# EUR-Lex - 52013DC0066 - EN

*|*

# 52013DC0066

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on progress by Kosovo* in fulfilling the requirements of the visa liberalisation roadmap /* COM/2013/066 final */**

			*

			*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on progress by Kosovo* in
fulfilling the requirements of the visa liberalisation roadmap

1.
Introduction

The European Commission launched a visa
liberalisation dialogue with Kosovo on 19 January 2012 and handed over to its
government, on 14 June 2012, a roadmap towards a visa-free regime. Kosovo had
already implemented a considerable set of reforms in 2010 and 2011, notably in
the field of readmission and reintegration, which enabled the Commission to
launch this dialogue in 2012.

The visa liberalisation roadmap identifies
the legislation and all other measures that Kosovo needs to adopt and implement
and the requirements it needs to fulfil in the short term to advance towards
visa liberalisation. Kosovo should first adopt or amend in line with the EU acquis
the legislation set out in the roadmap. It should then fully implement that
legislation and all other measures specified in the roadmap.

A large body of legislation already exists
in Kosovo in the areas covered by the visa roadmap. In some policy areas, the
existing legislation is already in line with the essential elements of the EU acquis;
in others, the adoption of new laws, further alignment with the acquis or
the adoption of secondary legislation remains necessary.

The Commission held the first senior
officials’ meeting with Kosovo in the context of the visa dialogue on 14 June
2012, requesting that the Kosovo authorities provide a comprehensive report on
the state of Kosovo’s preparedness under the visa roadmap, with a focus on
legislative alignment. The government delivered this report and a legal
analysis on 15 September 2012. To evaluate Kosovo’s progress in the visa
dialogue, the Commission services conducted an assessment mission to Kosovo on
22-24 October 2012, assisted by several experts of EU Member States, the EU
Office in Kosovo and EULEX.

The present document is the first regular
report setting out the Commission’s assessment of Kosovo’s progress in fulfilling
the requirements of the visa liberalisation roadmap. In line with the visa
liberalisation roadmap, it evaluates the following, with a focus on legislative
alignment with the EU acquis:

(1)
Kosovo’s record in adopting or amending in line
with the EU acquis the legislation set out in the roadmap;

(2)
Kosovo’s record in implementing the legislation
and all other measures set out in the roadmap;

(3)
The expected migratory and security impacts of
the liberalisation of the visa regime.

The present report draws upon the
comprehensive report and legal analysis submitted by the Kosovo government,
reports drafted by the EU Member States’ experts participating in the
assessment mission in October 2012, information submitted by the EU Office in
Kosovo, EULEX and the EU Agencies, as well as detailed statistics compiled by EUROSTAT
and submitted by EU Member States and Schengen Associated States. It formulates
a set of recommendations in policy areas where the adoption of new laws,
further alignment with the acquis or the adoption of secondary legislation
remains necessary. As progress in the visa liberalisation dialogue will require
the implementation and enforcement of all the measures set out in the visa
roadmap, this report also makes a set of recommendations in the field of
implementation.

The visa dialogue is conducted without
prejudice to EU Member States’ position on status.

2.
Assessment of requirements related to
Readmission and Reintegration
2.1.
Readmission

The domestic legal framework regulating readmission
consists of a law on readmission and secondary legislation. These measures lay
down the rules and procedures for readmitting to Kosovo its citizens,
third-country nationals and stateless persons who no longer fulfil the
requirements of entry or stay in the requesting state. They regulate the readmission
procedure, with provisions on competent authorities, deadlines, application
forms, travel documents, data protection and transit. The readmission law contains
provisions guaranteeing respect for the constitution and the laws on data
protection, citizenship, travel documents and foreigners, as well as the 1951
Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol
relating to the Status of Refugees.

