REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

What supports EC action? There is a minority of Member States who are strictly against large-scale
regularisations and have reservations against other Member States using large-scale regularisation
programmes as a policy tool. In a similar vein, the migration pact which drafted on the initiative of
the French government recommends that Member States “use only case-by-case rather than general
regularisation for humanitarian or economic reasons, within national legislation.” 338
What works against EC action? The great majority of Member States are opposed to such
regulations, as are all NGOs and other stakeholders. In addition, an effective blanket ban would
require the drafting of a directive or regulation, agreement over which will be difficult to achieve,
given the negative attitude of major Member States (see §4) to adopt strong regulatory frameworks.
Option 1b: Requirement for consultation with the Commission and the Council on
planned regularisation programmes
Rationale and possible impact: This would require more serious planning and consideration of
regularisation programmes, notably in the context of potential impact on other MS. Given the extent
to which a few MS have utilised regularisation mechanisms, there is a case for including notifications
of policy in that respect as well as for programmes.
Such a consultation procedure would facilitate transfer of expert knowledge gained from other MS
regularisations, at the same time as allaying the fears of other MS concerning such programmes. One
concrete recommendation would be to confine regularisation programmes to employment-based
criteria and directly involve employers and civil society; irregular residents without strong earning
capacity should then be addressed with individual applications under regularisation mechanisms
(focused on humanitarian issues, long residence, integration efforts, health condition, lengthy asylum
procedures etc.). Although various Member States have resorted to regularisation programmes in the
case of asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers, as in the Netherlands (2007) and Sweden
(2005/6), we recommend the integration of such programmes into the regular legal framework and
establishment of permanent mechanisms for regularising similar cases. [See Option 1d, below]
What supports EC action? This would have to be a new component of EC policy and also would
require setting up a legal basis or incorporating such a requirement in the Mutual Information
Exchange Mechanism (Council Decision 2006/688). 339
What works against EC action? It is unlikely that many MS will support this action, even though it
might be welcomed by NGOs and other stakeholders.
Option 1c: Definition and notification system for regularisations
Rationale and possible impact: Although this would not constrain MS in their policy management, it
would provide a very clear definition of what actually constitutes a regularisation programme or
mechanism on a formal basis, and would require MS to provide advance notice of any regularisation
338 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, version II, dated 4 th July 2008, section II, (a).
339 Council Decision 2006/688/EC of 5 October 2006 on the establishment of a mutual information mechanism
concerning Member States' measures in the areas of asylum and immigration
110