For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Doc. 9603

15 October 2002

Residence, legal status and freedom of movement of migrant workers in Europe: lessons from the case of Portugal

Report

Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography

Rapporteur: Mrs Manuela Aguiar, Portugal, Group of the European People's Party

Summary

The numerous efforts of the international community to achieve the adoption of an international binding instrument for the protection of migrant workers have not met with success. At regional level, the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (1977) has shared the same fate: so far it has been ratified by only eight Council of Europe member states and signed by five others.

When the Convention was opened for signature Europe was divided by an iron curtain and the Council of Europe counted 16 members. Since then enormous changes have taken place leading the Council of Europe to enlarge its membership to reach 44 states in 2002.

The renewed mobility of Europeans on their continent and the lingering economic disparities between European countries pose a new challenge to the Council of Europe, to which it is necessary to respond by reiterating the importance of achieving greater unity and facilitating economic and social progress in the respect of human rights, fundamental freedoms and dignity of the person.

In spite of the increase in intra-European migration movements in the ‘90s, including labour migration, no member state having joined the Council of Europe after the fall of the iron curtain has either signed or ratified the Convention. The only exception is Moldova which signed it on 11 July 2002.

The situation of east European migrants, especially Ukrainians, who live and work legally in Portugal provides an example of how member states could improve the legal status of their nationals in other Council of Europe member states by signing and ratifying the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers.

I.       Draft recommendation

1.       The Assembly regrets that the numerous efforts of the international community to achieve the adoption of an international binding instrument for the protection of migrant workers have not met with success.

2.       Since the very beginning of its activity, the Assembly has devoted particular attention to this issue, with the adoption of a number of acts including Recommendation 36 (1949) on migrant workers, Recommendation 712 (1973), Order No. 338 (1973) and Resolution 551 (1973) on the integration of migrant workers with the society of the host countries, Recommendation 931 (1981) on the ratification of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers and their families, Recommendation 968 (1983) and Order No. 420 (1983) on xenophobic attitudes and movements in member countries with regard to migrant workers, Recommendation 1007 (1985) on the return of migrant workers to their country of origin, Recommendation 1066 (1987) on social protection of migrant workers and members of the families and Recommendation 1082 (1988) on the right of permanent residence for migrant workers and members of their families.

3.       The Assembly also recalls Recommendation (2000) 15 of the Committee of Ministers concerning the security of residence of long-term migrants as well as the European Convention on Establishment (1955).

4.       The Assembly deplores that so far the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers, the main instrument elaborated within the Council of Europe to improve the status of migrant workers, has been ratified only by eight member states.

5.       The Assembly is even more concerned that, with the important exception of Moldova, no member state having joined the Council of Europe after 1990 has signed or ratified the Convention, even if their nationals, as such, are not covered by more favourable multilateral systems of protection, namely those adopted within the European Union to ensure the free movement of labour.

6.       The Assembly considers with particular concern the situation in Portugal, where nationals of east European Council of Europe member states are authorised to live and work legally in the country without being granted residence, which deprives them of security of legal status as well as a range of attached rights.

7.       The Assembly acknowledges the outstanding achievements made by the European Union in the area of the protection of EU migrant workers and believes that the Council of Europe should play a major role in bringing the protection of all migrant workers who are nationals of Council of Europe member states closer to EU standards.

8.       The Assembly is convinced that the signature and ratification of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers would be an important step in this direction, and that it would contribute to achieving greater unity between Council of Europe members and facilitating their economic and social progress, in compliance with the principles of non-discrimination and dignity of the person.

9.       The Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

i.       reiterate the invitation to Council of Europe member states to sign and ratify the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers at the earliest opportunity;

ii.       reiterate the invitation to Council of Europe member states to sign and ratify the European Convention on Establishment;

iii.       ask its appropriate Committees, and in particular the European Committee on Migration (CDMG), to conduct a study on the notions of residence and residence permit for foreign nationals in Council of Europe member states, with a view to promoting the harmonisation of the law applicable to residence;

iv.       ask its appropriate Committees, and in particular the CDMG, to conduct a study on the feasibility of a Council of Europe instrument facilitating the movement and transit of migrant workers who are nationals of a Council of Europe member state and live and work legally in another member state;

v.       ask the Consultative Committee of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers to monitor the situation in Portugal, in consideration of a possible ratification of the Convention by Moldova or other non-EU member states, and possibly give an opinion.

