The Implementation of the EU’s Approach to Circular Migration Through Legal and Policy Routes

Vankova, Zvezda

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52689-4_4

Zvezda Vankova²

Part of the book series: IMISCOE Research Series ((IMIS))

1674 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter brings together the legal and policy instruments developed as part of the EU’s circular migration approach in order to assess its implementation and establish whether it provides rights-based outcomes for migrant workers. In order to do so, it employs a benchmark framework for analysis based on universal and regional international standards and soft law principles as well as policy measures that have been identified as conducive to circular migration (presented in Chap. 1). The benchmark framework covers six policy areas considered inherent to this type of labour migration and which at the same time could help distinguish circular migration from the guest-worker model and other time-bound migration policies: entry and re-entry conditions, work authorisation, residence status, social security coordination, entry and residence conditions for family members, and recognition of qualifications. To be beneficial for migrant workers, policies need to allow for a certain degree of migrant-led trajectory of movement and provide adequate protection of the rights of migrant workers.

You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF

This chapter brings together the legal and policy instruments developed as part of the EU’s circular migration approach in order to assess its implementation and establish whether it provides rights-based outcomes for migrant workers. In order to do so, it employs a benchmark framework for analysis based on universal and regional international standards and soft law principles as well as policy measures that have been identified as conducive to circular migration (presented in Chap. 1). The benchmark framework covers six policy areas considered inherent to this type of labour migration and which at the same time could help distinguish circular migration from the guest-worker model and other time-bound migration policies: entry and re-entry conditions, work authorisastion, residence status, social security coordination, entry and residence conditions for family members, and recognition of qualifications. To be beneficial for migrant workers, policies need to allow for a certain degree of migrant-led trajectory of movement and provide adequate protection of the rights of migrant workers.^{Footnote 1}

4.1 Legal and Policy Instruments Forming Part of the EU’s Approach to Circular Migration

There are several EU legal instruments that must be taken into consideration when analysing the implementation of the EU’s approach to circular migration. These are legal instruments that explicitly mention, amongst their aims, the facilitation of circular migration^{Footnote 2}: the Seasonal Workers’ Directive^{Footnote 3} and the Blue Card Directive.^{Footnote 4} Additionally, instruments that do not explicitly mention the term circular migration, but contain elements of circular migration that may foster this type of migration: the EU Visa Code,^{Footnote 5} the EU Visa List Regulation,^{Footnote 6} the Visa Facilitation Agreements with the Eastern Partnership countries,^{Footnote 7} the EU Long-term Residence Directive,^{Footnote 8} the Intra-corporate Transferees’ Directive,^{Footnote 9} and the Students’ and Researchers’ Directive.^{Footnote 10} And, finally, instruments that do not refer to circular migration but should be considered because they can contribute to rights-based circulation through provisions on flanking rights thereby allowing for a migrant-led trajectory of circular migration: the Single Permit Directive,^{Footnote 11} the Family Reunification Directive,^{Footnote 12} and the EU Long-term Residence Directive. The latter instrument must be understood as having a dual role^{Footnote 13} as it contains a provision that according to the European Commission can facilitate circular migration for settled third-country nationals in the EU and also provides the general rules on accessing the EU long-term residence status.^{Footnote 14}

With regards to the GAMM as a policy route for fostering circular migration, one should focus on the implementation of the Mobility Partnerships^{Footnote 15} with the Eastern Partnership countries.^{Footnote 16} Since 2008, five Mobility Partnerships have been concluded with Eastern Partnership countries: Moldova,^{Footnote 17} Georgia,^{Footnote 18} Armenia,^{Footnote 19} Azerbaijan,^{Footnote 20} and Belarus.^{Footnote 21} As a prerequisite to signing these partnerships and visa facilitation agreements, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan had to conclude readmission agreements that regulate the return of irregular migrants.^{Footnote 22} Belarus was an exception in this regard, as the signing of a Mobility Partnership preceded the conclusion of both a readmission and a visa facilitation agreement.^{Footnote 23}

Circular migration is seen as covering many aspects of the GAMM: legal migration, development, and mobility.^{Footnote 24} Therefore, one of the interviewed Council officials stated that sometimes it was difficult to make a decision as to whether to include circular migration initiatives under the development or the legal migration sections of the documents. He stressed that the concept had received interest from the third-country partners because it did not deprive them of their human resources and at the same time provided them with an opportunity to increase their skills and salary abroad.^{Footnote 25} However, there was no common understanding of circular migration within the framework of the GAMM.

One European Commission official stressed that when third countries were participating in Mobility Partnerships, they kept asking the Commission how to implement circular migration in practice, and were then advised by the Commission to negotiate that with the participating Member States.^{Footnote 26} The Commission was promoting circular migration as a potential additional initiative within the GAMM, but did not play any role in proposing concrete measures or schemes.^{Footnote 27} Thus, one of the interviewees underlined that the GAMM tried to cover different interpretations of the concept and it therefore contributed to the lack of harmonisation at the EU level.^{Footnote 28}

One caveat when analysing the GAMM is that it is extremely challenging to find publicly accessible information pertaining to the implementation of the Mobility Partnerships. This poses certain limitations to the assessment of this part of the EU’s approach to circular migration.^{Footnote 29} The only scoreboard^{Footnote 30} currently accessible publicly is the one used to coordinate implementation of the EU-Moldova Mobility Partnership.^{Footnote 31} For the rest of the Mobility Partnerships, the information used in this chapter was retrieved mainly through official information requests to EU institutions as well as on the basis of interviews conducted between 2013 and 2017 with national and EU experts and representatives of NGOs implementing projects under the Mobility Partnerships. The partial information retrieved does not allow for any in-depth analysis of the measures discussed and does not claim to be exhaustive. Rather, it aims to serve illustrative purposes only, shed light on the initiatives developed, and assess them in light of the study’s benchmark framework.

4.2 Entry and Re-Entry Conditions

In order to assess the entry and re-entry conditions as provided by the legal and policy instruments of the EU’s circular migration approach, the following benchmarks are employed: possibility for facilitated personal travel^{Footnote 32}; facilitated entry for temporary visits^{Footnote 33}; circulation-friendly visa policies for third-country nationals, and policies to encourage circular and return migration.^{Footnote 34} Another benchmark pertains to the possibility of granting priority to seasonal workers who have been employed in the territory of a Member State for a significant period over other workers who seek admission to that State.^{Footnote 35} Multiple entry visas and a visa-free regime, as well as permits allowing periods of absence from the territory of the country of destination for long–term residents,^{Footnote 36} such as in the case of Sweden,^{Footnote 37} are all instruments that can support the implementation of these international standards.^{Footnote 38}

4.2.1 Legal Migration Directives

The EU approach to circular migration reflects the sectoral EU labour migration policy and therefore differs depending on the migrant category.^{Footnote 39} The four sectoral ‘first admissions’^{Footnote 40} directives differentiate migrant workers on the basis of their skills and qualifications as well as on their attractiveness to Member States’ labour markets, and use this as the decisive feature on which the different statuses are assigned.^{Footnote 41}

However, when it comes to initial entry, even the highly-skilled Blue Card holders that the EU wishes to attract face rather restrictive admission conditions.^{Footnote 42} The legal migration directives contain obligatory conditions for first admission related to a work contract or a binding job offer, sufficient resources, and sickness insurance. They also stipulate optional requirements: for instance, Article 5(2) of the Blue Card Directive requires the applicant to provide an address in the Member State. This condition is used by most Member States.^{Footnote 43} When migrants are applying from outside the EU, such optional requirements can add to the burdensome entry application procedure.^{Footnote 44} Another requirement, which could be widely discretionary, is that applicants should not be considered as posing a threat to public policy, public security, or public health.^{Footnote 45}

Furthermore, Member States retain the power to determine the volumes of admission as set out in Article 79 (5) TFEU, with regards to all ‘first admissions’ migration directives. They can set quotas for admission and reject applications when these quotas are reached as well as impose labour market test requirements, which could also serve as a basis for rejecting the application.^{Footnote 46} Another optional ground for rejecting Blue Card holders are brain drain considerations with regards to countries of origin.^{Footnote 47} Member States can also limit eligible applications for Blue Cards to those submitted from third countries, which can also have the effect of limiting access to the EU territory.^{Footnote 48} In the case of seasonal workers and ICTs, only applicants who reside outside the territory of the EU are eligible to apply for these permits.^{Footnote 49}

When assessing re-entry conditions and the possibility for rights-based circular migration, the Blue Card Directive stands out as the most generous of the ‘first admissions’ directives.^{Footnote 50} Blue Card holders can circulate between a Member State and a third country both before and after they qualify for an EU long-term residence status. At least on paper, they have control over their migration trajectory and can choose to circulate while also accumulating residence periods that would qualify towards a permanent residence.^{Footnote 51} This means that the provisions of the Directive meet the benchmark for policies encouraging circular migration and provide for permits allowing periods of absence from the host country – which is conducive to circular migration.^{Footnote 52} Nevertheless, it needs to be stressed that Member States have discretion to restrict in their national law the periods of absences to specific cases only.^{Footnote 53} Furthermore, despite the opportunities for a flexible migration trajectory and rights-based circulation that this Directive provides, a glance into its implementation at the national level shows that it has not been used widely due to the restrictive admission conditions and varying transposition allowing for parallel rules and procedures for admitting the same category of highly-skilled workers.^{Footnote 54}

In 2016, the European Commission concluded that the Blue Card Directive failed to achieve its objectives^{Footnote 55} and therefore proposed a recast,^{Footnote 56} which has so far been unsuccessful due to disagreements between Member States to maintain the parallel national schemes for admission of highly-skilled workers.^{Footnote 57} The changes foreseen in the Recast Proposal could ease entry conditions for such workers that are important with regards to circular migration commencement.^{Footnote 58} Furthermore, the impact assessment conducted by the European Commission as part of the recast proposal, spells out a ‘nuanced’ understanding of circular migration^{Footnote 59} when it comes to highly-skilled workers ‘primarily considered as a spontaneous movement to achieve goals set within the migrant household’.^{Footnote 60} The opportunity for ‘spontaneous movement’ means that highly-skilled migrant workers can benefit from a migrant-led trajectory. In the Commission’s view, this type of migration is ‘likely to support subsistence activities in areas of origin’.^{Footnote 61} Therefore, the Recast Proposal aims to give migrant workers the possibility ‘of longer “time-outs”, enabling them to return to their country of origin without being penalised with a loss of their residence permit or expiration of the years of residence that count towards the right to long-term resident status’.^{Footnote 62} This means that when it comes to highly-qualified workers, the Commission’s vision is to foster circular migration of continuously staying or settled third-country nationals with EU long-term residence status, who are given the opportunity to temporarily return to their countries of origin, while also enabling them to circulate before obtaining this status.

The circular migration approach with regards to seasonal workers differs from the one afforded to Blue Card holders. By way of contrast to the flexible migrant-led options provided to highly-skilled migrants, seasonal workers can benefit from short-term stays coupled with re-entry conditions.^{Footnote 63} According to Article 16 (1) of the Directive, Member States are obliged to ‘facilitate re-entry of third-country nationals who were admitted to that Member State as seasonal workers at least once within the previous 5 years, and who fully respected the conditions applicable to seasonal workers under this Directive during each of their stays’. Even though they are required to provide rules on facilitated re-entry, the Member States are given a wide margin of discretion in doing so.^{Footnote 64}

Article 16 (2) of the Seasonal Workers’ Directive contains possible facilitation measures such as exemption for the seasonal workers from the requirement to submit certain documents or allowing for several seasonal worker permits to be issued in a single administrative act.^{Footnote 65} This is a non-exhaustive list of examples and no minimum requirements are provided therein.^{Footnote 66} Therefore, the current provision does not demand any concrete commitments from the Member States and its effectiveness is, as a result, entirely dependent on them.^{Footnote 67} There still is no comprehensive information for assessing what kind of measures have been put in place in national law and whether they give priority in practice to seasonal workers already admitted or whether they contribute to circulation-friendly policies.

ICTs could also be given an option to circulate between the respective Member State and their country of origin. However, Member States are free to impose a gap period of up to 6 months (the so-called cooling off period) between the end of the maximum duration of the last transfer and another, new, application, before ICTs can return on the same grounds to the same Member State.^{Footnote 68} They may reject an application when fewer than 6 months have elapsed since the ICT concluded his or her previous transfer.^{Footnote 69} This notwithstanding, no minimum period is provided and there is no limit on the number of times ICTs can re-enter on the basis of an ICT permit.^{Footnote 70} This means that the ‘temporary nature’ of these transfer periods could span several years and include circular elements, depending on how Member States have transposed the Intra-corporate Transferees’ Directive into national law.^{Footnote 71}

Despite the objective of fostering the transfer of skills, as well the reference to mobility as an important element of the GAMM,^{Footnote 72} the Students’ and Researchers’ Directive does not contain any provisions on facilitating re-entry or easier access to continuous residence with the possibility for geographical mobility, as is the case of the Blue Card Directive. This means that researchers need to re-apply following the general admission procedure^{Footnote 73} and potentially make use of the visa facilitation instruments and visa-free regimes in the context of the Eastern Partnership.^{Footnote 74}

As already mentioned, the Policy Plan on Legal Migration identified the EU Long-term Residence Directive as an instrument offering ‘(…) the possibility for Member States to allow returning migrants to retain this status for longer than the 1 year period provided for in Article 9’.^{Footnote 75} According to the EU Long-term Residence Directive, this status can be withdrawn or lost in the event of an absence from the territory of the EU for a period of 12 consecutive months, unless longer periods are permitted because of specific or exceptional reasons.^{Footnote 76} The Commission cites the development of a project in the country of origin as an example of such a specific exceptional reason.^{Footnote 77} The Report on the implementation of this Directive shows, however, that only some Member States provide for the possibility to allow a longer period of absence due to exceptional circumstances: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, and Slovenia.^{Footnote 78} In addition, there are Member States that allow longer periods of absences as a rule, such as Finland (for a period of 2 years that can be further extended) and France (for 3 years).^{Footnote 79} Furthermore, in 2014, Sweden extended the permitted period of absence outside its territory to 2 years as a result of legislative changes in the country aimed at encouraging circular migration and promoting the positive impacts of migration on development.^{Footnote 80} The limited period of absence allowed could seriously hinder circularity because of the potential risk of loss of status, as illustrated in subsequent chapters.

4.2.2 The EU Visa Policy & GAMM Instruments

Circular migration cannot commence without first obtaining a visa, unless migrants are exempted from the visa obligation based on their nationality. The EU visa policy is a central part of the EU’s Integrated Border Management Strategy,^{Footnote 81} which aims to ‘reconcile security and freedom’ by trying to both facilitate legitimate and legal access to the EU as well as guarantee security and counteract irregular migration and cross-border crime.^{Footnote 82} As part of this strategy visas have become one of the main EU instruments for pre-screening and the ‘extra-territorialisation’ of immigration control.^{Footnote 83} The revised EU Visa Code is another step in this direction since citizens of countries that do not cooperate with the EU on readmission of irregular migrants might be affected by higher visa fees, a requirement to present additional documents, slower processing times, and limited options for the issue of multiple-entry visas.^{Footnote 84} Such measures add to the already lengthy and cumbersome procedures for visas,^{Footnote 85} which are also set to become more expensive as of 2020 according to the latest amendments of the EU Visa Code.^{Footnote 86} All of this shows that it is not easy to initiate an individual circular migration project between the EU and a third country unless the applicant can use some form of facilitated access.

One of the instruments providing re-entry facilitation with regards to circular migration is the multiple-entry visa.^{Footnote 87} Thus far, however its use has been rather limited in practice. Due to consulates’ large margin of discretion, there are wide variations in Member States’ practices when it comes to its length of validity, which leads to visa shopping.^{Footnote 88} In general, consulates are usually reluctant to issue visas for longer than 1 year.^{Footnote 89} This means that frequent travellers need to go through the costly and cumbersome visa application over and over again, creating an administrative burden for both migrants and consulates.^{Footnote 90} These issues have been addressed by the revised EU Visa Code, which streamlines the current provisions on the multiple-entry visa. As of 2020, such visas will be available with three validity periods – 1, 2, or 5 years – depending on prior lawful use of a visa.^{Footnote 91}

The visa facilitation agreement is another instrument fostering mobility. Widely used as part of the GAMM,^{Footnote 92} it aims at facilitating the issuance of short-stay Schengen visas for third-country nationals.^{Footnote 93} The EU has signed visa facilitation agreements with 12 countries. Soon, all Eastern Partnership countries will be covered by such agreements as the Council has approved the signing of such agreement on behalf of the European Union with Belarus, which was the only country still negotiating such an instrument.^{Footnote 94} The visa facilitation agreement covers provisions related to, inter alia, a simplification of the application process, a reduction in the fees for processing visa applications, and more precise conditions for multiple-entry visas for different categories of travellers compared to the current Article 24 (2) of the EU Visa code.^{Footnote 95}

Usually visa facilitation agreements precede the introduction of a visa-free travel regime with a specific third country.^{Footnote 96} In order to establish a visa-free regime with a particular third country, the EU has introduced the so-called Visa Liberalisation Dialogues. These instruments are structured around four thematic areas in which the candidate country needs to improve its legal and policy framework and demonstrate the effective implementation thereof in relation to matters such as document security, border management, public order and security, external relations, and fundamental freedoms.^{Footnote 97} The Dialogues can be compared to a mini-accession process as they have a high degree of leverage.^{Footnote 98} One of the interviewed officials stated that the process requires ‘(…) a total reform of the candidate’s law enforcement system, except for prisons (…)’.^{Footnote 99}

As a result of the successful Visa Liberalisation Dialogues, a visa-free regime for holders of biometric passports was introduced for Moldova in 2014; in 2017 Ukraine and Georgia were moved to the positive list of EU Visa List Regulation 539/2001. The introduced visa-free regimes ease travel because they waive the whole visa application process and all related administrative and financial hurdles. However, it should be borne in mind that they only provide for short-term travel and thus exclude the possibility of fostering short-term labour mobility unless special authorisation is obtained. Furthermore, only those individuals who hold biometric passports can benefit from the visa-free process.

To sum up, EU multi-entry visas and visa liberalisation instruments do not directly facilitate circular migration.^{Footnote 100} They provide limited opportunities because they very much depend on where the migrant comes from, whether he or she has a biometric passport, or has become eligible for a multi-entry visa. These instruments could, however, foster personal travel for temporary visits, which is one of the benchmarks in this policy area. Thus, they could contribute to the initiation of individual circular migration projects and other employment possibilities because they can support job seeking for those who can access, afford, and succeed in obtaining a visa.^{Footnote 101}

4.2.3 Mobility Partnerships

The bilateral agreements concluded between some EU Member States and Eastern partnership countries under the auspices of the Mobility Partnerships with the aim of fostering labour mobility are identified as one of the main instruments facilitating entry and re-entry conditions for third-country nationals. One such example is the ‘Bilateral Agreement on Labour Mobility Between Italy and Moldova’, which was an updated version of an agreement that had been signed between the two countries in 2003.^{Footnote 102} The agreement aimed to establish a basis for collaboration between the two countries in order to regulate the flow of workers and develop procedures for facilitating the employment of Moldovan citizens to work in Italy in case of shortages in the local work force (Article 1). The agreement also provided for the encouragement of professional training of workers who were intending to migrate, in line with the skills that were needed in the Italian labour market (Article 3). Even though the agreement did not explicitly contain circular migration facilitation as a priority, seasonal workers were among its target groups (Article 5).

A project supporting the implementation of this agreement also aimed at testing a pilot circular migration scheme between Moldova and Italy.^{Footnote 103} Around 300 potential migrants from Moldova were involved in a professional language course (such as in construction) and included in the database of the Italian Ministry as potential candidates to be employed in Italy in case of vacant jobs corresponding to their qualification or skills.^{Footnote 104} The vast majority of trained workers were able to identify an employer on their own eventually.^{Footnote 105} Moldova has also signed another bilateral agreement with Bulgaria under the auspices of the Mobility Partnership.^{Footnote 106} It will be presented in detail in later chapters.

Georgia and France signed a bilateral agreement on ‘Residence and Circular Migration of Skilled Professionals’ in November 2013 specifically aimed at establishing an institutionalised circular migration scheme.^{Footnote 107} The French National Assembly did not ratify the agreement until late 2018, after a long delay due to questions pertaining to migration and security.^{Footnote 108} This Agreement provides for temporary residence permits for Georgian workers for up to 1 year (renewable for some categories), including young specialists between the ages of 18 and 35, as well as students graduated from French higher education institutions who want to gain professional experience in France.^{Footnote 109} It sets an annual quota of 500 temporary residence cards to be issued by France to workers engaged in the list of 50 professional occupations open to Georgian citizens.^{Footnote 110} In addition, the number of young French and Georgian qualified specialists in both countries should not exceed 150 people per year.^{Footnote 111} Georgia is actively pursuing additional labour mobility agreements with Germany, Bulgaria, Portugal, and Greece.^{Footnote 112} Finally, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) implemented another initiative that aimed to promote circular migration under the ‘Piloting Temporary Labour Migration of Georgian workers to Poland and Estonia’ project.^{Footnote 113} It also envisaged the signing of bilateral agreements with both Member States. However, only a limited number of migrants could eventually benefit from this pilot scheme; for instance, according to the project’s evaluation report, a total of 19 migrants were selected for jobs in Poland.^{Footnote 114}

As evident from the projects developed and on-going initiatives, Georgia has a strong interest in circular migration. According to one of the state officials interviewed, ‘Circular migration is something that is developing on a daily basis in Georgia, especially with the visa liberalisation process, in terms of public awareness and policy decision making (…)’.^{Footnote 115} The Georgian authorities were relying on these pilot circular migration projects because they were planning to use the experience in order to set up a state migration system.^{Footnote 116} The government was interested in developing outward as well as inward circular migration policies in order to foster legal economic migration of Georgians and migrants coming to Georgia and provide an alternative to the irregular migration that is undertaken by many Georgians.^{Footnote 117} Another interviewed expert commented that circular migration was important because the country did not want to lose any more of its citizens due to emigration.^{Footnote 118}

In a similar vein to Georgia, Armenia has also signed a bilateral agreement with France in October 2016 for the exchange of students, interns, young professionals between the ages of 18 and 35 years, and qualified specialists (Articles 2–4).^{Footnote 119} However, this agreement had not been ratified by the French side at the time of writing. The authorised duration of employment is planned to be between 6 and 12 months for young professionals, and this may be prolonged for up to a maximum of 24 months in line with their contract. The issue of work permits for Armenians who wish to work in France is conditional upon a labour market test (Article 3.4). The number of young professionals from France or Armenia admitted to work on the territory of the other contracting party must not exceed 100 per year for each party (Article 3.5). The accepted qualified specialists from Armenia are entitled to receive a 1-year residence permit with a maximum validity of 3 years, in line with the relevant French legislation (Article 4.3).

One of the interviewees commented that the elaboration of this agreement took a very long time and the draft was only finalised in late 2016.^{Footnote 120} It was initiated by the Armenian government and based on the good ties between the two countries, as well as Armenia’s experience of concluding bilateral agreements with some of the Gulf countries that led to the circular migration of doctors and nurses. According to one interviewee, the negotiations took so long because France was ‘not very keen to facilitate or encourage Armenian migration in whatever form to France because of the already existing diaspora and the pull factor that they might attract more migrants’.^{Footnote 121}

Policy measures aiming to engage settled migrants in the EU, such as diaspora members, are identified as another relevant instrument under the auspices of the GAMM focused on facilitating re-entry conditions for third-country nationals. They further demonstrate how circular migration and permanent settlement are intertwined in the context of EU’s approach to circular migration. Such an example is the ‘Making Migration in Moldova Work for Development’ project, which aimed to test whether Moldova and Germany could establish a ‘triple win’ circular migration scheme by engaging diaspora members.^{Footnote 122} According to one interviewee, this initiative was based on an amendment of the relevant German legislation, which allowed citizens of Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and Morocco to be absent from the territory of the country for up to 2 years without losing their permits.^{Footnote 123} The idea was for diaspora members to be given the possibility to go back to their countries of origin and share their knowledge, experience, and expertise, and then to return to Germany.^{Footnote 124} This initiative was praised as a successful circular migration policy project.^{Footnote 125}

Another example of diaspora engagement in the context of circular migration is the ‘Temporary Return of Qualified Nationals’ project funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and implemented by the IOM.^{Footnote 126} It aims to contribute to the reconstruction and development of a number of former war countries, including Georgia and Armenia.

The added value of the Mobility Partnerships in terms of creating labour mobility opportunities for the participating third countries has been questionable so far.^{Footnote 127} The presented bilateral agreements and projects engaging settled migrants are seen as creating circulation-friendly policies in line with the benchmark framework of this book. However, it should be kept in mind that only a limited number of migrants can benefit from these opportunities as the measures under the Mobility Partnerships are small-scale pilot projects in most of the cases^{Footnote 128} or bilateral agreements envisaging caps, which can mainly be attributed to the reluctance of Member States to open new channels for legal migration.^{Footnote 129}

4.3 Work Authorisation

Work authorisation is an important policy area to consider with regards to all labour migrants, including circular migrants, because very often their initial work permits tie them to a specific employer, occupation, and locality for a specified period of time during which they cannot work for another employer.^{Footnote 130} For instance, in cases of job loss, migrants may be inclined to either overstay in the host country or return to their home country earlier than their work permits allow, which leads them to sustain financial losses.^{Footnote 131} In addition, the impossibility of changing employment and sector can increase the risk of exploitation and abuse.

The analytical framework of this study employs benchmarks pertaining to work authorisation aimed at assessing whether workers can change their employer with a maximum restriction of 2 years^{Footnote 132} as well as whether loss or termination of employment constitutes the sole ground for withdrawal of a migrant worker’s authorisation of residence or work permit.^{Footnote 133} In addition, the benchmarks assess the possibility to find alternative work in case of loss or termination of employment^{Footnote 134} and whether seasonal workers who have already been employed on the territory of the Member States for a significant period of time are able to take up other remunerated activities.^{Footnote 135} The identified instrument that can support the implementation of these benchmarks is the availability of a flexible work permit that allows its holder to change both employer and occupation within the period of validity of the permit.^{Footnote 136}

4.3.1 Legal Migration Directives

The two legal instruments that aim to facilitate circular migration – the Blue Card Directive and the Seasonal Workers’ Directive – explicitly provide for a change of employer.^{Footnote 137} However, it should be stressed that Member States retain discretion on how many changes to allow seasonal workers within the authorised period.^{Footnote 138} Furthermore, within the first 2 years, changes of employer for Blue Card holders are subject to prior authorisation of the competent authorities of the Member State of residence, in accordance with national procedures.^{Footnote 139} The possibility of changing employer is implicitly provided for researchers.^{Footnote 140} ICTs, on the other hand, are bound to their employer during the whole period of their transfer.^{Footnote 141}

The analysed instruments do not legislate for change of occupation – a direct result of the EU’s sectoral approach to labour migration. This means that, depending on the transposition into national law, only the Blue Card Directive could fulfil the benchmark in the area of work authorisation pertaining to free access to employment in all industries and occupations with a maximum restriction of 2 years. This also means that seasonal workers cannot look for alternative employment other than seasonal work. Allowing for such a possibility is another benchmark in this policy area (see Annex V). However, Member States can provide more favourable provisions to third-country nationals who enter as seasonal workers under bilateral agreements, as stipulated in Article 4 of the Seasonal Workers’ Directive.

The Blue Card Directive is the only one of the ‘first admissions’ directives that explicitly stipulates in Article 13 (1) that unemployment does not automatically lead to the withdrawal of the permit, unless the period of unemployment exceeds three consecutive months and occurs more than once during the validity of the permit.^{Footnote 142} Taking into consideration the possibility for seasonal workers to change employer within the authorised period discussed above would implicitly mean that the sole fact of unemployment could not lead to withdrawal of the permit if the worker manages to secure another job with a different employer within a reasonable time.^{Footnote 143} The length of the reasonable time must, according to the CJEU, be defined in national law.^{Footnote 144} Not allowing for such a period would take away the effet utile of Article 15 (3) and thus be incompatible with the EU law principle of effectiveness.^{Footnote 145} However, whether this is possible in practice depends on what is stipulated in national law as well as the individual case.

Concerning the rest of the ‘first admissions’ directives, unemployment of ICTs would lead to the withdrawal of their permit,^{Footnote 146} and the Students’ and Researchers’ Directive does not legislate in this regard.^{Footnote 147} The latter, however, does not preclude any national rules that would allow the researchers to look for another research organisation or job. This means that, in the case of researchers, whether or not unemployment leads to withdrawal of permits hinges on how the Directive is transposed in national law by the Member States.

4.3.2 Mobility Partnerships

The issues related to work authorisation are addressed by different project initiatives under the auspices of the Mobility Partnerships with the Eastern Partnership countries. Some of them are focused mainly on the pre-migration phase. For instance, the ‘Support of Circular Migration and Re-integration Process in Armenia’ project aimed to protect the rights of potential migrant workers, reintegrate labour/circular migrants, and prevent irregular migration in line with the State Action Plan for Migration (2012–2016).^{Footnote 148} Awareness about migrants’ rights was built through individual consultations, an awareness raising media campaign, and pre-departure orientation trainings.^{Footnote 149}

In addition, the ‘Building Institutional Capacity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration’ project (2009–2015) established a Call Centre for Moldovan citizens within the country and Moldovan labour migrants to provide information on the rights of citizens and migrant workers.^{Footnote 150} Another initiative pertaining to work authorisation was organised under the Mobility Partnership with Belarus. It was implemented by ICMPD under the MIUEX Belarus Action^{Footnote 151} and aimed to introduce international labour migration and migration-related conventions and standards, as well as assess national legislation with a view to their possible ratification.^{Footnote 152}

Even though these initiatives do not directly contribute to the implementation of the identified benchmarks, they are considered as increasing awareness about migrants’ rights and the standards in the field of work authorisation among third-country nationals as well as relevant stakeholders.

4.4 Residence Status

As outlined in Chap. 1, permanent settlement in the host country is an inherent characteristic of circular migration.^{Footnote 153} Furthermore, where permanent settlement occurs, it would not hinder circulation in the long term.^{Footnote 154} This notion of circular migration as a fluid movement, however, is generally not reflected in the legal frameworks aimed at managing circular migration.^{Footnote 155} In many cases, circular and temporary migrant workers who are engaged in low-skilled occupations are obliged to leave after the expiry of their work permits and are thus prevented from accessing permanent residence.^{Footnote 156} Therefore, one of the benchmarks of this study aims to assess whether lawful migrants have the opportunity to qualify for a prolonged or permanent residence status.^{Footnote 157} The possibility for migrants to access permits allowing transit from a temporary to a permanent residence status is considered a policy instrument that supports the implementation of this benchmark.^{Footnote 158} In addition, this section examines whether migrants have the right to mobility and choice of residence within the host country.^{Footnote 159}

4.4.1 Legal Migration Directives

The EU Long-term Residence Directive provides the general rules on access to this status, thus it is logical to discuss this directive first.^{Footnote 160} Third-country nationals who have resided ‘legally and continuously’ within the territory of the host Member State for 5 years immediately prior to the submission of the relevant application have the right to the EU long-term residence status.^{Footnote 161} Prior residence ‘solely on temporary grounds’ or where the residence permit has been ‘formally limited’, however, is not considered in the computation of the 5-year period.^{Footnote 162}

Periods of absence from the host Member State shorter than six consecutive months that do not exceed a total of 10 months within the 5-year period are not counted as an interruption and therefore they should be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the necessary period.^{Footnote 163} Member States may allow longer periods of absence in ‘cases of specific or exceptional reasons of a temporary nature and in accordance with their national law’.^{Footnote 164} In such cases, the relevant period of absence should not be included in the calculation of the 5-year period. Yet, Member States can also derogate from that rule and take into account absences relating to employment purposes in the calculation of the 5-year period.^{Footnote 165}

Furthermore, the EU Long-term Residence Directive spells out two mandatory requirements for acquiring EU long-term residence status and one optional requirement – which are all exhaustive in nature.^{Footnote 166} The applicant has to have ‘stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family, without recourse to the social assistance system of the Member State concerned’, as well as sickness insurance.^{Footnote 167} The text of these requirements in Article 5 (1) of the EU Long-term Residence Directive are identical to the requirements in Article 7(1) of the Family Reunification Directive, as both instruments were negotiated at the same time in the Council’s Working Group.^{Footnote 168} Therefore, these conditions should be interpreted in the light of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) ruling in the Chakroun case^{Footnote 169}: taking into account the needs of the individual and not setting a standard amount below which an application will be refused, and also considering the income of the family members when assessing the requirement of sufficient recourses.^{Footnote 170} Furthermore, in the recent case X v Belgische Staat, the CJEU ruled that he concept of ‘resources’ may also cover the those made available to an applicant by a third party provided that they are considered to be stable, regular, and sufficient.^{Footnote 171}

In addition, Member States may impose integration conditions as an optional requirement in accordance with national law.^{Footnote 172} According to the Implementation Report of the European Commission, a majority of Member States require applicants for this status to have knowledge of their official language, while some also mandate attendance of civic knowledge courses.^{Footnote 173} As long as these requirements are imposed after the EU long-term residence status has been obtained and do not pose risk to withdrawal of this status, they are considered to be in line with the Directive.^{Footnote 174}

Taking into account that the EU Long-term Residence Directive excludes third-country nationals who reside on ‘temporary’ or ‘formally limited permits’ from its scope,^{Footnote 175} this means that ICTs and seasonal workers need to change to another national or EU permit that would allow them to accumulate residence periods for a long-term residence status.^{Footnote 176} By way of contrast, Blue Card permit holders have facilitated access to permanent residence^{Footnote 177} and the Recast Directive is expected to further facilitate their access to this EU permit by reducing the time required from five to three years.^{Footnote 178} The Students’ and Researchers’ Directive only implicitly provides access to this status for researchers.^{Footnote 179} The residence permits under this Directive are renewable as long as the admission conditions for their issue are met and thus cannot be considered as falling outside the scope of the EU Long-term Residence Directive on the basis of being ‘temporary’ or ‘limited’. Furthermore, this would run contrary to the aims of the Directive.^{Footnote 180} This means that only the Blue Card and the Students’ and Researchers’ Directives fulfil the benchmark for facilitation of prolonged or permanent residence.

The second benchmark concerning residence status aims to examine whether migrants have the right to mobility and choice of residence within the host country. All reviewed ‘first admissions’ directives allow for mobility within the Member States and a choice of residence.^{Footnote 181} It should be kept in mind, however, that seasonal workers’ choice of residence could be limited to a certain extent in cases when the employer arranges it.^{Footnote 182} As Wiesbrock, Jöst, and Desmond point out, the Directive does not address employer-organised accommodation, which could lead to abuse and dependency.^{Footnote 183}

4.4.2 Mobility Partnerships

As already mentioned, the understanding that circular migration entails a fluid movement that could lead to a prolonged stay in the country of destination is usually not considered by policymakers trying to facilitate this type of migration. The initiatives under the Mobility Partnerships are not an exception in this regard and therefore cannot be considered as supporting any form of access to a permanent residence status. This is not surprising given that Member States are generally reluctant to open additional legal migration channels and ‘guard’ access to permanent settlement by subjecting it to inter alia residence and language requirements.

The implementation of one of the projects under the Mobility Partnership with Georgia demonstrates the challenges associated with this. The 3-year ‘Strengthening the development potential of the EU Mobility Partnership in Georgia through targeted circular migration and diaspora mobilisation’ project (2013–2016)^{Footnote 184} piloted a circular migration scheme where workers from Georgia could work in Germany for 18 months on the basis of a work contract that they signed before their departure.^{Footnote 185} Twenty-eight participants were selected for placement with German employers^{Footnote 186} and at the end of the project, 24 Georgians (14 from the hospitality sector and 10 from the health care sector – nurses) were benefiting from employment as part of the project.^{Footnote 187} The project’s aim was for these workers to contribute their expertise towards Georgia’s development upon return, as a result of the knowledge and experience they had gained in Germany.

The project implementation partners defined circular migration as follows:

‘(…) The mobility of people between countries, including multiple temporary or long-term movement which may be beneficial to, and harnessing development of all involved (migrants, countries of origin and destination, including the respective societies and individuals), if occurring voluntarily and linked to the migrants’ rights and competencies and their development as well as to economic opportunities of countries of origin and destination.’^{Footnote 188}

Some of the participants commented that the permitted period under this pilot scheme was too short and that they were just starting to develop professionally when the scheme was drawing to a close.^{Footnote 189} Therefore, it was not surprising that the vast majority of the participants opted for a prolonged duration of employment in Germany.^{Footnote 190} For instance, the hospitality sector professionals prolonged employment to the maximum applicable duration of stay of 18 months; most of the nurses indicated interest in prolonging employment beyond the minimum of 12 months, by between one and 3 years, stressing that they ‘are interested in further deepening their knowledge and experience by prolonging their employment or in some cases continuing education in Germany, which they believe will be more useful in transposing the systems to Georgia…’.^{Footnote 191} According to the latest publicly available data, five hospitality professionals remained in Germany and only one nurse returned to Georgia despite the employment opportunities and financial incentives foreseen under the project as part of the reintegration measures.^{Footnote 192}

As one interviewee emphasised in 2014, the project could not be considered a failure just because some of the participants decided to prolong their stay in Germany, as this was an indication of a problem, thereby preventing them from returning to Georgia.^{Footnote 193} In line with that, the project was regarded as successful by the Georgian authorities and there was interest in continuing with this kind of scheme with other Member States on the basis of the developed Manual on Circular Migration Scheme and in line with Georgia’s Migration Strategy (2016–2020) of facilitating circular migration.^{Footnote 194} The Manual stresses that successful voluntary return remains a challenge and that ‘both binding duration of the migration cycle with mandatory return and permanent emigration jeopardises maximisation of triple win impact of labour migration’.^{Footnote 195} Furthermore, return cannot be enforced when the duration of legal stay under the circular migration scheme does not correspond to the opportunities offered by the legislative framework of the country of destination.^{Footnote 196} One of the lessons learnt from the implementation of this project is that circular migration should be seen as means for legal voluntary mobility and that therefore the duration of contracts under circular migration projects should be kept flexible.^{Footnote 197} Despite the broad understanding of circular migration as entailing long-term movement, the project failed to acknowledge, however, that the leakage to settlement and access to an EU long-term residence for some of the participants who opted to stay would not hinder circular migration in the long-term as they can continue to circulate back and forth between Georgia and Germany as EU long-term residents. Furthermore, limiting the contracts of participants or using other contractual return incentives^{Footnote 198} is not a guarantee that migrants will return and further engage in circular migration, and could raise human rights concerns.

