# EUR-Lex - 52014PC0163 - EN

*|*

# 52014PC0163

**Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a touring visa and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No 562/2006 and (EC) No 767/2008 /* COM/2014/0163 final - 2014/0095 (COD) */**

			*

			*

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.           CONTEXT
OF THE PROPOSAL

In the framework of Schengen intergovernmental
cooperation, detailed rules were established concerning the entry and stay of
third-country nationals for up to three months in a six-month period (so-called
short stays)[1].
This was done with the aim of ensuring the security of the Schengen area[2] and providing a right
to move freely within it, including for third-country nationals. These rules
were then further developed and consolidated in the framework of the European
Union, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. For the
purpose of this proposal, the core elements of the legislation in force are the
following:

– 
Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (Schengen Borders
Code) and its subsequent amendments[3],
among others, lay down the entry conditions for third-country nationals for
short stays;

– 
Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (Visa Regulation) and
its subsequent amendments[4]
list the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when
crossing the external borders for short stays, and list countries whose
nationals are exempt from that requirement;

– 
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 (Visa Code) and its
subsequent amendments[5]
establish harmonised procedures and conditions for processing short-stay visa
applications and issuing visas;

– 
The Convention implementing the Schengen
Agreement[6]
(CISA), and its amendments lay down the principle of ‘mutual recognition’ of
short-stay visas. They also provide the right of free movement for up to 90
days in any 180-day period for third-country nationals who hold a valid
residence permit or valid national long-stay visa issued by one of the Member
States[7].

It is of course also possible for
third-country nationals to stay longer than three months or 90 days in the
Schengen area, but this should not be done on the basis of the existing
provisions on short stays. It would require taking up residence in one of the
Member States, so third-country nationals should apply for a residence permit
or long-stay visa from the Member State concerned. Such permits are purpose-bound, issued for the purpose of work, business, study,
family reunification, etc., but in principle, not for tourism. There are no
general, horizontal EU-level rules establishing the conditions for issuing
residence permits or long-stay visas, but there are sectorial directives
covering specific categories of third-country nationals, e.g. workers or
students. However, these Directives do not provide for full harmonisation and
leave Member States room for manoeuvre to provide for exceptions and
derogations and to specify certain details in their national laws.

The 90 day/180 day ‘limitation’ in the Schengen
acquis is not unique in aliens’ law. National legislation on foreigners
traditionally distinguishes between entries for short stays (one, three, six months)
‒ ‘visitors’ ‒ particularly for tourism and with less stringent
conditions attached, and the admission of third-country nationals who wish to reside
longer for work, studies, etc. where stricter conditions apply.  In any case,
irrespective of the dividing line between short visits and residence and the
conditions imposed on foreigners, national legislation provides appropriate
authorisations for entry, stays and residence, whatever the length of the
envisaged stay on a Member State’s territory (visas with different lengths of
validity, extension of visas, temporary residence permits, permanent residence
permits, etc.).

The current Schengen and the EU migration acquis,
however, do not provide a system covering all kinds of envisaged stay comparable
to such national legislation. For legal and political reasons, as described
above, the Schengen acquis covers short stays in the territory of all
Member States, while EU legal instruments developed in the area of immigration/admission
policy set up the framework for national legislation in view of admitting
third-country nationals for stays of more than three months on their own territory.

The Schengen area has expanded to 26
countries and many third-country nationals, such as tourists, live performance
artists, researchers, students, etc., have legitimate reasons for travelling within
this area for more than 90 days in a given 180-day period without being
considered as ‘immigrants’. They do not want and/or do not need to reside in a
particular Member State for longer than three months. However, there is no ‘Schengen’
visa or other authorisation allowing for a stay of more than three months or 90
days in the Schengen area.

Over the years, the Commission has received
many complaints and requests for solutions regarding this problem from
third-country nationals, both those who require visas and those who are visa
exempt. The 90 day/180 day ‘limitation’ may have been appropriate for the size
of the five founding members of the Schengen cooperation. However, when the
Schengen area comprises 26 Member States, it poses a considerable barrier for
many third-country nationals with legitimate interests in travelling in the
Member States. It also leads to missed economic opportunities for Member States.

The main characteristic of the travellers
reporting problems is that they intend to ‘tour around’ Europe/the Member
States. They wish to stay longer than 90 days (in any 180 days) in the Schengen
area. So, if they are nationals of third countries who require visas, they
cannot apply for a short-stay, ‘Schengen’ visa, since these are only issued for
trips of a maximum of 90 consecutive days. Visa-free third-country nationals, as
a rule, are not entitled to do so either. But neither category of third-country
nationals intends to stay for more than 90 days in any Member State, so they cannot obtain a ‘national’ long-stay visa[8],
or residence permit.

This legislative gap between the Schengen acquis
and the EU and national immigration rules means that such travellers should, in
principle, leave the Schengen area on the last day of their consecutive 90-day
stay and ‘wait’ for 90 days outside the Member States before they can return for
another legal stay. This situation cannot be justified by Member States’ security
concerns and does not serve their economic, cultural and educational interests.

In particular, associations and interest
groups of live performing artists emphasise that they
often have difficulties in organising tours in Europe due to the 90 day/180 day
‘limitation’ of stay. Touring companies generally do not meet the residency
requirements enabling artists, staff and their family members to obtain
long-stay visas or residence permits. As the staff of such companies are often
highly specialised and trained, it is not usually possible to replace them, or it
would be costly or highly disruptive to do so. According
to examples provided by the European Circus Association (ECA) the loss of
revenue per engagement (i.e. per city where a well-known group performs) was about
EUR 380 000 in one example and EUR 920 000 in another (local
employment for ushers, concession, cleaning teams, site rental, taxes and fees,
local suppliers, printers, marketing, services, hotels and restaurants, local
transport services, wages and salaries paid in each city). The ECA also
reported cases in which a company had to substitute/rotate cast and crew to
comply with the ‘limitation’ of stay. In one case, replacing 36 staff members
cost the company about EUR 110 000. According to the Performing Arts
Employers Associations League Europe (Pearle*), the lack of an ‘alternative’
authorisation costs the EU between EUR 500 million and 1 billion per annum which
is significant in the current financial and economic context.

Travel agencies, as well as numerous queries
addressed to the Commission, suggest that more and more ‘individual’ travellers
(students, researchers, artists and culture professionals, pensioners, business
people, service providers, etc.) also have a strong interest in being allowed
to circulate for longer than 90 days in any 180-day period within the Schengen
area.

In addition, there are many third-country
nationals already residing in the Schengen area with a long-stay visa or residence
permit issued by a Member State who need or want to travel to other Member
States during or after their stay. For instance, third-country national students
may like to travel within the Schengen area after finishing their studies for, say,
six months before returning home. According to Article 21 of the CISA, such persons,
in principle, have the right to move freely in the Member States on the basis
of their valid long-stay visa or residence permit, but the 90 day/180 day ‘limitation’
also applies to them.

The general rule does not pose any problem
for the vast majority of travellers and should be kept. But as long ago as 2001,
the Commission recognised the need to complement it by introducing an
authorisation for stays of longer than three months in the Schengen area. It proposed
a Council Directive on conditions under which
third-country nationals would have the freedom to travel within the territory
of the Member States for periods not exceeding three months, introducing a
specific travel authorisation and determining the conditions of entry and
movement for periods not exceeding six months[9].