II.       Explanatory memorandum by Mrs Manuela Aguiar

1.       Introduction: regulating the status of migrant workers

1.       Migration is a constant feature of our societies and cannot be stopped, but it can and should be regulated, in the interest of states as well as migrants themselves. It is the intention of your Rapporteur to address the situation of migrant workers who are nationals of Council of Europe member states and who live and work legally in another member state, in the conviction that it should be regulated to ensure that as far as possible they are not treated less favourably than workers who are nationals of the host state.

2.       Since its very creation the Council of Europe has devoted substantial efforts to improving the legal status of migrant workers. In this context the Assembly adopted, among others, Recommendation 36 (1949) on migrant workers, Recommendation 712 (1973), Order 338 (1973) and Resolution 551 (1973) on integration of migrant workers with the society of the host countries, Recommendation 968 (1983)1 and Order 420 (1983)2 on xenophobic attitudes and movements in member countries with regard to migrant workers, Recommendation 1007 (1985) on return of migrant workers to their country of origin3, Recommendation 1066 (1987) on social protection of migrant workers and their families4 and Recommendation 1082 (1988) on right of permanent residence of migrant workers and members of their families5. The Council of Europe also promoted the signature and ratification of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (Strasbourg, 1977, date of entry into force: 1 May 1983)6.

3.       Other instruments adopted or promoted by the Council of Europe touch upon aspects affecting the rights of migrant workers, namely the free movement of people, such as Resolution 557 (73) on responsibility of member states of the Council of Europe regarding the free movement of people in Europe and Recommendation 879 (79) on the movement of persons between the Member states of the Council of Europe, and the European Convention on Establishment (Paris, 1955, date of entry into force: 23 February 1965)7.

4.       While these instruments were being adopted, Europe was divided by the iron curtain and the Council of Europe counted as members a limited number of states, all geographically situated in western Europe. Geographic proximity, however, did not imply economic homogeneity: there were important economic disparities among Council of Europe member states, which produced substantial migration movements from poorer to richer countries8. The action of the Council of Europe was directed at improving the legal status, living and working conditions of these migrants, in parallel with and complementarily to the European Economic Community (EEC), which was progressively implementing a series of measures to create a single European market in which EEC nationals would be free to travel, take up employment and establish their own business.

5.       Perhaps due to the fact that most Council of Europe member states were also members of the European Economic Community and that the treatment of intra-EEC migrant workers under EEC would be more favourable than that accorded under the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers, and maybe also in consideration of the economic crisis following the oil shocks of the ‘70s, which threatened economic growth and employment, the Convention did not meet with much success despite the efforts of various Council of Europe bodies calling for its ratification9. As of 1989 only seven member states had ratified the Convention and another four signed it.

6.       The ’90s saw dramatic changes in Europe: the iron curtain came down, certain states disappeared and new ones arose. The membership of the Council of Europe increased to include central and eastern European countries, then Caucasian countries, having 44 member states in 2002. At the same time the European Union started negotiations with eastern European countries with a view to its enlargement.

7.       An enlarged European Union will create an enlarged single European market with freedom of movement of labour and people. But how long will it take? The candidate countries belonging to the first round of accession will join the EU in 2004, but negotiations are still under way on the length of the transitional period during which the citizens of new member states will be unable to enjoy certain freedoms guaranteed by EU law, including freedom of movement and establishment. Besides, no date has yet been established for the next round of accessions, and there are a number of European countries, members of the Council of Europe, which have not even applied for membership.

8.       Nowadays non-EU nationals represent the largest proportion of Europeans living in other European countries. In 2000 in the European Union, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland there were 20.29 million foreigners of whom 13.04 million (64 %) were Europeans. Only 5, 67 millions of them were EU nationals10.

9.       The renewed mobility of Europeans in their continent and the lingering economic disparities between European countries pose a new challenge to the Council of Europe, to which it is necessary to respond by reiterating the importance of achieving greater unity and facilitating economic and social progress in the respect of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the dignity of the person.

10.       In spite of the increase of intra-European migration movements in the ‘90s, including labour migration, as of 30 August 2002 the total number of ratifications of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers has still reached only eight states. With the important exception of Moldova, which signed the Convention on 11 July 2002, no other member state joining the Council of Europe after the fall of the iron curtain has either signed or ratified the Convention.