4.5 Social Security Coordination

Circular migrants live transnational lives between their countries of origin and destination, and therefore contribute to the social security systems of two countries during different periods of stay as part of their movement cycle.^{Footnote 199} This section of Chap. 4 focuses on social security coordination and the possible solutions thereof that are available to tackle issues arising from contributions accumulated in the context of circulation. The benchmarks in this area aim to assess what kind of benefits can be exported and whether the general principles of social security coordination are covered: maintenance of the acquired rights and rights in the course of acquisition; totalisation of periods of insurance, employment or residence and of assimilated periods for the purpose of the acquisition, maintenance, or recovery of rights and for the calculation of benefits; and, equality of treatment.^{Footnote 200} Another benchmark focuses on whether reimbursement of social security contributions is a possible option.^{Footnote 201} Multilateral and bilateral agreements are considered instruments that support the implementation of these benchmarks.^{Footnote 202}

4.5.1 Legal Migration Directives

All ‘first admissions’ directives contain equal treatment clauses in regards to branches of social security,^{Footnote 203} as defined in Article 3 of Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems.^{Footnote 204} Except for the Blue Card Directive, however, the rest of these directives allow Member States to restrict equal treatment in the field of social security, mostly with regards to family benefits.^{Footnote 205} Member States do not have unlimited freedom to restrict these equal treatment provisions, as stressed by the Court in the case Kamberaj.^{Footnote 206} Restrictions to the equal treatment of social rights of third-country nationals also need to be considered ‘in the light of a human rights based approach’, and Member States should not be allowed to breach their human rights obligations.^{Footnote 207}

Concerning export of benefits, the Blue Card Directive allows for export of statutory old age pensions, ‘at the rate applied by virtue of the law of the debtor Member State(s) when moving to a third country’.^{Footnote 208} In line with this provision, Member States are required to pay pensions to the former Blue Card holders when they move to a third country, even when there is no bilateral social security agreement in force between the two respective countries.^{Footnote 209} The only requirement is that the Member State provides this type of social security export for its own nationals, as this is an equal treatment clause.^{Footnote 210} Nevertheless, this provision applies without prejudice to existing bilateral agreements.^{Footnote 211} In addition, it must be stressed that this provision covers only old-age pensions. Since Blue Card holders are not excluded from the scope of the Single Permit Directive, they can also benefit from the rights under Article 12 (4) of the Single Permit Directive, which allows for a wider range of invalidity and death pensions to be exported.^{Footnote 212}

According to the last paragraph of Article 23 (1) of the Seasonal Workers’ Directive, seasonal workers or the survivors of such workers residing in a third country are entitled to statutory pensions based on the seasonal worker’s previous employment under the same export conditions available for nationals when they move to a third country.^{Footnote 213} Most importantly, this equal treatment clause does not depend on the existence of an agreement with the respective third country. Still, seasonal workers cannot benefit from invalidity and death pensions because neither the Seasonal Workers’ Directive nor the Single Permit Directive, which excludes seasonal workers from its scope, provide for an entitlement in this regard for these migrant workers.^{Footnote 214} One needs to examine the implementation of the Seasonal Workers’ Directive in national law in order to establish whether these workers could benefit from such pensions since in some cases statutory pensions could also cover invalidity and survivors’ benefits.

ICTs or their survivors are entitled to the export of old-age, invalidity, and death statutory pensions under the same conditions and at the same rates as the nationals of the Member State concerned when they move to a third country.^{Footnote 215} In addition, Article 12 (4) of the Single Permit Directive provides that third-country nationals and their survivors are entitled to payments of old age, invalidity, and death pensions under the same conditions and rates as for nationals of the Member State when they move abroad. This is also valid in situations where there is no bilateral social security agreement in force between the Member State and the third country.^{Footnote 216} Yet, the Implementation report on the Single Permit Directive identified problems with the implementation of this provision in several Member States.^{Footnote 217} Finally, researchers are guaranteed equal treatment with nationals of the Member State and can benefit from export of benefits on the basis of Article 12 (4) of the Single Permit Directive if the nationals are entitled to such rights.^{Footnote 218}

The ‘first admissions’ directives do not have the same approach to the different categories of migrants and allow Member States room to provide exceptions to the equal treatment provisions. Furthermore, they are relevant for the social security rights of third-country nationals, but are not instruments that coordinate social security systems. For instance, these directives do not contain any provisions on aggregation of periods of insurance, employment, and residence. For migrant workers this could mean that even in cases where they have fulfilled such periods in their home country, they might not be able to bring these into account in order to obtain the right to social security benefits that, according to the national legislation of the host Member State, depend on having fulfilled such waiting periods.^{Footnote 219} Therefore, the social security coordination between the Member States and third countries remains subject to the conclusion of bilateral agreements between the individual states.^{Footnote 220} In order to understand the actual rights of third-country nationals in practice and examine whether they fulfil benchmarks in the current study, one needs to examine these agreements in detail.^{Footnote 221} Finally, none of the instruments discussed above provide for the reimbursement of social security contributions, which constitutes another benchmark in this policy area (see Annex V).

4.5.2 Mobility Partnerships

Ensuring portability of social security rights is part of the operational priorities of the GAMM’s first pillar, ‘Organising and facilitating legal migration and mobility’,^{Footnote 222} and therefore is reflected in all Mobility Partnership with the Eastern Partnership countries. For instance, the Annexes of the Mobility Partnership with Moldova, Armenia, and Georgia contain a proposal by Bulgaria to negotiate bilateral agreements in the area of social security. In line with the objective of ensuring portability of social security rights, Moldova, for instance, has already concluded social security agreements with several Member States including Romania, Portugal, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Austria, Estonia, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Belgium, Lithuania, and Germany.^{Footnote 223} Furthermore, this priority has also been implemented through projects aiming to increase the capacity of the administration of some of the Eastern partnership countries^{Footnote 224} or through information sessions for potential migrants, such as the one described above in the ‘Work authorisation’ section. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Mobility Partnerships are used by some countries as platforms to foster bilateral cooperation in the field of social security coordination, which supports the implementation of the benchmarks in this field. This is good practice, but its implementation is yet rather uneven and limited.

4.6 Entry and Residence Conditions for Family Members

Even though the right to family reunification for circular migrants is not a policy area that can influence the ability of migrants to circulate,^{Footnote 225} it still needs to be considered as it can help determine what kind of policies the EU is putting in place: a rights-based approach or a revival of the guest-working model?^{Footnote 226} Guest workers were prevented from bringing their families as a guarantee that they would return to their countries of origin, and this is still the case with many of the current time-bound migration schemes. It is, therefore, important to assess whether circular migrants, including seasonal workers and other temporary migrants,^{Footnote 227} can reunite with their family members under EU law instruments in the field of legal migration. In addition to this benchmark, this section also considers the following two policy measures that can facilitate family reunion: waiting periods, which should not exceed 12 months, and housing conditions, which are not as restrictive as to prevent family reunification.^{Footnote 228}

4.6.1 Legal Migration Directives

The Family Reunification Directive goes further than the universal human rights instruments and the case law of the ECtHR, stipulating a right to entry and residence for nuclear family members.^{Footnote 229} The most important feature of this Directive is that it sets out a general rule for the authorisation of family reunification, according to the ruling of the CJEU in Chakroun,^{Footnote 230} and all of the conditions for family reunification, as well as the exceptions and derogations to this general rule, should be regarded as exhaustive and interpreted strictly.^{Footnote 231}

Article 3 of the Family Reunification Directive stipulates that in order to reunite with family members, sponsors need to hold ‘a residence permit issued by a Member State for a period of validity of 1 year’ or have ‘reasonable prospects of obtaining the right of permanent residence, if the members of his or her family are third country nationals of whatever status’. The Report on the implementation of the Directive showed that most Member States allow migrants who are holders of temporary residence permits to reunite with their family members, but they subject this to a minimum period of residence that varies among the Member States.^{Footnote 232}

In its Guidelines for the application of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification, the Commission stresses that Member States have discretion on how to consider ‘reasonable probability of obtaining the right of permanent residence’.^{Footnote 233} However, it also underlines that ‘holders of residence permits issued for a specific purpose with a limited validity and that are not renewable cannot, in principle, be considered to have a reasonable prospect of obtaining the right to permanent residence’. Thus, the scope of the Family Reunification Directive excludes forms of temporary stay, such as those of temporary or seasonal workers, and residence permits that are valid for less than 1 year.^{Footnote 234} This means that the benchmark on family reunion of seasonal workers and ‘special purpose workers’ in this policy area is not met.^{Footnote 235}

In addition, before authorising the entry of family members, Member States have the discretion to impose additional requirements, among which are the normal accommodation requirement^{Footnote 236} and a waiting period.^{Footnote 237} With regards to the requirement for the sponsor to have normal accommodation for a comparable family in the same region and which meets the general health and safety standards in force in the Member State, the Guidelines state that its evaluation is left to the discretion of the Member States. However, ‘the criteria adopted may not be discriminatory and this provision defines the upper limit of what may be required’.^{Footnote 238} It also emphasises that the adopted criteria need to be transparent and clearly specified in the national legislation, and that ‘the fulfilment of this requirement may be judged on either the situation of the sponsor at the moment of the application, or on a reasonable prognosis of the accommodation that can be expected to be available when the sponsor will be joined by his/her family member(s)’.^{Footnote 239} Therefore this requirement is considered as being in line with the benchmark on accommodation mentioned above.

Member States are also free to impose a waiting period of up to 2 years of lawful stay before the migrant’s family members can join.^{Footnote 240} This provision is subject to a derogation, allowing Member States to retain a 3-year waiting period between the submission of an application for family reunification and the issue of a resident permit to a family member on the basis of national law, if the relevant legislation in force on the date of the adoption of the Family Reunification Directive took account of Member State’s reception capacity.^{Footnote 241} This provision was among the three clauses challenged by the European Parliament in the case of European Parliament v. Council of the European Union. The CJEU affirmed the validity of this provision and stressed that it did not violate the right to family life.^{Footnote 242} The provision allows Member States to delay reunification in accordance with their margin of appreciation in order to provide for the better integration of family members.^{Footnote 243} If Member States decide to use this option, then they should make an individual case-by-case assessment and should not impose a general blanket waiting period, as per Article 17 of the Family Reunification Directive.^{Footnote 244} Member States should also take into consideration the best interests of any minor children.^{Footnote 245}

In its Guidelines, the Commission recommends to Member States to keep those waiting periods as short as possible so as to avoid affecting the right to family life in a disproportionate way.^{Footnote 246} Member States should take into account any ‘lawful stays’ under national law from day one, authorised through residence permits or other status allowing such a legal stay.^{Footnote 247} They can require that the lawful stay is continuous but certain interruptions, such as temporary absences for business trips or visits to the country of origin, should be allowed.^{Footnote 248} Even if circular migrants have a permit that is not excluded from the scope of the Directive, this requirement can seriously hinder migrants’ family life if it is too lengthy.^{Footnote 249} Therefore the benchmark on waiting periods in this policy area sets the limit at up to 12 months.

A comparison between the ‘first admissions’ directives shows that all highly-skilled categories – Blue Card holders, ICTs, and Researchers – have facilitated access to family reunification on the basis of derogations to the Family Reunification Directive.^{Footnote 250} They are exempted from the requirement to have reasonable prospects of obtaining the right to permanent residence and from the waiting period requirement, which means that they could enter and stay on temporary permits and still reunite with their family members. In contrast, seasonal workers who also stay temporarily are the only category of migrant workers excluded from the scope of the Family Reunification Directive and the right to family reunion, along with other temporary permits under national law.^{Footnote 251} This means that the EU’s family reunification policy confirms the trend of providing rights-based circular migration solutions only with regard to highly-skilled migrants. Therefore, the benchmark on obligations to facilitate family reunion can be considered as only partially fulfilled.^{Footnote 252}

4.6.2 Mobility Partnerships

The focus on families as part of the priorities of the Mobility Partnerships with the Eastern partnership countries concerns mainly social protection^{Footnote 253} and children left behind.^{Footnote 254} However, some of the bilateral agreements aimed at promoting circular migration discussed in Sect. 4.2.3 contain family reunification facilitation. For instance, the bilateral agreement between Armenia and France for the exchange of students, interns, and young professionals between the ages of 18 and 35 years as well as qualified specialists – which is pending ratification by the French side^{Footnote 255} – contains family reunification provisions (Article 4.4.) allowing spouses and minor children to benefit from a residence permit of the same validity as that of the qualified specialist who serves as a sponsor. The agreements concluded by Bulgaria under the auspices of the Mobility Partnerships with Armenia (Article 3.2)^{Footnote 256} and Moldova (Article 3.2)^{Footnote 257} also provide for family reunification in line with the applicable national legislation of the receiving state.^{Footnote 258} However, this is not the case in the bilateral agreement between Georgia and France on ‘Residence and Circular Migration of Skilled Professionals’. Therefore, the initiatives under the Mobility Partnerships with Eastern Partnership countries are considered to only partially fulfil the benchmarks on family reunification facilitation.

4.7 Recognition of Qualifications

Another policy area that can influence the willingness of circular migrants to engage in this type of migration is the recognition of qualifications. As already mentioned in Chap. 1, the ‘triple win’ proponents claim that it enables skills transfer back to the countries of origin, which in turn supports development and counteracts ‘brain drain’. Nonetheless, some evaluations of circular migration schemes stress that there are cases when migrants return home and their new skills cannot be recognised or are not needed.^{Footnote 259} Therefore, this policy area is considered important for the purposes of this research, especially when it comes to recognition of regulated professions, such as in the health sector.

The benchmarks in this policy area focus on the availability of provisions on the recognition of occupational qualifications that have been acquired outside the EU, including certificates and diplomas, and other means for the recognition of professional qualifications.^{Footnote 260} Among the instruments that can implement these benchmarks are international cooperation instruments and active information policy in relation to the recognition of academic qualifications that would make circular migration beneficial for the circular migrant and support both skill and knowledge transfer.^{Footnote 261}

In addition, the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (the Lisbon Recognition Convention) stipulates that holders of qualifications shall have adequate access to an assessment of these qualifications in another country, and provides other basic principles that can be used as benchmarks in the field of the academic recognition of qualifications (see Annex V).^{Footnote 262} The establishment of national information centres, offering advice on the recognition of foreign qualifications to parties or persons, is among the instruments that support the implementation of the recognition of academic qualifications.^{Footnote 263}

4.7.1 Legal Migration Directives

The Professional Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC^{Footnote 264} provides for the system of recognition of professional qualifications in the EU. These EU standards in the field of the recognition of professional qualifications can also apply to certain third-country nationals on the basis of equal treatment provisions, such as to EU long-term residents, Blue card holders, ICTs, single permit holders, and researchers. Even though these standards can be applied in order to make circular migration more beneficial, hitherto, they do not necessarily bind Member States to apply them to third-country nationals. Nonetheless, all these categories of third-country nationals can also benefit from rights in this respect under the specific EU labour migration directives providing for equal treatment provisions concerning recognition of qualifications.

