For the assessment of the preference attainment of the pro-migrant groups during the drafting stage, the recommendations of the Starting Line Group and the two networks that actively tried to influence the work of the Commission are compared with the Commission’s proposal for the directive (Commission 2001). In the following, commonalities and disparities concerning the general provisions, the long-term resident status in a member state, and the right of residence in member states other than the one that granted long-term resident status are investigated.
The recommendations of the pro-migrant groups and the Commission’s proposal resemble each other in a number of issues in the general provisions. Concerning the definition of TCNs and family members of long-term residents, the Starting Line Group and Network 2 referred to all non-EU citizens, their spouses, unmarried partners, children aged under 21 years, and dependents (Chopin and Niessen 1998: 38 und 43; Niessen and Rowlands 2000: 30; Peers 2000: 145). Their suggestions are reflected in the definition of the Commission proposed in Article 2 of the draft directive. The Commission’s non-discrimination clause of Article 4 widely concurs with the recommendations of the Starting Line Group and the networks. However, their approach to non-discrimination went further, asking for the implementation without discriminating on the basis of ‘nationality’ (Chopin and Niessen 1998: 39; Chopin et al. 1999: 23; Niessen and Rowlands 2000: 32; Peers 2000: 145).
The results gained from this comparison are illustrated in the table below. This and the following tables list the recommendations of the different pro-migrant groups that have been compared with the positions of the EU institutions. A ‘+’ before the recommendation indicates agreement between a pro-migrant group and the lobbied EU institution; a ‘–’ before the recommendation stand for disagreement between a pro-migrant group and the lobbied EU institution. The tables help visualise the preference attainment that the groups achieved at drafting and decision-making stage.
Commission proposal Starting Line Group Network 1 Network 2
Art. 2 Definitions + definition: TCNs,
family members
+ definition: TCNs, family members
Commission proposal Starting Line Group Network 1 Network 2 Art. 4 Non- discrimination clause – include nationality as non-discrimination criterion
+ consider all other criteria
– include nationality as non-discrimination criterion
+ consider all other criteria
Table 2: Comparison of recommendations of pro-migrant groups and Chapter 1 of Commission proposal8
With regard to the provisions determining the long-term resident status in a member state, the Commission and the pro-migrant groups agreed on a range of points. This is regarding a list of reasons that allow for short periods of absence from the territory of the member state (Niessen and Rowlands 2000: 30). This also applies to the automatic renewability of long- term residence permits on expiry (Chopin and Niessen 1998: 44; Chopin et al. 1999: 23; Niessen and Rowlands 2000: 21). With regards to the validity of the permits, the Commission even doubled the suggestions of the pro-migrant groups to ten years. Network 2 and the Commission also agreed on procedural guarantees to be granted to long-term residents (Peers 2000: 149). Remarkable similarities between the recommendations of the pro-migrant groups and the Commission’s proposal (Art. 12) can also be seen concerning the rights granted to long-term residents (Chopin and Niessen 1998: 45-46; Chopin et al. 1999: 23; Peers 2000: 146). However, despite the efforts of the pro-migrant groups, the Commission did not include the right to vote and stand in municipal and European elections (Chopin and Niessen 1998: 46; Chopin et al. 1999: 31) and the promotion of social and cultural advancement (Peers 2000: 148) in its proposal. Moreover, concerning the duration of residence required to obtain long-term resident status, the Commission (Art. 5) decided on legal and continuous residence of five years, whereas Network 2 had asked for either ‘three years’ legal employment in a Member State; or three years’ registered self-employment in a Member State; or five years’ habitual residence in a Member State’ (Niessen and Rowlands 2000: 29). The Commission also did not comply with the demands of the Starting Line Group and Network 2 (Chopin and Niessen 1998: 45; Niessen and Rowlands 2000: 31) whereupon TCNs should lose long-term resident status in the event of absence from the territory for a period exceeding three consecutive years but committed itself to two consecutive years instead. The analysis of the preference attainment of the pro-migrant groups is illustrated in the following table.
8
+ refers to recommendations of the pro-migrant groups that are reflected in the Commission’s proposal. - refers to recommendations of the pro-migrant groups that are not reflected in the Commission’s proposal.
Commission proposal Starting Line Group Network 1 Network 2 Art. 5 Duration of
residence
+ list of reasons for short absences
– three years’ legal employment, or three years’ registered self- employment, or five years’ habitual residence in member state Art. 9 Long-term resident‘s EC permit
+ automatically renewable on expiry + valid for five years
Art. 10 Withdrawal of status
– in the event of absence from the territory for a period of three consecutive years
– in the event of absence from the territory for a period of three consecutive years Art. 11 and 22 Procedural guarantees + access to redress procedures
Art. 12 Equal treatment + access to: employment
and self-employed activity, education and vocational training; social protection; goods and services and the supply of goods and services made available to the public; freedom of association – promote social and
cultural advancement – right to vote and stand
as a candidate in municipal European elections
+ access to: employment and self-employed activity, education and vocational training; social protection; social assistance; social and tax benefits; goods and services; freedom of association
– right to vote in municipal and European elections
+ access to: employment and self-employed activity; social and tax benefits; education; services; freedom of association
–promote social and
cultural advancement – same rights for family
members
Table 3: Comparison of recommendations of pro-migrant groups and Chapter 2 of Commission proposal Finally, the recommendations of the pro-migrant groups and the Commission’s proposal partly concur regarding the right of residence in the other member states. Above all, this applies to the right of free movement of long-term residents as recommended by the pro- migrant groups (Chopin and Niessen 1998: 39; Chopin et al. 1999: 39; Peers 2000: 148). Network 2 (Peers 2000: 149) and the Commission (Art. 19, 20, 25) further agreed on the reasons for refusing or withdrawing the right to reside in another member state. On the contrary, the Commission (Art. 15, 18, 27) and the pro-migrant groups differed in opinion on the requirements for obtaining the right of residence in the second member state (Chopin and Niessen 1998: 39; Chopin et al. 1999: 23), the immediate right to family reunion without any qualifying period (Niessen and Rowlands 2000: 30), and requirements for acquiring long-term
resident status in the second member state (Peers 2000: 148). The results of this analysis are illustrated in the table below.
Commission proposal Starting Line Group Network 1 Network 2
Art. 15 Right of residence in the other member states
+ free movement of TCNs
– after three years of paid employment or self- employment: free access to labour market in any member state
Art. 18 Family members – immediate right to
family reunion without any qualifying period Art. 19 Public policy and
domestic security; Art. 20 Public health
+ refuse application in case the person concerned constitutes an actual threat to public order, domestic security, or public health
Art. 25 Withdrawal of residence permit
+ if long-term resident does not exercise an economic activity and is not in possession of adequate resources + if long-term resident
constitutes an actual threat to public order or domestic security Art. 27 Acquisition of
long-term resident status in the second member state
– after three years’ legal residence in second Member State and while losing status in first Member State Table 4: Comparison of recommendations of pro-migrant groups and Chapter 3 of Commission proposal Comparing the recommendations of the pro-migrant groups with the Commission’s proposal has demonstrated that they coincide in a multitude of clauses regarding general provisions, the long-term resident status in a member state, and the right of residence in other member states. Notable concordance of the recommendations and the Commission’s proposal could be demonstrated regarding the definition of TCNs and family members of long-term residents, validity of residence permits, rights granted to long-term residents (amongst others access to labour market, education, goods, and services), free movement, and the reasons for refusing or withdrawing the status in a second member state. Nevertheless, their lobbying attempts seem to have been less successful concerning the non-discrimination clause, period of legal residence required to obtain the status, reasons for withdrawing the status in the first member
state, further benefits such as the right to vote and the promotion of social and cultural advancement, and the requirements for obtaining long-term resident status in the second member state. Out of eleven recommendations the Starting Line Group forwarded to the Commission, six are reflected in the Commission’s proposal for the directive. Out of six provisions recommended by Network 1, four are considered in the proposal for the directive. Network 2, finally, suggested 18 provisions out of which 11 correspond markedly with the Commission’s proposal for the LTR Directive. On average, the groups achieved 60 per cent of their preferences.