  exceeds  the  4  months  period  as  per  Art.  4(3).  This  will  positively 
impact  TCNs  and  employers  as  they  would  no  longer  have  to  wait  for  the 
permit  to  be  issued  for  more  than  4  months  as  stipulated  in  the  Directive. 
This will also result in cost savings (as discussed below). TCNs will be able 
to  commence  their  employment  quicker  and  will  not  be  subject  to  time 
waste in  limbo.  Thus, TCNs will not  be subject  to  legal  uncertainty whilst 
waiting to obtain their single permit. 
Legal practitioners/judiciary 
Familiarisation with new procedures  
Third countries 
This  simplification  measure  is  likely  to  contribute  to  faster  and  more 
streamlined  application  procedure  in  those  Member  States  where  currently 
the labour market test may prolong the overall decision (i.e. as set within the 
4  months  period).  This  in  turn  may  attract  more  third-country  nationals 
wishing to come to the EU and applying for a single permit. Typically, due 
to  the  simplification,  high  to  medium  skilled  workers  in  shortage 
occupations will be recruited directly from third countries which is likely to 
result  in  some  loss  of  human  capital  and  labour  force  in  third  countries. 
However, this simplification measure alone as such may not be a key driver 
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  inter  alia 

151  OECD(2019) 

https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/what-is-the-impact-of-the-covid-19-

pandemic-on-immigrants-and-their-children-e7cbb7de/ 

152  EMN  (2020),  The  impact  of  COVID-19  in  the  migration  area  in  EU  and  OECD  countries,  Available  at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/home-
affairs/sites/default/files/docs/pages/00_eu_emn_covid19_umbrella_inform_en.pdf  

99 

 
 
                                                           
Economic 
impacts  

Environmental 
impacts  
Fundamental 
rights  
Costs  

Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

remittance flows to developing countries, possibilities for circular migration 
promoting skills transfers.  

As outlined in Annex 4, due to high levels of uncertainty and complexity of 
other factors which are impossible to isolate, the potential economic impacts 
of  the  individual  measures  could  not  be  quantified.  However,  as  measures 
2.1 and 2.2, a qualitative assessment shows that measure 2.3 will positively 
impact the EU’s labour market and economic growth.  
The main economic impact of this measure as described above is availability 
of labour on the EU labour market – i.e. third-country workers would have 
quicker  access  to  the  labour  market.  This  in  turn  could  lead  to  more 
efficiency  on  the  labour  market  in  terms  of  greater  job  matching  and 
vacancies and shortages filled as well as potential increases in productivity. 
Other indirect impacts from the increased attractiveness of the EU, due to a 
potential increase in third country nationals in the EU, are economic growth, 
increased tax revenue, productivity and consumption. 
No specific environmental impacts from this measure. 

No specific environmental impacts from this measure. 

It is estimated that Measure 2.3 could bring  yearly benefits/cost savings of 
over  EUR  129.0  million  and  EUR  32.0  million  to  TCNs  and  employers 
respectively.  As  for  Member  State  authorities,  (overall)  one-off  costs  are 
expected to amount to about EUR 900,000 in the first year, while (overall) 
recurring  costs  EUR  200,000  every  year  thereafter.  Cost  savings,  on  the 
other  hand,  are  expected  to  average  to  about  EUR  4.0  million  per  annum 
over the medium-to-long term.   
Annex  6  of  the  accompanying  study  includes  the  main  assumptions  and 
methods used to estimate the costs of each measure, as well as Excel tables 
with detailed calculations. 

Overall assessment  
Overall, this measure is expected to positively impact the majority of stakeholders concerned 
by  reducing  the  timeframe  for  assessing  applications  by  national  authorities.  Overall,  this 
measure is expected to have a positive impact on employers and third-country workers as well 
as national authorities despite some cost adjustments needed in the short run. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
Policy Measure 2.4: Mandating the provision of adequate information  

Figure 4.  Provision of information (Art.9): Mandating the provision of adequate information 

Assessment  

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 
procedures  
Objective 
To 
greater 
efficiency  of 
application 
procedures  

2: 
ensure 

Objective 
3: 
To address EU 
labour 
shortages 

4: 
enhance 

Objective 
To 
equal 
of 
treatment 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 
Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 

5: 
protect 

A  direct  result  of  more  adequate  provision  of  information  would  be 
administrative  simplification  since  applicants  will  be  more  aware  and 
familiar with the process and documentation requirements and less likely to 
send queries or submit wrong or incomplete documents. 
There are several examples of good practices in Member States which have 
developed a 'one-stop-shop' with clear and concise information, such as the 
'Enter  Finland'  portal153  or  the  Make  it  in  Germany  portal.154  Such  portals 
not only provide detailed and user-friendly information on the immigration 
requirements  but  in  some  cases  highlight  why  the  Member  State  is  an 
attractive  destination.  This  is  especially  important  within  the  global 
competition for talent. 
Having a certain standard for minimum and adequate information provision 
would  ensure  a  uniform  approach  to  provision  of  information  across 
Member  States  and  an  even  level  playing  field  between  member  States 
which in turn may positively result to the overall EU attractiveness (linked 
to  objective  1  above).  Better  information  provision  is  expected  to  increase 
the overall transparency and efficiency at different stages of the application 
process. 
By  providing  adequate 
immigration  process, 
information  on 
requirements and obligations and rights linked to the permit, Member States 
can increase attractiveness for third-country nationals as TCNs would not be 
discouraged  due  to  unclear  information  or  what  may  seem  complex  or 
ambiguous requirements.  
Better provision  of information  is  likely to  help  increase the knowledge  of 
rights and benefits stemming from the single permit.  

the 

Better  provision  of  information,  including  in  the  native  language(s)  of  the 
third-country  national  if  possible  or  in  English,  is  likely  to  result  in  more 
awareness of their rights and requirements.   

153  https://enterfinland.fi/  
154  https://www.make-it-in-germany.com/en/ 

101 

 
 
                                                           
workers  from 
labour 
exploitation 
Impacts  
Social 
impacts  

Economic 

Employers/businesses 
This measure is expected to also positively benefit employers and business 
as they will benefit from adequate provision of information, especially when 
the burden of  application falls on the employer  (or where it is  shared with 
the  TCN).  This  will  also  likely  to  impact  positively  SMEs  for  whom 
application procedure was too complex and prohibitive in terms of costs (as 
SMEs  are  unlikely  to  have  the  purchasing  power  and  human  resources  to 
attract TCNs workers in specific occupations as big companies may be able 
to do). 
Member States 
This  measure  is  expected  to  also  positively  benefit  Member  States.  Better 
quality  information  across  Member  States  may  incentivise  more  TCNs  to 
migrate to the EU which is essential in the context of the global competition 
for talent. Furthermore, better quality information will contribute to a more 
efficient application process. 
Legal practitioners/judiciary 
No effect 
Third-country nationals  
The measure would benefit TCNs as they would be able to access adequate 
information  and  better  quality  information  in  those  Member  States  which 
currently fall short of this provision. TCNs would be able to make a better 
informed choice as well as have more efficient application experience if the 
application  process  and  documentation  requirements  are  clearly  set  out. 
Furthermore,  the  measure  could  result  in  cost  savings  as  TCNs  will  have 
better  information  at  their  disposal  and  may  not  need  to  rely  on 
intermediaries and third parties. 
Third countries 
The provision of information as an attraction and simplification measure is 
likely  to  contribute  to  better  understanding  of  the  application  procedure 
which in  turn may  attract  more third-country nationals  wishing to  come to 
the  EU  and  applying  for  a  single  permit  as  well  as  reduce  dependency  on 
intermediaries.  However,  the  provision  of  information  alone  as  such  may 
not be a key driver 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 
inter alia remittance flows to developing countries, possibilities for circular 
migration promoting skills transfers. 
Due to the high level of uncertainty and complexity in influential factors the 

102 

 
 
impacts  

Environmental 
impacts  

Fundamental 
rights  
Costs  
Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

specific  economic  impact  of  this  individual  measure  is  impossible  to 
quantify, and has rather been calculated at the aggregate level of the police 
options instead.  
Nevertheless,  a  qualitative  assessment  shows  that  this  measure  is  expected 
to  indirectly  contribute  to  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  due  to  better 
information  provisions  and  ultimately  to  a  more  efficient  and  dynamic 
labour market. Some Member States already have 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.  This  increased  attractiveness  to  the 
EU may then lead to potential increases in third-country nationals in the EU 
which  may  have  an  impact  on  economic  growth,  increased  tax  revenue, 
productivity and consumption. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind 
that,  as  mentioned  above,  specific  economic  impact  would  be  even  more 
difficult  to  estimate  for  this  measure  as  this  is  only  an  indirect  result  and 
subject to many endogenous and exogenous factors that contribute to better 
attractiveness of the EU.  
No environmental specific impacts identified.  

No specific fundamental rights impacts identified.  

Measure 2.5 is expected to lead to cost savings for employers and TCNs as 
application costs will be reduced. National authorities are expected to incur 
some one-off (mostly associated with transposition) and recurring costs for 
updating their portals and other information outlets. They may also benefit 
from  cost  savings  as  less  applications  are  likely  to  be  incomplete  or 
containing errors. 
The  measure  is  estimated  to  attract  yearly  benefits/cost  savings  of  about 
EUR  200.0  million  for  TCNs.  Estimated  yearly  benefits  for  employers  are 
an estimated EUR 50.0 million. For Member State authorities, no significant 
cost  savings  are  envisaged.  Overall  one-off  costs,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
expected amount to about EUR 5.0 million in the first year, while (overall) 
recurring  costs  EUR  400,000  every  year  thereafter.  Annex  6  of  the 
accompanying  study  includes  the  main  assumptions  and  methods  used  to 
estimate  the  costs  of  each  measure,  as  well  as  Excel  tables  with  detailed 
calculations. 

Overall assessment  
Overall,  this  measure  is  expected  to  have  a  positive  impact  in  terms  of  increased 
attractiveness,  contribute  to  administrative  simplification  and  ensure  a  more  uniform 
application of EU legal  migration acquis.  However, some Member States already have well 

103 

 
 
 
developed  provision  of  information,  so  the  measure  mainly  concerns  those  Member  States 
which do not have well developed information provision.  