11.       Your Rapporteur recalls that in 1999 the European Committee on Migration (CDMG) commissioned an expert report on the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers which advocated the signature and ratification of this instrument by those Council of Europe member states who had not yet done so, with a view to extending the protection afforded by the Convention to migrant workers who were nationals of new member states11. This report followed a previous study on the obstacles to ratification of the Convention by Henry de Lary de Latour12. Similarly, in a closely related matter, the comparative study on security of residence of long-term migrants, also prepared by the CDMG, called for the signature and ratification of the 1955 European Convention on Establishment to reinforce the position of citizens of new member states living legally in other member states13.

12.       Your Rapporteur believes that at this stage the Assembly should give a strong sign of its political will to address the situation of intra-European migrant workers, many of whom are not– and will not be for a long time, if ever – protected by the special treatment reserved to EU nationals exercising their freedom of movement.

2.       Reasons to ratify the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (1977)

13.       The numerous efforts on the part of the international community to adopt an international instrument for the protection of migrant workers have not been followed by concrete action from governments: the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All migrant Workers and their Families has not entered into force due to insufficient ratifications, and as of 30 August 2002 it had been ratified only by 19 states, including two Council of Europe member states14. Likewise, a limited number of Council of Europe member states have ratified the ILO Conventions No. 97 on Migration for Employment (Revised)15 and No. 143 on Migrant Workers16.

14.       With the exception of the special regime applicable under EU law, the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers is the only regional instrument for the protection of migrant workers in Europe.

15.       By its signature and ratification, member states commit themselves to afford to migrant workers who are nationals of other state parties a series of rights including:

16.       Other provisions concern, among others, forms of recruitment (Article 2), the use of medical and vocational tests (Article 3), treatment in case of unemployment due to incapacity for work, illness, accident or otherwise (Article 9, paragraph 4), the right to equal treatment with nationals of the host state as regards assistance from employment services (Article 10), the right to equal treatment with nationals of the host country as regards access to housing and housing conditions (Article 13), the right to general education, vocational training and access to higher education on the same basis as national workers (Article 14), the right to equal treatment with nationals of the host country as regards conditions of work (Article 16), the right to transfer earnings and savings (Article 17), the right to equal treatment with nationals of the host state as regards social security, subject to national legislation and bilateral and multilateral agreements (Article 18), the right to medical and social assistance (Article 19) and the right to equal treatment as regards taxation of earnings (Article 23).

17.       Contracting parties cannot make any reservation to Articles 4 (right of exit and admission), 8 (work permits), 9 (residence permits), 12 (family reunion), 16 (conditions of work), 17 (transfer of savings), 20 (industrial accidents and occupational diseases), 25 (re-employment) and 26 (access to courts).

18.       Pursuant to Article 33, a Consultative Committee was established in 1994 with the function of reviewing the implementation of the Convention. This Committee is composed of one representative from each state party and adopts periodic reports on the basis of the information provided by states, analyses their compliance on the basis of such information and provides guidance on the interpretation of the Convention17.

19.       As the expert report compiled by Elspeth Guild for the CDMG has clearly highlighted18, the signature and ratification of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers would have several advantages: for Council of Europe member states who are candidate countries to the European Union it would represent an intermediate stage towards the status that their nationals will be accorded under EU law in the enjoyment of their freedom of movement; ratification would also offer these states an opportunity to adjust to the practice of granting equal treatment with nationals to foreign residents in their territory, as they will have to do when they become EU members. For those Council of Europe member states who do not aspire to join the EU, it would ensure a major improvement in the living and working conditions of their nationals in other member states.

20.       For EU member states who have not yet done so, ratification would not represent an excessive burden when it is considered that the largest group of European migrant workers is represented by Turkish nationals, who already enjoy favourable treatment in the European Union – even more favourable than that applicable under the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers- due to the provisions of the EU association agreement19.

21.       In addition, the position of the European Union towards ratification of the Convention has been positive: in its Communication of 7 March 1985 on Guidelines for a community Policy on Migration, the European Commission stated that ‘ratification by member states of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (…) would constitute an important step towards providing better safeguards for migrant workers’ rights’20.

22.       Your Rapporteur wishes to clarify that the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers does not establish any right for nationals of a contracting party to move to and settle freely in the territory of another contracting state: the Convention aims at improving the status of nationals of a contracting party who are authorised to reside in another contracting party to take up paid employment. This authorisation is issued according to the law of the host country and is subject to its applicable immigration rules.

