22.3.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/6

1.1

endorses the draft Directive, subject to the changes proposed below;

1.2

stresses the importance of adopting, in addition to the measures applying to admission of third-country nationals to carry out scientific research, further coordinating measures to achieve the objective of investing 3 % of Member States' GDP in research before the end of the decade. To this end, scientific careers should be made more attractive to young people, opportunities for further training and mobility should be increased for researchers, and research career opportunities should be improved within the Community. (fourth recital);

1.3

emphasises that implementation of the Directive must not lead to a brain drain in emerging and developing countries. Complementary measures to encourage researchers to return to their country of origin and to promote researcher mobility must be adopted in partnership with the countries of origin in order to create a global migratory policy. The CoR would stress the importance of submitting concrete proposals in 2004 in accordance with the Council's request of 19 May 2003. (sixth recital);

1.4

considers it appropriate that researcher admission should not require a work permit in addition to a residence permit. However, in addition to the procedures provided for by the Directive, the standard admission procedures are still important for doctoral students who are doing research as part of their study programme, since the Directive does not apply to them. (seventh recital);

1.5

endorses the proposal to give research organisations a key role in the researcher admission procedure. However, it is extremely important that the division of responsibilities and duties between the research organisation and the authorities should be clear in order to avoid duplication and clumsy bureaucratic solutions. The CoR would stress that, for reasons of legal certainty, it is important to establish clearly the area of competence of each party. Cooperation between the research organisation and the authorities should not impinge upon the authorities' legal right to carry out monitoring and control activities. (eighth recital);

1.6

highlights the vital importance of the hosting agreement in the admission procedure. In the hosting agreement the researcher undertakes to carry out the specific research project and the research institution undertakes to host the researcher, provided he is granted a residence permit. Since the hosting agreement is a precondition for admission, it must include all the relevant information needed to assess each case. Information regarding the research project should also be provided in detail so that the research organisation and – exceptionally – the relevant authority can assess the situation. The Committee of the Regions feels that these aspects have been adequately addressed in the Directive. (ninth recital);

1.7

notes that the research organisation's overall economic responsibility for any costs incurred by the researcher during his residence in the Member State could constitute a change to established admission and residence practice. The Committee of the Regions would stress the need to establish with some accuracy the budget lines intended to cover the researcher's residence, health and return expenses, and the starting point for economic responsibility. (tenth recital);

1.8

considers that the definition of a ‘researcher’ is appropriate, as a broad interpretation will enable the directive to be implemented extensively. There is, for example, no requirement for the applicant to have worked explicitly as a researcher in the country of origin. However, the purpose of admission must be to carry out a research project, in conjunction with which teaching in a higher education establishment is also allowed. (eleventh recital);

1.9

notes that ‘research organisation’ has been appropriately defined. In order to achieve the objective of investing 3 % of GDP in research, private sector establishments and firms should also be covered by the definition. It is extremely important that the organisation can be regarded as conducting research and has been approved by the Member State where it is located. (Article 2);

1.10

stresses the need to take on board the views of the regional and local authorities with regard to prior approval of a research organisation that wishes to host researchers from a third country. (Article 4);

1.11

endorses the option to withdraw or refuse to extend approval of a research organisation. This can occur when a research organisation no longer meets the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Article 4; when the researcher does not meet the conditions laid down in Articles 5 and 6; and when the research organisation has entered a hosting agreement with a third-country national against whom the Member State has invoked Article 8(1). The CoR believes that the availability of legal sanctions will provide an incentive to carefully comply with the provisions of the directive, thus giving it a preventive capacity. (Article 4);

1.12

stresses the need for researchers with residence permits and valid travel documents to be able to carry out part of the research project in the territory of another Member State, as long as the procedure poses no risk to law and order, security or public health. Depending on how long this part of the research project takes, a new hosting agreement might have to be concluded. On the basis of the hosting agreement, the researcher must be granted residence in the other Member State. The CoR notes that it is also appropriate to facilitate greater mobility within the EU, and this should be regarded as improving its international competitiveness. (Article 13);

1.13

considers the requirement for the competent authority to make a decision within 30 days of submission of the application for admission or extension of the residence permit to be necessary in order to guarantee procedural rapidity. In this connection the CoR would emphasise that, for reasons of legal certainty, uniform conventional administrative procedures should be employed whenever an application is deemed to be complicated, as the prescribed deadline does not have to be met in such cases. (Article 15).

1.14

considers that the measures contained in the recommendation are an important step towards gradual compliance with obligations and rules resulting from implementation of the directive;

1.15

notes for example the recommendation that researchers should be exempt from the work permit requirement or granted one automatically, which should help to speed up processing times. Given the EU's major long-term need for researchers, there is also justification for only issuing limited duration work and residence permits when the needs of the country of origin make this necessary. (Recommendations 1a, 1c and 2b);

1.16

stresses the importance of early involvement of research organisations in the researcher admission procedure in order to create a climate of mutual confidence and optimum cooperation between the research organisations and the competent authorities. (Recommendation 2 c);

1.17

endorses the recommendation to promote family reunification where this is not mandatory under the terms of the directive on the right to family reunification, by, for example, permitting family reunification applications to be submitted following arrival in a Member State. The CoR would also stress the importance of processing family members' residence applications within a short timeframe. Any potential problems the researcher's family might experience with their residence application could dissuade the researcher from relocating to the Member States. (Recommendations 3a, 3b and 3d).

1.18

stresses the need for the Member States to make wide use of the option to issue multiple entry visas. For reasons of competition, it is also appropriate to take account of the length of the research project when establishing the validity period of the visa. Such pragmatic solutions are likely to improve the appeal of relocation in a climate of global competition. (Recommendation 2);

1.19

highlights the need for the Member States to comply with the principles established in the recommendation in order to facilitate mobility for researchers who often travel for short periods. Accordingly, it is appropriate to assume that researchers who relocate to the European Union are acting in good faith, and this should also be taken into consideration in connection with their obligation to produce documentation when applying for a visa. (Recommendation 3).