The Commission
proposed to introduce a specific travel
authorisation for third-country nationals planning
to travel in the territory of the Member States for a period of no more than
six months in any given period of 12 months. The authorisation would have
allowed a consecutive 6-month stay within the Schengen area, but recipients
would not have stayed for more than three months in any single Member State. This proposal — which covered several other issues, e.g. expulsion — was
formally withdrawn by the Commission in March 2006. The main concerns of Member
States at that time were the legal basis and the anticipated bureaucracy related
to the envisaged permit. Some of them disagreed with the plan to introduce the
permit for third-country nationals requiring a visa for a short stay as they
considered that it might affect the integrity of the short-stay visa regime.

The legislative gap discussed above forces
Member States to bend the rules and make use of legal instruments not designed
for ‘extending’ an authorised stay in the Schengen area: application of Article
20(2)[10]
of the CISA or issuing limited territorial validity visas (LTV visas) under Article
25(1)(b) of the Visa Code[11].
These practices are described in detail in Annex 7 of the Impact Assessment[12] accompanying the
simultaneously presented Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the Union Code on Visas (Visa Code)(recast)[13].

It is therefore desirable to introduce a
new type of visa both for visa-exempt and visa- requiring third-country
nationals with a legitimate interest in travelling around the Schengen area for
more than 90 days in any 180-day period.

The objective of the proposal is to fill
the legislative gap between the Schengen acquis on short stays and the
EU/national law on residence in a particular Member State by:

– 
establishing a new type of visa (‘touring visa’)
for an intended stay in two or more Member States lasting more than 90 days but
no more than 1 year (with the possibility of extension up to 2 years), provided
that the applicant does not intend to stay for more than 90 days in any 180-day
period in the same Member State, and

– 
determining the application procedures and the
issuing conditions for touring visas.

The proposal regulates neither the
conditions and procedures on admitting third-country nationals for stays longer
than three months in a Member State, nor the conditions and procedures for issuing
work permits or equivalent authorisations (i.e. access to the labour market).

Though the proposal provides that many
provisions of the Visa Code should apply to processing the new type of visa, a
separate proposal is justified, rather than integrating the provisions into the
proposal for amending the Visa Code, as the scope of the latter are the rules
and procedures for issuing visas to third-country nationals who require visas (cf.
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001).

2.           RESULTS
OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

· 
Consultation of interested parties

This is described in the Impact Assessment (IA)
referred to in section 1. In general, interest groups — in particular artists’
associations — confirm that the gap in the current legal framework is a serious
impediment to mobility, be it professional or leisure and welcome the introduction
of a new type of visa. The majority of the Member States, however, seems to be
sceptical as to the need to act in view of the limited group of applicants it
would concern. Some of the Member States raised concerns regarding the legal
basis (cf. section 3).

· 
Impact assessment

The assessment
of the impact of introducing an authorisation allowing third-country nationals
to stay more than 90 days in any 180-day period in the Schengen area is
included in the IA accompanying the proposal amending the
Visa Code.

The IA
considered two regulatory options.

One of the
options, a new type of authorisation with a
view to an intended stay in the Schengen area lasting
more than 90 days but no more than 360 days was envisaged ‘only’ for a limited
group of third-country nationals: artists (or sportsmen), culture
professionals and their crew members employed by reliable and acknowledged live
performing companies or organisations and core family members travelling with them.
Limiting the beneficiaries to this group was based on the fact that they seem
to be the main group of third-country nationals affected by the current legislative
gap.

Another policy
option envisaged a similar authorisation
not just for that specific category of third-country nationals, but for all
third-country nationals (i.e. ‘individual’ travellers, e.g. tourists, researchers,
students, business people). Since the problem is due to a legislative gap
between the Schengen acquis on short stays in the Schengen area and the
legislation on admission of third-country nationals for stays longer than 90 days
on the territory of a Member State, a non-regulatory policy option was not
developed.

The IA showed[14] that the lack of an
authorisation allowing travellers to stay more than 90 days in any 180-day
period in the Schengen area results in a considerable economic loss to the
EU. According to the study supporting the IA, the number of potential
beneficiaries of the new authorisation is rather limited. Implementation of the
first option might concern approximately 60000 applicants, while the second
option might double the number of potential applicants. These are rather small
numbers, bearing in mind that there were more than 15 million ‘Schengen’ visa
applications in 2012 and the number of applications is rising steadily.

However, these
travellers are considered to be ‘big spenders’ and therefore likely to generate
considerable revenue and to boost economic activity in the EU, not least
because they stay longer in the Schengen area. The first option could lead to
an estimated EUR 500 million in additional income to the Schengen area per
year. The economic impact of the other option is
estimated at around EUR 1 billion. In both options, the economic gain would be due
to the spending of ‘new’ travellers attracted by a new opportunity to stay
longer in the Schengen area without using cumbersome ‘alternatives’ on the borderlines
of legality, such as obtaining LTV visas.

The IA also
showed that the administrative cost of processing the
new type of authorisation would not be significant, given the limited number of
applications expected and the fee to be charged. For third-country nationals today,
making applications for new visas or for extensions already implies costs. Regarding
the second option, the IA pointed out a specific risk: some holders of the new
authorisation might seek employment on the black market.

3.           LEGAL
ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

· 
Detailed explanation of the proposal

The objective of the proposal is to fill a legislative
gap. Therefore, Article 1 of the proposal establishes a new type of visa,
called ‘touring visa’ (T-type visa). This Article also makes clear that the Regulation does not
affect the admission/immigration acquis. This implies, for instance,
that the Regulation does not affect Member States’ legislation on the
impact of ‘absence’ of residing third-country nationals on their residence
permits while they travel in other Member States on the basis of a touring visa.
Third-country nationals who exercise (intra-EU) mobility under EU rules are not
covered by the Regulation either.

Article 2 sets
a fundamental principle by making a cross reference to the provisions of the
Visa Code and Regulation (EC)
No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning
the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member
States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation)[15].
The touring visa is quite distinct in many ways from
the short-stay visa as defined in Article 2 of the Visa Code. However, it is very
similar to a uniform visa as in principle, it is valid for the territory of all
Member States. The new type of visa is established on the legal basis of
short-stay visas and permits, namely Article 77 of the TFEU. Therefore it is
justified in principle to apply the relevant provisions of the Visa Code to the
touring visa. The subsequent provisions (Articles 4 to 9) specify in detail
which provisions of the Visa Code will be applicable as regards the conditions
and procedures for issuing touring visas, and lay down the derogations
from and additions to these rules, taking into account the specificities
of the new type of visa. For that purpose, the subsequent articles follow the
structure of the Visa Code, taking chapter by chapter and confirming for every
single provision whether it applies and whether there are any additions or
derogations. Since the Commission is simultaneously proposing a recast of the
Visa Code[16],
this proposal will refer to the provisions of the proposed recast regulation
rather than the existing regulation[17].
The VIS Regulation, as amended by this proposal, will fully apply to the
touring visa without any need for additions or derogations.

Article 3 provides
that certain definitions contained in the Visa Code (e.g. ‘third-country national’,
‘visa sticker’, ‘application’, ‘consulate’) are also applicable to this
proposal. In addition it defines the ‘touring visa’ as an authorisation issued by a Member State with a view to an intended stay in two or more Member States for a total of more than 90
days in any 180-day period, provided that the applicant does not intend to stay
for more than 90 days in any 180-day period[18] in the same Member State. With this
latter ‘limitation’, admissions for stays longer than three months in one
  Member State are excluded.