Kosovo should apply its readmission law
“without prejudice” to any readmission agreement it has concluded with third
countries. Kosovo has concluded such agreements with 18 countries, including fourteen
EU Member States, two Schengen Associated States and two Western Balkan states.[1] It has initialled bilateral
agreements with three other countries and initiated negotiations with another
nine countries.[2]
The existing agreements oblige the contracting parties to readmit each other’s
citizens and third-country nationals who no longer fulfil the requirements of
entry and stay. They also specify the forms to be filled in for readmission
applications and contain provisions on time limits for requests, the costs of
readmission, data protection, proof of identity, proof of entry and transit.

Readmission from EU Member States works
mainly on the basis of bilateral agreements. It also tends to function, via
UNMIK or EULEX, vis-à-vis Member States that do not recognise Kosovo. A
readmission and return division in the ministry of internal affairs processes
readmission applications, and the Kosovo police seek to identify returnees. In
the absence of reliable personal identity documents, the identification of
returnees often poses a problem for Kosovo authorities, leading to their
rejection of readmission applications. The exchange of information with Member
State authorities concerning the special needs of returnees, including victims
of human trafficking, remains problematic.

The readmission law stipulates that a
readmission application must be granted if the relevant Kosovo authorities have
not replied within 30 days. Figure 6.6 shows a high number of pending
readmission applications from Germany and Belgium, suggesting that this
provision does not work in the case of all Member States. The readmission
statistics supplied by Kosovo do not correspond to the figures furnished by
Member States. Kosovo should corroborate its readmission statistics with those
from Member States.

2.2.
Reintegration

Kosovo has improved its reintegration
policy in recent years. In 2010, the government adopted a revised strategy and
action plan for reintegration and a reintegration programme supported by a
reintegration fund.[3]
It boosted resources for this fund from EUR 500,000 in 2010 to EUR 3.4 million
and EUR 3.2 million, respectively, in 2011 and 2012. The reintegration fund finances
emergency services for returnees, such as transport upon arrival, temporary
accommodation, medical aid, food and sanitation packages and housing, as well
as sustainable reintegration services, such as language classes for minors,
vocational training, employment assistance and support for business start-ups.
A regulation clarifies the roles and responsibilities of national and municipal
authorities involved in the reintegration of returnees, the decision-making
process and the criteria for benefiting from this programme.

The institutional structure supporting
reintegration was refined in 2012. An executive board, assisted by a
secretariat, authorises payments from the reintegration fund, monitors
implementation, coordinates tasks between ministries and reporting from
municipalities. An office for reintegration, including a reception office at
the airport, liaises directly with returnees. In 2012, this office was
transformed into a department in the ministry of internal affairs and began to
supervise the work of seven regional coordinators. At the local level,
municipal offices for communities and return are in charge of reintegration and
report to their regional coordinators.[4]
Municipal reintegration committees approve requests for emergency services locally;
requests for sustainable reintegration services are approved at the central
level. Some 250 local officials received training on reintegration in 2011. A
case management system monitoring returnees’ access to reintegration services
remains outstanding.

In 2011, Kosovo spent only 11% of its
reintegration fund, mainly on emergency services. In the first three quarters
of 2012, authorities committed some 58% of the fund (EUR 1.8 million) to
reintegration, including EUR 1 million to housing, EUR 360,000 to an
employment-generation scheme and the rest to emergency services. The company
supplying temporary accommodation to returnees was embroiled in a corruption
scandal and lost its contract with the ministry of internal affairs.

Between January and September 2012, the
reintegration department counted 2,968 returnees to Kosovo, of whom some
three-quarters (2,181 persons) benefited from the reintegration fund. 61.5% of
beneficiaries were ethnic Albanian; 30% belonged to the Roma, Ashkali and
Egyptian minorities; and 4% to the Serbian minority. All beneficiaries received
food and sanitation packages; 34% help with schooling; 18% firewood for
heating; 18% shelter or housing support; 11% transport services upon arrival;
and 17% vocational training or support with a business start-up. These figures
demonstrate the preponderance of emergency support among the services financed
by the reintegration fund.

