Author: Emmanuel Ruchat

The European Union has introduced Directive 2024/1233 (24 April 2024), which marks a significant step forward in simplifying and harmonizing the procedures for third-country nationals to reside and work in EU member states. This directive aims to streamline the process, enhance workers’ rights, and ensure equitable treatment across the Union. Here’s a comprehensive overview of the key innovations and principles introduced by the directive: Unified Application Procedure One of the most notable advancements is the establishment of a unified application procedure. This process allows third-country nationals to apply for a single permit that authorizes both residency and employment within a member state. This simplification significantly reduces the administrative burden for both workers and employers, cutting down on processing times and bureaucratic hurdles. Common Set of Rights Directive 2024/1233 sets a common foundation of rights for third-country workers, ensuring they receive the same treatment as nationals of the host member state in various critical areas. These include employment conditions, wages, social security, and access to public and private goods and services. This harmonization is designed to enhance the integration and protection of migrant workers, ensuring they can contribute effectively to their host countries’ economies. Harmonization Across Member States By standardizing the rules and procedures for issuing single permits across the EU, the directive aims to reduce the discrepancies between national systems. This uniformity facilitates the mobility of workers within the EU and increases the transparency and predictability of the application process. Improved Access to Information The directive mandates that member states provide clear and accessible information on the requirements for entry and stay, rights and obligations, and necessary documentation for permit applications. This initiative ensures that both third-country nationals and employers are well-informed and can navigate the administrative processes more effectively. Flexibility to Change Employers The directive grants permit holders the right to change employers during the validity of their single permit, subject to certain conditions. This flexibility is crucial for allowing workers to seek better employment opportunities without restarting the entire application process, thus fostering a more dynamic labor market. Protection Against Exploitation In cases of abusive working conditions, the directive empowers member states to extend the authorized unemployment period for single permit holders. This provision enhances protection against exploitation and abuse by employers, providing a safety net for vulnerable workers. Sanctions and Legal Recourse To ensure compliance, the directive includes provisions for effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions against employers who violate the regulations. It also establishes mechanisms for workers to lodge complaints and seek legal redress directly or through third parties, ensuring their rights are upheld.

In 2023, France was recognized as the most attractive country in Europe for foreign investors for the fifth consecutive year, surpassing both the United Kingdom and Germany (EY, May 1st, 2024). Despite a slight decline in the number of foreign investment projects, down 5% from the previous year to 1,194, the investment levels remained robust, similar to those observed in 2019, before the global health crisis. These investments resulted in the creation of 39,773 jobs throughout the country. The enduring attractiveness of France is largely attributed to substantial reforms implemented over the past decade, including changes to the labor code, reductions in corporate and capital taxes, and significant decreases in production taxes. These measures, complemented by strategic investment plans such as France Relance and France 2030, have markedly improved France’s business environment. According to a study, these reforms have made France’s economic model more competitive and attractive than it was prior to 2017. Despite these positives, the study revealed several areas of concern. One significant issue is France’s struggle to attract new greenfield investments, with existing site expansions making up a large proportion of the investment projects. In contrast, new site investments are more common in the UK and Germany. Moreover, the average number of jobs created per investment project in France is considerably lower than in neighboring countries, pointing to potential inefficiencies or different economic focuses. Investor concerns extend to the financing of enterprises, cost competitiveness, and taxation, with the high cost of energy emerging as a new significant disadvantage. The previous year’s extensive strikes related to pension reforms also tarnished France’s image regarding social stability. The study suggests that while France has made significant advancements, its future attractiveness may hinge on addressing these emerging and persistent challenges. The country is at a pivotal moment, needing to sustain momentum from post-pandemic recovery efforts and to continue adapting to maintain its lead in an increasingly competitive global environment.

In its January 18, 2024 decision in Allée v. France, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that France violated the freedom of expression by wrongly convicting someone who had accused colleagues of harassment without adequate proof, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, the European Parliament and Council’s Directive (EU) 2024/1069, issued on April 11, 2024, and published on April 16, 2024, protects public discourse participants from baseless legal actions and abusive lawsuits, known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP).In the Allée v. France case decided on January 18, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that France violated the freedom of expression by convicting an individual who, without sufficient proof, accused colleagues of harassment. This decision came shortly before the European Union Directive 2024/1069 was published, aimed at protecting public discourse participants from baseless legal claims and abusive legal procedures, known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP). The case involved a secretary who felt harassed by her executive vice-president and eventually sent an accusatory email about him, leading to her and her husband being sued for public defamation. The French courts initially found the email to be public and defamatory, dismissing her defense that the email was private and that she had a right to report workplace offenses. However, the ECHR disagreed, highlighting that the distribution of the email was limited and criticizing the excessive proof burden required by French courts, which overlooked the challenges of proving harassment. The ECHR’s decision raised concerns about possibly encouraging defamation by lowering the threshold for accountability in serious accusations without solid grounds. It suggests a potential shift in the legal landscape where freedom of expression could be used to shield false accusations, creating a complex legal scenario where defamation might be more easily excused under the guise of free speech. This verdict aligns with the EU Directive aimed at protecting individuals from SLAPP, emphasizing rapid judicial assessment of claims’ validity to prevent misuse of the legal system to stifle public discourse. However, the directive also includes provisions like requiring plaintiffs to deposit a security to cover procedural costs, potentially discouraging frivolous lawsuits but also risking the limitation of access to justice. Overall, these developments reflect a tension between enhancing freedom of expression and ensuring that this freedom does not facilitate the spread of misinformation or unwarranted attacks on individuals’ reputations, presenting a significant challenge in balancing these competing interests in the evolving landscape of European and international law.

The law of January 26, 2024, titled “Law to Control Immigration, Improve Integration,” introduces various measures to address immigration, integration, and asylum issues in France.   1. Foreign Workers: Workers in high-demand jobs (construction, home care, hospitality) without proper documentation can exceptionally receive a “temporary worker” or “employee” residence permit. These individuals are no longer required to go through their employer for this permit but must demonstrate at least 12 months of work in the past 24 months, 3 years of residence in France, and integration into French society. Prefects have discretionary power to grant these permits, with this measure being experimental until the end of 2026. A new four-year “talent – medical and pharmacy profession” residence permit is introduced for doctors, dentists, midwives, and pharmacists who graduated outside the European Union. “Talent” residence permits for skilled workers and project leaders are simplified. Access to self-employed status for “platform workers” is conditioned on having a work permit for this status. Sanctions against companies employing undocumented workers are strengthened.   2. Integration and Residence Permits: Employers’ obligations to provide French language training to their foreign employees are strengthened. Foreign victims of “slum landlords” who have filed a complaint will receive a residence permit for the duration of the legal process. New grounds are created for refusing to issue, renew, or withdraw temporary residence permits, including document fraud and offenses against public officials.   3. Enhanced Removal Procedures: The law aims to facilitate the removal of foreigners posing a serious threat to public order. Expulsion is possible for foreigners (even those with long-term residence or family ties in France) convicted of crimes or misdemeanors punishable by at least 3 or 5 years in prison, depending on the foreigner’s status, or involved in violence against elected officials or public agents. Protections against a mandatory departure order for some undocumented foreigners are removed. Foreign minors continue to be protected against mandatory departure orders. The law allows for residence assignments for up to 3 years (previously 1 year) for foreigners unable to leave France due to situations like war in their home country. Measures to facilitate the execution of removals include conditioning visa issuance on the proper delivery of consular passes by foreign states.   4. Asylum and Foreigners’ Litigation: The law plans the gradual deployment of territorial hubs called “France asylum,” replacing the current single reception points for asylum seekers. These hubs will centralize asylum seeker registration, rights initiation, and application processing. The National Court of Asylum Right’s organization is reformed, with the creation of territorial chambers and the generalization of the single judge. Asylum seekers posing a flight risk or a threat to public order can be assigned to residence or placed in detention under certain conditions. The litigation involving foreigners (accounting for 40% of administrative court activity) is simplified, reducing the number of standard contentious procedures from 12 to 3.   5. Measures Censored by the Constitutional Council: The Constitutional Council censored 32 articles for formal reasons (as “legislative riders” with insufficient connection to the initial text) and 3 articles on substantive grounds, including issues like immigration quotas, conditions for accessing certain benefits by foreigners, and the tightening of family reunification rules.

Belgian companies are increasingly looking abroad to address talent shortages, where there is a vast pool of motivated candidates. International recruitment specialist encourage business leaders and HR managers to consider international talents, which provides access to a broader range of candidates. They emphasize the benefits of a diverse workforce, noting that it fosters creativity and offers different perspectives. In 2022, foreign workers made up 15.8% of the workforce in Belgium, an increase of 25% over five years. This rise is attributed to measures taken by authorities to simplify the process of obtaining work and residence permits. The introduction of hybrid working conditions in recent years has expanded the recruitment scope in Belgium, as the location of residence is no longer a barrier. Belgium offers attractive working conditions for many international professionals. The country’s extensive range of additional benefits, including company cars, is particularly appealing to candidates from countries like the Netherlands and France. While base salaries might be comparable in countries like the Netherlands, candidates there might not have access to the same range of benefits as in Belgium. In 2022, the Office for Foreigners granted 8,098 “long stay” visas, primarily for professional reasons. The number of work permits, which allow companies facing staff shortages to request foreign labor, increased by 75% to 721. Language skills are essential for certain roles. While employers often lament the lack of language skills, not requiring French or Dutch proficiency can be an option for some positions. Most international candidates are fluent in their native language and English, which is beneficial for Belgian branches of international companies. For higher-level profiles, a recruitment firm expands its search beyond borders to find candidates with specific sectoral, functional, or project management knowledge. Eemployers who can plan ahead might consider reserving talents who are still studying in Belgium. Foreign students completing their master’s in Belgium can obtain a one-year residence and work permit upon graduation.