Article 4 sets
out the provisions in the Visa Code on the authorities taking part in the
procedures relating to applications which should apply to the touring visa. It
excludes the possibility of applications for touring visas to be lodged at the
external borders, as authorising a stay of possibly up to two years in the
Schengen area requires thorough scrutiny that can never be carried out at
external borders. This Article also derogates from Article 5 of the Visa Code
by stating that the Member State competent to examine and decide on an application for a touring visa should be
the Member State whose external border the applicant intends to cross to enter
the territory of the Member States. This is justified by the fact that for many
third-country nationals who wish to tour the Schengen area for longer than 90
days, the provisions of the current Visa Code (main destination in terms of
purpose or length of stay) would hardly be applicable. The purpose of the visit
is, in principle, the same in all Member States (e.g. live performance or
tourism), while in many cases, applicants may not know in advance the length of
their stays in different Member States. Finally, Article 4 entitles certain
categories of third-country nationals to lodge the touring
visa application in the territory of the Member State where they are legally
present. This is justified, as many third-country nationals residing in the
territory of the Member States, as well as third-country nationals exempt from
the obligation to be in a possession of a visa for stays of up to 90 days
(short stays), have sufficient financial means and a legitimate interest in
circulating in other Member States for longer than 90 days in a given 180-day
period while residing/staying in a specific Member State (or immediately after
such residence). It is neither in the security interests nor in the economic
interests of the Union to require these persons to leave the Schengen area to
apply for a touring visa in their country of origin.

Article 5 specifies
the provisions in the Visa Code that are applicable to the application process
for a touring visa and lays down additional provisions and exceptions. It requires the applicant to present a valid travel document
recognised by the Member State competent to examine and decide on an application and at least
one other Member State to be visited. An additional condition for applicants is
to present appropriate proof that they intend to stay in
the territory of two or more Member States for longer than 90 days in total without
staying for more than 90 days in any 180-day period in the territory of any one
of these Member States. The Article does not provide derogations from the Visa
Code regarding the visa fee which will therefore be EUR 60, (i.e. the
standard visa fee for an application for a short-stay visa). This is justified
as the tasks of the consulates, irrespective of whether they process short-stay
or touring visa applications, are basically the same. The provisions of the
Visa Code regarding the reduction and waiver of the visa fee should also apply.
Similarly, the provisions of the Visa Code shall apply regarding the service
fee that can be charged by external service providers and which must not exceed
half the EUR 60 visa fee.

Another important criterion
set out in this Article is that applicants will have to demonstrate their sufficient means of
subsistence and stable economic situation by means of salary slips or bank
statements covering a period of 12 months prior to the date of the application,
and/or supporting documents that demonstrate they will acquire sufficient
financial means lawfully during their stay (e.g. proof of entitlement to a pension).
According to this Article, applicants in possession of
a touring visa shall be allowed to apply in the Member State where they are
legally present for work permit(s) required in the subsequent Member States. This
provision does not interfere with provisions related to access to the labour
market, and does not regulate whether a work permit is required; nor does it
affect issuing conditions. It solely regulates the place of application, insofar
as a third-country national should be allowed to apply for a work permit
without leaving the Schengen area. The Article envisages certain procedural
facilitations (i.e. possible waiver of submitting certain supporting documents)
for specific categories of applicants who work for or are invited by a reliable
and acknowledged company, organisation or institution, in particular, at
managerial level or as researcher, artist, culture professionals, etc.
Stakeholders rightly claim that for these categories of persons, the procedure
should focus not only on the ‘individual’ applicant, but also on the reliable
status of the sending/hosting/inviting company/organisation/institution.

Apart from the reference to the general
provisions of the Visa Code on the examination of and decision on an
application that shall be applicable to touring visas, the core provision in Article
6 is that particular attention should be paid to the applicant’s financial
status: sufficient financial means of subsistence for the overall duration of
the intended stay, including sufficient means to cover accommodation. This
Article also lays down a general 20 calendar day deadline for deciding on an application.
This is more than the current processing time for applications for a short-stay
visa and justified by the need for thorough scrutiny of the applicant’s financial
situation.

As it is necessary to clarify the
interaction between stays on the basis of existing short-stay visas, long-stay
visas and residence permits versus stays on the basis of touring visas to
incorporate the new type of visa into the ‘system’, Article 6 allows for the combination
of stays on the basis of touring visas with previous/future visa-free stays,
stays on the basis of short-stay visas, long-stay visas or residence permits. Similar
provisions will be introduced in the Visa Code and the Schengen Borders Code.

Article 7
deals with the issuing of the touring visa, where specified provisions of the
Visa Code should also apply. The Article stipulates that the touring visa must always
allow for multiple entries. As regards the length of the authorised stay — in
conjunction with Article 8 — the Proposal provides the possibility of a stay of
up to two consecutive years in the Schengen area for all third country
nationals who can prove they fulfil the conditions for such a long period. When assessing an application, and in particular when defining
the length of an authorised stay, consulates should take into account all
relevant factors, e.g. the fact that citizens of third countries whose
nationals are exempt from the visa requirement for short stays traditionally do
not pose problems of irregular migration or security risks. The period of
validity of the visa should correspond to the length of authorised stay. Due to
the nature of the new visa, the Article excludes the possibility of issuing a touring
visa with a validity limited to the territory of one Member State. A touring visa, by definition, is supposed to allow applicants to circulate in several
Member States.

The touring visa is to be issued in the
uniform format (visa sticker) laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1683/95, and
shall bear the letter ‘T’ as an indication of its type. Article 77(2)(a) of the
TFEU refers to both ‘visas’ and ‘short-stay residence permits’. Given that
residence permits are issued in a (plastic) card format in accordance with
Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002[19],
and bearing in mind that most Member State consulates are not equipped to issue
permits in card format, it would create an excessive burden for Member States
to be required to issue the new authorisation in card format.

Article 8 concerns
the modification of an issued visa, i.e. its extension, annulment and
revocation. It provides the possibility of extending the length of authorised
stay for a period of up to 2 years. Contrary to the provisions for extending a
short-stay visa, applicants will not be required to justify ‘exceptional’
circumstances. In fact, many potential applicants for this type of visa (especially
live performance artists) often need to stay for long periods in the Schengen
area without setting up residence in any of the Member States. To apply for the
extension of a touring visa, the applicant will have to prove they continue to
fulfil the entry and visa issuing conditions and that the ongoing stay will
comply with the requirement of not staying for more
than 90 days in any 180-day period in one Member State.

Article 9 specifies the provisions in the Visa Code's chapter
on ‘Administrative management and organisation’ that
should also apply for the purpose of issuing touring visas. In the framework of
local Schengen cooperation, consulates should exchange statistics and other information
on touring visas.

Articles 10 to 16 are so-called final and/or operational articles, among others,
dealing with the operational instructions on the processing of touring visas
(in which further clarification will be provided as regards the relationship
between the Visa Code provisions and the provisions set out in this Proposal),
monitoring, entry into force, etc. The main objective of the amendments of the Schengen
Borders Code and the VIS Regulation is to ‘integrate’ the touring visa into the
Schengen acquis.