3.
Assessment of requirements related to document
security; border/boundary and migration management; public order and security;
and fundamental rights related to the freedom of movement
3.1.
Block 1: Document Security

The law on travel documents, the law on
identity cards and secondary legislation lay down the rules and procedures for
obtaining travel documents and ID cards. They include provisions that seek to
guarantee the integrity of the issuance process and document quality in line
with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards. The law on
civil status, supported by secondary legislation, regulates civil registration
and the issuance of breeder documents. Citizens are assigned a personal
identification number at birth, during late registration or re-registration.
Those who lost their civil status certificates may re-register using other
records or testimony from relatives. Secondary legislation regulates the format
and issuance of civil status certificates and access to records. The certificates
contain a number of security features.

The law on personal names allows the
registration of names only in the Latin alphabet, which rules out the Cyrillic
alphabet in contravention of the constitution. Citizens may change their name
once every five years, subject to restrictions that seek to prevent abuse. To
do so, they must provide their birth certificate, marriage certificate, if
applicable, and a certificate stating that they are not subject to any
proceedings. When a name change is permitted, the personal identification
number remains the same, but the new certificate displays the latest name.
Kosovo has sought closer relations with INTERPOL to identify persons applying
for a name change and those who have been banned from the Schengen area. It
also intends to reject applications from persons on the Schengen entry ban
list. In some cases, such as a married woman reverting to her maiden name, name
changes cannot be rejected, but the new names are sent to INTERPOL for onward
transmission to Member States.

In October 2011, Kosovo started issuing biometric
travel documents. Upon discovery of financial irregularities, the
cooperation between the ministry of internal affairs and the contracted company
was suspended. The travel documents assessed in October 2012 met all but one of
the EU standards for security features: their design contained the required
security features; their format complied with ICAO standards.[5] An electronic chip stored the document holder’s personal data,
facial image and fingerprints, in compliance with ICAO standards. The data
pages were optically personalised and included a variety of security features,
but did not meet EU standards as concerns the age from which
fingerprints should be included in travel documents. The EU standard is 12
years of age, a measure applied by Member States to prevent the trafficking of
children. Kosovo’s law on travel documents exempts from this requirement
children up to the age of 16.

Kosovo has not sent to third countries its
‘public key infrastructure’ certificates generated as part of the biometric
travel document issuance process, as it has been unable to join the ICAO Public
Key Directory. Lost and stolen travel documents are recorded and forwarded to
Kosovo’s international law enforcement cooperation unit for onward transmission
to INTERPOL’s Stolen and Lost Travel Document (SLTD) database. However,
Kosovo’s travel document code is not included in the list of codes used in the INTERPOL
database. Some 6,000 records are available that could potentially be
transferred to the SLTD.

The issuance of identity cards is
guided by international standards.[6]
Kosovo ID cards contain a number of security features and the document holders’
biometric identifiers, including their facial image and fingerprints, encoded
in a two-dimensional barcode with a machine-readable option. The security
features of these ID cards comply with ICAO standards. Amendments to the law on
identity cards adopted in 2012 will enable the production of biometric ID
cards, but Kosovo has not yet announced when it would start producing such documents.

A civil status system based on European
best practices contains data that are accurate, complete and up-to-date, with
data subjects at the system’s foundation. Kosovo’s civil status system falls
short of these standards, despite considerable progress in recent years. A
civil registration agency in the ministry of internal affairs manages all civil
status and registration records and issues to citizens, at municipal level,
civil status certificates, ID cards and travel documents. Municipal civil
status offices record all life events in separate registry books for births,
marriages and deaths; upload such data to a central civil status register; and
issue civil status certificates. The number of such offices in Kosovo should
not hamper the civil registration agency’s ability to audit these offices’
compliance, notably concerning name changes, with the relevant legislation.
Municipal civil registration centres process applications for ID cards and
travel documents in the following manner; they verify applicants’ identity on
the basis of civil status certificates; collect photos, fingerprints and
signatures; upload such data to a central civil registry; and issue the
required ID cards or travel documents.