23.       Finally, the best reason to sign and ratify the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers is that all member states share the aim of the Council of Europe, which is ‘to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress’21.

3.       Some areas in which the rights of European migrant workers should be improved

a.        Residence

24.       Your Rapporteur believes that all migrant workers who are nationals of a Council of Europe member state and who live and work legally in another member state should be issued with a residence permit by the host country. Legal residence is a minimum requirement to have a clear and definite legal status and feel part of the host society, as well as the pre-condition to the enjoyment of other rights.

25.       The European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers contains a provision in this sense (Article 9), establishing that migrant workers be issued with a residence permit of the same duration as the work permit, and in any case not inferior to one year.

26.       Security of residence for migrant workers who have been living legally in a Council of Europe member state has been the subject of previous recommendations of the Assembly22 and the Council of Ministers23. Your Rapporteur reiterates the positions taken by these bodies, calling on member states to issue permanent residence permits to migrant workers who are nationals of other Council of Europe member states and who have been living in the host country legally for five years24. Besides, your Rapporteur reiterates the strong invitation to member states to sign and ratify the European Convention on Establishment (1955).

27.       From the example of the situation of eastern European migrants in Portugal, which is described below in chapter 4, and from previous reports prepared by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography of the Parliamentary Assembly25, it is apparent that the notion of ‘residence’ does not receive a uniform interpretation throughout Council of Europe member states.

28.       Your Rapporteur believes that a study should be conducted on the notion of residence, as well as residence permits and residence law applicable to foreigners in Council of Europe member states, in view of the adoption of a harmonised notion of residence and residence permit, consistent with the EU developments in this domain.

b.       Freedom of transit through other member states

29.       Your Rapporteur believes that Council of Europe member states should take all the necessary steps to facilitate transit and movement through their territory for migrant workers who are nationals of a Council of Europe member state and who have been admitted to another member state with a view to taking up paid employment there. Similarly, this obligation should extend to family members of the migrant worker who have been admitted for the purposes of family reunion.

30.       The European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers would offer a legal basis with regard to the obligation of facilitating transit, since it explicitly contain a provision to this effect (Article 7).

31.       At the moment, there is a clear divide in Europe between Council of Europe member states who belong to the Schengen system and those who do not.

32.       Under the Schengen acquis, a third country national who has been granted residence in a member state is entitled to circulate freely in the Schengen area for a period non superior to three months; s/he may transit freely through the Schengen area with a view to reaching the country which has granted residence; if s/he is apprehended on the territory of an other Schengen state and is liable to expulsion, s/he may be expelled to the country which has granted residence. Your Rapporteur wishes to stress that the pre-condition to benefit from these provisions is that the third country national has been granted residence. The Schengen Executive Committee has drawn up a summary table of national permits which are considered as residence permits for the purposes of the Schengen agreement.

33.       Outside the Schengen area there is no international agreement on freedom of movement for holders of a residence permit issued by another Council of Europe member state, nor is there a common definition of ‘residence’ or ‘transit’.

34.       Your Rapporteur believes that Council of Europe member states should ensure that foreign nationals who are granted residence by another member state are entitled to transit on the territory of the other member states provided that they produce a valid travel document and evidence that they hold residence there. To this end, the notion of ‘transit’ should be harmonized. Furthermore your Rapporteur believes that the Council of Europe should envisage a specific instrument to facilitate transit and movement of Council of Europe migrant workers, possibly in the form of a laissez-passer or travel authorization issued by a member state and recognised by the others. Such a document should be issued by the state that has granted residence and would indicate the countries of departure, arrival and transit, as well as the means of transport employed and the expected duration of the journey. In the case of a return journey, the country issuing the laissez-passer should make an explicit undertaking that the foreign national will be admitted to its territory.

c.       Expulsion

35.       Your Rapporteur recommends that, should migrant workers legally residing and working in a Council of Europe member state be subjected – for any reason – to expulsion or rejection procedures by another member state, they should be given the choice whether to be expelled to their country of nationality or the country of residence. If the migrant worker does not wish to express a choice, expulsion to the country that granted residence should be the rule. The country wishing to proceed to expulsion should make sure – before enforcing the expulsion – that the country of residence will accept the foreign national. The circumstances under which the country of residence can refuse to admit the foreign national should be explicitly established.

36.       Your Rapporteur believes that the Committee of Ministers should study the feasibility of an instrument including the above-mentioned proposals. Such an instrument would have the advantage of partially bridging the gap between Schengen and non-Schengen Council of Europe member states, bringing closer their rules on the expulsion of foreigners having legal residence in a member state.

