COMMENTS OF THE GREEK DELEGATION ON THE GREEN PAPER ON AN EU APPROACH TO MANAGING ECONOMIC MIGRATION

HELLENIC REPUBLIC MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS C4 DIRECTORATE JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS & SCHENGEN JLS/907/05-EN COMMENTS OF THE GREEK DELEGATION ON THE GREEN PAPER ON AN EU APPROACH TO MANAGING ECONOMIC MIGRATION I. GENERAL COMMENTS The Green Paper examines the admission of third country nationals for the purpose of work. The issue is enormously important, especially in view of the link between immigration and the objectives of the Lisbon strategy. Specifically, statutory labour migration is encouraged in order to achieve the growth and other targets of Lisbon, particularly in the light of demographic ageing in Europe. In that context, we would like first of all to put forward the following general points. a) Measures to encourage statutory labour migration will have to be accompanied by measures to substantially strengthen both the mobility of European workers between Member States and the demographic development of the peoples of the EU. b) Before the admission of new migrants is encouraged, the unemployment levels among nationals of the Member States and aliens who are already living in the EU, as well as the consequences of mobility of European citizens, must be taken into account in the preparation and implementation of the relevant policies. c) The developmental, work-related and general social imperative of the Member States of the European Union is not of the same order as that of competing developed economies (e.g. the United States, Canada). This difference must be given very serious consideration, both in the application of comparative administration methods and in the introduction of systems of labour migration which could otherwise be incompatible with the European reality, despite their success in other economic and labour environments. d) Economic and development parameters must not be over-emphasised to the detriment of reference to the political, cultural, social and other consequences of 1

labour migration. A systematic approach to the planning and implementation of policies is therefore essential. II. COMMENTS PER QUESTION The replies of Greece to the questions in the frames for each chapter of the Green Paper are given below. 1. DEGREE OF HARMONISATION In principle we favour a flexible, horizontal rather than sectoral legislative approach by the Community to determine the minimum conditions for the entry and residence of third country nationals exercising employed or self-employed activities, an approach which will encompass the potential for common practices to meet urgent or very specific needs according to the structure of the national economies and labour markets. To what extent should a European policy on labour migration be developed and what should be the level of Community intervention on this issue? Should a European migration law aim at providing a comprehensive legal framework covering almost any third country national coming to the EU or should it focus on specific groups of immigrants? Were the sectoral legislative approach to be chosen, which groups of migrants should be addressed as a priority and why? Do you consider that other approaches such as a European fast track procedure should be explored? Could you propose other options? 1.1. The European policy provision on labour migration should not evolve ultimately into an endeavour to regulate employment policy, which has been and remains a national matter. 1.2. The proposed legislation should first of all cover labour migration horizontally with the lowest possible common denominator. After that, separate admission policies could possibly be envisaged for specific groups of workers (e.g. seasonal labour, fast track admission procedures for special key categories of workers, etc.), depending on the situation and the particular characteristics of the national labour markets. 1.3. In view of the position we express above in favour of a horizontal approach, there is no question in principle of giving priority to specific groups of workers. 2

1.4. We have reservations about exploring fast track admission procedures for special categories of workers. 2.2. ADMISSION PROCEDURES FOR PAID EMPLOYMENT Giving preference to the national and Community labour market by verifying that a post cannot be filled by a Community citizen or a foreign national lawfully resident in the Union before calling on a third country worker is better than systems such as the American green card. 2.2.1. Preference for the domestic labour market How can we ensure that the principle of Community preference is applied in an effective way? Is the existing definition of Community preference still relevant? If not, how should it be changed? To which other economic migrants (apart from intra-corporate transferees of key personnel) might the logic of Community preference not apply? Apart from long-term residents, which categories of third country nationals if any should be given preference over newly arriving third country workers? Should a priority right subject to precise conditions be granted to third country nationals who have temporarily left the EU after having worked there for a given period? Would facilitating mobility of third country workers from one Member State to another be beneficial for the EU economy and national labour markets? How could this be put into practice in an effective way? With which limitations/facilitations? How can the European Public Employment Services (PES) and the EURES Job Mobility Portal contribute to facilitate labour migration of third country workers? 2.2.1.1. We favour the principle of Community preference, while recognising that it is frequently made ineffective and inflexible by bureaucratic obstacles. We support the search for ways of making its application in the labour market effective, both nationally and at Community level. 2.2.1.2. The existing definition of Community preference is still relevant. 2.2.1.3. In principle we think that there should be no widening of the exceptions to the principle of Community preference. 3

