SHARE
COPY LINK

EUROPEAN UNION

How long do non-EU citizens have to be present in EU to avoid losing residency status?

How long do non-EU citizens have to be present in the European Union to make sure they don’t lose the status of long-term resident? For the first time the Court of Justice of the European Union has given an answer. 

A banner publicising the 'Next Generation EU' campaign and with an EU flag
A banner publicising the 'Next Generation EU' campaign and with an EU flag fluttering near by at the European Commission headquarters, in Brussels on October 13, 2021. (Photo by Aris Oikonomou / AFP)

Being physically present in the EU for a few days in a 12-month period is enough to avoid losing permanent residency, EU judges said.

And once long-term residence is acquired, “it is not necessary for the person concerned to have his or her habitual residence or centre of interests in the European Union,” the Court has specified. 

What’s the background?

Under the EU directive entered into force in 2006, non-EU citizens can apply for long-term resident status once they have lived legally in a country of the European Union for an uninterrupted period of five years. 

To get the status, they need to have a stable source of income and meet their own needs and those of their family members without relying on social assistance. They also need to have health insurance and, if required at the national level, prove they are integrated in society, for instance by knowing the language or the fundamental principles of the country. 

Once acquired, long-term residence grants rights similar to EU citizens in terms or work, education, social security and other welfare benefits. In addition, it should make it easier to move for work or study to other EU countries, although there are still many gaps in the way the directive is applied at the national level.

The status can also be lost if the person concerned is absent from the EU for 12 consecutive months (EU countries can allow longer periods or consider exceptional circumstances). 

But what counts as presence to break the 12-month period and maintain the status? The initial directive did not specify it and only on Thursday the EU Court of Justice provided a clarification. 

Why was the clarification needed?

The case was related to a Kazakh citizen living in Austria. The head of government of the Vienna Province (Landeshauptmann von Wien) had refused his application to renew the long-term residence permit because, in the previous 5 years, he had been present in the EU territory for only a few days a year. 

He then challenged the decision with the local administrative court (Verwaltungsgericht), requesting an interpretation of the rules to the Court of Justice of the EU. 

The administrative court asked the EU Court to clarify whether any physical presence, even of a few days, would be sufficient to prevent the loss of status, or whether an EU member state could set additional conditions, such as having habitual residence or a centre of interests in the country.

And what was the ruling?

The EU Court of Justice ruled this week that “to prevent the loss of long-term resident status” it is sufficient to be present in the EU for a few days in the 12 months following the start of the absence. 

This interpretation of the directive will now have to be followed by national administrations and courts EU-wide (except in Denmark and Ireland, which have opted out from this directive. It is possible for EU countries to opt out from EU directives on justice and home affairs but not on the internal market.)

The EU judges noted that the directive “seeks to ensure the integration of third-country nationals” and since they have already “demonstrated that they are settled in that member state”, they are, in principle, “free, as are EU citizens, to travel and reside, also for longer periods, outside the territory of the European Union” without losing their status. The rule applies as long as they maintain a link with the EU, which means they are not absent for more than 12 consecutive months, the Court added. 

Steve Peers, professor of EU law, human rights law and world trade law at the University of Essex, in England, said “this is the first judgment on this aspect of the loss of status due to absence.”

Loss of EU status doesn’t mean loss of national residency

Professor Peers also explained that when a person loses EU long-term residency status, it is still possible to maintain national status, “either where they hold that status in parallel and there are not sufficient grounds to remove it, or where they are allowed to stay under national law even though they have lost the EU status.”

Of the 23 million non-EU citizens living in the European Union, more than 10 million had long-term residence in 2019, according to the EU statistical office Eurostat.

“These residents are close to acquiring citizenship in the countries where they reside” and “they have got rights to education and vocational training, social security, tax benefits and access to procedures for obtaining housing,” said Maria Luisa Castro Costaluz of Costaluz Lawyers, a law firm in Algeciras specialized in the rights of English-speaking foreigners in Spain. 

“It seems sensible that the long-term status provides to them a better profile in regards to mobility too,” she commented.

And what about for Britons covered by Withdrawal Agreement?

According to legal experts, the Court’s decision would also extend to people covered by the agreement on the UK withdrawal from the European Union. 

While the period of absences accepted for long-term residents is up to 12 months, however, under the Brexit agreement it is up to 5 years for those covered by the Withdrawal Agreement. 

“If the judgment applies by analogy, then it should follow that it should be adapted to the period of absence. So a few days in every five years,” Professor Peers said. But then he added: “Of course no one should act on this assumption until the EU court has confirmed it.” 

The article is published in cooperation with Europe Street News, a news outlet about citizens’ rights in the EU and the UK.

Member comments

  1. Hi
    Could you please explain how the T.I.E works and what it would enable me to do. In the past I had Residencia for 7 years. I own property in England and Spain and would like to know if my T.I.E card could be used just like an EU passport.
    Regards
    Andrew Wilson

  2. Hi,
    Has anyone tried going for the higher cost fibre broadband including calls? I am interested so looked at the list of 101 destinations for unlimited calls. The United Kingdom (under any name) is not listed but the footnote (2) against Sweden says that you cannot make UK calls to 44870 numbers! I guess this is a proofing error but does anyone know?

