The General Secretariat of the Council has compiled written replies from EU member states on the proposed regulation establishing an EU Talent Pool, following a meeting of the Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion (Admission) on 10 January 2024. The document, published on 25 June 2026, reveals broad support for the voluntary initiative but significant demands for clarification on definitions, interoperability, governance, and safeguards against abuse.
Member states broadly welcome the non-binding nature of the Talent Pool but raise specific concerns. Croatia questions the scope regarding persons in need of international protection, the definition of 'employer', and the role of the Steering Group on accelerated immigration procedures. The Czech Republic asks about data duplication with the EURES network, opposes allowing private employment agencies in the Talent Pool, and seeks clarity on accelerated procedures and shortage professions. Finland stresses that participation must remain voluntary, calls for cost-effective interoperability with national platforms, and warns against unreasonable administrative burden. France welcomes non-binding participation but wants explicit provisions for suspension or withdrawal; it also questions the legal basis, employer probity controls, and the EU shortage professions list. Greece proposes a more general employer definition, seeks clarity on automated matching and interoperability, and suggests that trade unions and employer organisations have observer status in the Steering Group. Germany distinguishes private employment agencies from employers, supports using the Employers Sanctions Directive definition, and flags potential synergy with the ERA Talent Platform.
The feedback highlights a cleavage between the Commission's ambition to create a harmonised EU-level recruitment tool and member states' insistence on retaining control over national labour markets and immigration procedures. The main trade-off involves efficiency gains from a common pool versus the risk of administrative duplication and legal uncertainty. Stakeholders most impacted include EU regulatory bodies (which must ensure interoperability), national authorities (which face implementation costs), EU employers (who may benefit from a larger talent pool but face compliance with varying definitions), and private employment agencies (whose inclusion is contested). The next institutional step is for the Commission to revise the proposal, taking into account member state comments, before formal negotiations with the European Parliament and Council can proceed.