4.       A case study: eastern European migrant workers in Portugal

37.       Your Rapporteur would like to exemplify the situation of some European migrant workers using a case study: the situation of eastern European migrant workers, especially Ukrainians, in Portugal.

38.       In this country a recent piece of legislation26 has introduced ‘authorization of permanence’ (Autorização de Permanência), as opposed to ‘authorisation of residence’ (Autorização de Residência). Authorisation of permanence is granted to those who have a work contract or a work proposal; have never been convicted by a final court sentence to deprivation of freedom exceeding six months; have not been subject to any expulsion/rejection measure from Portugal and are not in the subsequent period of entry prohibition; are not referred to or reported within the Schengen Information System as ineligible to admission; are not referred to or reported within the Comprehensive System of Information of the ‘Service for Borders and Foreigners’ (Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras). Authorisation of permanence is granted for 1 year, renewable every year for a maximum of 5 years. After such a period it is possible to apply for authorisation of residence.

39.       Authorisation of residence, instead, is granted to foreign nationals who are in Portugal; are in possession of a valid residence permit/visa (unless they fall under the exemption provisions); and for whom there are no facts that, had they been of prior knowledge to the relevant authorities, would have prevented the acquisition of the residence permit/visa. Authorisation of residence can be temporary or permanent.

40.       According to official statistics of the Service for Borders and Foreigners, the total number of authorisations of permanence granted as of 1 July 2001 was 80,422. As far as nationals of the Council of Europe member states are concerned, the main nationalities are: Ukraine (27 320), Moldova (5 979), Romania (4 647), Russia (3 328), Bulgaria (866). Other significant nationalities include citizens of Brazil (14 808), Cape Verde (3 547) and Angola (3 218)27.

41.       An important difference between authorisation of permanence and authorisation of residence is that the former is granted to those who apply from outside Portugal and have a job offer, while the latter is granted to those who are already in Portugal irrespective of the existence of a job offer.

42.       A high proportion of holders of authorisations of residence are nationals of Council of Europe member states, but while Portugal is a contracting party to the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers, none of those other states is.

43.       They live and work legally in Portugal but do not have a residence permit. Not having a residence permit they are not free to move in the Schengen area for periods up to three months. If they want to travel back to their country of nationality they have to be in possession of the necessary visas and permits to transit or travel via other Council of Europe member states. If they are apprehended in the Schengen area when not in possession of these documents they are expelled to their country of nationality, with the subsequent obligation not to enter the Schengen area for a period ranging up to ten years. They do not have the possibility of choosing to be returned to Portugal. The result of this situation is that – to avoid being subjected to expulsion procedures - these migrant workers cannot leave the host country for the entire duration of their stay. In addition, the authorisation of permanence does not entitle them to family reunification.

44.       Your Rapporteur is seriously concerned at the situation of European migrant workers holding authorisation of permanence who, not being granted residence, are deprived of security of status as well as a range of associated rights.

45.       Besides, your Rapporteur is concerned that the issuance of authorisation of permanence may occur on a discriminatory basis. Most holders come from eastern European countries, are highly skilled workers, such as engineers or IT specialists, and willing to work in western Europe. Their specialisation is in great demand in Portugal and therefore they find it easy to receive job offers. Once issued authorisation of permanence, however, they find themselves in a worse situation than other legal migrants.

46.       The situation of eastern European migrant workers in Portugal is worth monitoring also in consideration of the recent signature of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers by Moldova. Should Moldova proceed with the ratification process and become a contracting party, the non-issuance of residence permits to Moldavian nationals could give rise to an issue of compliance with the terms of the Convention.

5.       Conclusions and recommendations

47.       Your Rapporteur is convinced that living and working conditions of European migrant workers should be improved. The European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers and the European Convention on Establishment are useful instruments to this end, and they should be signed and ratified at the earliest opportunity. Besides, the Committee of Ministers should envisage the feasibility of additional instruments aimed at reducing the difference in treatment between EU and non-EU Council of Europe migrant workers. In particular, the Committee of Ministers should address the issues of notion of residence and residence permit, transit and movement for migrant workers of a Council of Europe member state living and working legally in another member states, as well as the rules applicable to their expulsion.