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

WORKING IN SWEDEN

‘It will be messy’: Half of foreigners blocked by Sweden’s salary threshold will be graduates

A new analysis by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise has found that 51 percent of the labour migrants likely to be blocked by a new higher salary threshold will be graduates. Karin Johansson, the organisation's Deputy Director General, told The Local how this will hurt businesses.

'It will be messy': Half of foreigners blocked by Sweden's salary threshold will be graduates

When Migration Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard received the results of a government inquiry into setting the median salary as the threshold for new work permits, she said that highly qualified foreign workers would not be affected. 

“This is an important step in our work to tighten requirements for low-qualified labour migrants and at the same time to liberalise and improve the rules for highly qualified labour migration,” she said. “Sweden should be an attractive country for highly qualified workers.” 

But according to the confederation’s new analysis, published last week, graduates will in fact make up the majority of those blocked from coming to Sweden, if the government increases the minimum salary to be eligible for a work permit to 34,200 kronor a month from the 27,400 kronor a month threshold which came into force last November. 

“The politicians’ argument does not hold up,” Johansson told The Local. “More than 50 percent of those who have this kind of salary are skilled workers with a graduate background. These are the people that that the government has said that they really want to have in Sweden. So we are a little bit surprised that they are still going to implement this higher salary threshold.” 

Of those earning between 80 percent of the median salary (27,360 kronor) and the median salary (34,200 kronor), the study found that 30 percent were working in jobs that required “extended, university-level competence”, and a further 21 percent in jobs requiring “university-level education or higher”. 

“They are technicians and engineers, and many of the others are also really skilled workers that are hard to find on the Swedish labour market at the moment,” Johansson said. 

The proposals made by inquiry were put out for consultation in February, with the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise planning to submit its response later this week. 

Johansson said that further raising the threshold risked exacerbating the serious labour shortage already suffered by Swedish companies. 

"In our recruitment survey, we have discovered that 30 percent of all planned hires never get made because companies cannot find the right people," she said. "Many companies are simply having to say 'no' to businesses. They can't expand. So, of course, it will have an impact on the Swedish economy if they now increase the salary threshold. We know that there will be fewer people coming from abroad to work in Sweden." 

Johansson said she had little faith in the exemption system proposed by the inquiry, under which the the Swedish Public Employment Service will draw up a list of proposed job descriptions or professions to be exempted, with the Migration Agency then vetting the list before sending it on to the government for a final decision. 

"The decision of who will be exempted will be in some way a political one, and in our experience, it's the companies that know best what kind of people they need," she said. "So we are not in favour of that kind of solution. But, of course, it's better than nothing." 

She said that companies were already starting to lobby politicians to ensure that the skills and professions they need to source internationally will be on the list of exemptions, a lobbying effort she predicted would get only more intense if and when the new higher salary requirement comes into force next June.  

"If you have a regulation, not every company can have an exemption. You need to say 'no' sometimes, and that will be hard for companies to accept," she predicted. "And then they will lobby against the government, so it will be messy. Certainly, it will be messy." 

Although there are as yet no statistics showing the impact of raising the minimum salary for a work permit to 80 percent of the median salary last November, Johansson said that her members were already reporting that some of their foreign employees were not having their work permits renewed. 

"What we are hearing is that many of the contracts companies have with labour from third countries have not been prolonged and the workers have left," she said. 

Rather than hiring replacements in Sweden, as the government has hoped, many companies were instead reducing the scale of their operations, she said. 

"The final solution is to say 'no' to business and many companies are doing that," she said. "If you take restaurants, for example, you might have noticed that many have shortened their opening hours, they have changed the menus so it's easier with fewer people in the kitchen. And also shops, the service sector, they have fewer staff."

To give a specific example, she said that Woolpower, a company based in Östersund that makes thermal underwear, supplying the Swedish Armed Forces, had been struggling to recruit internationally. 

"They have seamstresses from more than 20 different countries and it's more or less impossible to find a seamstress in Sweden today," she said. "It's really hard for them to manage the situation at the moment and they are a huge supplier to Swedish defence." 

She said that the new restrictions on hiring internationally were also forcing existing employees and also company owners to work harder.  

"Current employees need to work longer hours than they have done and if you're a small business, you, as an owner, will work more than you have done before," she said. 

The best solution, she said, would be to abolish the salary thresholds and return to Sweden's former work permit system, which required that international hires receive the salary and other benefits required under collective bargaining agreements with unions. 

But she said that the government's reliance on the support of the Sweden Democrats party, enshrined in the Tidö Agreement, meant this was unlikely to happen. 

"This is the result of the Tidö Agreement, and you if you take away one single piece of this agreement, I think maybe everything will fall apart. So I think it's hard. When we discuss this with the different parties, they all agree that they want to push ahead with it. But it's the Sweden Democrats who put this on the table when they made their agreement." 

SHOW COMMENTS