First and foremost, it means that the entry
conditions set out in Article 5 of the Schengen Borders Code also apply as conditions
for the issuing of a touring visa and, in addition, it must be ensured that touring
visa applications/visas are registered in the VIS. It must be noted, however,
that the proposal also concerns third-country nationals who are exempt from the
short-stay visa requirement (cf. Annex II of the Visa Regulation and whose data
are thus not registered in the VIS) since, in principle, travellers from these
countries do not pose security and migratory risks for the Member States.
Therefore, bearing in mind the principle of proportionality, collecting the
fingerprints of nationals of such third countries (e.g. Australia, Canada, United States) is not justified. This exemption is provided in Article 5 and opens the way for Member States to accept the submission of touring
visa applications electronically or by post from citizens of these third
countries.

Article 12 requires further explanation. It partially repeals Article 20(2) of
the CISA, according to which, if a Member State
concluded a bilateral visa waiver agreement with a third country on the list in
Annex II of the Visa Regulation (‘visa-free list’) before the entry into force
of the CISA (or the date of the Member State’s later accession to the Schengen
Agreement), the provisions of that bilateral agreement may serve as a basis for
that Member State to ‘extend’ a visa-free stay for longer than three months in
its territory for nationals of the third country concerned.

Thus, for
example, citizens of Canada, New Zealand or the United States can stay in such
Member States for the period provided by the bilateral visa waiver agreement in
force between the Member States and these three countries (usually three months),
in addition to the general 90-day stay in the Schengen area. For these
countries, the Commission is aware of several bilateral agreements, meaning their
citizens can legally stay for a virtually unlimited period in the Schengen area
on the basis of short-stay visa waivers. New Zealand, for instance, has 16
bilateral visa waiver agreements, so on top of the 90-day visa-free stay based
on the Visa Regulation, its citizens can in practice remain in the territory of
the Schengen area for 51 months (three months plus 48 months).

Already in
1998, Member States considered that such an unlimited stay was not compatible
with the spirit of an area without frontiers. The Executive Committee adopted a
Decision concerning the harmonisation of agreements on the removal of the visa
requirement[20].
According to this Decision, Member States were to introduce standard clauses in
their bilateral agreements limiting the duration of visa-free stays to three months
per six months in the Schengen area (rather than in the territory of the Member State concerned).

After the incorporation of the Schengen acquis
into the Community framework by the entry into force of the Treaty of
Amsterdam, Article 20(2) of the CISA ran counter not only to the spirit of the
frontier-free area, but also became incompatible with the Treaty: Article 62(3)
of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) referred to ‘measures
setting out the conditions under which nationals of third countries shall have the
freedom to travel within the territory of the Member States during a period of no
more than three months’. Therefore, the Commission in its 2001 ‘right to
travel’ initiative proposed to repeal Article 20(2).

The Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) no longer
limits the ‘short stay’ in the Schengen area to three months; it does not
specify its duration. However, Article 20(2) and the existence of bilateral ‘extensions
of stays’ is still incompatible with 77(2)(a) and (c) of the Treaty, because the
common policy on visas cannot be based on the existence of bilateral agreements
from the past. The scope of third-country nationals’ freedom to travel should not
depend on the number and content of bilateral agreements concluded in the past.
The same rules should apply to all visa-free third-country nationals. The
implementation of Article 20(2) raises practical problems and creates legal
uncertainty both for authorities and travellers, especially when the latter are
to depart from the Schengen area. In addition, the future Entry/Exit System
requires clear-cut rules and for technical reasons, account cannot be taken of the
possible continued application of bilateral visa waiver agreements when the
period of authorised stay is to be verified. Finally, one of the ideas behind introducing
the touring visa is to provide a legal framework and appropriate authorisation enabling
visa-free third-country nationals to stay in the Schengen area for longer than
90 days.

The proposal provides for a five-year transitional
period for Member States to ‘phase out’ the impact of their bilateral agreements
as far as the overall length of stay of third-country nationals is concerned in
the Schengen area. This takes time and it must be also acknowledged that
certain third countries attach high importance to keeping the status quo.

From a political point of view, this is
understandable. A visa waiver agreement is among those legal instruments which
bring concrete and direct benefit for citizens on both sides. It must be made
clear that partially deleting Article 20(2) does not imply that these agreements
are immediately and fully becoming inapplicable. In addition, replacing the
existing regime of extending short stays on the basis of old bilateral visa
waiver agreements with a new type of visa for up to one year — with the
possibility of extension up to two years — would not have a negative impact on
many Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders, etc. in practice. Many of those who
want to stay a year or more, are likely to work during that period and will
therefore need to take up residence in one of the Member States and
consequently apply for a long-stay visa or residence permit.

· 
Link with the simultaneously tabled proposal for
a Regulation recasting the Visa Code and other proposals

Negotiations on
the simultaneously tabled proposal for a Regulation recasting
the Visa Code will have an impact on this proposal, so particular attention should
be paid to ensuring the necessary synergies between these two proposals during
the negotiation process. If in the course of these negotiations an adoption
within a similar timeframe appears within reach, the Commission intends to merge
the two proposals into one single recast proposal.

Similarly, at a
later stage, synergies will have to be ensured with the Proposal for a Regulation
of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Entry/Exit System
(EES) to register entry and exit data of third-country nationals crossing the
external borders of the Member States of the European Union[21]. Its subject matter
and scope might require changes if it is decided to make use of the EES to
control the entries and exits of touring visa holders at the external borders[22].

· 
Legal basis

Article 77 of the TFEU
confers the power on the Union to act on ‘short-stays’ in the Schengen area. According
to Article 77(2) of the TFEU:

‘[...] the European Parliament and the
Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall
adopt measures concerning:

(a) the common policy on visas and other
short-stay residence permits;

(b) the checks to which persons crossing
external borders are subject;

(c) the conditions under which nationals
of third countries shall have the freedom to travel within the Union for a short period;’

This proposal contains
measures concerning each of these three elements. Article 77(2)(a), (b) and (c)
TFEU therefore appears to be the appropriate legal basis for the proposal.

Article 79 TFEU confers
the power on the Union, in the framework of a common immigration policy,
to legislate on long-stay visas and residence permits which both relate to
legal residence in Member States, i.e. to long-term stays in a single
  Member State. The introductory paragraph (1) of Article 79 as well as paragraph
(2)(b) explicitly refer to third-country nationals residing legally in
Member States. The target group of this proposal neither want nor need to reside
in any of the Member States; they rather wish to travel around Europe, i.e. to circulate within the Schengen area, before leaving it again. Article
79 TFEU is therefore not an appropriate legal basis for the proposal.

Article 62 TEC, which preceded Article 77
TFEU, in its third paragraph referred to ‘measures setting out the
conditions under which nationals of third countries shall have the freedom to
travel within the territory of the Member States during a period of no more
than three months’. Article 77(2)(c) TFEU no longer limits the ‘short
period’ to three months. This clear change in the Treaty took away an
obstacle which there might have been under the previous treaties to adopting a
similar proposal.

In conclusion, Article 77(2)(a), (b) and
(c) of the TFEU is the appropriate legal basis for this proposal, which intends
to regulate the circulation by third-country nationals in the Schengen area and
from which situations falling under Article 79 TFEU (admission
for long-term stays in the territory of a single Member State) are excluded. The
latter element is ensured by the proposed definition according to which holders
of the touring visa should not be allowed to stay for more than 90 days in any
180-day period in the territory of the same Member State.

· 
Subsidiarity and proportionality principle

Article
5(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) states that, in areas which do not
fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar
as the objective of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the
Member States, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the
proposed action, be better achieved at Union level. With regard to this
proposal, the need for intervention at Union level is very clear. Any
authorisation which would be valid in all Member States can only be introduced
at EU level; the ‘mutual recognition’ of each other’s touring visas cannot be
set up at national level. The issuing conditions and
procedures should be uniform for all Member States. This can only be
attained through action at Union level.