48.       These instruments, in addition to improving the legal status of migrant workers, would help achieving the aim of greater unity among Council of Europe member states, in the respect of the principle of non-discrimination and dignity of the person.

APPENDIX I

Signature and ratification as of 29 August 2002

 

European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (1977)

European Convention on Establishment (1955)

Albania

   

Andorra

   

Armenia

   

Austria

 

Signed (1957)

Azerbaijan

   

Belgium

Signed (1958)

Ratified (1962)

Bosnia-Herzegovina

   

Bulgaria

   

Croatia

   

Cyprus

   

Czech Republic

   

Denmark

 

Ratified (1961)

Estonia

   

Finland

   

France

Ratified (1983)

Signed (1955)

Georgia

   

Germany

Signed (1977)

Ratified (1965)

Greece

Signed (1977)

Ratified (1965)

Hungary

   

Iceland

 

Signed (1955)

Ireland

 

Ratified (1966)

Italy

Ratified (1995)

Ratified (1963)

Latvia

   

Liechtenstein

   

Lithuania

   

Luxembourg

Signed (1977)

Ratified (1969)

Malta

   

Moldova

Signed (2002)

 

Netherlands

Ratified (1983)

Ratified (1969)

Norway

Ratified (1989)

Ratified (1957)

Poland

   

Portugal

Ratified (1979)

 

Romania

   

Russia

   

San Marino

   

Slovakia

   

Slovenia

   

Spain

Ratified (1980)

 

Sweden

Ratified (1978)

Ratified (1971)

Switzerland

   

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

   

Turkey

Ratified (1981)

Ratified (1990)

Ukraine

   

United Kingdom

 

Ratified (1969)

APPENDIX II

Signatures, ratifications and accessions* from Council of Europe member states as of 29 August 2002

 

1990 UN Convention on the protection of migrant workers and members of their families (not in force)

ILO Convention No. 97 (revised) concerning Migration for Employment, 1949

ILO Convention No. 143 on Migrant Workers, 1975

Albania

     

Andorra

     

Armenia

     

Austria

     

Azerbaijan

Accession (1999)

   

Belgium

 

Ratification (1953)

 

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Accession (1996)

Ratification (1993)

Ratification (1993)

Bulgaria

     

Croatia

     

Cyprus

 

Ratification (1960)

Ratification (1977)

Czech Republic

     

Denmark

     

Estonia

     

Finland

     

France

 

Ratification (1954)

 

Georgia

     

Germany

 

Ratification (1959)

 

Greece

     

Hungary

     

Iceland

     

Ireland

     

Italy

 

Ratification (1952)

Ratification (1981)

Latvia

     

Liechtenstein

     

Lithuania

     

Luxembourg

     

Malta

     

Moldova

     

Netherlands

 

Ratification (1952)

 

Norway

 

Ratification (1955)

Ratification (1979)

Poland

     

Portugal

 

Ratification (1978)

Ratification (1978)

Romania

     

Russia

     

San Marino

   

Ratification (1985)

Slovakia

     

Slovenia

 

Ratification (1992)

Ratification (1992)

Spain

 

Ratification (1967)

 

Sweden

   

Ratification (1982)

Switzerland

     

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

 

Ratification (1991)

Ratification (1991)

Turkey

Signature (1999)

   

Ukraine

     

United Kingdom

 

Ratification (1951)

 

Reporting committee: Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography.

Committee for opinion: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Reference to committee: Doc. 9168, Reference No. 2646 of 25 September 2001.

Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 4 October 2002.

Members of the committee: Mr Iwiński (Chairperson), Mr Einarsson (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mrs Vermot-Mangold (2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mrs Bušić (3rd Vice-Chairperson), Mrs Aguiar, MM. Akhvlediani, Aliyev G., Mrs van Ardenne-van der Hoeven, MM. de Arístegui (alternate: Fernández Aguilar), Arzilli, Bernik, Mrs Björnemalm, MM. Van den Brande, Branger, Braun, Brînzan (alternate: Tudose), Brunhart, Cabrnoch, Christodoulides, Cilevičs, Danieli, Debarge, Dmitrijevas, Dokle, Dubie, Mrs Err, Mrs Fehr, Mrs Frimannsdóttir, MM. Grzesik, Grzyb, Hancock, Higgins, Hovhannisyan, Ilaşcu, Ivanov, Lord Judd, MM. Karpov, Kirilov, Kolb, Kósáné-Kovács, Koulouris (alternate: Ms Damanaki), Kulikov, Kvakkestad, Laakso, Le Guen, Liapis, Mrs Lörcher, M. Loutfi, Mrs Markovska, MM. Matviychuk, Mutman, Naro, Nessa, Mrs Onur, Mrs Palečková, MM. Popa, Prijmireanu, Puche, Pullicino Orlando, Rakhansky, Reymann (alternate: Goulet), Sağlam, von Schmude, Schweitzer, Mrs Shakhtakhtinskaya, MM. Slutsky (alternate: Fedorov), Soendergaard, Mrs Stoisits, MM. Telek, Tkáč, Tosić, Vera Jardim, Wilkinson, Wray, Yáñez-Barnuevo (alternate: Agramunt), Zavgayev, Zhirinovsky, Mrs de Zulueta, Mrs Zwerver.