The integration of civil status and
registration data in a single civil status central registry is under way. The registry
books in Kosovo have all been scanned and uploaded to an electronic archive,
and certified copies of the original registry books are being returned from
Serbia and added to this archive. Staff have received training on using the new
central registry. However, data quality in the central registry remains low,
apart from registrations of birth; the marital status and deaths of data
subjects are not yet updated; data entries are not fully cross-referenced or
matched; several inconsistencies and gaps exist between different databases;
and the audit mechanism to monitor modifications to data entries remains weak.

Staff at the civil registration agency have
received training on a new code of ethics, and a small inspectorate in the
civil registration agency investigates corruption. Nevertheless, implementation
needs to improve: fraudulent name changes and incorrect data in travel and
identity documents still occur, and there have been allegations of corruption
in the production of biometric travel documents and vehicle registration
plates. Increasing the reliability of the civil registration process will
require appropriate resources for audit, training and the vetting of all public
officials engaged in civil registration.

3.2.
Block 2: Border/Boundary and Migration Management
3.2.1.
Border/boundary management

The law on border control and surveillance
covers most of the provisions laid down in the Schengen Borders Code, but its
definitions and some of its provisions appear not be in line with this code.[7] The terminological confusion
includes the concepts of border control, border checks, border surveillance,
minimum checks, thorough checks and second line checks. The articles governing
inter-agency co-operation are too widely defined and do not regulate
cooperation in detail. This law should be amended accordingly.

The secondary legislation on local border
traffic and the relevant permit is in line with the Schengen acquis.[8] In future, local border traffic
could cover large areas adjacent to Kosovo, with a considerable impact on
migratory flows through Kosovo. An efficient system should be established, in
close cooperation with neighbouring countries, to manage the issuance, control
and use of local border traffic permits.

The IBM strategy adopted in 2012 draws
upon the Western Balkans model, which lacks the comprehensive approach to IBM
set out in the 2006 Council Conclusions, the Schengen Borders Code and the
Schengen Catalogue. The key elements of IBM, namely border control, crime
prevention and implementation of the four-tier access control model, are
missing from this strategy, and training is inadequately covered. This strategy
should be redrafted, bearing in mind all key recommendations and best practices
set out in the 2006 Council Conclusions, the Schengen Borders Code and the
Schengen Catalogue.[9]

In a well-functioning IBM system, strategic
risk analysis is used to manage risks and threats to border security. All
Kosovo authorities involved in border/boundary management have recently
developed their risk analysis systems, with the border/boundary management
centre starting to play a key role in risk management. At regional and local
level, risk analysis should be practiced systematically to enhance operational
planning, capacity building and a proactive approach to border/boundary
management. Kosovo has also encountered technical difficulties in the operation
of its border management system in the north of Kosovo. This should be
rectified.

Kosovo’s IBM strategy functions as a piece
of ‘quasi legislation’ that grants different roles and responsibilities to and
organises cooperation between the various authorities involved in border/boundary
management. The IBM action plan sets out how common goals in border/boundary
management should be achieved. Strategic cooperation has improved at the
central level, but inter-agency cooperation at the regional or local level
could not be assessed. The border/boundary management centre is the only
cooperation body whose roles and responsibilities are adequately regulated by
the law on border control and surveillance and secondary legislation. Other
authorities’ roles and responsibilities in border/boundary management should
also be legally defined. Kosovo should, therefore, draft legislation that
defines the roles and responsibilities of all public authorities involved in
border/boundary management, including operational cooperation and information
sharing for the purpose of preventing and combating irregular migration and
cross-border crime.

Law enforcement cooperation with neighbouring
countries improved in 2012. Kosovo has strong relations with Albania and, to a
lesser extent, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in police cooperation,
customs cooperation and border cooperation, including joint patrols,
information exchange and regular joint meetings.[10] Kosovo and the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia have established a joint communication centre for police
cooperation. All three border/boundary-related authorities in Kosovo—the border
police, customs and the food and veterinary agency—participate in such
cooperation. Relations are also developing in the field of border checks. A new
joint border-crossing point with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is
being established, and there are plans to open new border-crossing points with
Montenegro. Kosovo should endeavour to conclude agreements on law enforcement
cooperation with all neighbouring countries.