Policy  Measure  2.5:  Non-legislative  measure:  Non-binding  recommendations  to 
harmonise the implementation of equal treatment rights 

Figure 5.  Non-binding recommendations to  improve the implementation  of  equal  treatment 

rights 

Assessment  

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

2: 
ensure 

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 
procedures  
Objective 
To 
greater 
efficiency  of 
application 
procedures  
Objective 
3: 
To address EU 
labour 
shortages 
Objective 
To 
equal 
treatment 
of 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 

4: 
enhance 

No specific effects expected on this objective 

No specific effects expected on this objective 

No specific effects expected on this objective 

This measure of adopting non-binding recommendations (soft law) on equal 
treatment is expected to positively contribute to Objective 4.  

Art. 12 (2) of the Directive allows for a number of possible exclusions and 
restrictions to TCNs’ right to equal treatment in respect of some areas. The 
Fitness  Check  showed  that  the  numerous  exclusions  can  lead  to  different 
interpretations by Member States but also to lack of clarity. Lack of clarity 
and  ambiguity  concerning  equal  treatment  rights  can  lead  to  confusion  for 
potential applicants that can negatively affect the attractiveness of the EU or 
TCNs’ integration in the host society. Thus, such soft law measure of non-
binding  recommendations  issued  to  Member  States  by  the  European 
Commission  are  a  potential  tool  to  address  this  problem  and  as  such,  it  is 
expected  to  positively  contribute  to  the  enhancement  of  equal  treatment 
rights  in  comparison  to  the  status  quo  (baseline).  Where  ambiguities  exist, 
such  soft  law  interpretations  would  facilitate  correct  implementation  for 
Member  States.  However,  due  to  its  non-binding  nature,  this  measure  is  a 
weaker option than the legislative measures on equal treatment under Option 

104 

 
 
 
3 which are expected to bring greater legal certainty than non-binding (soft 
law) recommendations. 

5: 
protect 

Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 
workers  from 
labour 
exploitation 

This measure is expected to contribute positively to the protection of TCN 
workers  from 
labour  exploitation  as  Member  States  will  receive 
recommendations on ambiguous equal treatment aspects of the Directive or 
where  provisions  have  been  applied  or  interpreted  incorrectly  in  national 
legislation. Enhancement of equal treatment rights would also contribute to 
better protection against labour exploitation. However, as mentioned above, 
legislative  measures  would  be  preferable  as  they  will  contribute  with 
increased legal certainty.  

Impacts  
Social 
impacts  

Economic 
impacts  

Environmental 
impacts  
Fundamental 
rights  

Employers/businesses 
No specific impacts identified. Any impacts will depend on the specifics of 
the  recommendations  and  whether  and  how  Member  States  take  up  on  the 
non-binding recommendations. 
Member States 
Member  States  would  benefit  from  this  measure  as  they  would  receive 
guidance  and non-binding  recommendations which would help them apply 
the  provisions  of  the  Directive  correctly  and  would  likely  result  in  better 
harmonisation. 
Legal practitioners/judiciary 
No specific impacts identified.  
Third-country nationals  
The measure would benefit TCNs indirectly as it is expected to bring clarity 
and  potential  simplification.  The  measure  would  improve  Member  States’ 
application of the Directive to the effect of clarification of TCNs’ rights to 
equal treatment.  
Third countries 
No specific impacts identified.  
Depending on the specific content of the non-binding recommendations and 
the extent to which Member States take up on those recommendations, the 
measure may contribute to increased  attractiveness of the EU due to better 
clarity of equal treatment provisions, but due to the high level of uncertainty 
and complexity, it is not possible to measure such potential effects.  
No environmental specific impacts identified.  

This measure of adopting non-binding recommendations (soft law) on equal 
treatment is  expected to  positively contribute to several fundamental rights 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, such as, inter 
alia,  right  to  property  (Art.17),  non-discrimination  (Art.  21)  and  social 
security  and  social  assistance  (Art.  21).  The  non-biding  recommendations 
are  expected  to  provide  more  clarity  on  these  aspects.  However,  it  is 

105 

 
 
difficult to assess to what extent the recommendations will have a positive 
effect,  due  to  their  non-binding  nature  as  well  as  it  is  unknown  to  what 
extent  this  tool  would  be  used  (i.e.  how  often  would  the  need  for  such 
recommendations arise and the specific focus of such recommendations).  

There  may  be  administrative/  compliance  costs  associated  with  this 
measure,  though  these  are  difficult  to  estimate.  This  is  due  to  uncertainty 
around  the  specific  content  of  the  proposed  non-binding  recommendations 
and the extent to which Member States will take up the recommendations in 
practice 

Costs  
Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

Overall assessment  
Overall, this measure is expected to have a positive impact in terms of enhancing equal 
treatment of TCNs with EU citizens. A soft law measure, such as non-binding 
recommendations issued to Member States by the European Commission, are a potential tool 
to address ambiguity and lack of clarity and as such, it is expected to positively contribute to 
the enhancement of equal treatment rights in comparison to the status quo (baseline). Where 
ambiguities exist, such soft law interpretations would facilitate correct implementation for 
Member States. However, due to its non-binding nature, this measure is a weaker option than 
the legislative measures on equal treatment under Option 3 which are expected to bring 
greater legal certainty than non-binding (soft law) recommendations.  

Option 3: Legislative revision of the Directive to simplify the procedure, improve rights 
and protection from exploitation 

Policy Measure 3.1: Ensuring the permits are not linked to only one employer 

Figure 6.  Permit not linked to an employer: Ensuring that the permit is linked to a specific 

profession or sector and not to the employer (Art. 11(c)) 

Policy Measure 3.1.: Ensuring the permits are not linked to only one employer 

Figure 7.  Permit not linked to an employer: Ensuring that the permit is linked to a specific 

profession or sector and not to the employer (Art. 11(c)) 

Assessment 

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 
procedures  

Article 11(c) of the Directive establishes that the permit holder has the right 
to  "exercise  the  specific  employment  activity  authorised  under  the  single 
permit  in  accordance  with  national  law".  This  provision  can  result  in 
difficulties when TCNs wish to change employer, as they may have to lodge 
a new application or request an updating of the current one. This makes the 
permit holder too dependent on the employer. 
Allowing  the  third-country  worker  to  be  able  to  change  employers  whilst 

106 

 
 
 
2: 
ensure 

4: 
enhance 

Objective 
To 
greater 
efficiency  of 
application 
procedures  
Objective 
3: 
To address EU 
labour 
shortages 
Objective 
To 
equal 
treatment 
of 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 
Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 
workers  from 
labour 
exploitation 

5: 
protect 

residing  on  the  territory  of  the  Member  State  will  contribute  to  a  certain 
extent  to  simplification  and  reduction  of  administrative  burden,  as  TCNs 
may no longer need to  update or change the permit  in  case of a change  of 
employer.  Certain  administrative  requirements  may  remain  in  terms  of 
notifying  the  relevant  authorities  of  the  change  of  employer  but  may  not 
require a complete new application.  
As the current practices differ across Member States, the measure will result 
in a uniform application modality across the EU. This in turn is expected to 
improve the attractiveness of the EU due to more streamlined and efficient 
procedures.  The  ultimate  impact  of  this  measure  is  more  efficient  labour 
market access and ultimately better economic growth at EU level. 

More flexibility for the TCN to change employer would mean more readily 
available resources on the labour market when it comes to filling in shortage 
occupations.  

The  measure  is  expected  to  contribute  to  equal  treatment  of  TCNs  to 
national  workers and EU citizens  as to  their position  and flexibility on  the 
labour  market.  Conversely,  the  issue  of  social  dumping  and  protection  of 
national workforces comes to the fore.   

Several stakeholders consulted as part of the impact assessment considered 
that  linking  the  permit  to  one  single  employer  placed  migrants  in  a  more 
vulnerable  position,  as  they  would  feel  prevented  from  complaining, 
denouncing  abusive  working  conditions  or  exploitative  episodes  or 
resigning  from  their  position,  for  fear  of  losing  their  job  and  consequently 
their permit155.  
Literature stressed that permit conditions that do not allow for the change of 
third-country 
employers  or  professions  might  significantly  enhance 
nationals' vulnerability both in terms of job loss156 and potential exploitation 
and abuse. Ensuring some flexibility regarding a change of employer would 
potentially  avoid  an  unhealthy  dependence  of  the  workers  on  their 
respective  employers  while  lowering  the  risk  of  abuse  by  unscrupulous 
employers157. 

Impacts  

155  Third  meeting  of  the  Commission  Expert  Group  (EG)  on  the  Views  of  Migrants,  2  March  2021  and 

Consultation with representatives of Civil Society, 20 April 2021 (see Annex for further details). 
156  OECD (2020), What is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on immigrants and their children. 
157  IOM (2009), Laws for Legal Immigration in the 27 EU Member States. 

107 

 
 
                                                           
Social 
impacts  

Economic 
impacts  

Environmental 
impacts  
Fundamental 
rights  
Costs  

Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

Different  social  impacts  will  be  considered  based  on  the effects chains 
above, on different stakeholder categories, including:  
Employers/businesses 
Employers  and  businesses  are  expected  to  positively  benefit  due  to  the 
reduction of administrative barriers.  
National authorities 
For national authorities, the measure would mean that they will not have to 
re-assess the application in full, in the case of change of an employer.  
Third-country nationals  
TCNs are expected to  benefit positively from  the adoption of this measure 
as they will be able to change employers more easily and their residence in 
the Member State will not depend solely on specific employers which may 
put  them  in  a  vulnerable  position  and  at  risk  of  exploitation  as  discussed 
above. 
Legal practitioners/judiciary 
Familiarisation with new procedures  
Third countries 
No significant impacts expected.  
Due to the high levels of uncertainty and complexity of contributing factors, 
the  potential  economic  impact  could  not  quantified  at  the  level  of  the 
specific individual measure, but has rather been calculated at the aggregate 
level of the policy options instead. A qualitative assessment highlights that 
measure 2.4 poses a significant potential positive impact on the EU’s labour 
market.  Indeed,  positive  labour  market  impacts  are  expected  in  terms  of 
increased labour mobility, structural effects from the added flexibility to the 
labour market (i.e. more flexible supply and labour force). It is assumed that 
the number of additional TCNs attracted to the EU will increase, which will 
in turn have a positive impact on increased tax revenue, economic growth, 
productivity and consumption. 

No specific environmental impacts from this measure. 

No specific environmental impacts from this measure. 

The measure is expected to lead to cost savings for TCNs and employers, as 
they would spend less time on waiting for a decision, which means that they 
are  unable  to  commence  employment.  National  authorities  will  also  spend 
less time on the application procedure in the longer term. 
National  authorities  would  incur  some  one-off  and  recurring  costs  for 
transposition, adapting internal procedures and training. 
It is estimated that Measure 3.1 could confer yearly benefits/cost savings of 

108 

 
 
 
about  EUR  90.0  million  and  EUR  20.0  million  (rounded  to  the  nearest 
million) for TCNs and employers respectively. Member State authorities are 
expected to incur one-off costs of about EUR 600,000 in the first year, while 
recurring  costs  could  amount  to  about  EUR  300,000  every  year  thereafter. 
Cost  savings  are  also  expected  to  accrue,  amounting  to  about  EUR  1.0 
million every year.  

Overall assessment  
Overall,  the  measure  is  expected  to  positively  contribute  to  a  number  of  areas,  including 
protection  from  labour  exploitation  as  well  as  more  flexibility  on  the  labour  market, 
specifically when it comes to shortage occupations.  

Policy  Measure  3.2:  Removing  restrictions  on  equal  treatment  for  access  to  private 
housing  

Figure 8.  Equal  Treatment:  Housing:  Removing  restrictions  on  equal  treatment  for  goods 
and services or clarifying the text to ensure that there is no exemption on access to 
private housing (Art. 12(2)(d)(ii))  

Assessment 

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

2: 
ensure 

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 
procedures  
Objective 
To 
greater 
efficiency  of 
application 
procedures 
Objective 
3: 
To address EU 
labour 
shortages 
Objective 
To 
equal 
treatment 
of 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 

4: 
enhance 

No specific effects expected on this objective 

No specific effects expected on this objective 

No specific effects expected on this objective 

Art. 12(1)(g) of the Directive provides for equal treatment of third-country 
workers with nationals of the Member State with regard to "access to goods 
and services […] including procedures for obtaining housing as provided by 
national  law,  without  prejudice  to  the  freedom  of  contract  in  accordance 
with Union and national  law".  In reference to  this  provision,  12 (2) (d)(ii) 
provides for the optional possibility for Member States to restrict "access to 
housing".  

109 

 
 
 
Currently,  nine  Member  States  have  transposed  the  optional  clauses  in 
Article  12(2)  restricting  equal  treatment  regarding  inter  alia  access  to 
housing.158  Cyprus  has  chosen  to  adopt  all  optional  restrictions,  and  the 
other  seven  Member  States  (BG,  CZ,  ES,  HR,  LU,  RO  and  SK)  did  not 
apply any of the options159.  
Data  from  the  EMN  Ad-hoc  query  showed  that  five  Member  States  (AT, 
EE, FI, PL, SI) apply exclusions from the right to access to private housing, 
while eleven others (CY, EL, FR, DE, HU,  LV, LU, NL, PT, SK, NO) do 
not.160 In addition, in all five Member State that apply exclusions from the 
right  to  access  to  private  housing,  there  are  restrictions  on  the  purchase  of 
private property for EU long-term residence or other TCNs. 
Clarifying  the  text  of  the  main  Directive  article  and  the  exclusions  in  Art. 
12(2)(d)  to  stipulate  that  access  to  private  housing  is  not  included  among 
those  restrictions,  would  guarantee  that  no  difference  in  treatment  exists 
between TCNs and EU nationals. Third-country nationals would be able to 
access  housing  opportunities  which  in  turn  is  expected  to  improve 
integration  into  the  receiving  society  and  their  living  environment  and 
conditions. 
No specific effects expected on this objective 

Different  social  impacts  will  be  considered  on  different  stakeholder 
categories, including:  
Employers/businesses 
No expected impacts on this group of stakeholders  
Member States 
Member States would be positively impacted as the measure will help boost 
a  greater  level  of  integration  of  migrants  in  their  respective  society.  The 
measure  would  ease  access  to  private  housing  that  leaves  TCNs  more 
freedom  in  choosing/purchasing  houses  that  best  suit  their  needs.  In  some 
cases, the measure could also help reduce spatial segregation.  
Third-country nationals  

5: 
protect 

Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 
workers  from 
labour 
exploitation 
Impacts  

Social 
impacts  

158  Fitness Check on EU Legislation on legal migration (2019), SWD(2019) 1056 final, part 1 
159  COM(2019) 160 final.  
160  EMN  (2021)  AHQ  for  Impact  assessment  on  revision  of  the  Long-term  Residents  and  Single  Permit 

Directives (Question 3) 

110 

 
 
                                                           
A  measure  aimed  at  ensuring  that  there  are  no  restrictions  to  access  to 
private housing would allow third-country workers to enjoy a higher degree 
of equal treatment in those Member States which applied such restrictions in 
their national legislation. This is expected to positively impact TCNs’ access 
to  private  housing  and  improve  their  household's  living  conditions. 
Nevertheless,  as  Member States could  still  restrict  access  to  public /  social 
housing,  those  in  a  more  precarious  economic  situation  may  still  face 
difficulties.  
Another positive expected outcome is that TCNs will no longer be subject to 
legal  uncertainty  whilst  in  the  Member  State  and  depending  on  the 
legislation of the country where they reside. This measure is also expected 
to  increase  third-country  nationals’  integration  in  the  country  they  are 
residing in. 
Family Members of third-country nationals holding a single permit 
The  measure  would  also  improve  housing  and  living  standards  for  family 
members residing in Europe who cohabitate with permit holders.  
Legal practitioners/judiciary 
No expected impacts on this group of stakeholders  
Third countries 
No expected impacts on third countries 
The potential economic impacts remain impossible to quantify at the level of 
a  specific  individual  measure,  due  to  a  variety  of  factors  that  are  too 
uncertain  to  determine.  Rather,  potential  economic  impacts  have  been 
calculated at the aggregate level of the policy options instead. Nevertheless, 
a qualitative assessment underlines that given that the scale of the problem 
appears to be very small, as it refers only to those countries where national 
legislation  limit  TCNs  in  buying  (or  possibly  renting)  houses,  the  overall 
economic  impacts,  such  as  potential  increased  tax  revenues  and  the 
economic  growth  of  those  concerned  Member  States,  might  also  be 
particularly limited. 
Despite  the  small  scale  of  this  issue  a  qualitative  assessment  of  economic 
impact  also  points  to  the  fact  that  broadening  the  housing  market  to 
additional buyers is likely to have some positive impacts at the local level. 
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 environmental impacts from this measure 

-  Art. 21 Non-discrimination.  

Foreseeing  a  measure  ensuring  that  there  is  no  exemption  on  access  to 
private  housing  would  give  TCNs  the  same  social  rights  granted  for  EU 

Economic 
impacts  

Environmental 
impacts  
Fundamental 
rights  

111 

 
 
Costs  

Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

citizens.  In  this  sense,  while  overcoming  any  discrepancy  in  equal 
treatments  between  EU  and  Non-EU  citizens,  this  measure  is  expected  to 
positively promote fundamental non-discrimination.  

Considering  that  only  nine  Member  States  have  transposed  the  optional 
clauses in Article 12(2) restricting equal treatment regarding, among others, 
access to housing, and even fewer are known to have applied the restriction 
on private housing, the scale of the issue might result very small.  
Direct Costs for Member States: Foreseeing a provision that ensures that 
access to private housing is  granted for permit holders, is only expected to 
generate  some  and  marginal  administrative  compliance  costs  to  adapt  the 
current national procedures in those Member States affected.  
It  is  estimated  that  Measure  3.2  will  bring  about  (overall)  one-off  costs  to 
Member  States  authorities  of  about  EUR  300,000  in  the  first  year,  while 
(overall)  recurring  costs  could  amount  to  about  EUR  50,000  every  year 
thereafter.  Annex  6  of  the  accompanying  study  includes  the  main 
assumptions and methods used to estimate the costs of each measure, as well 
as Excel tables with detailed calculations. 

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 access 
and improve their household's living conditions in those  Member States where restriction to 
private housing is now in place, favouring equal treatment and non-discrimination of TCNs 

Policy Measure 3.3: Access to Family Benefits - Introducing a recital in order to clarify 
that  if  EU  nationals  can  export  family  benefits  to  third  countries  in  case  the  family 
members reside outside the EU, this should also apply to third-country nationals 

Figure 9.  Access to Family Benefits - Foreseeing a provision that allows taking into account 
the family members outside the EU when calculating the amount of family benefits to be paid 
to TCNs  

Assessment 

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 
procedures  
Objective 
To 

2: 
ensure 

No specific effects expected on this objective 

No specific effects expected on this objective 

112 

 
 
 
 
greater 
efficiency  of 
application 
procedures 
3: 
Objective 
To address EU 
labour 
shortages 
Objective 
To 
equal 
treatment 
of 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 

4: 
enhance 

No specific effects expected on this objective 

At present, access to family benefits by EU citizens and TCNs varies across 
Member  States.  Member  States  are  free  to  establish  their  own  rules  on 
entitlement  to  benefits  and  services,  and  all  countries  offer  some  family 
benefits, but amounts and conditions differ widely.  
Also, in the case of claiming child benefit for a child or children who are not 
residing in the territory of the Member States, national legislation might take 
different approaches.  
However,  a  measure  that  will  enable  TCNs  to  also  be  entitled  to  receive 
family  benefits  for  those  family  members  reside  outside  the  EU,  would 
ensure  that  no  difference  in  treatment  exists  between  holders  of  a  single 
permit  and  EU  nationals.  Such  a  measure  would  guarantee  that  the  single 
permit  holder's  family  member(s)  are  considered  when  determining  the 
TCN's entitlement to family benefits.  
To  conduct  a  comprehensive  impact  assessment  of  such  a  measure,  it  is 
necessary to understand which countries allow claiming child benefit if the 
family member does not live in the Member State territory.  
Data from the EMN Ad-Hoc Query showed that in five Member States (CY, 
FI,  DE, PL, PT) the family members residing outside the EU are considered 
when calculating the amount of family benefits granted to EU nationals and 
legally  staying 
the  Netherlands,  family 
members residing outside the EU are only provided with family benefits in 
the case of a bilateral agreement between the Netherlands and the country of 
residency. 
Foreseeing a provision that allows taking into account the family members 
outside the EU when calculating the amount of family benefits to be paid to 
TCNs (if this is the case for EU nationals) would ensure that no difference 
in treatment exists between holders of a single permit and EU nationals. No 
matter  where  the  family  member(s)  of  the  single  permit  holder  is  located, 
they would be considered when determining entitlement of the permit holder 
to  family  benefits,  and  the  third  country  workers  would  benefit  from  the 
same treatment as the EU citizens. 

third-country  national.161  In 

161  EMN  (2021)  AHQ  for  Impact  assessment  on  revision  of  the  Long-term  Residents  and  Single  Permit 

Directives (Question 9) 

113 

 
 
                                                           
5: 
protect 

Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 
workers  from 
labour 
exploitation 
Impacts  

Social 
impacts  

No specific effects expected on this objective 

Different  social  impacts  will  be  considered  on  different  stakeholder 
categories, including:  
Employers/businesses 
Employers  depending  on  the  Member  States  might  be  responsible  for  the 
entire or partial cost related to the payment of family benefits (such as child 
care) to  employees. Such a measure  could  thus  also  affect  this category  of 
stakeholders. However, the size of this impact might be difficult to examine 
considering  the  different  rules  applied  at  the  national  levels.  This  measure 
would affect those Member States that take into account for family benefits 
calculations,  family  members  of  EU  nationals  residing  outside  the  EU  but 
not  family  members  of  TCNs  nationals.  Employers  are  expected  to 
indirectly  benefit  from  this  measure  as  third-country  nationals  would  be 
more attracted to work in Europe.  
Member States 
In  those  Member  States  where  this  measure  would  apply,  Member  States 
might  encounter  some  positive  and  negative  effects.  Concerning  the  latter, 
the  EU  countries  might  may  face  an  increase  in  the  costs  that  need  to  be 
borne  to  ensure  the  inclusion  of  additional  family  members  when 
determining  entitlement  to  family  benefits.  Conversely,  Member  States 
might envisage economic growth and increased tax revenue as a result of the 
improved attractiveness of the EU. However, as many factors influence the 
extent of these effects, latter impacts, such as the number of Member States 
affected  by  the  change,  any  estimation  of  the  number  of  third-country 
workers TCNs who have family members abroad, the impact on the decision 
to  migrate,  etc.,  it  will  not  be  possible  to  the  assessment  might  result  in 
difficulty  calculating  and  isolating  the  effects  of  other  factors  and 
quantification may therefore not be possible.  
Third-country nationals  
The measure would allow third-country workers to enjoy equal treatment as 
foreseen  for  EU  nationals  regarding  family  benefits  also  in  the  case  their 
family member is residing outside the EU. This will positively impact TCNs 
as they would have a uniform scheme that recognises such benefits among 
all the EU they will equal treatment with the nationals of the Member State 

114 

 
 
in which they are residing.   
Family Members of third-country nationals holding a single permit 
The  measure  would  also  improve  living  standards  for  family  members  of 
those  third-country  nationals  residing  in  Europe,  whether  they  reside  in 
Europe or their country of origin.  
Third countries 
Third  countries  are  likely  to  experience  some  positive  effect  on  possible 
brain  drain  as  family  members  of  third-country  nationals  would  be 
ultimately more inclined to, at least initially, keep residing in their country 
of origin, as they would not feel the need to move to Europe. On the other 
hand,  other  TCNs  may  feel  more  inclined  to  move  to  the  EU  and  leave 
family members behind, because of this opportunity offered. 
The quantifiable economic impacts could not be estimated at the level of the 
specific  individual  measure  due  to  the  uncertainty  and  complexity  of 
influential factors, but have rather been calculated at the aggregate level of 
the policy options. A qualitative assessment suggests that the introduction of 
this  measure  could  prompt  potential  positive  impacts  to  the  EU’s  labour 
market,  economic  growth,  as  well  as  increased  tax  revenue,  consumption 
and productivity. 
In  fact,  policy  measure  2.7  might,  in  some  Member  States,  provide 
additional transfer payments destined for dependent family members living 
in  third  countries.    This  will  have  the  positive  economic  impact  of 
improving  their  living  conditions  and  thus  indirectly  also  improving  the 
economy.  
The  policy  measure  may  also,  again  where  applicable,  make  labour 
migration  to  the  EU  more  attractive,  as  migrating  third-country  nationals 
would consider that their dependent family members would be taken care of. 
This  in  turn  would  contribute  to  increased  tax  revenue,  productivity, 
consumption  and  economic  growth  in  the  Member  States,  which  would 
grant this benefit. .  
No specific environmental impacts from this measure 

-  Art. 21 Non-discrimination.  

Foreseeing this measure in those countries where EU citizens are allowed to 
receive family benefits also if the family members reside outside would give 
TCNs  the  same  social  rights  granted  for  EU  citizens.  In  this  sense,  while 
overcoming any discrepancy in (equal) treatments between EU and Non-EU 
citizens,  this  measure  is  expected  to  positively  affect  the  promotion  of  the 
fundamental non-discrimination right.  

-  Art. 34 Social security and social assistance. 

Such  a  measure  would  ensure  higher  financial  resources  for  TCNs  while 
improving the household's living conditions. Thus, this measure is expected 

Economic 
impacts  

Environmental 
impacts  
Fundamental 
rights  

115 

 
 
Costs  

Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

to provide a better living and economic existence for all TCNs while helping 
in combating social exclusion and poverty, as prescribed under Article 34 of 
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

Foreseeing  a  provision  that  allows  third-country  nationals  to  export  family 
benefits also in case the family members reside outside the EU would result 
in  some  costs  that  Member  States  have  to  afford  to  ensure  such  further 
coverage and implement a new procedure.  
Measure 3.3 is  estimated to  bring  about  (overall) one-off costs to  Member 
State  authorities  of  about  EUR  1.0  million  in  the  first  year  and  (overall) 
recurring costs of about EUR 300,000 every year thereafter. Annex 6 of the 
accompanying  study  includes  the  main  assumptions  and  methods  used  to 
estimate  the  costs  of  each  measure,  as  well  as  Excel  tables  with  detailed 
calculations. 

Overall assessment  
Overall, this measure is expected to positively impact third-country nationals and their family 
members  while  ensuring  equal  treatment.  This  measure  is  also  expected  to  have  a  positive 
impact  in  terms  of  increased  attractiveness.  However,  difficulties  in  comparing  different 
countries' systems might occur, so assessing the costs could prove challenging. 

Policy Measure 3.4 - Removing the possibility to exclude those working on the basis of a 
visa from family benefits (if the visa is valid for more than six months)  

Figure 10. Assessment measure: Equal Treatment: Removing the possibility to exclude those 
working  on  the  basis  of  a  visa  from  family  benefits  (if  the  visa  is  valid  for  more  than  six 
months) 

Assessment 

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

No specific effects expected on this objective 

No specific effects expected on this objective 

2: 
ensure 

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 
procedures  
Objective 
To 
greater 
efficiency  of 
application 
procedures  
Objective 

3:  No specific effects expected on this objective 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4: 
enhance 

To address EU 
labour 
shortages 
Objective 
To 
equal 
treatment 
of 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 

5: 
protect 

Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 
workers  from 
labour 
exploitation 
Impacts  

Social 
impacts  

162  COM(2019)160 

Art.  12(1)(e) of the Directive provides for equal  treatment  of third-country 
workers  with  nationals  of  the  Member  State  with  regard  to  "branches  of 
social  security".  These  branches  include,  among  other  things,  family 
benefits.  In  reference  to  this  provision,  Article  12  (2)(b)  provides  for  the 
optional possibility for Member States to exclude from family benefits third-
country  nationals  who  are  allowed  to  work  on  the  basis  of  a  visa.  This 
means that if a Member State issues long stay visas for a duration exceeding 
six  months  which  allow  the  holder  to  work  before  obtaining  the  single 
permit, the third-country national would not be entitled to access to family 
benefits for up to a year.  
Currently,  the  majority  of  Member  States  have  not  applied  all  the  options 
laid  down  in  Article  12(2)  to  restrict  equal  treatment.  Only  Cyprus  has 
chosen  to  adopt  all  optional  restrictions,  while  BG,  CZ,  ES,  HR,  LU,  RO 
and SK did not apply any of the options.162 To understand the scale of the 
issue  it  is  still  not  clear  how  many  Member  States  have  implemented  the 
option that restricts access to family benefits for visa holders, in accordance 
with Article 12(2)(b). 
A  measure  aimed  at  removing  the  possibility  of  excluding  those  migrants 
working on the basis of a visa valid for more than six months from family 
benefits  would  ensure  that  regardless  of  the  type  of  document  they  have 
been issued with, they will enjoy equal treatment. They would no longer be 
subjected to different legislation, and their rights would no longer depend on 
the type of document that the Member State issued.  
No specific effects expected on this objective 

Employers/businesses 
Employers,  depending  on  the  Member  State,  might  be  responsible  for  the 
entire or partial cost related to the payment of family benefits to employees. 
However,  the  size  of  this  impact  is  difficult  to  examine  considering  the 
various  rules  applied  at  the  national  levels.  Moreover,  employers  are 

117 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
expected  to  indirectly  benefit  from  this  measure  as  third-country  nationals 
may be more attracted to work in Europe.  
Member States 
Member  States  where  this  measure  would  apply,  might  experience  some 
positive and negative effects. Regarding the negative effects, the concerned 
EU  countries  might  face  some  increase  in  the  costs  as  they  would  need  to 
adapt  their  rules  to  ensure  that  also  visa  holders who  were  excluded  could 
also have access to family benefits. On the other hand, Member States might 
experience some economic growth and increased tax revenue thanks to the 
improved attractiveness of the EU.  
Third-country nationals  
The  measure  would  allow  third-country  workers  to  enjoy  equal  treatment 
regarding  family  benefits  also  in  the  case  they  are  allowed  to  work  on  the 
basis  of  a  visa  valid  for  more  than  six  months.  Such  a  measure  would 
positively affect visa holders as they would be subject to a uniform scheme 
that recognises such benefits in all the EU Member States. They would not 
face legal uncertainty due to the different legislation of the EU countries or 
depending on the type of document the country issued.  
This  policy  measure  would  also  improve  their  living  standards  as  they 
would be eligible for additional benefits/resources.  
The policy measure would apply to third-country workers holding a visa that 
exceeds  six  months  in  those  Member  States  that  made  use  of  the  optional 
clause  foreseen  in  Article  12  (2)(b).  The  scale  of  the  issue  is  however 
unclear. 
Family members of third-country nationals allowed to work on the basis 
of a visa (if the visa is valid for more than six months)   
The  measure  would  also  improve  living  standards  for  family  members  of 
those  third-country  nationals  allowed  to  work  in  the  EU  based  on  a  visa 
whose duration exceeds six months.  
Third countries 
Third  countries  may  experience  marginal  brain  drain  as  TCNs  may  feel 
more  motivated  to  move  to  the  EU  because  of  the  removal  of  such 
restriction.  
Legal practitioners/judiciary 
Legal  practitioners  might  encounter  additional  queries  to  clarify  the 
procedures applicable to their own Member State to request family benefits. 
The  need  for  legal  counselling  and/or  recourse  to  appeals  can  thus  be 
increased if such a measure is implemented. 
Potential economic impacts  remain impossible to quantify at  the level  of  a 
specific  individual  measure,  due  to  the  levels  of  uncertainty  from 
influencing factors. These have rather been calculated at the aggregate level 
of  the  policy  options  instead.  However,  a  qualitative  assessment  points  to 

118 

Economic 
impacts  

 
 
tax 

thus  economic  growth, 

the  fact  that  this  measure  may  have  a  positive  economic  impact  on  the 
revenue,  productivity, 
labour  market, 
consumption and remittances. 
For  instance,  in  those  Member  States  where  the  policy  measure  would 
apply,  this  might  result  in  some  additional  transfer  payments  destined  for 
those  third-country  workers  originally  excluded  from  family  benefits. 
However, this measure will have the positive economic impact of improving 
the  living  conditions  of  TCNs  and  consequently  indirectly  improve  the 
general economy. 

Environmental 
impacts  
Fundamental 
rights  

Costs  

Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

third-country  nationals  would  consider 

The  policy  measure  may  also  make  labour  migration  to  the  EU  more 
attractive,  as  migrating 
this 
additional benefit they would benefit from. This, in turn, would contribute to 
increased  tax  revenue  and  economic  growth  in  the  Member  States,  which 
would grant this benefit.  
No specific environmental impacts from this measure 

Art. 21 Non-discrimination.  

- 
Foreseeing  this  measure  in  those  countries  that  excluded  from  family 
benefits  third-country  nationals  who  are  allowed  to  work  on  the  basis  of a 
visa would give TCNs the same social rights granted for EU citizens. In this 
sense, while overcoming any discrepancy in (equal) treatments between EU 
and  Non-EU  citizens,  this  measure  is  expected  to  positively  promote  the 
fundamental non-discrimination right.  
- 
Such  a  measure  would  ensure  higher  financial  resources  for  TCNs  while 
improving their living conditions. Thus, this measure is expected to provide 
a  better  living  and  economic  existence  for  all  TCNs  while  helping  in 
combating  social  exclusion  and  poverty,  as  prescribed  under  Article  34  of 
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

Art. 34 Social security and social assistance. 

Removing  the  possibility  to  exclude  those  working  based  on  a  visa  from 
family  benefits  will  generate  some  administrative  compliance  costs  for 
Member  States  to  ensure  such  further  coverage.  Moreover,  Member  States 
might  face  additional  administrative  costs  linked  to  the  need  to  provide 
information  to  TCNs,  state  reasons  in  writing  for  decisions  rejecting  a 
request to obtain family benefits, and provision of documentation. 
EUR  2.0  million  are  the  estimated  (overall)  one-off  costs  expected  in  the 
first  year  for  Member  State  authorities  from  Measure  3.4.  Total  recurring 
costs, on the other hand, could amount to about EUR 12.0 million annually, 
owing to the need to review additional applications for benefits. Annex 6 of 

119 

 
 
 
 
the accompanying study includes the main assumptions and methods used to 
estimate  the  costs  of  each  measure,  as  well  as  Excel  tables  with  detailed 
calculations. 

Overall assessment  
Generally,  this  measure  is  expected  to  improve  third-country  workers’  living  standards.  It 
would  also  entitle  them  to  enjoy  equal  treatment  regarding  family  benefits  also  in  the  case 
they are allowed to work on the basis of a visa valid for more than six months. This measure 
is  also  expected  to  reduce  legal  uncertainty  significantly  while  increasing  the  EU 
attractiveness. 

Policy  Measure  3.5:  Further  clarifying  the  categories  falling  outside  the  scope  of 
application of the Directive (intra-corporate transferees, seasonal workers and workers 
posted from third countries) by making clear references to the relevant acquis 

Figure 11. Assessment  of  measure:  Personal  scope:  further  clarifying  the  categories  falling 
outside  the  scope  of  application  of  the  Directive  (intra-corporate  transferees,  seasonal 
workers and workers posted from third countries) by making clear references to the relevant 
acquis. 

Assessment 

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

of 

2: 
ensure 

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 
procedures  
Objective 
To 
greater 
efficiency 
application 
procedures  
Objective 
3: 
To  address  EU 
labour  
shortages  
Objective 
To 
equal 
of 
treatment 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 

4: 
enhance 

No effect on this policy objective 

No effect on this policy objective 

No effect on this policy objective 

The assumption is that at present, the Directive not only excluded TCNs who 
are intra-corporate transferees, seasonal workers and posted workers covered 
by the other EU Directives from its scope, but also those who are covered by 
national  schemes  with  different  requirements  and  conditions  that  those 
stipulated by the Directives. 
Some impact could be expected in those Member States which at present do 

120 

 
 
 
5: 
protect 

not  cover  these  categories  by  the  single  permit  procedure,  as  they  are  not 
guaranteed procedures and harmonised equal treatment rights. In all Member 
States,  the  measure  would  help  to  reduce  legal  uncertainty  for  these 
categories. 
In those Member States which at present do not guarantee harmonised equal 
treatment rights to the three categories identified, the measure would indeed 
offer a higher level of protection from labour exploitation, as TCNs would, 
for  example,  be  guaranteed  equal  working  conditions  and  freedom  of 
association.  

Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 
workers 
labour 
exploitation 
Impacts  
Social impacts   Different  social  impacts  will  be  considered  based  on  the effects chains,  on 

from 

different stakeholder categories, including:  
Employers/businesses 
No specific impact identified 
National authorities 
National  authorities  would  have  to  extend  the  scope  of  the  equal  treatment 
rights currently granted under the Directive and the single permit procedure 
to a marginally wider group of TCNs. On the upside, this would mean some 
simplification  in  those  countries  which  currently  may  have  adopted  a 
fragmented  approach  to  the  granting  of  equal  treatment  rights  to  these 
categories. On the downside, it may lead to some additional costs to ensure 
the implementation of these rights.  
Third-country nationals  
In  Member  States  which  at  present  do  not  guarantee  harmonised  equal 
treatment rights to the three categories identified, TCNs would benefit from 
enhanced  and  harmonised  equal  treatment  rights,  which  would  in  addition 
help to better protect them against possible abuse and exploitation.  
Third countries 
Some increase in remittances may be expected.  
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  is  detailed  in  Annex  4,  highlights  how  potential 
economic impacts were impossible to quantify, due to the fact that a variety 
of  important  factors  were  too  uncertain  to  determine.  Nonetheless,  a 
qualitative  assessment  underlines  that  this  measure  would  bring  a  positive 
economic  impact,  especially  in  the  form  of  tax  revenue  and  economic 
growth, if a higher share of TCNs would feel more inclined to remain in the 
EU now that they are granted equal treatment. 
No specific environmental impacts from this measure. 

Economic 
impacts  

Environmental 
impacts  

121 

 
 
Fundamental 
rights  

Costs  
Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

In  Member  States  which  at  present  do  not  guarantee  harmonised  equal 
treatment  rights  to  the  three  categories  identified,  TCN  would  benefit  from 
enhanced and harmonised equal treatment rights. The fundamental rights that 
would  be  enhanced  for  the  categories  concerned  are  those  covered  by  the 
equal  treatment  rights  in  the  Directive,  thus  including  Art.  17  Right  to 
property,  Art.  31  Fair  and  just  working  conditions,  Art.  33  Family  and 
professional  life  and  Art.  34  Social  security  and  social  assistance.  In 
addition, Art. 21 Non-discrimination would be enhanced. 

This  measure  aims to bring  about  equal  treatment  for  certain  categories  of 
TCNs,  notably:  intra-corporate  transferees,  seasonal  workers  and  posted 
workers, who are not covered by the other legal migration Directives and are 
excluded from  the  Directive. In  Member  States  which, at  present, do  not 
three categories 
guarantee  harmonised  equal 
identified, TCNs would  benefit  from  enhanced  and  harmonised  equal 
treatment rights.  

treatment  rights 

the 

to 

The  measure  may  bring  about some  (additional) costs  for  Member  States, 
notably costs associated with the provision of equal treatment rights to TCNs 
falling  under  the  three  categories  identified. The  quantification  of  costs 
associated  with  Measure  3.5  is nonetheless problematic  as it  is  difficult  to 
estimate 
the  different  categories, 
who would likely  be affected by  the  measure.  Given  the  high  degree  of 
uncertainty around parameters of interest and the lack of reliable data, 
quantification is not pursued for Measure 3.5.  

the  number  of  TCNs,  across 

Overall assessment  
Overall, this measure would offer a greater degree of legal certainty and an enhanced set of 
rights  for  the  three  categories  of  TCNs,  as  they  may  not  be  covered  by  harmonised  equal 
treatment rights and the single permit procedure in some Member States.  

Policy  Measure  3.6  Including  beneficiaries  of  national  protection  at  least  in  the  equal 
treatment chapter  

Figure 12. Assessment  of  measure:  Including  beneficiaries  of national protection  at  least  in 
the equal treatment chapter  

Assessment 

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

No effect on this policy objective 

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 

122 

 
 
  
 
2: 
ensure 

procedures  
Objective 
To 
greater 
efficiency  of 
application 
procedures  
3: 
Objective 
To address EU 
labour 
shortages 
Objective 
To 
equal 
treatment 
of 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 

4: 
enhance 

5: 
protect 

Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 
workers  from 
labour 
exploitation 
Impacts  

Social 
impacts  

No effect on this policy objective 

No effect on this policy objective 

At  present,  at  least  seven  Member  States  exclude  beneficiaries  of  some 
national  protection  statuses  from  equal  treatment  (access  to  social 
assistance).163 In these Member States, some impact may thus be expected, 
although the number of national protection statuses is relatively low (e.g. in 
2019 less than 2,000 first permits were issued in these countries, no stock 
data is available). In all Member States, the measure would help to reduce 
legal uncertainty for these categories. 
In  those  Member  States  which  at  present  do  not  guarantee  harmonised 
equal  treatment  rights  to  national  protection  status  holders,  the  measure 
would indeed offer a higher level of protection from labour exploitation, as 
TCNs  would,  for  example,  be  guaranteed  equal  working  conditions  and 
freedom of association.  

Different social impacts will be considered based on the effects chains, on 
different stakeholder categories, including:  
Employers/businesses 
Some impact on employers may occur as these categories of TCNs could 
now  be  subject  to  the  single  procedure  in  some  Member  States,  which 
could reduce the administrative burden associated with their recruitment.  
National authorities 
National authorities in at least seven Member States would have to extend 
the  scope  of  the  equal  treatment  rights  currently  granted  under  the 
Directive to a somewhat wider group of TCNs. On the upside, this would 
mean  some  simplification  in  those  countries  which  currently  may  have 
adopted a fragmented approach to the granting of equal treatment rights to 
these  categories.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  lead  to  additional  costs  to 

163  BG,  EE,  IT,  LT,  MT,  NL,  PL  only  provide  access  to  core  social  benefits  for  some  national  statuses  - 
Comparative overview of national protection statuses in the EU and Norway, EMN Synthesis Report 2019 

123 

 
 
                                                           
ensure the implementation of these rights.  
Third-country nationals  
In  Member  States  which  at  present  do  not  guarantee  harmonised  equal 
treatment  rights  to  this  category  of  TCNs,  they  would  benefit  from 
enhanced and harmonised equal treatment rights, which would in addition 
help  to  better  protect  them  against  possible  abuse  and  exploitation,  and 
improve their integration.  
Third countries 
No effect. 
The  potential  economic  impact  brought  by  this  specific  individual 
measure cannot be quantified, due to a variety of uncertain and complex 
factors.  Instead,  potential  economic  impacts  have  been  calculated  at  the 
aggregate level  of the policy options. However,  a qualitative assessment 
indicates that any potential economic impact of this measure is expected 
to  be  low.  The  positive  effect  on  the  integration  of  this  group  of  TCNs 
may also improve their chances on the labour market, which would thus 
result  in  an  increase  in  tax  payments  and  a  small  contribution  to  the 
economic  growth  of  the  Member  States.  The  economic  impacts  are 
expected to be marginal due to the small population size of beneficiaries 
of  national  protection  and  the  fact  that  there  is  no  direct  link  to  the 
economic impacts of this measure. 
No specific environmental impacts from this measure. 

In  the  seven  Member  States  which  currently  do  not  guarantee  equal 
treatment,  the  fundamental  rights  that  would  be  enhanced  for  this 
category  are  all  those  covered  by  the  equal  treatment  rights  in  the 
Directive, thus including Art. 17 Right to property, Art. 31 Fair and just 
working  conditions,  Art.  33  Family  and  professional  life  and  Art.  34 
Social  security  and  social  assistance.  In  addition,  Art.  21  Non-
discrimination. 

This  measure  aims to  bring  about harmonised  equal  treatment  rights 
to TCNs who have a national protection status. The measure aims to offer a 
higher level of protection from labour exploitation to this specific category 
of  TCNs  as  TCNs  would  be  guaranteed  equal  working  conditions  and 
freedom of association.   

The  measure  is  expected  to  bring  about  (additional)  costs  for  Member 
States, notably costs associated with the provision of equal treatment rights 
to  TCNs  falling  under  the above category.  The  quantification  of  costs 
associated with Measure 3.15 is nonetheless problematic:  

Economic 
impacts  

Environmental 
impacts  
Fundamental 
rights  

Costs  

Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

124 

 
 
 
The  Member  States  which  do  not  presently  guarantee  harmonised  equal 
treatment  rights  to  TCNs  within  the  concerned  category  (i.e. “affected 
Member States”) are not known.    

The number/ proportion of affected TCNs is not certain – there is evidence 
relatively 
that  TCNs  with  national  protection  statuses  could  be 
low; however stock data are not available.   

Given the degree of uncertainty around parameters of interest and the 
lack of reliable data, quantification is not pursued for Measure 3.6.  

Overall assessment  
Overall, this measure would offer a greater degree of legal certainty and an enhanced set of 
rights  for  a  category  of  TCN  which  in  at  least  seven  Member  States  are  not  fully  treated 
equally.  

Policy Measure 3.7 Include similar provisions to Art. 17, Art. 24 and Art.25 of the SWD, 
including: Sanctions, Compensation Monitoring, assessment and inspections Facilitation 
of complaints  

Figure 13. Include  similar  provisions  to  Art.  17,  Art.  25  and  Art.25  of  the  SWD,  , 
including: Sanctions,  Compensation  Monitoring,  assessment  and  inspections  Facilitation  of 
complaints  

Assessment 

Assessment 
criterion  
Policy objectives  

2: 
ensure 

1: 
simplify 

Objective 
To 
admission 
procedures  
Objective 
To 
greater 
efficiency  of 
application 
procedures 
Objective 
3: 
To address EU 
labour 
shortages 
Objective 
To 
equal 

4: 
enhance 

No effect on this policy objective 

No effect on this policy objective 

No effect on this policy objective 

See Objective 5 below 

125 

 
 
 
5: 
protect 

treatment 
of 
TCNs with EU 
citizens 
Objective 
To 
third-country 
national 
workers  from 
labour 
exploitation 

The  Seasonal  Workers  Directive  2014/36/EU  is  the  first  sectoral  EU  legal 
migration  Directive  to  include  specific  provisions  on  employer  sanctions. 
This is due to the particular vulnerability of seasonal workers and the high 
number of violations against these workers.  
The effectiveness of the Seasonal Workers Directive has not been evaluated 
yet.164  A  recent  EMN  Study  on  seasonal  workers165  showed  that  eleven 
Member  States  reported  having  specific  procedures  to  protect  seasonal 
workers  who  lodge  complaints  (as  per  Article  25),  while  the  remaining 
Member  States  confirmed  having  in  place  general  procedures  which  apply 
to both EU and non-EU workers and allow seasonal workers to make such 
complaints.  In  18  Member  States,  specific  sanctions  were  introduced  for 
employers  failing  to  fulfil  their  obligations  towards  seasonal  workers.  The 
Study  also  found  that  there  may  still  be  many  cases  of  abuse  (including 
issues of trafficking) that are not reported, mainly because seasonal workers 
are not aware of their rights, or they are reluctant to report infringements by 
employers  due  to  their  dependence  on  those  employers.  Information 
provision  to  seasonal  workers  remains  difficult,  although  some  best 
practices  have  been  implemented  (e.g.  by  directly  approaching  seasonal 
workers with information at their workplace). 
Article 17(1) provides for effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions 
against  employers  who  have  not  fulfilled  their  obligations.  Article  24 
obliges  Member  States  to  provide  for  measures  to  prevent  possible  abuses 
and to sanction infringements, including monitoring, assessment and, where 
appropriate,  inspection  in  accordance  with  national  law  or  administrative 
practice.  Article  25  further  provides  for  effective  complaints  mechanisms 
and facilitation of complaints. 
The  Single  Permit  Directive  is  an  umbrella  Directive  and  covers  different 
categories of third-country workers (including low and medium skilled who 
may be more susceptible to  exploitation). Including similar provisions in a 
revised  Single  Permit  Directive  would  contribute  to  the  protection  of  all 
third  country  workers  falling  within  scope  of  the  Directive  from  labour 
exploitation.  
The need to protect third-country nationals and avoid labour exploitation166 
was  one  of  the  areas  highlighted  by  stakeholders  consulted  via  the  Open 

164  At the time of the Fitness Check study, the adoption of the SWD was considered too recent to evaluate its 

impact yet.  

165  Available at: https://emn.ie/wp-

content/uploads/2020/12/2020_eu_seasonal_workers_study_synthesis_report_en.pdf  

166   https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e-library/documents/policies/legal-

migration/swd_2019-1055-staff-working-part2.pdf, p.20 

126 

 
 
                                                           
Public  Consultation  held  within  the  framework  of  the  Fitness  check  was. 
Stakeholders consulted in the more recent Public Consultation on the future 
of legal migration, concluded in December 2020, emphasised the need for a 
more ambitious, horizontal approach in the legal migration legislation, and 
conveyed  dissatisfaction  with  the  implementation  of  the  Directives  in 
general in some Member States. 

Stakeholders also considered that enforcement of equal treatment provisions 
and protection against exploitation should be carried out by making general 
labour inspection and complaints mechanisms more accessible and effective 
for all migrant workers167. In this sense, in order to increase Member States' 
capacity to  address irregularities with a cross-border dimension, one of the 
objectives  of  the  European  Labour  Authority  (established  in  2019)  is  to 
support national authorities in carrying out concerted and joint inspections, 
including  by  facilitating  the  implementation  of  the  inspections.  However, 
the  mandate  of  the  European  Labour  Authority  is  limited  to  ensuring  fair 
and  effective  enforcement  of  the  EU  rules  on  labour  mobility  and  social 
security coordination, thus it does not extend to labour exploitation of single 
permit holders, who are not exercising intra EU labour mobility. 

and 

included in  monitoring 

In  terms  of  the  stakeholders  involved  at  national  level,  the  Commission 
Expert  Group on  the  Views  of  Migrants highlighted  that  NGOs and 
workers unions should  be 
evaluation 
mechanisms.  This  has  been  reinforced  also  in  a  recent  study  which 
highlights that in some Member States, NGOs do not have access to courts 
for  equal  treatment  cases.  In  some  contexts,  however,  NGOs  may  be  the 
ones  with  greater  awareness  and  trust-based  communication  channels  to 
TCNs and thus, the study suggests that the Directive could grant NGOs and 
other third parties this legal standing168. 
Furthermore,  a  recent  EMN  study  on  protecting  the  rights  of  seasonal 
workers169  concluded  that  typically  several  actors  are  responsible  for 
monitoring (through e.g. ad hoc inspection) and for imposing sanctions for 
any violations. Still, there may be many cases of abuse (including issues of 
trafficking) not reported, mainly because seasonal workers are not aware of 
their rights, or they are reluctant to report infringements by employers due to 
their  dependence  on  those  employers.  Information  provision  to  seasonal 
workers  remains  difficult,  although  some  best  practices  have  been 
implemented  (e.g.  by  directly  approaching  seasonal  workers  with 
information at their workplace). 

167  European Commission (2021). Report on the consultation on the future of EU legal migration 
168  Available at: https://www.epc.eu/content/PDF/2021/Immigration_Issue_Paper.pdf 
169  Available 

at: 

https://emn.ie/wp-

content/uploads/2020/12/2020_eu_seasonal_workers_study_synthesis_report_en.pdf 

127 

 
 
                                                           
 

Impacts  
Social 
impacts  

However, the consultation with the Legal Migration Contact Group showed 
that national representatives of some Member States do not believe that the 
issue of exploitation should be tackled at EU level as it is closely connected 
to the national labour market system or should be tackled in other existing 
instruments,  such  as  the  Employers  Sanctions  Directive.  Similarly,  some 
members  of  the  EGEM  group  considered that the  need  of  a  European 
approach on protection against labour exploitation is disputable as there are 
already  rules  at  national  level  for  the  protection,  inspections,  monitoring, 
and  sanctions.   In  their  view, more coordination between  the  European 
Labour  Authority  and  the  National  Labour  law  enforcements should  be 
enough, including the exchange of different  procedures and  good practices 
of the Member States in the revised Directive, or to make them accessible in 
a place at EU level from which Member States can find examples of how to 
implement a better protection against exploitation.  
Experts  have  highlighted  that  any  provisions  should  be  aligned  with  the 
ILO’s Convention on Forced Labour Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour 
Convention, 1930 to which many Member States are already signatories.170 

tougher  measures  against  exploitation  will  contribute 

Different  social  impacts  will  be  considered  based  on  the effects chains,  on 
different stakeholder categories, including:  
Employers/businesses 
Potentially 
to 
preventing, detecting and sanctioning malicious practices of employers and 
businesses  against  third-country  nationals.  The  measure  is  likely  to  have 
positive  effects  and  strengthen  the  level  playing  field  for  law-compliant 
businesses, as it would deter unfair competition. 
National authorities 
Some  adjustment  may  be  required  in  those  Member  States  where  the 
systems  may  require  adaptation  to  meet  the  standards  of  the  Directive.  As 
highlighted  above,  Member  States  and  other  experts  have  expressed  their 
views  and  preferences  for  the  issue  to  be  tackled  at  national  level.  Thus, 
reluctance from some Member States to adopt further measures at EU level 
can be expected.  
Third-country nationals  
Positive  social  impact  to  third  country  workers  is  expected  as  the  measure 
will  help  protect  them  from  labour  exploitation  through  establishing  or 
adapting  monitoring,  complaints  and  sanctions  mechanisms  in  those 
Member  States  that  the  systems  may  require  adaptation  to  meet  the 
standards of the Directive.  

170  Available at: 

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:P029 

128 

 
 
                                                           
Economic 
impacts  

Environmental 
impacts  
Fundamental 
rights  

Costs  

Administrative 
compliance 
costs  

Third countries 
Some positive impacts on remittances can be expected as a result of limiting 
exploitative practices. 

Whilst the potential economic impact could not be quantified at the level of 
this  specific  individual  measure,  due  to  the  complexity  and  uncertainty  of 
influential factors, it has been calculated at the aggregate level of the policy 
options. Nonetheless, a qualitative assessment points to the fact that it will 
have a substantial positive economic impact, through expanding the material 
scope and tackling exploitation.  In fact, Positive economic impacts can for 
example  be  expected  in  terms  of  reduction  of  grey  and  shadow  economy 
from  labour  exploitation  of  third  country  workers.  Tackling  exploitation  is 
expected  to  also  reduce  downward  pressure  on  wages  resulting  from 
exploitation and social dumping practices (and as a result benefitting wider 
workforces). Further benefits include fiscal benefits from tax collection. The 
positive outcomes would include fairer payment and employers investing in 
fair  working  conditions  which  may  increase  labour  productivity  in  the 
medium to long run.  
No significant impacts  

Article 5 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour 
This  measure  is  expected  to  positively  contribute  to  preventing  labour 
exploitation and thus an overall positive impact is expected to fundamental 
rights  of  third  county  workers,  specifically  to  Art  5  of  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights to the European Union.  

Scale  of  the  problem:  Estimating  the  size  of  the  problem  of  labour 
exploitation  is  challenging  for  a  number  of  reasons.  First,  there  is  no 
definition of 'labour exploitation'171. This, combined with the fact that labour 
exploitation  is  harder  to  detect,  places  victims  of  moderate  cases  of 
exploitation at particular risk of being sanctioned for illegal work, while also 
facing  numerous  barriers 
labour 
exploitation172. Therefore,  comparing and  aggregating data on the  range of 

justice  as  victims  of 

to  access 

171  There  is  no  universally  agreed  definition  of  labour  exploitation,  as  a  phenomenon  it  is  a  continuum  which 
ranges from with slavery and forced labour on one end and sub-standard employment conditions or terms on 
the  other  end.    Labour  exploitation  may  take  a  number  of  specific  forms  including  among  other  things  no 
salary paid or salary considerably below legal minimum wage; lack of social security payments; extremely 
long  working  hours;  very  few  or  no  days  of  leave;  working  conditions  differ  significantly  from  what  was 
agreed;  worker  lives  at  the  workplace;  passport  /  id  retained,  limited  freedom  of  movement.  (Source: 
European  Commission  (2018),  1055  final,  Legal  Migration  Fitness  Check  Final  Evaluation  Report: 
Supporting Study) 

172  Nierop,  P.  et  Al.  (2021),  Counteracting  undeclared  work  and  labour  exploitation  of  third  country  national 

workers 

129 

 
 
 
                                                           
practices  linked  to  labour  exploitation  across  the  EU  would  imply 
availability of comparable: (1)  criminal  justice data on  a range of reported 
crimes  (from  severe  forms  of  labour  exploitation,  to  forced  labour,  to 
trafficking for the purposes of labour exploitation); (2) data from institutions 
issuing  sanctions  on  administrative  violations  linked  to  labour  laws  and 
standards.  Second,  as  with  other  categories  of  crimes,  the  levels  of 
unreported crime are significant.  
Cost items:  
Costs for prevention measures (e.g. dissemination of information): FTEs and 
other costs 
Costs  for  inspections:  e.g.  number  of  FTEs  and  other  material  costs  for 
carrying out inspections  
Cost  for  setting  up  or  adapting  monitoring  systems  at  national  level:  IT 
costs, staff costs (one-off cost) 
FTEs for processing a complaint (unit cost) 
Cost for setting up or adapting complaint mechanisms: IT costs, staff costs 
(one-off cost) 
FTEs for processing a complaint (unit cost) 
Revenue of sanctions to employers 
Cost for implementing sanctions  
It is estimated that Measure 3.7 would bring about (overall) one-off costs of 
about EUR 7.0 million in the first year and (overall) recurring costs of about 
EUR 600,000 every year thereafter to Member State authorities. Annex 6 of 
the accompanying study includes the main assumptions and methods used to 
estimate the costs of each measure, as well as Excel tables with detailed 
calculations. 

Overall assessment  
Overall, positive social impact on third country workers is expected as the measure will help 
protect them from labour exploitation through establishing or adapting monitoring, complaints 
and sanctions mechanisms in those Member States that the systems may require adaptation to 
meet  the  standards  of  the  Directive.  However,  Member  States  and  other  experts  consulted 
have expressed reluctance for issue of exploitation  to  be tackled at  EU level  as it is  closely 
connected to the national labour market system. The impact is very difficult to be quantified 
due to the hidden nature of the phenomenon as well as the number of assumptions that would 
need  to  be  made.  Experts  have  highlighted  that  any  provisions  should  be  aligned  with  the 
ILO’s Convention on Forced Labour Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 
to which many Member States are already signatories.173 

173  Available at: 

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:P029 

130 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Annex 6: Executive Summary of the Fitness Check 

15.1.  1.  Context and objectives 

The  EU  legal  migration  framework  is  laid  down  in  several  directives174,  adopted 
between 2003 and 2016, which cover various categories of third-country nationals and 
regulate  various  aspects  of  the  migration  process  (in  particular  admission  and 
residence conditions, equal treatment rights and mobility within the EU). 

The  main  purpose  of  this  fitness  check  is  to  assess  whether  the  EU  legal  migration 
framework  is  still  fit  for  purpose,  to  identify  any  inconsistencies  and  gaps,  and  to 
look for possible ways to streamline and simplify existing rules. The fitness check, 
which started in 2016, was supported by a thorough consultation process – including 
an  open  public  consultation  and  targeted  consultation  of  key  stakeholders  (Member 
States, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, Non-
Governmental  Organisations,  and  economic  and  social  partners)  –  as  well  as  by  an 
external study.  

15.2.  2.  Key findings  

The  fitness  check  assessed  the  EU's  acquis  on  legal  migration  against  five  criteria: 
relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and EU added value. 

Relevance  

EU policy on legal migration remains broadly in line with the general objectives set 
at  the  1999  European  Council  in  Tampere  and  translated  into  the  Lisbon  Treaty, 
namely  to  ensure  efficient  management  of  migration  flows  to  the  EU  and  fair 
treatment  for  legally  resident  third-country  nationals.  However,  there  have  been 
changes  in  the  policy  specific  objectives,  following  changes  in  the  overall  political 
framework  in  the  field  of  migration:  from  setting  common  minimum  standards  on 
rights, admission and residence conditions for all third-country nationals, to attracting 
the  third-country  nationals  that  the  EU  economy  'needs',  who  can  contribute  to 
addressing skills and labour shortages, thus making the EU more competitive. 

The evaluation has shown that the objectives of the Directives are still relevant to 
the  EU's  current  needs  in  terms  of  legal  migration.  However,  a  number  of  potential 
gaps  between  objectives  and  needs  have  been  identified.  These  relate  mainly  to  the 
directives’ material scope: they do not cover various problems occurring in the course 
of the various  'migration phases', such  as the procedures for obtaining an entry visa, 
nor include – at least as far as admission conditions are concerned – major categories 
of third-country nationals, such as non-seasonal low- and medium-skilled workers, job 
seekers,  service  providers  covered  by  the  EU’s  trade  commitments  except  intra-
corporate transferees, and self-employed people/entrepreneurs. 

Although these gaps are generally covered by national rules (for instance, all Member 
States  have  national  schemes  for  the  admission  of  low-  and  medium-skilled  third-
country  workers),  and  although  these  categories  are  partly  covered  at  EU  level  as 

174  Nine  directives  are  covered  (though  only  those  that  have  been  in  force  for  several  years  have  been 
assessed  in  terms  of  effectiveness  and  efficiency):  family  reunification  (2003);  long-term  residents 
(2003);  students  and  researchers  (2004,  2005;  recast  in  2016);  EU  Blue  Card  (2009);  Single  Permit 
(2011); seasonal workers (2014); intra-corporate transferees (2014). 

131 

 
 
                                                           
regards  admission  procedures  and  equal  treatment  (through  the  Single  Permit 
Directive), the result is a fragmented system. Though additional, more reliable data is 
needed  to  assess  the  magnitude  of  these  gaps  precisely,  these  gaps  will  need  to  be 
addressed by future policy developments.  The evaluation also recognises the need to 
better  understand  and  consider  how  socioeconomic  and  environmental  factors 
(including climate change) may affect the relevance of the EU legal migration acquis. 

Coherence 

The  analysis  has  shown  that  the  legal  migration  directives  and  their  objectives  are 
consistent  and  complement  one  another  overall.  However,  it  has  also  revealed  a 
number  of  specific  internal  coherence  issues,  most  of  them  due  to:  a)  the  'sectoral 
approach',  which  implies  that  different  directives  regulate  in  different  ways  the 
specific  needs  and  characteristics  of  the  categories  of  migrants  covered;  and  b)  the 
different  historical  origins  of  the  directives,  each  of  which  had  its  own  specific 
characteristics,  policy  constraints  and  negotiation  history.  Some  internal  coherence 
issues  (e.g.  in  terms  of  different  procedural  requirements  across  different  categories) 
have  actually  affected  the  extent  to  which  the  directives'  objectives  have  been 
achieved and/or have created unnecessary administrative burdens.  
implementation  choices  have  also  exacerbated  certain 
Different  national 
inconsistencies:  in  particular,  the  different  ways  in  which  the  directives'  numerous 
'optional  clauses'  have  been  implemented,  and  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to 
retain  parallel  national  schemes for highly-skilled workers and long-term  residents. 
For instance, the existence of national permits for permanent residents has limited the 
impact on the harmonisation of different types of long-term residence status provided 
for  by  the  Long-Term  Residents  Directive,  which  has  been  less  successful  than 
intended  (three  million  EU  long-term  residents'  permits  vs.  seven  million  national 
ones). Furthermore, the current regulatory framework for recruiting the same category 
of highly-skilled workers (which is possible under both the EU Blue Card and national 
schemes) is complex for third-country nationals and employers alike. 

As regards external coherence, the EU legal migration directives interact with many 
other  EU  policies  (especially  those  relating  to  asylum,  irregular  migration,  borders 
and  visas,  justice  and  fundamental  rights,  employment  and  education,  external 
relations,  and  trade).  Although  no  major  inconsistencies  have  emerged  from  the 
evaluation, 
interaction  and 
complementarity with other policies could be developed, especially with overall EU 
policy on growth and employment –in a context in which migration is likely to play an 
increasingly  important  role  in  addressing  labour  and  skills  shortages  in  an  ageing 
European society – and with EU external policy. 
Effectiveness 

there  are  many  aspects  where  more  efficient 

The extent to which the objectives of the legal migration acquis are achieved depends 
both on a wide range of policy and legal instruments at EU and national level and on a 
number  of  social  and  economic  factors  which  go  beyond  implementing  the  acquis. 
Although it was difficult to isolate the precise impact of the legal migration acquis on 
the  attainment  of  the  overall  objectives,  it  proved  possible  to  identify  a  number  of 
positive effects. 

Firstly,  national  systems  for  legal  migration  have  been  brought  into  line  with  each 
other  to  some  extent  as  regards  the  categories  of  third-country  nationals  covered, 
with  varying  degrees  of  harmonisation  for  admission  conditions,  procedures  and 

132 

 
 
rights.  Secondly,  the  directives  have  had  a  generally  positive  impact  on  the  level  of 
rights granted to third-country nationals and on the protection of family life. Finally, 
the acquis has also contributed to the objective of managing economic migration flows 
into the EU more efficiently, so as to help address labour and skills shortages on the 
EU labour market, thereby contribute making the EU more competitive overall.  

However,  the  same  factors  that  have  caused  the  coherence  issues  highlighted  above 
(i.e. the sectoral approach, the existence of parallel national schemes, and the inclusion 
of optional clauses in the directives) have also prevented the specific objectives from 
being  achieved  in  full.  For  instance,  the  provisions  to  facilitate  intra-EU  mobility 
under the first generation of directives are often not very different from first admission 
procedures and are therefore not fully effective (though the overall impact of the intra-
EU  mobility  rules  will  need  to  be  reassessed  once  the  more  far-reaching  provisions 
included  in  the  later  directives  on  intra-corporate  transferees  and  students  and 
researchers are implemented in full). The impact on other specific objectives, such as 
promoting  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals  and  preventing  labour 
exploitation,  has  also  been  limited,  as  the  directives  go  only  part  of  the  way  to 
addressing these issues. 

While some of the obstacles that have prevented these objectives from being achieved 
in  full  go  beyond  the  acquis  –  and  some  go  beyond  migration  policy  in  general 
(relating  e.g.  to  economic,  labour  market  and  fiscal  policies;  individual  choices  and 
preferences; language issues) – there are a number of inherent shortcomings in the 
EU  framework  (e.g.  fragmentation,  limited  coverage  of  EU  rules,  incorrect 
implementation  or  application  of  the  common  rules).  These  could  be  addressed 
through measures ranging from better enforcement to, possibly, legislative measures. 

Efficiency 
The same challenges encountered in measuring the effectiveness of the legal migration 
directives  (especially  external  factors  affecting  migrant  flows,  and  the  fact  that 
determining how many economic migrants are admitted is a national prerogative) have 
also  affected  the  evaluation  of  the  directives'  efficiency.  The  lack  of  sufficient 
evidence to assess the  precise costs and benefits associated with  implementing the 
legal  migration  directives  suggests  that  there  is  a  need  to  improve  the  collection  of 
relevant data at both national and EU level. 

This is why the efficiency assessment has focused on qualitative identification of the 
types  of  costs  and  benefits  associated  with  the  EU  legal  migration  acquis  by 
stakeholder,  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  direct  administrative  costs  and  benefits 
associated  with  implementing  the  directives,  on  the  other  (compliance  costs, 
administrative fees payable by applicants, costs incurred by the public administration 
when  reviewing  applications,  issuing  permits  or  handling  appeals.  On  the  latter,  in 
particular,  the  partial  evidence  available  suggests  that,  while  the  costs  for  renewals 
tend to not be fully covered by the corresponding fees, for most types of permits the 
fees sufficiently cover the administrative costs incurred by the public administration. 
Overall,  administrative  costs  for  third-country  nationals  seem  to  be  higher  than  for 
public  authorities,  which  is  consistent  with  the  feedback  received  through  the  public 
consultation.  The  administrative  costs  for  employers  are  also  estimated  to  be  quite 
high. 

Finally,  the  assessment  of  the  practical  application  of  the  directives  has  identified 
different practices in implementation by the Member States, with different levels of 

133 

 
 
efficiency  (e.g.  simple  and  easily  accessible  application  forms;  clear  information  on 
permits  and  rights,  provided  in  several  languages;  a  single  agency  managing  the 
application process; facilitated visa procedures). This also shows that there is further 
scope for simplifying procedures for managing legal migration flows.  

EU added value 

Overall, the legal migration directives have brought positive effects that would have 
not  been  achieved  by  the  Member  States  acting  alone.  All  stakeholders,  including 
Member States, have confirmed the continued EU added value of having a shared 
EU legal framework for legal migration.  

The main positive effects identified by the evaluation 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  for  certain  categories  of  third-country  nationals 
(e.g. ICTs, researchers and students). 

15.3.  3.  Follow-up 

The  legal  migration  directives  evaluated  in  this  fitness  check  may  be  considered 
largely ‘fit for purpose’. The fitness check identified several positive effects of the EU 
framework on legal migration, proving the continued relevance and added value of 
having an EU framework to regulate this field.  

However,  the  current  legal  migration  framework  had  a  limited  impact  vis-à-vis  the 
overall migration challenges that Europe is facing, and the fitness check has identified 
a number of critical issues in this respect. If the EU wants to achieve in full the Treaty 
objective  of  developing  a  common  legal  migration  policy  as  a  key  element  of  a 
comprehensive policy on management of migratory flows, these issues will need to be 
addressed in future through a wide range of measures, such as: 

  achieving  a  more  harmonised  and  effective  approach  to  attract  highly  skilled 
workers from third countries, as the Commission had proposed in the Blue Card 
reform; 

  ensuring stronger enforcement of the directives, to improve their implementation 

and practical application – and therefore their overall effectiveness;  

  promoting  information  campaigns  to  raise  awareness  of  the  rights  and 
procedures  established  by  EU  legal  migration  instruments  –  this  would  help 
addressing 
the  Member  States’ 
implementation,  and  increasing  the  relevance  and  EU  added  value  of  these 
instruments;  

the  coherence 

issues  with 

regard 

to 

134 

 
 
  improving 

the  gathering  of  data,  evidence  and 

the 
implementation of the acquis by supporting expert networks, research and studies, 
and  improving  the  way  Member  States  communicate  statistics  –  this  would 
contribute to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquis; 

information  on 

  facilitating  information-sharing  and  cooperation  between  Member  States, 
especially  in  relation  to  the  intra-EU  mobility  of  third-country  nationals  –  this 
would  help  exploiting  to  the  fullest  the  EU  added  value  and  facilitate  the 
application of the intra-EU mobility rules;  

  providing Member States – through non-binding instruments – with clarification 
and  interpretative  guidance  on  applying  the  legal  migration  directives  in  a 
harmonised way – this would help addressing the identified coherence issues;  

  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. 

135