2.2.1.4. The order of priority should remain as follows: Community citizen foreign national lawfully resident in the Member State long-term resident from another Member State. 2.2.1.5. Persons who have left the territory of the Community are not included in the priority ranking. Perhaps they could be given preference over nationals of their countries who have never entered the Community, particularly on the basis of the duration of their residence and their classification in key labour market sectors, provided that the procedure for it does not become excessively bureaucratic and slow. In a similar way, we would explore the possibility of extending the principle of Community preference to third country nationals who have already worked in Member States for a certain number of years and have acquired specific know-how in certain key sectors (manpower reserve). 2.2.1.6. We have reservations about facilitating mobility of third country workers from one Member State to another, beyond the existing Community arrangement, without safeguards for the labour markets of the Member States. Moreover, a Community labour market, as an entity requiring common rules across the whole Union and a common regulatory authority, does not actually exist. 2.2.1.7. We recognise the importance of the EURES system and favour looking for ways of widening its effectiveness. 2.2.2. Admission systems Should the admission of third country nationals to the EU labour market only be conditional on a concrete job vacancy or should there also be the possibility for Member States to admit third country nationals without such a condition? What procedure should apply to economic migrants who do not enter the labour market? Do you consider that the economic needs test is a viable system? Should it be applied in a flexible way, taking into account for instance regional and sectoral characteristics or the size of the company concerned? Should there be a minimum time period during which a job vacancy must be published before a third country applicant can be considered for the post? 4

In what other way could it be effectively proved that there is a need for a third country worker? Should the economic needs test be repeated after the expiry of the work permit, if the work contract by means of which the third country worker has been admitted has been / will be renewed? What alternative optional systems could be envisaged? Could a selection system work as a general rule at EU level for admission of economic migrants to the labour market and what should be the relevant criteria? How could employers be provided with comprehensive access to the CVs of applicants in the whole EU and how should EURES be enhanced in this context? Should the possibility to grant a job seeker permit be foreseen? 2.2.2.1. The system of admission based on job vacancies is better. In specific terms we believe that the admission of third country nationals should be allowed only if there is a specific job vacancy. However, we are open to the possibility of legislating for more flexible systems which would be determined at national level for certain categories of foreign workers. 2.2.2.2. As regards admission of economic migrants in the framework of MODE 4, we think that each Member State should be able to set the numbers ceiling at national level each year and for each category of services provided. 2.2.2.3. The economic needs test, namely job vacancies in the labour market, should remain as a basic system, but the bureaucracy must be surmounted. The addition of other criteria (local or regional needs, special characteristics of sectors or companies, etc.) must be examined with care and attention to detail. 2.2.2.4. The minimum time period during which a job vacancy must be published is a prerequisite, but there must also be emphasis on effective rather than merely formal publication, so as to ensure application of the principle of Community preference, on the one hand, and achievement of optimum recruitment on the other hand. 2.2.2.5. The regulatory authorities of the national labour markets should explore other methods of verifying the job vacancy (possibly in cooperation with employer and union bodies). 5

2.2.2.6. There is no need to repeat the labour market test when the work contract of a foreign worker is renewed. 2.2.2.7. Systems other than the economic needs test (labour market vacancies), such as green cards, are alien to the European model of social organisation of the labour market. 2.2.2.8. The mooted European selection system, that is to say a system at EU level, could not be achieved in practice (there is no European system of mutual recognition of professional skills, no European regulatory authority for the labour market and no single economic structure, and the levels of development and needs of the economies are not the same), is politically undesirable (the Member States do not want interference in their domestic labour markets) and would have no foundation in law (effectively, it would involve Community legislation in the labour market, for which there is no legal basis in the Treaties). 2.2.2.9. Access by employers to the CVs of applicants in the whole EU is worth further examination, subject to adherence to the system of preference described above. 2.2.2.10. We are against adoption of the possibility to grant a job seeker permit. 2.3. Admission procedures for self-employment Should the EU have common rules for the admission of self-employed third country nationals? If yes, under which conditions? Should more flexible procedures be possible for self-employed persons who wish to enter the EU for less than one year to fulfil a specific contract with an EU client? If so, which? 2.3.1. It is not entirely apparent whether we are talking about a European system of admission of entrepreneurs / investors or of self-employed professionals. The distinction must be clear. On the substantive point, a minimum level of harmonisation should be looked at, in particular with a view to safeguarding balanced development of the economies of Member States on the basis of needs. 2.3.2. This relates to service providers, who are, however, self-employed professionals. The matter needs to be thoroughly examined in conjunction with the provision made on the MODE 4 matter. 6

2.4. Applications for work and residence permit(s) Should there be a combined work-residence permit at EU level? What are its advantages/disadvantages? Or should a single application (for both work and residence permits) be proposed? Are there other options? 2.4.1. On the basis of the new immigration legislation being drafted in Greece, we are well disposed to a single work-residence permit. 2.4.2. In line with the previous answer, there should be a single application. 2.4.3. There is nothing against other options. However, it should be possible for countries to issue forms separately for the two permits if they wish to retain their system. 2.5. Possibility of changing employer/sector Should there be limitations to the mobility of the third country worker inside the labour market of the Member State of residence? If so, which (employer, sector, region, etc.), under what circumstances and for how long? Who should be the holder of the permit? The employer, the employee, or should it be held jointly? 2.5.1. We think that the holder of a residence permit for work purposes should be able to change employer and sector as follows: in the first year of residence the worker should be able to change employer only in the framework of the economic activity for which he was recruited; when the permit is renewed, he could work in another economic activity. Change of employment type (e.g. from dependent work to self-employment) must be subject to strict rules in Greece the requirement is three years of residence. 2.5.2. The third country worker should hold the permit. 2.6. Rights What specific rights should be granted to third country nationals working temporarily in the EU? Should the enjoyment of certain rights be conditioned to a minimum stay? If so, which rights and for how long? 7

Should there be incentives e.g. better conditions for family reunification or for obtaining the status of long-term resident to attract certain categories of third country workers? If yes, why and which ones? 2.6.1. The framework of rights of third country nationals on the basis of the Community acquis should have as its threshold the fundamental rights provided to all residents in the Member States, regardless of whether they are EU citizens, and as its upper limit the rights provided to long-term residents. We believe that a third country national who enters the Union and is granted a residence permit for work purposes should have all the rights and obligations provided for by labour law. 2.6.2. Further rights, based on the period of residence, should be granted only to long-term residents. 2.6.3. We think it is too early to widen the provision of the incentives mentioned, because it involves matters dealt with by recent legislation which the Member States have yet to transpose. We must first wait for the results of the implementation of the Directives in question. 2.7. Accompanying measures: integration, return and cooperation with third countries What kind of accompanying measures should be envisaged to facilitate admission and integration of economic migrants, both in the EU and in the countries of origin? In line with EU development policies, what could the EU do to encourage brain circulation and address the potentially adverse effects of brain drain? Should developing countries be compensated (by whom and how) for their investments in human capital leaving for the EU? How can negative effects be limited? Should host and home countries have an obligation to ensure the return of temporary economic migrants? If so, in what circumstances? How can return be managed for the mutual benefit of host and home countries? Should a preference in terms of admission be granted to certain third countries, and if so how? Could such preferences be linked to special frameworks, such as the European Neighbourhood Policy or pre-enlargement strategies? 8

2.7.1. An entire Community mechanism is devoted to responding to the question and designing a policy the Network of National Contact Points for Social Integration. The first Council conclusions on the matter were approved during the Dutch Presidency. The debate is open to other more permanent and competent forums, and it is not necessary to expand on it here. 2.7.2. A full policy on the matter is already being developed through the High Level Working Group for Asylum and Migration under the supervision of the General Affairs and Foreign Relations Council. In addition the Directive on the admission of researchers has been adopted. 2.7.3. Compensation for the home countries would be the successful outcome of so-called co-development. That, in our opinion, is the best form of compensation, given, in particular, the development entailed by the remittances sent by migrants, for which safe transfer trails must be safeguarded. 2.7.4. There should be no obligation for return. The home country and the host country should enter into a joint political commitment to do the best they can to assist the reintegration of temporary migrants who wish to return to their country. The attempt to get re-admission agreements concluded and implemented is a different policy. 2.7.5. There are studies concerning the matter, and the Member States have their own experience. Certainly, the Union should devise effective policy instruments in order to make a success of voluntary return to the home country. The High Level Working Group for Asylum and Migration (HLWG) is occupied with the matter. 2.7.6. A system of preference of countries already exists at bilateral level between particular Member States and third countries with which they have political, cultural, historical or geographical links. However, there seem to be many obstacles in the way of implementation of a similar Community system. Certain common admission criteria used by specific countries, simply as guidelines and not in the form of a legal commitment it should be said, and based always on a Community system of assessment of third countries such as that applied by the High Level Working Group for Asylum and Migration (HLWG), could perhaps be agreed. 2.7.7. Many policies of the Union could contribute in this respect, notwithstanding the reservation expressed above. 9