Ces thèmes sont profondément liés : ils concernent la cohésion sociale et les valeurs républicaines françaises. Au-delà du débat permanent, le droit positif peut permettre de combattre les dérives. La laïcité est un principe fondamental inscrit dans la loi de 1905 sur la séparation de l’Église et de l’État, assurant la neutralité de l’État face aux religions. En France, plusieurs outils juridiques garantissent le respect de ce principe : la Constitution, qui proclame la France comme une République “indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale” ; la loi de 1905, qui dispose que la République “ne reconnaît, ne salarie ni ne subventionne aucun culte”, garantissant ainsi la neutralité religieuse de l’État ; la loi du 15 mars 2004, qui interdit le port de signes ou tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics ; la loi du 11 octobre 2010, qui interdit la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public, ce qui inclut certaines tenues religieuses comme le voile intégral ; le Code pénal, qui punit les discriminations, les injures et les violences en raison de la religion, ainsi que les entraves à la liberté de culte. Tout dans la laïcité s’oppose aux dérives wokistes, dont les plus prégnantes sont le déboulonnage de statues, le changement de noms d’institutions ou de produits commerciaux, la tenue de réunions non-mixtes, la remise en question des programmes d’enseignement traditionnels pour y inclure davantage de voix non occidentales et minoritaires et l’utilisation de l’écriture inclusive. D’une façon générale, le droit positif permet au moins en théorie de développer des arguments au cas par cas : non-discrimination : en France, la loi interdit toute discrimination basée sur des critères tels que la race, le sexe, l’orientation sexuelle ou la religion ; liberté d’expression : les principes de liberté d’expression peuvent être invoqués lorsque des personnes estiment que leur droit d’exprimer des opinions contraires aux idées “woke” est restreint ; diffamation et injure : si une personne est publiquement dénigrée ou insultée dans le cadre d’un débat “woke”, elle peut avoir recours à la loi sur la liberté de la presse de 1881, qui punit la diffamation et l’injure ; droit du travail : en milieu professionnel, la législation sur le harcèlement moral peut être mobilisée si un individu estime être victime de comportements répétés visant à dégrader ses conditions de travail en raison de son refus d’adhérer à certaines idées “woke” ; protection du patrimoine : dans le cas du déboulonnage de statues, le Code du patrimoine français offre des protections juridiques aux monuments historiques. En ce qui concerne l’écriture inclusive, qui prétend rendre la langue française égalitaire en matière de genre, le droit positif est en évolution. En l’absence de loi récente précise (seuls des projets de loi existent à ce jour), les principaux outils juridiques sont les suivants : circulaire ministérielle du 21 novembre 2017, par laquelle le Premier ministre demande que l’écriture inclusive ne soit pas utilisée dans les textes officiels ; loi Toubon de 1994, qui impose l’usage du français dans un certain nombre de contextes, et qui peut être mobilisée pour interdire l’usage de l’écriture inclusive dans ces contextes ; l’Académie française, bien qu’elle n’ait pas de pouvoir juridique, qui a un rôle officiel de conseil en matière de langue française et a exprimé son opposition à l’écriture inclusive. La lutte pour le respect de ces principes peut être un combat long et méticuleux, nécessitant une vigilance constante et l’application de la tolérance zéro. Une récente décision du Tribunal administratif refuse de censurer sur cette pratique sur des plaques officielles. Ce n’est qu’un début, et une décision de première instance. Il ne faut jamais hésiter à saisir la justice lorsque de tels agissements deviennent excessifs.  

With 1,259 new projects in 2022 (a 3% increase from 2021), foreign-owned companies play a significant role in the French economy, employing 2.2 million people and contributing around 20% of the GDP, 25% of private R&D, and 35% of industrial exports. Despite economic and social instability, France has surged ahead of its competitors, the UK and Germany, thanks to successive reform waves since 2007. In the manufacturing sector, France remains the top destination for factory establishments and extensions, with 547 projects. The country is also the main hub for R&D investments, largely driven by its incentivizing innovation policy. A large portion of these investments occurs in rural areas or medium-sized agglomerations, with the Ile-de-France region surpassing Greater London as the most attractive European region. Foreign investment in France is distributed across various sectors, including business services, software and IT, automotive, aeronautics, industrial equipment, and agri-food. The availability of decarbonized energy and a skilled workforce are considered France’s primary industrial assets by international executives. Furthermore, France is experiencing a transition towards greener practices. The automotive and aeronautics sectors are making a significant shift towards decarbonized mobility. The health sector is witnessing a move towards repatriating production capacities that were previously outsourced to Asia. Lastly, in the electronics industry, particularly in the strategic semiconductor sector, France is benefiting from the current investment momentum in Europe, aiming to limit its dependence on Asian countries. Should you wish to invest and/or be a French resident: please refer to our Business & Immigration section (Talent Passport)