Article 14 (1) (d) of the Blue Card Directive provides for the equal treatment of Blue Card holders in relation to the recognition of diplomas, certificates, and other professional qualifications in accordance with the relevant national procedures. Recital 19 of the Preamble to the Blue Card Directives provides further details: professional qualifications acquired by a third-country national in another Member State should be recognised in the same way as those of EU citizens. Furthermore, qualifications that have been acquired in a third country should be taken into account in conformity with the Professional Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC.^{Footnote 265} In addition, the deadline for examining the application for an EU Blue Card should not include the time for the recognition of professional qualifications, if so required.^{Footnote 266} The Recast Proposal envisages a requirement for the Member States ‘to recognise professional experience as an alternative to education qualifications’.^{Footnote 267} There is also a new draft requirement for Member States to facilitate the validation and recognition of documents which attest the relevant higher professional qualifications for unregulated professions.^{Footnote 268}

The equal treatment clause that is contained in the Single Permit Directive also covers the recognition of diplomas, certificates, and other professional qualifications in accordance with the relevant national procedures in Article 12 (1) (d) thereof. Recital 23 of the Preamble to the Single Permit Directive provides more information in this regard, stating that Member States should recognise professional qualifications that have been acquired by third-country nationals in another Member State in the same way as those of EU citizens, and should take into account any qualifications that have been acquired in a third country in accordance with the Professional Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC. Therefore, if migrant workers are admitted for the first time to the EU and possess a qualification from a third country, they can have this recognised on the basis of national law. If migrant workers have a prior EU qualification, they can benefit from the recognition procedures that are contained in the Professional Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC. Researchers also benefit from the equal treatment clause that is contained in the Single Permit Directive.^{Footnote 269}

The Seasonal Workers’ Directive also contains an equal treatment clause on the recognition of qualifications in Article 23 (1)(h) thereof. Finally, ICTs enjoy equal treatment with nationals of the Member State where the work is carried out in relation to the recognition of diplomas, certificates, and other professional qualifications in accordance with relevant national procedures.^{Footnote 270}

Despite the existence of EU instruments in this field, research shows that the qualification recognition systems continue to differ depending on which country is in charge of the recognition procedure.^{Footnote 271} There are a variety of definitions of regulated and non-regulated professions as well as various types of recognition procedures and methods of assessment that are applicable in each case. According to the Migrant Immigration Policy Index (MIPEX), procedures for recognising skills and foreign qualifications are, in general, recent and only facilitated by some countries.^{Footnote 272} This plethora of different instruments can hinder access to the labour market and the use of migrants’ qualifications obtained in their home countries, and can thus impede circularity.^{Footnote 273} Furthermore, equal treatment under the Directives applies only after migrants have received their authorisation to enter the respective Member State.^{Footnote 274} In order to assess what these equal treatment clauses mean in practice and what the provisions and measures available to circular migrants are, one must analyse the national law provisions to gain further insight.

4.7.2 Mobility Partnerships

All Mobility Partnerships with the Eastern Partnership countries contain the facilitation of recognition of skills and qualifications amongst their priorities.^{Footnote 275} Accordingly, some of the Mobility Partnerships envisaged initiatives under their Annexes, such as the conclusion of bilateral agreements.^{Footnote 276}

The scoreboard of the Mobility Partnership between the EU and Moldova lists several projects related to the recognition of qualifications in cooperation with the European Training Foundation (ETF) aimed at building capacity to manage labour and return migration.^{Footnote 277} The ‘Better managing the mobility of health professionals in the Republic of Moldova’ project (2011–2014) aimed to promote legal and circular migration, diminish the negative effects of brain drain and brain waste, and facilitate the reintegration of health professionals returning to the Moldovan health system.^{Footnote 278} It also envisaged the promotion of bilateral agreements regulating migration for health personnel between Moldova and the EU Member States in line with the WHO Global Code of Practice for International Recruitment of Health Personnel. As mentioned in Chap. 3, countering the ‘brain drain’ from third countries’ health sectors is among the reasons for introducing the circular migration concept in EU migration policy.^{Footnote 279}

Similarly, ETF has also implemented a project focused on the recognition of qualifications and piloting the validation of non-formal and informal learning in Armenia in the field of tourism and the hospitality sector.^{Footnote 280} In addition, the MISMES report on Armenia gives another example of an initiative in this field, namely the National Information Centre for Academic Recognition and Mobility, which is part of the international network of ENIC-NARIC organisations and plays an important role in facilitating the recognition of foreign qualifications in Armenia.^{Footnote 281}

Another initiative that contained a qualifications recognition component was the 3-year ‘Strengthening the development potential of the EU Mobility Partnership in Georgia through targeted circular migration and diaspora mobilisation’ project discussed above.^{Footnote 282} It piloted a circular migration scheme through which nurses from Georgia could work in Germany.^{Footnote 283} Since this is a regulated profession, Georgian citizens had to go through the recognition of qualifications procedure in line with the relevant German legislation because there were ‘major differences in the qualification “nurse” between Georgia and Germany’.^{Footnote 284} Applicants undertook German language courses whilst they were still in Georgia, and while working in Germany received professional training, which took up to 1 year and concluded with an exam.^{Footnote 285} The project’s aim was for these workers to contribute their expertise towards Georgia’s development as a result of the knowledge and experience they gained in Germany. According to one interviewed state official, the Georgian nurses would not need to repeat the recognition process upon their return.^{Footnote 286} However, in the future an additional recognition system for returning migrants would have to be elaborated,^{Footnote 287} as facilitation of these procedures among other factors was considered one of the incentives for circular migrants to return.^{Footnote 288} This is also part of the lessons learned from the implementation of the circular migration pilot projects in Georgia.^{Footnote 289}

The review of the latest available Mobility Partnership scoreboards and reports shows that some of the Eastern Partnership countries are investing targeted efforts in establishing workable recognition of qualifications systems in order to ensure mobility of skills and qualifications and prevent skill underutilisation.^{Footnote 290} The initiatives and projects identified vary from a country to country, depending on the stage of finalisation of important educational reforms, but are nonetheless considered to support the implementation of the benchmarks in this field.

4.8 Conclusions

The analysis in this chapter has demonstrated that circular migration has a rather marginal role in the EU labour migration acquis. This is in contrast with the EU policy documents adopted by the European Commission, which serve as the basis for the development of the EU’s approach to circular migration. Nevertheless, two main concepts of circular migration can be outlined in the EU’s labour migration policy. On the one hand, a spontaneous pattern of circularity that can be facilitated through a legislative framework, such as in the context of the Blue Card Directive; and on the other, a temporary migration scheme with a re-entry component is regulated through the Seasonal Workers’ Directive.^{Footnote 291} These two policy approaches underline the unequal treatment between the different categories of migrant workers.

This chapter shows that rights-based circular migration is reserved for highly-skilled migrants, which the EU wants to attract. The most desirable category of migrants – the Blue Card holders – benefit from migrant-led trajectories and are given the opportunity to settle permanently according to the EU labour migration acquis.^{Footnote 292} Furthermore, Blue Card holders are the only category of migrants with the explicitly-provided right to switch employer and remain unemployed for up to 3 months without the risk of losing their permits. Nevertheless, even this desired category of migrants does not have facilitated entry to the EU.

Seasonal workers and ICTs, on the other hand, are admitted for a limited period of time and provided with the possibility to re-enter on the basis of different conditions.^{Footnote 293} They do not benefit from migrant-led trajectories and the high protection of rights that is guaranteed to Blue Card holders. For instance, seasonal workers are not entitled to family reunification, and neither category has access to obtaining an EU long-term residence permit – which is not in line with the benchmarks of the study based on international and European standards (see Annex V). Furthermore, the Seasonal Workers’ Directive does not address employer-organised accommodation, which could lead to abuse and dependency of this category of workers. The analysis also demonstrates that researchers, who are considered a mobile group, do not benefit from any special provisions in relation to the facilitation of circular migration.

Despite the equal treatment clauses concerning social security coordination, the possibility of exporting social benefits depends, to a large extent, on national provisions and the existing bilateral agreements signed between Member States and third countries.^{Footnote 294} The same applies to the equal treatment provisions regarding recognition of qualifications, which need to be examined through analysis of national law.

This chapter also focused on the implementation of circular migration-related initiatives under the framework of the GAMM and the Eastern Partnership. Despite the myriad initiatives, dialogues, and agreements, in practice circular migration is hardly facilitated as part of the GAMM. There are several bilateral agreements that could lead to small-scale facilitation if the respective Member States are able to overcome their reluctance to open new channels for legal migration. Apart from that, most of the initiatives are based on pilot projects with uncertain futures. The projects analysed through the prism of the book’s benchmark framework vary in terms of content and implementation from country to country. However, initiatives such as the bilateral agreements providing opportunities for migrant workers to reunite with their families and focusing on social security coordination, as well as projects fostering recognition of qualification, can support rights-based circular migration in the long-run.

As the European Commission stresses in its Legal Migration Fitness Check Conclusions, the limited opportunities for circular migration permitted by the legal migration directives ‘means that it is up to Member States to develop initiatives in this area’.^{Footnote 295} Given that only a few Member States have done so, ‘there could be scope to strengthening the legal framework in this area and to further use funding possibilities for initiatives and projects promoting circular migration’.^{Footnote 296}