Article 5(4) of the TEU states that action by the Union shall not go
beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty. The form
chosen for this EU action must enable the proposal to achieve its objective and
be implemented as effectively as possible. This proposal does not contain any
elements which would not be directly related to the objectives. It is also proportional
in terms of costs. The proposal therefore complies with the proportionality
principle.

· 
Choice of instrument

This Proposal will establish a new type of visa
which in principle shall be valid in all Member States and determine the conditions
and procedures for issuing this visa. Therefore only a Regulation can be chosen
as a legal instrument.

4.           ADDITIONAL
ELEMENTS

· 
Participation

This proposal
builds on the Schengen acquis in that it concerns the further development
of common policy on visas. Therefore, the following consequences in relation to
the various protocols annexed to the treaties and agreements with associated
countries have to be considered:

Denmark: In
accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (no 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and TFEU, Denmark does not take part in the adoption by the Council of
measures pursuant to Title V of part Three of the TFEU. Given that this
Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark should, in
accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of 6 months
after the Council has decided on this Regulation whether it will implement it
in its national law.

United
Kingdom and Ireland: In accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Protocol integrating the
Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union and Council
Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Council Decision 2002/192/EC
of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland’s request to take part in some of the
provisions of the Schengen acquis, the United Kingdom and Ireland do not
take part in implementation of the common visa policy and in particular,
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code).
Therefore, the United Kingdom and Ireland do not take part in the adoption of
this Regulation and are not bound by it or subject to its application.

Iceland and Norway: The procedures laid down in the Association Agreement concluded by
the Council and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latter’s association with the implementation, application and development
of the Schengen acquis are applicable, since the present proposal builds
on the Schengen acquis as defined in Annex A of this Agreement[23].

Switzerland: This Regulation constitutes a
development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis, as provided for by
the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation
on the Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and
development of the Schengen acquis[24].

Liechtenstein: This Regulation constitutes a
development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis, as provided for by
the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation
and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of
Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European
Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association
with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis[25].

Cyprus: This Regulation constitutes an act
building on the Schengen acquis or otherwise related to it, as provided
for by Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession.

Bulgaria and Romania: This Regulation
constitutes an act building on the Schengen acquis or otherwise related
to it, as provided for by Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession.

Croatia: This Regulation constitutes an act
building on the Schengen acquis or otherwise related to it, as provided
for by Article 4(2) of the 2011 Act of Accession.

2014/0095 (COD)

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL

establishing a touring visa and amending
the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No
562/2006 and (EC) No 767/2008

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a), (b) and
(c) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission[26],

After transmission of the draft legislative
act to the national Parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the
European Economic and Social Committee[27],

Acting in accordance with the ordinary
legislative procedure,

Whereas:

(1)       Union legislation
established harmonised rules concerning the entry and stay of third-country
nationals in the Member States for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.

(2)       Several sectorial Directives
have been adopted regarding the conditions for admission of third-country
nationals to the territory of the Member States for a period exceeding three months.
Article 21 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement[28] grants third-country
nationals who hold valid residence permits or national long-stay visas issued
by one of the Member States the right of free movement within the territory of
the other Member States for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.

(3)       Visa-requiring and visa-exempt
third-country nationals may have a legitimate interest in travelling within the
Schengen area for more than 90 days in a given 180-day period without staying in
any single Member State for more than 90 days. Rules should therefore be
adopted to allow for this possibility.

(4)       Live performance artists, in
particular, often experience difficulties in organising
tours in the Union. Students, researchers, culture
professionals, pensioners, business people, service providers as well as
tourists may also wish to stay longer than 90 days in any 180-day period in the
Schengen area. The lack of appropriate authorisation leads to a loss of
potential visitors and consequently to an economic loss.

(5)       The Treaty distinguishes
between, on the one hand, the conditions of entry to the Member States and the
development of a common policy on short-stay visas, and on the other hand, the
conditions of entry for the purpose of residing legally in a Member State and issuing
long-stay visas and residence permits for that purpose. However, the Treaty
does not define the notion of short stay.

(6)       A new type of visa (‘touring
visa’) should be established for both visa-exempt and visa-requiring third-country
nationals planning to circulate in the territory of
two or more Member States for more than 90 days, provided that they do not
intend to stay for more than 90 days in any 180-day period in the territory of
the same Member State. At the same time, the 90 days per 180 days rule
should be maintained as a general dividing line between short stays and long stays,
as it does not pose any problems for the vast majority of travellers.

(7)       Where relevant, the provisions
of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x of the European Parliament and of the Council[29]
and Regulation (EC) No 767/2008
of the European Parliament and of the Council[30]
should apply to the application for and the issuing of touring visas. Given the
different needs and conditions of third-country nationals applying for touring
visas and due to economic and security considerations, specific rules should
nevertheless be introduced, among others, as regards the authorities taking
part in the procedures, the application phase, the examination of and decision
on applications and the issuing and refusal of touring visas.

(8)       Nationals of third
countries listed in Annex II of Council Regulation
(EC) No 539/2001[31] should benefit from certain facilitations,
such as the exemption from the collection of fingerprints.

(9)       The interaction between
stays on the basis of short-stay visas, long-stay visas and residence permits
and stays on the basis of touring visas should be clarified to ensure legal
certainty. It should be possible to combine stays on the basis of touring visas
with previous and future visa-free stays, stays on the basis of short-stay visas,
long-stay visas or residence permits.

(10)     It should be possible to
extend the authorised stay, taking into consideration specific travel patterns
and needs, provided that holders of a touring visa continue to fulfil the entry
and visa issuing conditions and can prove that during their prolonged stay,
they comply with the requirement of not staying for
more than 90 days in any 180-day period in the territory of the same Member
State

(11)     The touring visa scheme
should be integrated into the relevant legal instruments of the Schengen acquis.
Therefore, amendments should be introduced to Regulation
(EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council[32] and to Regulation (EC) No 767/2008. The entry conditions set out in Article
5 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 should apply as visa issuing conditions. Touring visa applications
and decisions on touring visas should be registered in the Visa Information
System.

(12)     Following the establishment
of the touring visa, Article 20(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen
Agreement should be amended as it is incompatible with 77(2)(a) and (c) of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union due to the fact that the common
policy on visas cannot be based on the existence or non-existence of bilateral visa
waiver agreements concluded by Member States. The authorised length of stay of
third-country nationals should not depend on the number and content of such bilateral
agreements concluded in the past.

(13)     A five-year transitional
period should be provided for phasing out the impact of bilateral visa waiver
agreements as far as the overall length of stay of third-country nationals in
the Schengen area is concerned.

(14)     In order to ensure uniform
conditions for implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be
conferred on the Commission in respect of establishing operational instructions
on the practices and procedures to
be followed by Member States when processing touring visa applications.
Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
of the European Parliament and of the Council[33].
The examination procedure should be used for the
adoption of such implementing acts.

(15)     This
Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised
by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Regulation seeks to ensure full respect for private and
family life referred to in Article 7, protection of personal data referred to in Article 8 and the rights of the child referred to in
Article 24 of the Charter.

(16)     Directive
95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council[34] applies to the Member States with regard to the processing of
personal data pursuant to this Regulation.

