Search

This article focuses on the contested policy idea of utilising labour migration as a complementary pathway for refugees in the EU. Advocates view this as a “triple win” solution that empowers refugees, boosts economies, and supports post-conflict reconstruction. Yet, it re-mains unclear to what extent the EU labour migration acquis provides an adequate basis for such a novel approach. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment by combining an analysis of EU law with empirical data from interviews with international, EU and national stakeholders, such as public officials, employers and NGO s. It argues that such an approach requires amongst others, Member States’ readiness to make existing admission procedures more accessible for refugees, incentives for employers, and willingness of potential candidates for complementary pathways to accept initial limitations of some of the rights they would otherwise enjoy as refugees. The article concludes that despite the policy potential of work-based channels to create access to the EU for people in need of protection, at best a select group of highly-skilled refugees will be able to make use of the EU labour migration acquis in their ‘journey to a durable solution’.

This article discusses the recast Blue Card Directive (BCD) on the admission of highly qualified non-EU migrant workers. The recast Directive aims to facilitate employers in their demand of non-EU talent and enhances migrant workers’ rights. As this article demonstrates, challenges remain in view of the prerogative of Member States to maintain national schemes and benefit from wide discretion. We conclude that if Member States implement the recast restrictively, the recast BCD could be an example of ‘failing forward’, a next step in a continuous process failing to achieve the Commissions’ ambitions of harmonizing EU migration law. Yet, by engaging in a novel legislative approach which we coin ‘encapsulating harmonisation’ of EU and national migration law, the Commission manages to enhance the level playing field aimed for, especially on improving migrant workers’ rights. Whether the Recast BCD will indeed attract more highly qualified migrants to work in the EU, however, will depend on Member States’ implementation and their use of the discretion afforded by the BCD.

This chapter focuses on entry conditions for family members and recognition of qualifications that are considered secondary policy areas, yet could still influence migrants’ willingness to engage in circular migration. The chapter commences with an analysis of the transposition of the Family Reunification Directive into Polish and Bulgarian law. It then moves on to explore its implementation dynamics through the eyes of the migrant workers who participated in the focus groups as part of this study. As a second step, the chapter examines national instruments in the field of academic and professional qualifications. It takes physicians and nurses as case studies in order to present the challenges associated with practicing regulated professions in the context of circular migration. The chapter concludes with an assessment of existing instruments against the study’s benchmarks in these two policy areas, namely the conditions for family reunification and for migrant workers to have their diplomas and professional qualifications recognised.

By adopting a rights-based approach, this open access book sheds light on the different legal and policy instruments that have been adopted to implement circular migration policies in the EU and their consequences for the rights of migrant workers. It contributes to the understanding of the meaning of this concept in general, in the EU, as well as more specifically with regard to its Eastern neighbourhood. The book provides a comprehensive overview of the formation and implementation of the EU’s circular migration approach that has developed through both EU and national instruments on the basis of comparative case study analysis of Bulgaria and Poland’s migration law and policy. Furthermore, by applying legal empirical research methods, it draws conclusions about the policy outcomes from the implementation of the various migration instruments falling under the circular migration umbrella and shows the consequences for the rights of migrant workers as a result of the application of different policy options. Along with its value to an academic audience, the book can be used by policy makers at the EU, international and national level as well as international organisations and NGOs working in the field of migration law and policy.

This chapter aims to assess the implementation of national and EU legal migration instruments conducive to circular migration against the study’s benchmarks in the areas of work authorisation, residence status, and social security coordination which are key policy areas that need to be considered if this type of migration is to be facilitated. Each section commences with a legal and policy analysis of these instruments as of mid-2019 and then moves on to reveal their implementation dynamics. The implementation analysis is based on data retrieved from the Bulgarian and Polish administrations, focus groups with Ukrainian and Russian migrant workers, and interviews conducted with relevant stakeholders as part of the study as well as available data from recent studies. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the developed instruments against the study’s benchmarks in these three policy areas, looking inter alia into the possibility for migrants to change employer and occupation, access prolonged status, and export their pensions.