N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretariat of the committee: Mr Lervik, Mrs Nachilo, Mrs Sirtori-Milner.


1 At: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta83%2FBREC968.pdf

2 At: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta83%2FBDIR420.pdf

3 At: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta85%2FBREC1007.pdf

4 At: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta87%2FEREC1066.htm

5 At: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta88%2FEREC1082.htm

6 At: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/WhatYouWant.asp?NT=093&CM=8&DF=29/08/02. For signatures and ratification of this Convention see Annex I to this report.

7 At: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/019.htm. For signatures and ratification of this Convention see Annex I to this report.

8 See Aidan Punch and David L. Pearce, Europe’s population and labour market beyond 2000, Council of Europe, 2000, p.95

9 The Rapporteur recalls Recommendation 931 (1981) on the ratification of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers where the Assembly deplored that the Convention had not entered into force due to lack of sufficient ratifications [6]. The text of the Recommendation at: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta81%2FBREC931.pdf

10 Jonh Salt (consultant), Current Trends in International Migration in Europe, Council of Europe, CDMG (2001)33, November 2001.

11 Elspeth Guild, The European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (1977), An Analysis of its Scope and Benefits, Council of Europe, March 1999, at: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Social_Cohesion/Migration/Documentation/Publications_and_reports/Reports_and_proceedings/CDMG%20_99_11e.pdf

12 Henry de Lary de Latour, The European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers: Obstacles to its Ratification, Extension of its Scope, Council of Europe, 1991.

13 Kees Groenendijk, Elspeth Guild and Halil Dogan, Security of residence of long-term migrants, A comparative study of law and practice in European countries, Council of Europe, 1998.

14 The text of the Convention at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/m_mwctoc.htm. For signatures and ratifications see Annex II to this report.

15 The text of the Convention at: http://ilolex.ilo.ch:1567/cgilex/convde.pl?query=C097&query0=097&submit=Display. For signatures and ratifications from Council of Europe member states see Annex II to this report.

16 The text of the Convention at: http://ilolex.ilo.ch:1567/cgilex/convde.pl?query=C143&query0=143&submit=Display. For signatures and ratifications from Council of Europe member states see Annex II to this report

17 A summary of the periodic reports adopted by the Consultative Committee can be found at: http://www.social.coe.int/en/cohesion/action/publi/migrants/convsumm.htm

18 Elspeth Guild, The European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (1977), An Analysis of its Scope and Benefits, pages 23-25.

19 1963 Association Agreement between Turkey and the EEC (‘Ankara Agreement’)

20 COM (85) 48 fin

21 Article 1, Statute of the Council of Europe, at: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/001.htm

22 Recommendation 1082 (1988) on the right of permanent residence of migrant workers and members of their families.

23 Recommendation Rec(2000)15 of the Committee of Ministers to member states concerning the security of residence of long-term migrants, at: http://cm.coe.int/ta/rec/2000/2000r15.htm

24 Your Rapporteur would like to stress that this recommendation is consistent with the Resolution on the status of third country nationals adopted by the EU Council of Ministers in 1996 (Council Resolution of 4.3.1996, O.J. C80/2 of 18.3.1996).

25 see the report on the propiska system applied to migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in Council of Europe member states: effects and remedies, Rapporteur: Mr Cilevičs, Latvia, SOC, at: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FWorkingDocs%2Fdoc01%2FEDOC9262.htm

26 Decreto Regulamentar n° 9/2001.

27 See http://acime.gov.pt/Permanencia.htm

* Accession is equivalent to ratification in signifying that the Convention standards are incorporated into national law and the country has become a state party to the Convention.