REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

across the EU in this matter would be appropriate. The third aspect that deserves attention is the actual
duration of permits issued. With the exception of temporary protection granted specifically to asylum
applicants (who may be able to return in the not-too-distant future), short-term permits create
uncertainty. If the long-term objective is the social integration of the recipients of permits, then permit
durations of 6 or 12 months are not desirable. For this, and reasons of bureaucratic management, we
suggest a 2-year minimum duration of permits.
What supports EC action? MS positions on this are not clear; presumably, there would be some
support for such legislation, particularly from those MS on whose practices the minimum standards
would be based. NGOs and other stakeholders would welcome such legislation.
What works against EC action? Some of the southern MS may resist this intrusion into national
policy management, although the newer MS may not object.
OPTION 2: DEVELOPMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND BENCHMARKS FOR
REGULARISATION PROGRAMMES AND MEASURES (IN CO-OPERATION
WITH STAKEHOLDERS: SOCIAL ACTORS, GOVERNMENTS AND ACADEMIC
RESEARCHERS)
Description: Building on existing recommendations of international organisations and bodies –
including the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Global Commission on Migration
(GCIM), and the Council of Europe (CoE), amongst others – the Commission could formulate a
number of key principles and benchmarks for both regularisation programmes and measures.
Rationale and possible impact: Such guidelines could define under which conditions a specific type
of regularisation might be an appropriate measure, how regularisation should be planned,
implemented and evaluated and which alternatives there are. These principles and benchmarks could
inform Member States’ evaluation of their own policies and the formulation of future policies in this
field. Principles and benchmarks should be practical, supported by illustrative ‘good practices’, and
cognisant of the fact that under certain conditions ‘good practices’ can turn out to be ‘bad practices’.
Some of these indicative practices are identified in §3.3, but a future focused advisory project is
needed for the development of benchmarks.
What supports EC action? There are several recommendations, including those of the CoE, the ILO
and the GCIM, formulating a common position on agreed key principles of regularisation
programmes and practices. However, these have not benefited from detailed critical evaluation of
individual programmes nor do they take account of the relevant EU policy framework, hence the
guidelines are general and of limited use to Member States in developing policy measures.
Preliminary contact with national responsible ministries suggests that expert guidance in policy
formulation – learning from each other’s experiences – would be generally welcomed. Also various
other stakeholders, including NGOs and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) are in
support of general guidelines. Elaborating guidelines would not require any legal measures and could
follow the model of the Handbook on Integration. A handbook on regularisation would not question
the sovereignty of Member States to undertake regularisation programmes or establish mechanisms,
114