This chapter presents the process of the formulation of the circular migration approach at the European level. It examines the genesis of the circular migration concept in the EU’s migration policy by discussing the main policy developments and legal acts adopted since the Tampere programme as well as by analysing the interviews concluded with EU and international actors that have had a bearing on the topic. In doing so it outlines the formulation of a two-fold approach towards the facilitation of circular migration at the EU level, incorporating legal migration directives and policy initiatives developed under the auspices of the Global Approach to Migration and Development (GAMM).

This chapter brings together the EU and national instruments conducive to circular migration developed in Bulgaria and Poland and assesses their implementation against the backdrop of the study’s benchmarks concerning entry and re-entry conditions for migrant workers. In order to do that, the chapter first presents the national general admission frameworks and the specific instruments identified as favourable to circular migration; as a second step, it focuses on the implementation of EU instruments in the national laws of Bulgaria and Poland. This analysis is complemented by insights into the implementation dynamics of the EU and national instruments on the basis of data collected through focus groups with migrants from Ukraine and Russia as well as interviews conducted with stakeholders and data on permits retrieved from the national administrations of both countries. The chapter ends with an assessment of whether the instruments developed provide options for facilitated entry for migrants from the Eastern partnership countries and Russia, as well as for circulation-friendly policies – for instance, the possibility to grant priority to seasonal workers who have been employed in the territory of a Member State for a significant period over other workers who seek admission to that State.

This chapter demonstrates that the Bulgarian diaspora policy is characterized by inconsistent implementation and dissonant institutional context. It is intertwined with the country’s migration policy which is focused, among other priorities, on attracting historic kin communities and Bulgarian emigrants, in order to overcome its demographic decline. Against this backdrop, the country lacks overall social protection policies towards Bulgarians abroad and prioritizes providing information rather than financial support. Firstly, the chapter presents the general institutional framework by which home country authorities interact with nationals abroad, as well as the main engagement policies with this population outside of the area of social protection. Secondly, the chapter focuses on the policies, programmes and services offered by home country authorities in response to social protection needs of Bulgarian nationals abroad across five specific policy areas: unemployment, health care, pensions, family-related benefits and economic hardship.

This chapter aims to discuss the link between migration and welfare in Bulgaria. Firstly, it presents the main characteristics of the Bulgarian welfare system and discusses access to social benefits for resident and non-resident nationals, and resident non-nationals. Secondly, it examines Bulgaria’s migration history and key migration policy developments. Finally, the chapter provides a detailed analysis of access to social benefits of these different groups across five policy areas – unemployment, health care, family benefits, pensions, and guaranteed minimum resources – and the links to Bulgaria’s migration policy.

This chapter aims to illustrate national variances in instruments conducive to circular migration as part of the implementation of the EU’s approach. It serves as an introduction to the two different national approaches to circular migration facilitation developed in Bulgaria and Poland, which were chosen as case studies. First, the chapter examines the respective strategies of these two countries in their pre-accession periods that influenced the instruments developed in Bulgaria and Poland. Second, it zooms in on the national contexts in order to put some flesh on the different instruments seen as fostering circular migration at the national level.

This chapter aims to shed light on the methodological framework employed in this interdisciplinary research. It presents the case study selection by outlining the differences and similarities in terms of contextual factors and legal and policy issues. This chapter concludes with a focus on the data sources used and the ethical considerations at the heart of this study.

This chapter brings together the legal and policy instruments developed as part of the EU’s circular migration approach in order to assess its implementation and establish whether it provides rights-based outcomes for migrant workers. In order to do so, it employs a benchmark framework for analysis based on universal and regional international standards and soft law principles as well as policy measures that have been identified as conducive to circular migration (presented in Chap. 1). The benchmark framework covers six policy areas considered inherent to this type of labour migration and which at the same time could help distinguish circular migration from the guest-worker model and other time-bound migration policies: entry and re-entry conditions, work authorisation, residence status, social security coordination, entry and residence conditions for family members, and recognition of qualifications. To be beneficial for migrant workers, policies need to allow for a certain degree of migrant-led trajectory of movement and provide adequate protection of the rights of migrant workers.