Notes

1.
Vankova (2016), p. 339.
2.
Vankova (2018), p. 157.
3.
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 [2014] OJ L 94. See Recital 34 of the Preamble to the Directive containing obligation for Member States to foster circular migration in relation to bona-fide seasonal workers.
4.
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 [2009] OJ L 155/17. It explicitly aims to ‘encourage geographical and circular migration’ of highly skilled third-country nationals. See European Commission (2007) 637, p. 11, p. 16. See also Recitals 20, 21 and 22 of the Preamble to the Directive.
5.
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) [2009] OJ L 243/1.
6.
Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement [2001] OJ L 81.
7.
For an overview see Van Elsuwege and Vankova (2020).
8.
Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents [2004] OJ L 16.
9.
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 [2014] OJ L 157. It focuses on temporary migration (see Recital 7 of the Preamble). During the negotiations, however, a new provision was added to the text of the Directive, which makes it possible for ICTs to return for a subsequent transfer, at the end of the maximum period of stay that is permitted, which could transform the temporary migration into circular migration. See Council of the European Union (2011a), p. 24.
10.
Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 [2016] OJ L 132. The explanatory memorandum of the Recast Proposal contained a reference to ‘brain circulation’, stressing that this would be encouraged by allowing third-country nationals to acquire skills and knowledge through a period of training which would benefit both sending and receiving countries. Both the Proposal and the adopted Directive 2016/801 also stress that ‘fostering people-to-people contacts and mobility’ is an important element of the European Neighbourhood Policy and will contribute to the GAMM and its Mobility Partnerships by potentially providing measures for promoting the mobility of the categories of migrants that are covered by the scope of the Directive. See European Commission (2013), p.3 and Recital 6 of the Preamble to the SRD.
11.
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 [2011] OJ L 343
12.
Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification [2003] OJ L 251.
13.
Vankova (2018), p. 157.
14.
See Chap. 3, Sects. 3.2 and 3.4.
15.
For an overall picture on Mobility Partnerships, see Reslow (2013).
16.
For overview of all instruments, see Van Elsuwege and Vankova (2020).
17.
Referred in the text as EU-Moldova Mobility Partnership. Council of the European Union (2008).
18.
Referred in the text as EU-Georgia Mobility Partnership. Council of the European Union (2009).
19.
Referred in the text as EU-Armenia Mobility Partnership. Council of the European Union (2011b).
20.
Referred in the text as EU-Azerbaijan Mobility Partnership. Council of the European Union (2013).
21.
Referred in the text as EU-Belarus Mobility Partnership. European Commission (2015).
22.
For details see Van Elsuwege and Vankova (2020) and the Treaties Office database of the
European External Action Service. http://ec.europa.eu/world/ agreements/.
23.
See ibid.
24.
Interview # 8 with EU Council official, Belgium, February 2013, Annex I.
25.
Interview # 8 with EU Council official, Belgium, February 2013, Annex I.
26.
Interview #11 with European Commission official, Belgium, May 2013, Annex I.
27.
Interview #11 with European Commission official, Belgium, May 2013, Annex I.
28.
Interview #22 with representative of international organisation, Austria, March 2017, Annex I.
29.
Also stressed in Interview # 19 with representative of international organisation, Belgium, February 2017. In this regard, see also Reslow (2017).
30.
According to the Commission, the scoreboards are internal Commission documents and constitute the ‘basic monitoring tool’ of the Mobility Partnerships. In European Commission (2009), p. 5.
31.
European Union-Republic of Moldova Mobility Partnership, Scoreboard: monitoring tool of the European Union – Republic of Moldova Mobility Partnership: http://scoreboard.mfa.gov.md Accessed 23 November 2017.
32.
Based on Article 1 of the European Agreement on Regulations governing the Movement of Persons between Member States of the Council of Europe, CETS No.025, 13 December 1957, entry into force 1 January 1958.
33.
Based on Article 1 of the European Convention on Establishment, ETS No.19, 13 December 1955, entry into force 23 February 1965.
34.
Based on Principle 15, Guideline 15.8. of ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration. Non-binding principles and guidelines for a rights-based approach to labour migration, adopted by Tripartite Meeting of Experts, which convened in Geneva from 31 October to 2 November 2005.
35.
Based on Article 59 (2) of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW), G.A. res. 45/158, 18 December 1990, entered into force on 1 July 2003.
36.
Related to the right of long-term residents to return to their country of destination on the basis of Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), G.A. res. 217A (III), 10 December 1948; Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 16 December 1966, entered into force on 23 March 1976; Article 8 of ICRMW; and Article 2 (2) and Article 3 (2) of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), ETS No.046, 16 September 1963, entered into force on 02 May 1968. Fore more details, see Vankova (2016).
37.
See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.1.
38.
Vankova (2018), p. 158.
39.
Ibid., p. 160.
40.
The term ‘first admissions’ directives is borrowed from Barnard (2016), p. 500 and in this text refers to the Seasonal Workers’ Directive, Blue Card Directive, the Intra-corporate Transferees’ Directive and the Students’ and Researchers’ Directive.
41.
On that point, see also Eisele (2013); Wiesbrock et al.(2016), p. 968; Fridriksdottir (2017); Carrera et al. (2019).
42.
European Commission (2016a), p. 17.
43.
European Commission (2014a, b), p. 6.
44.
Vankova (2018), p. 159.
45.
See for instance Article 5 (1) (f) BCD, Article 7 (6) SRD, Article 5 (8) ICTD. On the wide discretion given to the Member States in this aspect, see C-544/15-Fahimian, ECLI:EU:C:2017:255.
46.
See Article 8 (3) SWD and Article 8 (2) BCD. Member States cannot apply a labour market test to Intra-corporate Transferees unless required by an Act of Accession. See Recital 21 of ICTD Preamble.
47.
Articles 8 (4) BCD. Not widely used in practice (European Commission (2014a)).
48.
Article 10 (4) BCD.
49.
Article 2 SWD and Article 2 ICTD.
50.
Vankova (2018), p. 160.
51.
See Article 16 (3) stating that for the purpose of calculating the 5-year period of legal and continuous residence in the EU required for the EU long-term residence status, periods of absence from the territory of the EU shall not interrupt this period if they are shorter than 12 consecutive months and do not exceed in total 18 months within the required 5-year period.
52.
Vankova (2018), p. 161.
53.
Article 16 (5) BCD.
54.
European Commission (2016b), p. 2. For data, see p. 3.
55.
Ibid., p. 2.
56.
Ibid., p. 3.
57.
Groenendijk (2019), p. 63.
58.
For instance, the required length of the work contract is shortened from at least 12 months to at least 6 months compared to the current Directive, which creates more flexibility for the employer and the employee (Article 5 (1) (a) of the Proposal). Also, the draft Article 9 (2) of the Proposal requires Member States to allow applications from both within and outside the country and the standard period of validity for the Blue Card permit is fixed at least 24 months (Article 8 (2) of the Proposal).
59.
See Chaps. 1 and 3 for background information in this regard.
60.
European Commission (2016c), p. 30.
61.
Ibid.
62.
Ibid. The Commission’s Proposal reproduces the objective that is contained in Recitals 20 and 21 of the Preamble to the BCD with a view to facilitating circular migration between the EU and third countries through the same derogations that are present in the EU Long-term Residence Directive concerning periods of absence before qualifying for the status and after obtaining it. See also Recital 37 of the Preamble to the Proposal for a Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly-skilled employment, COM (2016) 378.
63.
Vankova (2018), p. 161.
64.
Articles 16 (1) and (2) of the SWD.
65.
Article 16 (2) of the SWD.
66.
Fudge and Olsson (2014), p. 457. Wiesbrock et al. (2016), p. 960.
67.
Wiesbrock et al. (2016), pp. 960–961.
68.
Article 12 (2) of the ICTD.
69.
Article 7 (4) of the ICTD. For the rules stipulating refusal to renew and withdrawal of the ICT card, see Article 8 of the ICTD.
70.
Fridriksdottir (2017), p. 286.
71.
For more information on implementation at the national level, see for instance de Bie and Ghimis (2017).
72.
See Recital 6 of the Preamble to the SRD Recast Proposal and Recital 6 of the Preamble to the SRD.
73.
Articles 7 and 8 SRD.
74.
Vankova (2018), p. 161.
75.
See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.
76.
Article 9 (1) (c) of the LTRD.
77.
European Commission (2011a), p. 5.
78.
European Commission (2019a), p. 5. See also Bertelsmann Stiftung (2015).
79.
European Commission (2019a), p. 5.
80.
See European Migration Network (2011), p. 45. See Bertelsmann Stiftung (2015). See also the ad hoc query of the EMN provided on the initiative of Sweden: https://www.udi.no/globalassets/global/european-migration-network_i/ad-hoc-queries/se-emn-ncp-ad-hoc-query-on-policies-for-circular-migration_open-compilation_2014-08-12.pdf Accessed 12 April 2017.
81.
European Council (2010), Para 5.2, p. 27.
82.
Meloni (2013), p. 155.
83.
Meloni (2013), p. 156. See also Mitsilegas (2010).
84.
See the introduced Article 25a of Regulation (EU) 2019/1155 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas, [2019] OJ L 188. For a critical assessment of the European Commission’s proposal and impact assessment, see Eisele (2018).
85.
See for instance Mananashvili (2013), pp. 2–4. For a street-level policy perspective, see Infantino (2016).
86.
Visa application fees will increase from 60 EUR to 80 EUR and from 35 EUR to 40 EUR for 6–12 years in line with the amendments of Article 16 VC. Furthermore, a visa fee of 120 EUR or 160 EUR shall apply if an implementing decision is adopted by the Council under the point (b) of the new Article 25a(5) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1155 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas, [2019] OJ L 188.
87.
Vankova (2018), p. 162.
88.
European Commission (2018a), p. 3.
89.
European Commission (2018b), pp. 13–14.
90.
Ibid., p. 15.
91.
See the revised Article 24 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1155 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas, [2019] OJ L 188. However, the European Commission’s impact assessment and proposal did not discuss the potential links between the concept of circular migration and the harmonising procedures for issuing multi-entry visas. In Eisele (2018), p.6
92.
Van Elsuwege and Vankova (2020).
93.
Andrade et al. (2015), p. 40.
94.
Council Decision (EU) 2019/1915 of 14 October 2019 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the facilitation of the issuance of visas, [2019] OJ L297/1.
95.
For more details, see Peers (2012a), p. 317–18; Trauner and Kruse (2008), p. 424.
96.
Trauner and Kruse (2008), p. 421.
97.
Hernández i Sagrera (2014), pp. 14–15; Andrade et al. (2015), p. 30.
98.
Andrade et al. (2015), p. 30. This was also mentioned in interview #11 with European Commission official, Belgium, May 2013.
99.
Interview #11 with European Commission official, Belgium, May 2013, Annex I.
100.
Vankova (2018), p. 163.
101.
Ibid.
102.
Interview #27 with representative of international organisation, Austria, March 2017, Annex I.
103.
EU-Republic of Moldova Mobility Partnership: Information Newsletter, No 7, May 2013, p. 9. http://www.mfa.gov.md/img/docs/bulletin-information_7_en.pdf Accessed 1 May 2019.
104.
Mosneaga (2015), p. 26.
105.
This information was additionally provided by interviewee # 19, Belgium, February 2017, Annex I.
106.
See Chap. 5, Sect. 5.2.2.1; Chap. 6, Sect. 6.1.2; Chap. 7, Sects. 7.1.1 and 7.2.1; Chap. 8, Sect. 8.1.1.
107.
Gogolashvili (2019).
108.
Interview # 25 with state official, Georgia, March 2017, Annex I.
109.
Georgian Journal (2019).
110.
Ambassade de France à Tbilissi (2019).
111.
Ibid.
112.
Gogolashvili (2019).
113.
ICMPD (2016), p. 15. For more details, see International Organisation for Migration (2017).
114.
Verigo and Castelfranco (2019), p. 17.
115.
Interview # 25 with state official, Georgia, March 2017, Annex I.
116.
Interview # 25 with state official, Georgia, March 2017, Annex I.
117.
Interview # 18 with state official, Georgia, November 2014, Annex I.
118.
Interview #27 with representative of international organisation, Austria, March 2017, Annex I.
119.
Project d’accord de partenariat migratoire entre le gouvernement de la Republique Francaise et le gouvernement de la Republique D’Armenie provided by the French Embassy in Yerevan in March 2017.
120.
Interview #20 with representative of international organisation, Armenia, February 2017, Annex I.
121.
Interview #20 with representative of international organisation, Armenia, February 2017, Annex I.
122.
Migration for development (2011). See also European Union – Republic of Moldova Mobility Partnership (2010).
123.
Interview #27 with representative of international organisation, Austria, March 2017, Annex I. Interview #19 with representative of international organisation, Belgium, February 2017, Annex I.
124.
Interview #19 with representative of international organisation, Belgium, February 2017, Annex I.
125.
Interview #27 with representative of international organisation, Austria, March 2017.
126.
For more details, see Leith and Rivas (2015).
127.
See for instance Reslow (2015), p. 117.
128.
Van Elsuwege and Vankova (2020).
129.
Interview #19 with representative of international organisation, Belgium, February 2017, Annex I; Interview # 20 with representative of international organisation, Armenia, February 2017, Annex I.
130.
Vankova (2016), p. 337.
131.
Ibid.
132.
Based on Article 14 (a) of Convention concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers, C143, adopted at 60th ILC session on 24 June 1975, Geneva, entry into force on 09 December 1978 (ILO Convention No. 143); and Article 52 (3a) ICRMW. For more details see Vankova (2016), pp. 342–343.
133.
Based on Article 8 (1) ILO Convention No. 143 and Article 49 (2) ICRMW.
134.
Based on Article 8 (2) ILO Convention No. 143 and Article 51 ICRMW.
135.
Based on Article 59 (2) ICRMW.
136.
Vankova (2016), p. 343.
137.
Article 15 (3) SWD; Article 12 (2) BCD. In Vankova (2018), p. 164.
138.
See article 15 (4) SWD.
139.
Article 12 (2) BCD.
140.
See Article 21 (5) SRD.
141.
See Article 17 ICTD.
142.
Vankova (2018), p. 164.
143.
On the basis of Article 15 (3) SWD. Ibid.
144.
The ‘reasonable time’ criterion was introduced by the CJEU in its judgment in Tetik, C-171/95 – Tetik v Land Berlin, ECLI:EU:C:1997:31. It concerned Turkish workers with a right to continue to work under Article 6 (1) of the EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision 1/80, but on the basis of comparison with the rights of EU workers. See Paras 27, 30–32, 42 and 48. In Vankova (2018), p. 165.
145.
Ibid.
146.
Article 8 (5) (a) in connection with Article 14 ICTD.
147.
Vankova (2018), p. 165.
148.
Kalantaryan (2015), p. 32.
149.
Ibid., p. 29.
150.
Ibid., p.38.
151.
Migration EU eXpertise (MIEUX) is a joint EU-ICMPD initiative. For more information see https://www.icmpd.org/our-work/capacity-building/multi-thematic-programmes/mieux-iii/ Accessed 12 January 2018.
152.
Interview #26 with representative of international organisation, Belarus, March 2017, Annex I.
153.
Skeldon (2012), p. 53.
154.
Hugo (2013), p. 2.
155.
Vankova (2018), p. 166.
156.
Vankova (2016), p. 338
157.
On the basis of Article 2, European Convention on Establishment.
158.
Vankova (2016), p. 344.
159.
On the basis of Article 12 (1) ICCPR, Article 39 ICRMW, Article 2 (1) of the Fourth protocol to the ECHR.
160.
On the process of its adoption, see Arcarazo (2011), pp. 77–93. See also Arcarazo (2015).
161.
Recital 6 of the Preamble to the LTRD and Article 4 (1) of the LTRD.
162.
Article 4 (2) in connection with Article 3 (2) (e) of the LTRD.
163.
Article 4 (3) of the LTRD.
164.
Article 4 (3), second sub-paragraph, of the LTRD.
165.
Article 4 (3), third sub-paragraph, of the LTRD.
166.
Groenendijk (2012), p. 302.
167.
Article 5 (1) of the LTRD.
168.
Groenendijk (2012), p. 301.
169.
Case C-578/08 Rhimou Chakroun v. Ministervan Buitenlandse Zaken, ECLI:EU:C:2010:117.
170.
Peers (2016), p. 424 (footnote 914).
171.
Case C-302/18 X v Belgische Staat, ECLI:EU:C:2019:830, paras 41–44.
172.
Article 5 (2) of the LTRD. In this regard, see for instance Carrera (2014); Carrera (2009); Strik and Böcker (2011); Pascouau and Strik (eds) (2012).
173.
European Commission (2019a), p. 3
174.
Case C-579/13, P and S v Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda and College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen, ECLI:EU:C:2015:369, para 56. For more details on the integration requirements under EU law, see Carrera and Vankova (2019), pp.19–21.
175.
According to the Court ruling in the C-502/10 – Singh, ECLI:EU:C:2012:636, these are two distinct autonomous exceptions, which need to be interpreted through the prism of the integration objective of the Directive.
176.
Vankova (2018), p. 167.
177.
See Article 16 (2) and (3) BCD.
178.
Article 17 (2) BCD Recast Proposal.
179.
See the reasoning of Steve Peers on the former Researchers’ Directive in Peers (2012b), p. 138.
180.
See Recital 4 of the Preamble to the SRD.
181.
Vankova (2018), p. 166.
182.
See Article 20 SWD.
183.
See Article 5 (1)(c) and Article 6 (1) (c) in connection with Article 20 SWD. See also Wiesbrock et al. (2016), p. 966.
184.
The project was part of the joint operation that was referred to as the Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) and was managed by the Federal Employment Agency and the organisation Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).
185.
Interview #24 with former MP project assistant, Georgia, March 2017, Annex I. Based on § 17 of the German residence act, permitting training on the job for the duration of 12 months, with a one-time possibility to prolong to a maximum of 18 months and with the obligation to return to Georgia upon completion. For more details, see Goos (2016), pp. 57–59.
186.
Interview #24 with former MP project assistant, Georgia, March 2017, Annex I.
187.
Goos (2016), p. 102.
188.
Centre for International Migration and Development, ‘Circular Migration between Georgia and Germany’. https://migration-georgia.alumniportal.com/?id=1287 Accessed 26 November 2019. Emphasis added.
189.
Interview # 24 with former MP project assistant, Georgia, March 2017, Annex I.
190.
Goos (2016), p.103.
191.
Final external evaluation report quoted in A. Goos (2016), p. 103.
192.
Mestvirishvili (2018), pp. 4–5.
193.
Interview # 18 with state official, Georgia, November 2014, Annex I.
194.
Interview # 24 with former MP project assistant, Georgia, March 2017, Annex I. Interview # 25 with state official, Georgia, March 2017, Annex I. See also, Secretariat of the State Commission on Migration Issues, Executive Summary of Assessment of Circular Migration Potential of Georgian Workforce in the EU. http://eapmigrationpanel.org/sites/default/files/study_report_on_circular_migration_in_georgia_executive_summary.pdf Accessed 19 November 2019.
195.
Goos (2016), p.103.
196.
Ibid.
197.
Mestvirishvili (2018), p. 6.
198.
See Mestvirishvili (2018), p. 6; Goos (2016), p.110.
199.
Vankova (2016), p. 338.
200.
Based on, among others, Equality of Treatment (Social Security) Convention, C118, adopted at 46th ILC session on 28 June 1962, entry into force on 25 April 1964; Equality of Treatment (Accident Compensation) Convention, C019, adopted at seventh ILC session on 05 June 1925, entry into force on 8 September 1926. See Annex V for details.
201.
In line with Article 27 (2) of ICRMW and Article 9 (1) ILO Convention No 143.
202.
Vankova (2016), p. 346.
203.
Article 23 (1) (d) SWD; Article 14 (1) (e) BCD; Article 18 (2) (c) ICTD; Article 12 (1) (e) SPD; Article 22 (1) SRD.
204.
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems [2004] OJ L 166.
205.
Article 18 (3) ICTD; Article 22 (2) (b) and (c) SRD; Article 23 (2) (i) SWD; Article 12 (2) (b) SPD. Concerning the latter, see also C-449/16 – Martinez Silva, ECLI:EU:C:2017:485 In Vankova (2018), p. 168.
206.
Case C-571/10 Kamberaj, ECLI:EU:C:2014:233, points 78, 86, 79–81 and 92. See Groenendijk (2015), p. 557.
207.
Beduschi (2015), pp. 224–225.
208.
Article 14 (1) (f) of the BCD.
209.
Verschueren (2016), p. 383.
210.
Ibid.
211.
In other words, if there is a bilateral agreement between the two respective countries, it will apply.
212.
Groenendijk (2015), p. 558.
213.
Vankova (2018), p. 169.
214.
Ibid., p. 390.
215.
Article 18 (2) (d) ICTD.
216.
Verschueren (2016), p. 387.
217.
European Commission (2019b), pp. 10–11.
218.
Article 22 (1) SRD. In Vankova (2018), p. 169.
219.
On that, see also Verschueren (2016).
220.
Vankova (2018), p. 169.
221.
Ibid.
222.
European Commission (2011b), p.13.
223.
ICMPD (2016), p. 39. Eastern Partnership Panel on Migration, Mobility and Integrated Border Management (2017), ‘Moldovans to receive social security benefits after signing an agreement with Germany’, 2 November 2017. http://eapmigrationpanel.org/en/news/moldovans-receive-social-security-benefits-after-signing-agreement-germany Accessed 26 November 2019.
224.
See for instance the project ‘Strengthening the administrative capacity of the authorities of the Republic of Moldova in relation to transfers of social security benefits’: http://scoreboard.mfa.gov.md/ Accessed 26 November 2019.
225.
Vankova (2016), p. 338.
226.
Vankova (2018), p. 170.
227.
Benchmark developed on the basis of ILO Guidelines on Special Protective Measures for Migrant Workers in Time-bound Activities (Doc. MEIM/1997/D.4) adopted by the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Future ILO Activities in the Field of Migration, ILO, Geneva, Annex 1, Para. 6.1. For the rest of the benchmarks, see Annex V.
228.
For more details, see Vankova (2016), p. 347.
229.
Peers (2012c), p. 248; Groenendijk (2014), p. 331.
230.
Case C-578/08, Chakroun, ECLI:EU:C:2010:117, Para. 43.
231.
Peers (2012c), p. 249.
232.
European Commission (2008). The latest edition of MIPEX reconfirms this conclusion. See Huddleston et al. (2015).
233.
European Commission (2014b), p. 4.
234.
See Article 3 (1) of the FRD.
235.
Vankova (2018), p. 170.
236.
Article 7 (1) (a) FRD.
237.
Article 8 FRD.
238.
European Commission (2014b), p. 11.
239.
Ibid.
240.
Article 8 of the FRD.
241.
Article 8 of the FRD. Only Austria applied this derogation in the past. See Peers (2012c).
242.
Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council, ECLI:EU:C:2006:429, paras 97–103.
243.
Ibid, paras 97–98.
244.
European Commission (2014b), p. 17.
245.
Article 5 (5) of the FRD.
246.
European Commission (2014b), p. 17.
247.
Ibid.
248.
Ibid.
249.
Vankova (2018), p. 171.
250.
Article 15 BCD; Article 26 SRD; Article 19 ICTD.
251.
Vankova (2018), p. 171.
252.
Ibid.
253.
See for instance EU-Moldova Mobility Partnership, p. 13; EU-Belarus Mobility Partnership, p.7; EU-Azerbaijan-Mobility Partnership p.5.
254.
See the following projects under the EU-Moldova Mobility Partnership: ‘Strengthen the development dimension of migration’, ‘Addressing the Negative Effects of Migration on Minors and Families Left Behind’, ‘Study on Children and Elderly left behind in Moldova and Georgia’, ‘Bridge the gap’ – End of life-care for terminally ill and elderly people left behind in Moldova and Ukraine: http://scoreboard.mfa.gov.md/ Accessed 26 November 2019; the project ‘Mitigating social consequences of labour migration and maximizing migrants involvement in local development’ under the EU-Armenia Mobility Partnership assessed by UNICEF: https://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/index_101734.html Accessed 26 November 2019.
255.
Project d’accord de partenariat migratoire entre le gouvernement de la Republique Francaise et le gouvernement de la Republique D’Armenie provided by the French Embassy in Yerevan in March 2017.
256.
Agreement between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Armenia on labour migration management, аpproved by Council of Ministers Decision No. 176 of 22 March 2018, entered into force 9 October 2018/ Спогодба между Република България и Република Армения за регулиране на трудовата миграция, утвърдена с Решение No. 176 от 22 март 2018 г. на Министерския съвет. В сила от 9 октомври 2018 г.
257.
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Government of the Republic of Moldova on labour migration management, аpproved by Council of Ministers Decision No 492 of 13 July 2018, entered into force on 11 September 2018/ Спогодба между правителството на Република България и правителството на Република Молдова за регулиране на трудовата миграция, утвърдена с Решение No. 492 на Министерския съвет от 13 юли 2018 г. В сила от 11 септември 2018 г.
258.
For more details, see Chap. 8, Sect. 8.1.1.
259.
Hooper and Sumption (2016), pp. 20–21.
260.
Based on Article 14 (b) of ILO Convention No. 143; Paragraph 6 of Migrant Workers Recommendation, 1975 (No. 151), adopted at 60th ILC session on 24 June 1975; Principle 12, Guideline 12.6 of the ILO’s Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration.
261.
Vankova (2016), p. 348.
262.
Article III.1 of Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region, CETS No.165, adopted 11 April 1997, entry in force 1 February 1999. See also Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the LRC.
263.
Article IX.2 of the LRC. For more details see Vankova (2016), p. 349.
264.
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications [2005] OJ L 255. Amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System [2013] OJ L 354.
265.
Recital 19 of the Preamble to the BCD.
266.
Recital 12 of the Preamble to the BCD.
267.
See BCD Recast Proposal, p. 13 and Article 2 (g) thereof.
268.
Article 5 (6) of the BCD Recast Proposal.
269.
Article 12 (1) (d) of the SRD.
270.
Article 18 (2) (b) of the ICTD.
271.
Schuster et al. (2013), p. 22.
272.
Nine countries assessed with MIPEX: AU, CA, CY, DE, EE, IS, NL, SE, UK. See more at: http://www.mipex.eu/labour-market-mobility
273.
See Schuster et al. (2013).
274.
S. Carrera et al. (2019), p. 63.
275.
See EU-Moldova Mobility Partnership, p.4; EU-Belarus Mobility Partnership, p. 6; EU-Azerbaijan Mobility Partnership, p.6; EU-Georgia Mobility Partnership, pp. 3 and 4; EU-Armenia Mobility Partnership, pp. 4–5.
276.
See EU-Moldova Mobility Partnership, p. 15; EU-Georgia Mobility Partnership, p. 8; EU-Armenia Mobility Partnership, pp. 10–12.
277.
For more details see Mosneaga (2015).
278.
World Health Organisation (2015).
279.
See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.
280.
Kalantaryan (2015), p. 21.
281.
Ibid, p. 22.
282.
The project was part of the joint operation that was referred to as the Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) and was managed by the Federal Employment Agency and the German organisation GIZ.
283.
Interview #24 with former MP project assistant, Georgia, March 2017, Annex I.
284.
Interview # 18 with state official, Georgia, November 2014, Annex I. For more details, see Goos, (2016), p.48
285.
Interview # 24 with former MP project assistant, Georgia, March 2017, Annex I.
286.
Interview # 18 with state official, Georgia, November 2014, Annex I.
287.
Interview # 18 with state official, Georgia, November 2014, Annex I.
288.
Goos (2016), p. 56.
289.
Mestvirishvili (2018), pp. 5–6.
290.
See for instance Kalantaryan (2015), p. 39; Badurashvili (2015), p. 39; Mosneaga (2015), p. 5, pp. 31–32.
291.
Vankova (2018), p. 172.
292.
Ibid.
293.
Ibid.
294.
Vankova (2018), p. 172.
295.
European Commission (2019c), p. 152.
296.
Ibid.