In 2012, Kosovo and Serbia, with EU
facilitation, made substantial progress in implementing the IBM Agreed
Conclusions of 2 December 2011. This included opening four interim crossing
points before the end of December 2012 and preparing the establishment of two
more interim crossing points in 2013. The parties also agreed the geographical
coordinates of six permanent crossing points, to be established in the future;
provisions on law enforcement information exchange, customs information
exchange and mutual legal assistance; and posting liaison persons to follow all
issues related to the normalisation of relations between the two sides. The IBM
agreement should be fully implemented in a coordinated manner.

In coordination with Montenegro, Kosovo
should also delineate the mutual border. Kosovo should also explore modalities
of cooperation with FRONTEX.

3.2.2.
Migration management

The law on foreigners regulates a number of
issues related to the issuance of visas, legal migration and irregular
migration. Given its wide scope, it only partly complies with the EU acquis.
The law on foreigners, the law on border control and
surveillance and the secondary legislation should, therefore, be
comprehensively redrafted so that their definitions and core provisions comply
with the Schengen Borders Code and EU legislation on legal migration[11] and irregular migration.[12] Amendments should address the
following:

–
The law on foreigners stipulates that foreigners
may enter and stay in the territory of Kosovo if they hold a valid travel
document that includes a valid visa or temporary stay permit. The entry
conditions defined in the law on foreigners, as well as transport carriers’
obligation to verify travellers’ identity, due diligence procedures and
exceptions in the case of recognised refugees, as set out in the law on
foreigners and the law on border control and surveillance, are not in line with
the Schengen Borders Code;

–
On the basis of the law on foreigners, the
government has adopted a decision and drafted secondary legislation on the
issuance of visas in consulates and at border/boundary-crossing points.
Kosovo’s planned new visa regime will affect 87 countries, but its
implementation will be delayed until July 2013. The citizens of these countries
may obtain visas at Kosovo’s consulates, while some may do so at Kosovo’s
border/boundary-crossing points.[13]
Granting such wide consular powers to the border police is not in line with the
Visa Code,[14]
which permits the issuance of visas at border-crossing points only under
exceptional circumstances. The introduction of a visa information system will
also require substantial investment in an IT system that links the relevant
databases with the visa register. Despite external support, the infrastructure
is not yet in place. The law on foreigners, the law on border control and
surveillance and the secondary legislation should be amended to ensure their
full compliance with the Visa Code on the issuance of visas at border-crossing
points;

–
The law on foreigners requires a work permit for
issuing a temporary stay permit to foreigners, while the law on granting a
permit for work and employment to foreign citizens requires a stay permit for
the issuance of a work permit. This contradiction should be addressed. Neither
law matches the definitions employed in the relevant EU legislation on family
members, stateless persons or unaccompanied minors. There are no provisions on
the employment of persons who have been granted a stay permit on humanitarian
grounds, for family reunification or for studies or research. The clauses on
family reunification do not meet EU standards. The law on foreigners does not regulate the stay of
foreigners who have been victims of trafficking;

–
The law on foreigners regulates the return of
irregular migrants and detention prior to removal. However, it does not define
procedures for a fair and transparent return policy, including provisions on
return decisions, removal, entry bans, absconding, voluntary departure and
vulnerable persons. The return procedure is unclear; procedural safeguards are
missing. This law does not lay down specific rules on the return of vulnerable
persons, unaccompanied minors or victims of trafficking. The possibility of
extending voluntary departure or postponing return is missing. There are no
penalties for employers employing illegally-staying third-country nationals;

–
The law on foreigners stipulates that orders to
leave should be accompanied by an entry ban, but does not provide rules on the
withdrawal or suspension of an entry ban. There are no exceptions to the
application of an entry ban for victims of trafficking or clear provisions on
legal remedies against removal, legal assistance and representation. The rules
on detention do not define competent authorities, detention conditions,
contacts with legal representatives or family members, or the treatment of
vulnerable persons. The principle of non-refoulement is included in the
law on foreigners, in line with international standards, but there are no
safeguards relating to pending returns, family unity or emergency health care.
The best interests of the child and family unity are not covered;