(17)     Since the objectives of
this Regulation, namely the introduction of a new type of visa valid in all
Member States and the establishment of uniform
issuing conditions and procedures, can only be achieved at Union level,
the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity
as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the
principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does
not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

(18)     In accordance with Articles
1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the
Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not
bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Regulation builds
upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of
that Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the Council has
decided on this Regulation whether it will implement it in its national law.

(19)     This Regulation constitutes
a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC[35]; the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or
subject to its application.

(20)     This Regulation constitutes
a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC[36]; Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to
its application.

(21)     As regards Iceland and
Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the
Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the
Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of
Norway concerning the latters' association with the implementation, application
and development of the Schengen acquis[37],
which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Council
Decision 1999/437/EC[38].

(22)     As regards
Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the
Schengen acquis within
the meaning of the Agreement between the European
Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss
Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and
development of the Schengen acquis[39], which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Council Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with
Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC[40].

(23)     As regards
Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a
development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis, within the meaning of the Protocol signed between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss
Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the
Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the
European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s
association with the implementation, application and development of the
Schengen acquis[41],
which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Council Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with
Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU[42]
on the conclusion of that Protocol.

(24)     As regards Cyprus, this Regulation constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the
Schengen acquis, within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of
Accession.

(25)     As regards Bulgaria and Romania, this Regulation constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the
Schengen acquis within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of
Accession.

(26)     As regards Croatia, this Regulation constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen
acquis within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the 2011 Act of Accession.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Chapter I – General Provisions

Article 1

Subject
matter and scope

1.         This Regulation lays down the conditions and procedures for issuing touring visas.

2.         It shall apply to third-country nationals who are not
citizens of the Union within the meaning of Article 20(1) of the Treaty,
without prejudice to:

(a)        the right of free movement enjoyed by third-country
nationals who are family members of citizens of the Union;

(b)        the equivalent rights enjoyed by third-country nationals
and their family members, who, under agreements between the Union and its
Member States and these third countries, enjoy rights of free movement
equivalent to those of Union citizens and members of their families.

3.         This Regulation does not affect the provisions of Union or national law applicable to third-country nationals with relation to:

(a)        admission for stays for longer than three months on the
territory of one Member State and subsequent mobility to the territory of other
Member States;

(b)        access
to the labour market and the exercise of an economic activity.

Article 2

Application
of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 and Regulation (EC) No
xxx/201x [Visa Code (recast)]

1.         Regulation (EC) No 767/2008
shall apply to touring visas.

2.         Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa
Code (recast)] shall apply to touring visas, as provided
for in Articles 4 to 10.

Article 3

Definitions

For the purposes of this Regulation:

(1) 
the definitions provided for in Article 2(1),
and (11) to (16) of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa
Code (recast)] shall apply.

(2) 
‘touring visa’ means an authorisation issued by
a Member State with a view to an intended stay in the territory of two or more
Member States for a duration of more than 90 days in any 180-day period,
provided that the applicant does not intend to stay for more than 90 days in
any 180-day period in the territory of the same Member State.

Chapter II – Conditions and
procedures for issuing touring visas

Article 4

Authorities taking part in the procedures relating to
applications

1.         Article 4(1), (3), (4) and (5),
Article 6(1) and Article 7(2) and (3) of
Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa Code (recast)]
shall apply.

2.         Applications shall not be examined
and decided on at the external borders of the Member States.

3.         The Member State competent for examining
and deciding on an application for a touring visa shall be the Member State whose external
border the applicant intends to cross in order to enter the territory of the
Member States.

4.         Applications
by nationals of third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 legally present in the
territory of a Member State may be lodged within the territory of that Member
State provided that the consulate of the competent Member State has at least 20
calendar days to decide on the application.

5.         Applications by third-country nationals, irrespective of
their nationality, who hold a valid residence permit or valid long-stay visa
issued by a Member State may be lodged within the territory of that Member State at least 20 calendar days before the expiry of the residence permit or long-stay visa.

6.         In cases referred to in paragraphs 4
and 5 the competent Member State for examining and deciding on an application for a touring visa shall be the Member State the applicant
intends to enter first making use of the touring visa.

Article 5

Application

1.         Article 8(1),
(2), (5), (6) and (7), Article 9, Article 10(1), and (3) to (7), Article 11, points
(b) and (c), Article 12, Article 13(1), points (a) to (d), Article 13(5), (6)
and (7), Articles 14 and 15 of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa Code (recast)] shall apply.

2.         The application form for the touring visa shall be as set
out in Annex I.

3.         In addition to the criteria set out in Article 11, points
(b) and (c), of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa
Code (recast)], applicants shall present a travel document that is recognised
by the Member State competent for
examining and deciding on an application and at least one
other Member State to be visited.

4.         In addition to the categories of persons listed in
Article 12(7) of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa
Code (recast)], nationals of third countries listed in Annex II of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 shall be exempt
from the requirement to give fingerprints. In those cases, the entry ‘not
applicable’ shall be introduced in the VIS in accordance with Article 8(5) of
Regulation (EC) No 767/2008.

5.         In addition to the supporting documents listed in Article
13(1) of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa Code
(recast)], applicants shall present:

(a)        appropriate proof that they intend to stay in the territory of two or more Member States for longer
than 90 days in any 180-day period without staying for more than 90 days in any
180-day period in the territory of any of these Member States;

(b)        proof that they have sickness insurance for all risks
normally covered for nationals of the Member States to be visited.

6.         The possession of sufficient means of
subsistence and a stable economic situation shall be demonstrated by means of
salary slips or bank statements covering a period of 12 months prior to the
date of the application, and/or supporting documents that demonstrate that
applicants will benefit from or will acquire sufficient financial means
lawfully during their stay.

7.         If the purpose of the visit requires a work permit in one
or more Member States, when applying for a touring visa, it shall be sufficient
to prove the possession of a work permit in the Member State competent to examine
and decide on an application for a touring visa. Holders of a touring visa shall
be allowed to apply in the Member State where they are legally present for the work
permit required in the Member State to be visited next.

8.         Consulates may waive the requirement to present one or
more supporting documents if the applicants work for or are invited by a reliable
company, organisation or institution known to the consulate, in particular at
managerial level, or as a researcher, student, artist, culture professional, sportsman
or a staff member with specialist knowledge, experience and technical expertise
and if adequate proof is submitted to the consulate in this regard. The
requirement may also be waived for those applicants’ close family members, including
the spouse, children under the age of 18 and parents of a child under the age
of 18, in case they intend to travel together.

Article 6

Examination
of and decision on an application

1.         Articles 16
and 17, Article 18(1), (4), (5), (9), (10) and (11), Article 19 and Article 20(4),
last sentence, of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa Code (recast)] shall apply.

2.         In addition to the verifications
provided in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa Code (recast)] to assess the
admissibility of the application, the competent consulate shall verify whether
the travel document satisfies the requirement set out in Article 5(3).

3.         The examination of an application for a touring visa
shall include, in particular, the assessment of whether applicants have
sufficient financial means of subsistence for the whole duration of the
intended stay, including their accommodation, unless it is provided by the
inviting or hosting company, organisation or institution.

4.         The examination of an application for a touring visa and
decision on that application shall be conducted irrespective of stays
authorised under previously issued short-stay visas or a short-stay visa waiver,
long-stay visas or residence permits.

5.         Applications shall be decided on within 20 calendar days
of the date of the lodging of an admissible application. Exceptionally, this
period may be extended for up to a maximum of 40 calendar days.