This book demonstrated that the EU’s circular migration concept has entered the migration policy agendas of Bulgaria and Poland as part of the policy transfer driven by the process of Europeanisation. Furthermore, it became clear that the concept of circular migration, as it has been promoted by the EU, serves as an empty shell that is shaped by different EU and national instruments, depending on local contexts and labour market needs. This chapter aims to answer the main research question of this study, namely: how the EU’s approach to circular migration has been implemented through the developed legal and policy instruments, and does it provide for rights-based circularity for migrant workers in the Central and Eastern European context. The chapter concludes with policy recommendations to this end.

The policy idea of facilitating circular migration entered the European Union’s agenda more than a decade ago as part of a worldwide buzz among international organisations that it could provide a ‘triple win solution’ that would benefit all: the countries of origin and destination as well as the migrant workers themselves. According to the European Commission’s vision, this type of migration was to be facilitated in such a way as to allow some degree of legal mobility for migrants between two countries. Chapter 1 aims to introduce the understanding of this concept in the EU context and to set the scene for the book to unfold.

The article aims to examine the existing possibilities for social security coordination with Eastern partnership countries by taking as case studies two new Member States with relatively recent migration policies: Bulgaria and Poland. It first presents social security coordination dynamics at the national level, looking into the bilateral agreements concluded by Bulgaria and Poland and at their personal and material scope. Then it moves to an analysis of their implementation based on empirical data gathered through focus groups with migrant workers coming from Ukraine and Russia, interviews with officials and data obtained from the respective Ministries. The article employs a rights-based framework for analysis consisting of international standards in the field of coordination of social security, against which it assesses the bilateral agreements concluded by Bulgaria and Poland with Eastern Partnership countries.

This paper aims to examine the implementation of the EU’s circular migration approach and its impact on entry and re-entry conditions for migrant workers from the Eastern partnership countries and Russia. The paper adopts a migrant perspective and analyses to what extent the implementation of EU and national instruments falling under the EU circular migration umbrella foster circularity and comply with international and regional human rights standards and soft law principles. The paper is an implementation study based on comparative legal empirical research. It provides policy and legal analysis of the developed EU and national circular migration instruments by taking Bulgaria and Poland as case studies. The empirical data is gathered through semi-structured interviews with policy-makers at EU and national level, and focus groups with low - and highly skilled labour migrants.

European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7(1), 151-170, I. Introduction. - II. Subsidiarity. - II.1. Subsidiarity and the exercise of the Union's external competences. - II.2. The Union's readmission policy to the test of subsidiarity. - III. Institutional balance. - III.1. Institutional balance in the area of readmission according to the Treaties. - III.2. The Union's re-admission policy to the test of institutional balance. - IV. Conclusion., Migration governance entails the enactment of a bordering process, drawing lines of inclusion and exclusion, through legal instruments, policy tools and funding decisions. The level of experimentalism through which this process is increasingly carried out by the EU demands constant reflection on its overall limits and constraints, on the part of those working on it from a constitutional perspective. The present Article aims at contributing to that reflection effort by analysing the EU's readmission policy from the standpoint of two principles governing its exercise as a shared competence: subsidiarity and institutional balance. Both principles require EU institutions to engage with the constitutional logic which underlies Treaty choices. On the one hand, subsidiarity reminds the institutions of the need to consider the input and output legitimacy of their intervention in areas of non-exclusive competences. On the other hand, institutional balance contributes to such a legitimacy, by maintaining institutional action and interaction within pre-defined boundaries. In the strongly politicised arena of the common readmission policy, characterised by a high degree of experimentalism, the flexible anchoring in the Treaty framework provided by these two principles would constitute a sound foundation for legitimate EU level action, including through soft law. So far, this potential has been underexploited.