Summary of stakeholder responses to the green paper on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals

Read the full document by downloading it below.

Executive summary

This paper summarizes stakeholder's responses to the Commission's Green Paper on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals1 under Directive 2003/862. The consultation covered the following topic areas:

  • Scope of the application of the Directive
  • Requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification
  • Entry and residence of family members
  • Asylum related questions
  • Fraud, abuse and procedural issues

120 contributions were received, including 24 from Member States.

Member States and Turkey

Most Member States did not advocate reopening the Directive. Many Member States stated that there were no major problems with current provisions and some were concerned that any modifications might limit the competence of Member States. The NL was the only country that explicitly called for a reopening of the Directive. It advocated a series of amendments involve additional restrictions on family migrants and a more binding integration policy stressing migrant responsibility.

Overall, the following key issues emerged across many of the responses from Member States:

  • It was generally felt that the discretion of Member States on family reunification given in the Directive should not be reduced.
  • Integration was highlighted as a matter of national competence and most Member States opposed binging rules on integration measures at EU level.
  • A number of Member States saw a need for clarification, although not necessarily modification, of the Directive on integration measures. Calls for clarification were made by different Member States both in terms of allowing more and fewer integration requirements.
  • In most Member States there is little if any systematic information available on the scale of forced marriages and marriages of convenience. DE and the UK were the only countries to provide statistics that attempt to quantify the problem at the population level. A few countries also gave data on the number cases identified by the authorities which tended to be relatively small.
  • A number of Member States were content for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to be included in the Directive, while others opposed the extension of the scope of the Directive to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, arguing that that status is intended to be temporary only. There was relatively little support for requiring the favourable conditions for refugees to be extended to those on subsidiary protection.
  • Most Member States opposed more detailed procedural rules in the Directive.

International organisations, social partners and NGOs

All international organisations, consultative bodies and almost all national NGOs took a profamily reunification position and sought less restrictive rules, making a number of
suggestions for amendments and improvements where the Directive could be strengthened to ensure rights to family life. Many submissions highlighted international human rights obligations and identified areas where current practice denied some third-country nationals the right to family reunification.

However, a number of organisations sounded a note of caution about reopening the Directive on the basis that in the current political climate an updated Directive would be more
restrictive and would further exacerbate the disadvantaged position of migrants. Instead, many organisations also called for the publication of guidance on the Directive, and for better enforcement of existing provisions, including infringement procedures.

The following key points were made across a number of contributions from NGOs:

  • Almost all NGOs wished for restrictions on the ability to be a sponsor, as well as standstill clauses and waiting period, to be removed.
  • Organisations were critical of provisions for a minimum age for spouses, questioning the link between age and forced marriage.
  • Views on the definition of family were mixed, but the majority of organisations felt that a wider range of family members, including same sex partners, parents and de facto children, should be eligible. A wider definition was sought particularly for refugees.
  • There was strong opposition to pre-entry integration measures from organisations. Most respondents were supportive of post-arrival measures, but there were some concerns about their accessibility.
  • It was felt that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection should be covered by the Directive and should be subject to the same favourable rules as refugees. Restrictions on the application of favourable rules were generally opposed.
  • NGOs were concerned about there being presumption guilt in terms of fraud and marriages of convenience in some Member States. Organisations called on investigations and DNA testing in particular to only be undertaken if there were doubts and not routinely. There was no consensus as to whether the Directive should be amended to ensure these principles are applied.

 

Read the full document by downloading it below.

Downloads

Summary of stakeholder responses to the Green paper on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals