Scope:

The fitness check evaluated how the existing acquis on legal migration has contributed to the attainment of legal migration policy objectives, identifying possible overlaps, gaps or inconsistencies as well as possible obsolete measures. It provided a thorough analysis that will serve a basis for future action in relation to the EU framework on legal migration management.

The fitness check covered the following Directives related to migration:

• Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification.

• Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents ("Long Term Residents");

• Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment ("Blue Card"); proposal for review adopted 7.6.2016 COM (2016)378 final

• Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 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 ("Single Permit");

• Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers;

• Directive 2014/66/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer ("ICTs");

• Directive (EU) 2016/801 of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing, which recasts:

• Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service;

• Council Directive2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research;

Evaluation findings:

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.

Overall, the directives have brought benefits. National systems for legal migration were aligned to some extent as regards the categories of third-country nationals covered, with varying degrees of harmonisation for admission conditions, procedures and rights. 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 to help address labour and skills shortages on the EU labour market, thereby contribute making the EU more competitive overall.

Some potential gaps between objectives and needs were identified: 1) the directives do not cover various problems occurring in the course of the various 'migration phases', such as the procedures for obtaining an entry visa;  2) the directives' scope does not include job seekers, service providers covered by the EU’s trade commitments except intra-corporate transferees, and self-employed people/entrepreneurs and – at least as far as admission conditions are concerned – major categories of third-country nationals, such as non-seasonal low- and medium-skilled workers.

Although 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 regards admission procedures and equal treatment (through the Single Permit Directive), the result is a fragmented system.

The legal migration directives and their objectives are consistent and complement one another overall. However, specific internal coherence issues were identified , 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.

Different national implementation choices have also exacerbated certain 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 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. More efficient interaction and complementarity with other policies could be developed. Examples are the overall EU policy on growth and employment and with EU external policy.

Some of the obstacles that prevented these objectives from being achieved in full go beyond the migration policy in generalbut there are nevertheless a number of inherent shortcomings in the EU framework: fragmentation, limited coverage of EU rules, incorrect implementation or application of the common rules.

Estimated savings and benefits

The fitness check has focused on qualitative identification of the types of costs and benefits associated with the EU legal migration acquis by stakeholders, on the one hand, and on the other hand, on the direct administrative costs and benefits associated with implementing the directives. The direct administrative costs and benefits include compliance costs, administrative fees payable by applicants, costs incurred by the public administration when reviewing applications, issuing permits or handling appeals. 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 they cover sufficiently the administrative costs incurred by the public administration. Overall, administrative costs for third-country nationals seem to be higher than for public authorities. The administrative costs for employers are also estimated to be quite high.

The assessment of the practical application of the directives has identified different practices in implementation by the Member States, with different levels of efficiency. This also shows that there is further scope for simplifying procedures for managing legal migration flows.

Finally, the analysis has shown that the legal migration directives and their objectives are consistent and complement one another overall. For instance, issues related to different procedural requirements across different categories of migrants have actually affected the extent to which the directives' objectives have been achieved and/or have created unnecessary administrative burdens.

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.