Article 7

Issuing
of the touring visa

1.         Article 21(6),
Article 24(1), (3) and (4), Article 25, Article 26(1) and (5), Articles 27 and 28,
Article 29(1), point (a)(i) to (iii), (v) and (vi) and point (b), and Article
29(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa Code (recast)] shall apply.

2.         The touring visa shall allow for multiple entries to the
territory of all Member States, without prejudice to paragraph 5.

3.         The length of authorised stay shall be decided on the
basis of a thorough examination of the application. The length of authorised
stay shall not exceed one year, but it can be extended for up to a further year
in accordance with Article 8.

4.         The period of validity of the touring visa shall
correspond to the length of authorised stay.

5.         If applicants hold a travel document
that is recognised by one or more, but not all, Member States the touring visa
shall be valid for the territory of the Member States which recognise the
travel document, provided that the intended stay is longer than 90 days in any
180-day period in the territory of the Member States concerned.

6.         The touring visa shall be issued in the uniform format
for visas as set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/95[43] with the heading
specifying the type of visa with the letter "T".

7.         In addition to the reasons of refusal listed in Article
29(1) of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa Code
(recast)], a visa shall be refused if applicants do not provide:

(a)        appropriate proof that they intend to stay in the territory of two or more Member States for longer
than 90 days in any 180-day period without staying for more than 90 days in any
180-day period in the territory of any of these Member States;

(b)        proof that they have sickness insurance for all risks
normally covered for nationals of the Member States to be visited.

8.         A decision on refusal and the reasons
on which it is based shall be notified to the applicant by means of the standard form set out in Annex II.

Article 8

Modification
of an issued visa

1.         Article
30(1), (3), (6) and (7) and Article 31(1) to (5), (7) and (8) of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa Code
(recast)] shall apply.

2.         In addition to the possibility of extension for specific
reasons provided in Article 30(1) of Regulation (EU) No
xxx/201x [Visa Code (recast)], holders of a touring visa may apply for
an extension in the territory of the Member States not earlier than 90 days and
not later than 15 days before the expiry of their touring visa.

3.         The consulate of the Member State to be visited next shall
be competent to examine and decide on an application for extension.

4.         Applicants shall request the extension by submitting a
completed application form as set out in Annex I.

5.         A fee of EUR 30 shall be charged
for each application for an extension.

6.         As regards a work permit, Article 5(7) shall apply for
extensions, where applicable.

7.         Decisions shall be taken within 15 calendar days of the
date of the lodging of an application for an extension.

8.         When applying for an extension, applicants shall prove that
they continue to fulfil the entry and visa issuing conditions and to comply
with the requirement not to stay for more than 90
days in any 180-day period in the territory of a single Member State.

9.         During the examination of an application for an
extension, the competent authority may in justified cases call applicants for
an interview and request additional documents.

10.       An extension shall not exceed one year, and the overall
length of an authorised stay, that is, the length of the initially authorised
stay and its extension, shall not exceed two years.

11.       A decision to refuse an extension and the reasons on which
it is based shall be notified to the applicant by means of the standard form
set out in Annex II.

12.       Applicants whose application for an extension has been
refused shall have the right to appeal. Appeals shall be introduced against the
 Member State that has taken the final decision on the application for an
extension and in accordance with the national law of that Member State. Member States shall provide applicants with detailed information regarding the procedure
to be followed in the event of an appeal, as specified in Annex II.

13.       A decision on annulment or revocation of a touring visa
and the reasons on which it is based shall be notified
to the applicant by means of the standard form set out in Annex II.

Chapter III – Administrative management
and organisation

Article 9

Administrative
management and organisation

1.         Articles 35 to 43, Article 45, Article
52(1)(a), (c) to (f) and (h) and Article 52(2) of
Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa Code (recast)]
shall apply.

2.         Member States shall compile annual statistics on touring
visas, in accordance with Annex III. These statistics shall be submitted to the
Commission by 1 March of each year for the preceding calendar year.

3.         The information on time limits for examining applications
to be provided to the general public, referred to in Article 45(1)(e) of
Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x [Visa Code (recast)],
shall also comprise the time limits for touring visas, laid down in Article 6(5)
of this Regulation.

4.         In the framework of local Schengen cooperation, within
the meaning of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x
[Visa Code (recast)], quarterly statistics on touring visas applied for, issued
and refused as well as information on the types of applicants shall be
exchanged.

Chapter IV – Final provisions

Article 10

Instructions
on the practical application of this Regulation

The Commission shall by means of implementing
acts adopt the operational instructions on the practical application of the
provisions of this Regulation. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in
accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 11(2).

Article 11

Committee
procedure

1.         The Commission shall be assisted by the committee
established by Article 51(1) of Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x
[Visa Code (recast)] (the Visa Committee).

2.         When reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.

Article 12

Amendment
to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement

Article 20(2) of the Convention implementing
the Schengen Agreement shall be replaced by the following:

‘2. Paragraph 1 shall not affect each
Contracting Party’s right to extend beyond 90 days an alien’s stay in its
territory in exceptional circumstances.’

Article 13

Amendments
to Regulation (EC) No 562/2006

Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 is amended as
follows:

(1) Article 5 is amended as follows:

(a)        in paragraph 1, point (b) is
replaced by the following:

‘(b) they are in
possession of a valid visa, if required pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No
539/2001*, or hold a valid touring visa as defined in Article 3(2) of
Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x of xxx **, valid residence permit or a valid long-stay visa;

_________

*
Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001* of 15 March 2001
listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when
crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that
requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

**
Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x of the European Parliament
and of the Council of xx.xx.201x establishing a touring
visa and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and
Regulations (EC) No 562/2006 and (EC) No 767/2008 (OJ L xxx).’

(b)        paragraph
1a is replaced by the following:

‘1a. For the purposes of implementing
paragraph 1, the date of entry shall be considered as the first day of stay on
the territory of the Member States and the date of exit shall be considered as
the last day of stay on the territory of the Member States. Periods of stay
authorised under a touring visa, residence permit or a long-stay visa shall not
be taken into account in the calculation of the duration of stay on the
territory of the Member States.’

(c)        the
following paragraph 3a is inserted:

‘3a.
Paragraphs 1 to 3 shall be applicable mutatis mutandis for entries related
to stays on the basis of a valid touring visa.’

(2)
Article 7(3) is amended as follows:

(a)        point
(aa) is replaced by the following:

‘(aa)
if the third country national holds a visa or touring visa referred to in
Article 5(1)(b), the thorough checks on entry shall also comprise verification
of the identity of the holder of the visa/touring visa and of the authenticity
of the visa/touring visa, by consulting the Visa Information System (VIS) in
accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European
Parliament and of the Council***;

_________

***
Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9
July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data
between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) (OJ L, 218,
13.8.2008, p. 60). ’

(b)        the
penultimate sentence of point (ab) is replaced by the following:

‘However,
in all cases where there is doubt as to the identity of the holder of the visa
or touring visa and/or the authenticity of the visa or touring visa, the VIS
shall be consulted systematically, using the number of the visa sticker in
combination with the verification of fingerprints.’

(c)        in
point (c), point (i) is replaced by the following:

‘(i) verification that the person is in possession of a valid visa,
if required pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, or valid touring visa,
except where he or she holds a valid residence permit or valid long-stay visa;
such verification may comprise consultation of the VIS in accordance with
Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008;’

Article 14

Amendment
to Regulation (EC) No 767/2008

Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 is amended as
follows:

(1) Article 1 is replaced by the following:

‘This Regulation defines the purpose of, the functionalities of and
the responsibilities for the Visa Information System (VIS), as established by
Article 1 of Decision 2004/512/EC. It sets up the conditions and procedures for
the exchange of data between Member States on applications for short-stay visas
and touring visas as defined in Article 3(2) of
Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x of xxx* and on
decisions taken in relation thereto, including decisions to annul, revoke or
extend the visa, to facilitate the examination of such applications and related
decisions.