The French government unveiled in December the final version of the bill “to control immigration and improve integration”, which will soon be debated. The project aims to facilitate the deportation of persons in an irregular situation while opening up the possibility of recruiting migrants in certain areas. The new text will increase sanctions against illegal work, a fine of 4,000 euros for the employment of an irregular person. In case of recidivism within two years, the fine will be doubled. Applicants for residence permits, or holders applying for renewal, will have to demonstrate that they comply with the principles of the Republic, which include “freedom of expression and conscience, equality between citizens, in particular equality between women and men, freedom of sexual orientation, the dignity of the human person, symbols of the Republic and the fact of not invoking one’s beliefs or convictions to circumvent the rules”. common rules governing relations between public services and individuals”. Residence permits for occupations with tension should be introduced. A priori, this mainly concerns construction and medical professions, but the current list of professions in shortage could expand considerably. Employers who hire foreigners will have to consider as working time the French courses taken by their employees. Currently, only employees who have obtained a residence permit as part of a special authorization to work in a company that has not recruited in France are obliged to participate in French courses organized by the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII). Asylum seekers will be able to work immediately after submitting their application, whereas currently they have to wait at least six months. The bill also focuses on the care of immigrants who arrived illegally in France and detained in transit zones. Currently, judges must rule within 24 hours on the situation of those immigrants who could apply for asylum or had to be returned to the border. This period will be extended to 48 hours. It should also become possible to immediately expel from French territory an irregular person convicted of serious violence against a member of the security forces, proven domestic violence, aggravated robbery, theft committed with the help of minors or theft committed in a group in a dwelling. Persons who have already received, in the five years preceding the application, an Obligation to leave French territory (OQTF) will not be able to apply for a visa for the France.

“EU sanctions” are known in EU law as “restrictive measures”, the purpose of which being “intended to bring a change of policy or activity by the targeted country, a part of that country, its government, entities or individuals. These sanctions can be efficiently challenged before European courts. Restrictive measures are, according to the European External Action Service “a preventive and non-punitive instrument that should allow the EU to respond quickly to political developments or challenges”. Such definition is not really in accordance with the recent practice, which show a clear intention to punish some personalities for having some links, supposedly close or not, with the Russian president. EU’s competence to adopt the decision of imposing restrictive measures on third parties is the legacy of the practice of the Member States before the creation of the Union in 1993. Currently restrictive measures cover cases in which it has been decided to interrupt or reduce the Union’s economic relations with a third country (Article 215-1 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, hereinafter TFEU), or to impose some constraints on individuals (Article 215-2 TFEU). Formally, restrictive measures are adopted through a decision taken within the framework of the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). They are then implemented within the framework of the Union according to its competences, which are intergovernmental in this field. Although unanimity is the rule, sanctions are subject to the discretionary power of the Council of the European Union. Main measures applied to individuals are the freeze funds and financial assets, or to prohibit admission to the territory. Speaking less legally, it is in the opinion of many lawyers – and even more, of course, of persons subject to sanctions – that all this legal framework looks like a criminal law without saying so openly, notably in view of circumventing the rules applicable to the latter. EU authorities will not lose their time to prove anything seriously. The burden of the proof is reversed, as the victim of such sanction will have to initiate some proceedings at General Court in Luxemburg. But it is worth the effort. According to Article 263 of the TFEU, the action for annulment aims to have an act adopted by an institution and producing legal effects regarding third parties annulled. It may be brought within two months from the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the EU. This action is submitted thanks to a claim, which will launch proceedings according to the Rules of Procedure applicable in General Court. These rules state in particular very strict deadlines, the calculation of which being sometimes challenging. An appeal can be lodged to the Court of Justice of European Union. Only certain categories of persons may bring such actions, and only certain actions are available against acts directly implementing restrictive measures within the Union. These are the Member States and the institutions of the Union, as well as the persons directly and individually affected by the contested restrictive measures. Third parties to the restrictive measures who are affected by them can only have access to the European Court indirectly. The grounds for reviewing the legality of the act vary according to whether the institution that issued the act lacks competence, whether the act violates essential procedural requirements, whether the treaty or the rules governing its application have been violated, or whether the act is contrary to the law. In any case, in addition to action for annulment, it is highly recommended to request a release separately, by written, to the Council. Finally, it must be emphasized that in certain situations, an action for damages may be brought before the Court, when it appears that the “measures” were taken wrongfully. It enables individuals who have suffered damage to obtain compensation from of the institution that caused it.