References

Ambassade de France à Tbilissi (2019) Accord franco-géorgien sur le séjour et la migration circulaire de professionnels, 1 February 2019. https://ge.ambafrance.org/Accord-franco-georgien-sur-le-sejour-et-la-migration-circulaire-de Accessed 19 November 2019.
Andrade, P.G., I. Martin, and S. Mananshvili (2015) EU cooperation with third countries in the field of migration. Study for the LIBE Committee. European Parliament, Brussels.
Google Scholar
Arcarazo, D. A. (2011) The Long-Term Residence Status as a Subsidiary Form of EU Citizenship. An Analysis of Directive 2003/109. Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff.
Google Scholar
Arcarazo, D. A. (2015) Civic Citizenship Reintroduced? The Long-Term Residence Directive as a Post-National Form of Membership. European Law Journal, 21 (2): 200–219.
Google Scholar
Badurashvili, I. (2015) Inventory of Migrant Support Measures from an Employment and Skills Perspective. Georgia. European Training Foundation.
Google Scholar
Barnard, C. (2016) The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms. Fifth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Bertelsmann Stiftung (2015) A Fair Deal on Talent – Fostering Just Migration Governance. Lessons from Around the Globe.
Google Scholar
Beduschi, A. (2015) An Empty Shell? The Protection of Social Rights of Third-Country Workers in the EU after the Single Permit Directive. European Journal of Migration and Law 17 (2–3): 210–238.
Google Scholar
Carrera, S. (2009) In Search of the Perfect Citizen?: The Intersection Between Integration, Immigration and Nationality in the EU. Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy in Europe. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Google Scholar
Carrera, S. (2014) Integration of Immigrants in EU Law and Policy: Challenges to Rule of Law, Exceptions to Inclusion. In L. Azoulai and K. D. Vries (eds), EU Migration Law: Legal Complexities and Political Rationales. Oxford: Oxford University Press, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198708537.003.0006.
Carrera, S. and Z. Vankova (2019) Human Rights Aspects of Immigrant and Refugee Integration Policies. A comparative assessment in selected Council of Europe member states at the request of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Migration and Refugees of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
Google Scholar
Carrera, S., L. Vosyliute, Z. Vankova, N. Laurentsyeva, M. Fernandes, J. Dennison, and J. Guerin (2019) The Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Legal Migration: at the request of the European Added Value Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value within the Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, No 2019-01, Brussels.
Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2008) Joint Declaration on a Mobility Partnerships between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova, 9460/08, ADD 1, 21 May 2008, Brussels.
Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2009) Joint Declaration on a Mobility Partnership between the European Union and Georgia, 16396/09, 20 November 2009, Brussels.
Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2011a) Outcome of Proceedings of Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion, 8485/11, 5 April 2011, Brussels.
Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2011b) Joint Declaration on a Mobility Partnership between the European Union and Armenia, 14963/11, ADD 1, 6 October 2011, Brussels.
Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2013) Joint Declaration on Mobility Partnership between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the European Union and its participating Member States, 16399/13, 26 November 2013, Brussels.
Google Scholar
de Bie, A. and A. Ghimis (2017) The Intra-corporate Transferees Directive: a revolutionary scheme or a burden for multi-nationalcompanies? ERA forum, Academy of European Law (18): 199–211.
Google Scholar
Eisele, K. (2013) Why come here if I can go there? Assessing the ‘Attractiveness’ of the EU’s Blue Card Directive for ‘Highly Qualified’ Immigrants. CEPSPaper on Liberty and Security in Europe No. 60, Brussels.
Google Scholar
Eisele, K. (2018) Briefing. Initial Appraisal of European Commission Impact Assessment. Revision of the visa code: Impact Assessment (SWD(2018) 77, SWD(2018) 78 (summary)) of a Commission proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (COM(2018) 252). European Parliamentray Research Service. April 2018, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2007) Proposal for а Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment, COM (2007) 637, 23 October 2007, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2008) Report on the application of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification, COM (2008) 610 final, 8 October 2008, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2009) Mobility Partnerships as a tool of the Global Approach to Migration, SEC (2009) 1240, 18 September 2009, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2011a) Report on the application of Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, COM (2011) 585 final, 28 September 2011, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2011b) Communication ‘The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility’, 5. Operational priorities, COM (2011) 743 final, 18 November 2011, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2013) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training, voluntary service and au pairing, COM (2013) 0151 final, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2014a) Communication on the implementation of Directive 2009/50/EC on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of highly qualified employment, COM (2014) 287 final, 22 May 2014, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2014b) Communication on guidance for application of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification, COM (2014) 210 final, 3 April 2014, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2015) Commission decision on Joint Declaration establishing a Mobility Partnership between the Republic of Belarus and the European Union and its participating Member States, C (2015) 3955 final 15 June 2015, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2016a) Communication ‘Towards a reform of the common European asylum system and enhancing legal avenues to Europe’, COM (2016) 197 final, 6 April 2016, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2016b) Proposal for a Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly skilled employment, COM (2016) 378 final, 7 June 2016, Strasbourg.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2016c) Commission Staff Working Document, Impact assessment accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly skilled employment and repealing Directive 2009/50/EC, SWD (2016) 193 final, Part 6/6, 7 June 2016, Strasbourg.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2018a) Communication ‘Adapting the common visa policy to new challenges’, COM (2018) 251 final, 14 March 2018, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2018b) Impact assessment accompanying the document ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)’, SWD (2018) 77 final, 14 March 2018, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2019a) Report on the implementation of Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, COM (2019) 161 final, 29 March 2019, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2019b) Report on 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, COM (2019) 160 final, 29 March 2019, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Commission (2019c) Fitness Check on EU Legislation on legal migration, SWD (2019) 1055 final, 29 March 2019, part 2/2, Brussels.
Google Scholar
European Council (2010) Stockholm Programme: An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens, OJ C 115/1, 4 May 2010.
Google Scholar
European Migration Network (2011) ‘Temporary and Circular Migration: empirical evidence, current policy practice and future options in EU Member States. Report on Sweden’, prepared by Migrationsverkert.
Google Scholar
European Union – Republic of Moldova Mobility Partnership (2010) Scoreboard – monitoring tool of the European Union – Republic of Moldova Mobility Partnership, http://scoreboard.mfa.gov.md/project/view/262 Accessed 23 November 2017.
Fridriksdottir, B. (2017) What Happened to Equality? The Construction of the Right to Equal Treatment of Third-Country Nationals in Europan Union Law on Labour Migration. Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy in Europe, Volume 43. Leiden: Brill.
Google Scholar
Fudge, J. and P. Olsson. (2014). The EU Seasonal Workers Directive: When Immigration Controls Meet Labour Rights. European Journal of Migration and Law (16): 439–466.
Google Scholar
Georgian Journal (2019) Georgian citizens are granted the right to work in France, 24 January 2019. https://www.georgianjournal.ge/business/35484-georgian-citizens-are-granted-the-right-to-work-in-france.html Accessed 19 November 2019.
Gogolashvili, K. (2019) A New Chance for Circular Labor Migration between Georgia and the EU. Rondeli Blog. 15 January 2019. https://www.gfsis.org/blog/view/918 Accessed 27 November 2019.
Goos, A. (2016) Manual on Circular Migration Scheme. Centre for International Migration and Development. http://migration.commission.ge/files/pcms_en_final.pdf Accessed 27 November 2019.
Groenendijk, K. (2012) Long-Term Residents. In S. Peers, E. Guild, D. A. Arcarazo, K. Groenendijk and V. Moreno-Lax (eds), EU Immigration and Asylum Law (Text and Commentary): Second Revised Edition. Volume 2: EU Immigration Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 287–353.
Google Scholar
Groenendijk, K. (2014) Recent Developments in EU Law on Migration: The Legislative Patchwork and the Court’s Approach. European Journal of Migration and Law (16): 313–335.
Google Scholar
Groenendijk, K. (2015) Equal treatment of workers from third countries: the added value of the Single Permit Directive. ERA Forum (16): 547–561.
Google Scholar
Groenendijk, K. (2019) Legal migration. In M. De Somer, P. De Bruycker and J.-L. De Brouwer (eds) From Tampere 20 to Tampere 2.0: Towards a New European Consensus on Migration. European Policy Centre, Brussels.
Google Scholar
Hernández i Sagrera, R. (2014) The Impacts of Visa Liberalisation in Eastern Partnership Countries, Russia and Turkey on Trans-border Mobility. Study for the LIBE Committee, Brussels.
Google Scholar
Hooper, K. and M. Sumption (2016) Reaching a ‘Fair’ Deal on Talent. Emigration, Circulation and Human Capital in Countries of Origin. Migration Policy Institute, Washington DC.
Google Scholar
Hugo, G. (2013) What We Know About Circular Migration and Enhanced Mobility. Migration Policy Institute, Washington DC.
Google Scholar
Huddleston, T., Ö. Bilgili, A. Joki and Z. Vankova (2015) Migrant Integration policy Index (MIPEX). CIDOB and MPG, Brussels/Barcelona.
Google Scholar
Infantino, F. (2016) State-bound Visa Policies and Europeanized Practices. Comparing EU Visa Policy Implementation in Morocco. Journal of Borderlands Studies 31 (2): 171–186.
Google Scholar
ICMPD (2016) Overview of the EU Mobility Partnership Instrument. Summary of the Initiatives in Georgia and Moldova, MOBILAZE project, May 2016. https://www.pragueprocess.eu/en/migration-observatory/publications/document?id=161 Accessed 26 November 2019.
International Organisation for Migration, Mission to Georgia (2017) Temporary Labour Migration of Georgian Workers to Poland and Estonia Pilot Project Kicks Off. http://iom.ge/1/temporary-labour-migration-georgian-workers-poland-and-estonia-pilot-project-kicks Accessed 12 December 2017.
Kalantaryan, S. (2015) Inventory of Migrant Support Measures from an Employment and Skills Perspective. Armenia. European Training Foundation.
Google Scholar
Leith, J. and A. Rivas (2015) The Temporary Return of Qualified Nationals Project (TRQN). III. Evaluation Report for the International Organization for Migration. https://iom-nederland.nl/images/Publications/Evaluation_TRQN__Response_IOM.pdf Accessed 23 November 2019.
Mananashvili, S. (2013) Access to Europe in a Globalised World: Assessing the EU’s Common Visa Policy in the light of the Stockholm Guidelines. EUI Working Papers, RSCAS 74, Fiesole.
Google Scholar
Meloni, A. (2013) EU Visa and Border Control Policies: What Roles for Security and Recirpocity?. In D. Bigo, E. Guild, and S. Carrera (eds), Foreigners, Refugees or Minorities? Rethinking People in the Context of Border Controls and Visas. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 151–169.
Google Scholar
Mestvirishvili, N. (2018) Circular Migration Schemes in Georgia: Lessons Learned and Ways Forward. Prague Process Policy Brief. https://www.pragueprocess.eu/documents/repo/91/Policy_Brief_GEO_Circular%20Migration_EN.pdf Accessed 23 November 2018.
Migration for development (2011) Making Migration in Moldova Work for Development. http://www.migration4development.org/en/projects/making-migration-moldova-work-development Accessed 23 November 2017.
Mitsilegas, V. (2010) Extraterritorial Immigration Control in the 21st Century: The Individual and the State Transformed. In B. Ryan and V. Mitsilegas (eds), Extraterritorial Immigration Control. Legal Challenges. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 39–68.
Google Scholar
Mosneaga, V. (2015) Inventory of Migrant Support Measures from an Employment and Skills Perspective. Republic of Moldova. European Training Foundation.
Google Scholar
Pascouau, Y. and T. Strik (eds) (2012) Which Integration Policies for Migrants? Interaction between the EU and its Member States. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Google Scholar
Peers, S. (2012a) Visa Facilitation. In S. Peers, E. Guild, and J. Tomkin (eds), EU Immigration and Asylum Law (Text and Commentary): Second Revised Edition. Volume 1: Visas and Border Controls. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 315–336.
Google Scholar
Peers, S. (2012b) Admission of Researchers. In S. Peers, E. Guild, D. A. Arcarazo, K. Groenendijk and V. Moreno-Lax (eds), EU Immigration and Asylum Law (Text and Commentary): Second Revised Edition. Volume 2: EU Immigration Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 129–164.
Google Scholar
Peers, S. (2012c) Family Reunion. In S. Peers, E. Guild, D. A. Arcarazo, K. Groenendijk and V. Moreno-Lax (eds), EU Immigration and Asylum Law (Text and Commentary): Second Revised Edition. Volume 2: EU Immigration Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 247–286.
Google Scholar
Peers, S. (2016) EU Justice and Home Affairs Law. Volume I: EU Immigration and Asylum Law. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Reslow, N. (2013) Partnering for mobility? Three-level Games in EU External Migration Policy’. Datawyse/Universitaire Pers Maastricht.
Google Scholar
Reslow, N. (2015) EU ‘Mobility’ Partnerships: An Initial Assessment of Implementation Dynamics. Politics and Governance 3 (2): 117–128.
Google Scholar
Reslow, N. (2017) Not everything that counts can be counted: Assessing ‘success’ of EU external migration policy, International Migration 55 (6): 156–169.
Google Scholar
Schuster, A., M. V. Desiderio, and G. Urso (2013) Recognition of Qualifications and Competences of Migrants. International Organization for Migration, Brussels.
Google Scholar
Skeldon, R. (2012) Going Round in Circles: Circular Migration, Poverty Alleviation and Marginality. International Migration 50 (3): 43–60.
Google Scholar
Strik, T. and A. Böcker (2011) Language and Knowledge tests for Permanent Residence Rights. Integration tests, help or hindrance? European Journal of Migration and Law, 13 (2): 157–184.
Google Scholar
Trauner, F. and I. Kruse (2008) EC Visa Facilitation and Readmission Agreements: A New Standard EU Foreign Policy Tool?, European Journal of Migration and Law 10 (4): 411–438.
Google Scholar
Van Elsuwege, P. and Z. Vankova (2020) Migration and Mobility in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood: Mapping out the Legal and Political Framework. In F. Ippolito, G. Borzoni, and F. Casolari (eds), Bilateral relations in the Mediterranean: Prospects for migration issues. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Google Scholar
Vankova, Z. (2016). EU Circular Migration Policies: Dead or Alive? Developing a Rights-based Benchmark Framework for Policy Assessment. Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law 30 (4): 332–352.
Google Scholar
Vankova, Z. (2018) The EU’s Approach to Circular Migration in the Context of the Eastern Partnership Neighbourhood. In S. Carrera, L. den Hertog, D. Kostakopoulou, and M. Panizzon (eds), EU external migration policies in an era of global mobilities: Intersecting policy universes. Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy in Europe, Vol. 44. Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff, pp. 155–176.
Google Scholar
Verigo, T. and A. Castelfranco (2019) Evaluation report: Ex-post internal evaluation of the project ‘Piloting Temporary Labour Migration of Georgian Workers to Poland and Estonia’. Commissioned by IOM Country Office Georgia.
Google Scholar
Verschueren, H. (2016) Employment and Social Security Rights of Third-Country Labour Migrants under EU Law: An Incomplete Patchwork of Legal Protection. European Journal of Migration and Law 18 (4): 373–408.
Article Google Scholar
World Health Organisation (2015) Better managing the mobility of health professionals in the Republic of Moldova – context, challenges, and lessons learned. http://www.euro.who.int/en/countries/republic-of-moldova/news/news/2015/03/better-managing-the-mobility-of-health-professionals-in-the-republic-of-moldova-context,-challenges,-and-lessons-learned Accessed 23 November 2019.
Google Scholar
Wiesbrock, A., T. Jöst and A. Desmond (2016) Seasonal Workers Directive 2014/36/EU. In K. Hailbronner and D. Thym (eds), EU Immigration and Asylum Law. A Commentary. (2nd edition). Munchen/Oxford/Baden-Baden: C. H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, pp. 928–973.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Zvezda Vankova

Authors

Zvezda Vankova
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vankova, Z. (2020). The Implementation of the EU’s Approach to Circular Migration Through Legal and Policy Routes. In: Circular Migration and the Rights of Migrant Workers in Central and Eastern Europe. IMISCOE Research Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52689-4_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52689-4_4
Published: 10 December 2020
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52688-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52689-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics