COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 655 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 656 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Legislative initiative on the revision of the Single Permit Directive (2021 CWP item) 

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? 
The main objectives of the Single Permit Directive are to establish a single application procedure for a combined 
work and residence permit and guarantee  a common set of rights for eligible third-country nationals, based on 
equal  treatment  with  nationals  of  the  Member  State  that  grants  the  single  permit.  However,  as  highlighted 
already under the 2019 Fitness Check on legal migration and the implementation report, some outstanding issues 
continue to undermine the full achievement of such objectives. The key identified problems can be grouped in 
three areas: 
1)  complex  and  inefficient  application  procedure  and  unclear  rights  which  in  some  cases  prolong  the 

procedures and decrease EU attractiveness for third country nationals; 

2)  certain  categories  of  migrants  are  not  covered  by  scope  of  the  Directive  or  any  other  EU  legal 

instruments; there are differing rules on admission conditions for low- and medium-skilled; 

3)  workers are not sufficiently protected from exploitation. 

EU  employers  and  migrants  are  negatively  affected  by  the  shortcomings  of  the  Directive,  which  result  in 
administrative burden, lengthy waiting times, and uncertainty as to applicable rules.   
The main identified driver for these problems is a regulatory failure, i.e. weaknesses of the current overall 
EU  regulatory  framework.  Many  provisions  of  the  Directive  give  a  large  margin  of  discretion  to  the  Member 
States, allowing for diverging rules, which in turn weakens harmonisation of the rules at the EU level.  

What is this initiative expected to achieve?  
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 third-country nationals  legally residing in the EU. 

The specific policy objectives corresponding to the problems identified are:  
(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 third-country nationals with EU citizens; 
(5) to protect third-country national workers from labour exploitation. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level?  

Further improvement of the common procedure established by the Directive requires EU action. The problems 
identified  above  are  unlikely  to  disappear  in  the  near  future  as  they  are  directly  related  to  the  current  legal 
provisions  which  are  complex,  sometimes  unclear  or  incomplete  and  give  a  large  margin  of  discretion  to  the 
Member States for their implementation, allowing for diverging rules. 

B. Solutions 

What legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred choice 
or not? Why?  
The Impact assessment evaluates three policy options, with varying levels of EU intervention: 

  Option 1 entails enhancing the implementation of the Directive by the Member States by the exchange 

of best practices, developing a Single Permit Handbook or recommendations, etc. 

  Option  2  foresees  a  legislative  intervention  aimed  at  streamlining  the  application  procedure,  and 

improving equal treatment rights by way of recommendations. 

  Option  3  foresees  legislative  changes  described  in  Option  2,  improving  equal  treatment  rights  and 
clarifying the personal scope of the Directive, as well as improving protection from labour exploitation. 

The preferred option is Option 3, as it addresses existing shortcomings of the Directive; further streamlines 
procedures; strengthens equal treatment rights, clarifies the scope and improves protection against exploitation. 

1 

 
 
 
 
Who supports which option?  

The European Parliament would support all elements of Options 2 and 3 but would expect more ambition as to 
establishing EU rules for low- and medium-skilled workers. The vast majority of consulted stakeholders (civil 
society,  economic  and  social  partners,  experts  on  legal  migration)  is  in  favour  of  the  measures  included  in 
Options 2 and 3. Member States have an overall preference for Option 1 as a number of them have expressed 
reluctance  towards  a  revision  of the  Directive  or any  new  legislation  on legal migration. The preferred  option 
presents  a  chance  of  reaching  political  agreement  as  it  foresees  a  targeted  revision  to  improve  the  overall 
efficiency of the Directive and protection of third-county nationals.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the main benefits of the preferred option?  
The  preferred  option  will  be  highly  effective  in  achieving  the  objectives  and  will  benefit  from  good  political 
feasibility. It will 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 third-country nationals. Furthermore, including 
beneficiaries of national protection in the scope of the Directive would improve legal certainty and an enhanced 
set of rights for those who currently do not, or only to some extent, benefit from equal treatment. With common 
provisions  on  inspections,  sanctions  and  monitoring  of  employers,  it  would  also  contribute  to  reinforcing  the 
protection of all third-country workers covered by the Directive against labour exploitation.  
What are the main costs of the preferred options?  

The estimated costs of the preferred option include: 
•  One-off costs for Member States between EUR 2.0 million and EUR 7.0 million in Year 1, 
•  Recurring costs between EUR 100,000 and EUR 12.0million annually. 
The option foresees also cost-savings: 
•  Between EUR 200,000 and EUR 4.0 million annually for Member States. 
•  Between EUR 89.0 million and EUR 546.0 million annually for third-country nationals. 
•  Between EUR 22.0 million and EUR 101.0 million annually for employers. 
How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?  

Businesses/employers  are  expected  to  benefit  from  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 where vacancies cannot be filled locally. 
At the same time, businesses and employers may have to comply with new rules on prevention, inspections and 
sanctions against labour exploitation. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
National authorities are expected to gain efficiencies in their application procedures due to further streamlining 
of their processes although they may face some initial costs when introducing the new provisions. More efficient 
procedures,  improved  equal  treatment  and  prevention  of  exploitation  may  benefit  Member  States  in  skills 
matching and potentially satisfying labour shortages through migration.  
Will there be other significant impacts?  
Third-country nationals are expected to benefit from streamlining the procedure, which will result in potential 
cost  reductions  for  them.  Furthermore,  by  clarifying  equal  treatment  provisions,  removing  the  link  to  one 
employer and improving the protection against labour exploitation, the preferred option is expected to reduce the 
risk of exploitation by employers.  
The  option  is  expected  to  contribute  to  strengthening  specific  fundamental  rights,  such  as:  prohibition  of 
slavery  and  forced  labour;  right  to  property;  non-discrimination;  fair  and  just  working  conditions;  family  and 
professional life and social security and social assistance. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
Article 15 of the Single Permit Directive already provides for r the Commission to periodically report on the 
application of the Directive in Member State and to propose amendments it deems necessary. This principle will 
also apply to the changes stemming the revision of the Directive. 

2