_________

*
Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x of the European Parliament
and of the Council of xx.xx.201x establishing a touring
visa and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and
Regulations (EC) No 562/2006 and (EC) No 767/2008 (OJ L xxx).’

(2) Article 4 is amended as follows:

(a)        in point 1 the following point
is added:

‘(e)
‘touring visa’ as defined in Article 3(2) of Regulation
(EU) No xxx/201x;’

(b)        points
4 and 5 are replaced by the following:

‘4.
‘application form’ means the uniform application form for visas in Annex I to Regulation
(EC) No xxx/201x [Visa Code (recast)] or Annex
I to Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x;

5. ‘applicant’ means any person subject to the visa requirement
pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001**, who has lodged an
application for a visa, or any person who has lodged an application for a touring
visa pursuant to Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x;

_________

**
Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third
countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the
external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ
L 81, 21.3.2001, p.1). ’

(3) In Article 14(2) the following point (e)
is added:

‘(e) request for extension and continued
fulfilment of the conditions by a holder of a touring visa.’

Article 15

Monitoring
and evaluation

By [three years after the date of
application of this Regulation] the Commission shall evaluate the application
of this Regulation.

Article 16

Entry
into force

1.         This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day
following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European
Union.

2.         It shall apply from [6 months
after the entry into force of this Regulation].

3.         Article 12 shall apply from [5
years after the entry into force of this Regulation].

4.         This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and
directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament                                                 For
the Council

The President                                                                         The
President

[1]               It is to be noted that until 18 October 2013, the
relevant provisions of the Schengen acquis referred to ‘3 months in 6
months from the date of first entry’. Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 (OJ L, 182,
29.6.2013, p. 1) re-defined the notion of ‘short-stay’ (i.e. the temporal scope
of the Schengen acquis) and refers to ‘90 days in any 180-day period.’

[2]               http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/index_en.htm.

[3]               The consolidated version is available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2006R0562:20100405:EN:PDF.

[4]               The consolidated version is available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2001R0539:20110111:EN:PDF.

[5]               The consolidated version is available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2009R0810:20120320:EN:PDF.

[6]               OJ L 239,
22.9.2000, p. 19.

[7]               Unless otherwise specified ‘Member States’ refers to
EU Member States applying the common visa policy in full (all EU Member States
with the exception of Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Romania and the
United Kingdom), as well as the Schengen associated members (Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland).

[8]               Cf. Article 19 of the CISA, reference in footnote 6.

[9]               COM(2001) 388 final. OJ C 270, 25.9.2001, p. 244.

[10]             ‘Aliens not subject to a visa requirement may move
freely within the territories of the Contracting Parties for a maximum period
of 90 days in any 180-day period, [...]. Paragraph 1 shall not affect each
Contracting Party‘s right to extend beyond 90 days an alien‘s stay in its
territory in exceptional circumstances or in accordance with a bilateral
agreement concluded before the entry into force of this Convention.’

[11]             ‘A visa
with limited territorial validity shall be issued exceptionally, in the
following cases: [...] (b) when for reasons deemed justified by the consulate, a
new visa is issued for a stay during the same 180-day period to an applicant
who, over this 180-day period, has already used a uniform visa or a visa with
limited territorial validity allowing for a stay of 90 days.’

[12]             SWD(2014) 68.

[13]             COM(2014) 164.

[14]             The IA also notes that it
is very difficult to assess economic and financial impacts in this area due to
the lack of data and solid methodology for estimations, so the numbers referred
to in this paragraph shall be dealt with with caution.

[15]             OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 60.

[16]             COM(2014) 164.

[17]             Amendments to the Visa Code recast proposal during the
legislative process will therefore also have to be reflected in this proposal.

[18]             As mentioned earlier,
third-country nationals, being visa required or not, under the short-stay
regime can stay up to 90 days in any 180-day period in the Schengen area, which
can also mean a stay solely in one Member State. Depending on the entries and
exits, it means that in a 1-year period the maximum length of legal stay is 180
days (2 x 90 days). Due to the fact that touring visas could be issued for up
to 1 year (360 days), the reference to the ‘180-day period’ is necessary to ensure
that holders of touring visas would not get less in terms of length of
authorised stays in a same Member State than visa-free third-country nationals
or holders of a multiple entry short-stay visa issued with a validity of 2
years or more. Absence of reference to the ‘180-day period’, for example, would
mean that while a Russian citizen with a multiple entry short-stay visa valid
for 1 year, can, in principle stay for (a non-consecutive) 180 days in the same
Member State within the 1 year validity of the visa, a holder of a 1 year valid
touring visa could only stay for 90 days in the same Member State within the
validity of his touring visa.

[19]             OJ L, 157, 15.6.2002, p. 1.

[20]             SCH/Com-ex (98) 24 of 23.6.1998.

[21]             COM(2013) 95 final, 28.2.2013.

[22]             The proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament
and of the Council introducing a simplified regime for the control of persons
at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by Croatia and
Cyprus of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas for transit
through or intended stays on their territories not exceeding 90 days in any
180-day period and repealing Decision No 895/2006/EC and Decision No
582/2008/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2013) 441 final,
21.6.2013) will surely be adopted well before the adoption of this Proposal.
Once this new ‘Transit Decision’ is adopted, a new Article is to be added to
this proposal with a view to integrating the touring visa into Article 2 of the
future Decision. In the expectation that the new Decision will repeal Decision
No 895/2006/EC and Decision No 582/2008/EC, this Proposal does not contain a
provision amending the latter decisions.

[23]             OJ L, 176, 10.7.1999, p. 36.

[24]             OJ L, 53, 27.2.2008, p. 52.

[25]             OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 19.

[26]             OJ C , , p. .

[27]             OJ C , , p. .

[28]             Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14
June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union,
the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual
abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 19.

[29]             Regulation (EU) No xxx/201x
of the European Parliament and of the Council of xxx establishing a Union Code
on Visas (Visa Code) (recast) (OJ L x, xxx, p. x).

[30]             Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS)
and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS
Regulation) (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 60).

[31]             Council Regulation (EC) No
539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third
countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the
external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L, 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

[32]             Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a
Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders
(Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 1).

[33]             Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general
principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the
Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).

[34]             Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard
to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).

[35]             Council Decision 2000/365/EC of
29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis  (OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43).

[36]             Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002
concerning Ireland’s request to take part in some of the provisions of the
Schengen acquis (OJ L
64, 7.3.2002, p. 20).

[37]             OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 36.

[38]             Council Decision 1999/437/EC of
17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of the Agreement
concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and
the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the
implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 31).

[39]             OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 52.

[40]             Council Decision 2008/146/EC of 28 January 2008 on the
conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Agreement between the
European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss
Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development
of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 1).

[41]             OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 21.

[42]             Council Decision 2011/350/EU of 7 March 2011 on the
conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol between the
European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the
Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of
Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European
Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association
with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis,
relating to the abolition of checks at internal borders and movement of persons
(OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 19).

[43]             Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 of 29 May 1995
laying down a uniform format for visas (OJ L 164, 14.7.1995, p. 1).