–
The law on foreigners does not contain
provisions ensuring the socio-economic integration of refugees. To enhance
their integration, including in the labour market, refugees should be granted a
secure legal status in Kosovo, preferably in the form of a permanent stay
permit issued after the expiry of a temporary stay permit;

–
Kosovo has developed a new database on asylum
and migration. Once functional, this could contribute to data collection and
the analysis of migration to Kosovo. Yet, authorities’ right of access has not
been defined. In full compliance with the data protection law, the law on
foreigners should be amended to regulate data processing in the field of
migration and asylum, data access and data sharing among authorities.

The criminal code contains provisions on
the smuggling of migrants, with appropriate sanctions, defining this crime as
an action to obtain financial or material benefits from a foreigner’s illegal
entry to Kosovo. It also provides sanctions for persons who intentionally
assist a foreigner’s illegal entry to Kosovo. These provisions are largely in
line with the EU Directive defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry,
transit and residence.[15]

A new strategy and an action plan on
migration are currently being drafted. This
strategy should provide a
comprehensive framework for migration management, including legal and irregular
migration, in line with international best practices. It should set clear goals;
define roles and responsibilities; clarify the scope of cooperation with third
countries; and develop a migration profile for Kosovo.

3.2.3.
Asylum

The law on asylum regulates the
qualification and status of applicants for international protection, material
reception conditions and asylum procedures in Kosovo. It does not fully comply
with the EU acquis and the 1951 Geneva Convention.[16] It covers, inter alia,
the procedural aspects of asylum; different forms of protection, such as
refugee status, subsidiary protection and so-called temporary protection; the
rights and duties of applicants; the principle of non-refoulement; the
termination of the asylum procedure; appeal; and document issuance. The law’s structure
is incoherent. Various definitions, including those relating to asylum-seekers,
vulnerable persons, foreign citizens and stateless persons, are not fully in
line with the EU acquis and the Geneva Convention. The definitions of
safe countries of origin and safe third countries are not in line with the
Asylum Procedures Directive. The law does not describe the principles of the
asylum procedure. There is an additional category of so-called ‘temporary
protection,’ but its purpose and scope are not clear.

The needs of vulnerable persons are not
properly addressed and are limited to minors, women and persons with mental or
physical disabilities. These provisions are not fully in line with the
Reception Conditions Directive and the Qualification Directive. The rights of
asylum seekers and procedural guarantees appear to be unduly restricted,
particularly as concerns the examination of applications, the use of one’s
mother tongue in applications, the use of interpreters and the right to
communicate with the UNHCR. The role of the UNHCR appears not to be in line
with the Asylum Procedures Directive or the Geneva Convention.

There are no clear provisions on the rights
and obligations of refugees and persons under subsidiary or so-called
‘temporary protection,’ and several basic principles are not listed in the law,
such as access to education, assistance with integration, the right to own
property and the right to employment, falling short of the standards of the
Qualification Directive and the Geneva Convention. Legal remedies do not
include the right of appeal against the rejection of an application for
subsidiary or ‘temporary protection,’ which falls short of the standards of the
Asylum Procedures Directive. Time limits on interrupting asylum procedures are
not clearly defined.

Kosovo received only 31 asylum applications
by November 2012 and 189 in 2011. This year, the department of citizenship,
asylum and migration in the ministry of internal affairs also faced a number of
allegations of corruption in managing asylum facilities and rental
accommodation for returnees. These allegations should be vigorously
investigated by the relevant authorities. Kosovo should explore modalities of
cooperation with EASO.

3.3.
Block 3: Public order and security

Kosovo overhauled its criminal justice
system in 2012, with a new law on courts, a new law on prosecution, a new
criminal code and a new code of criminal procedure entering into force on 1 January
2013. The laws on the Judicial Council and the Prosecutorial Council entered
into force in 2011. These six pieces of legislation complement the law on Special
Prosecution, which sets out the exclusive and subsidiary competences of special
prosecutors in charge of investigating and prosecuting, inter alia,
organised crime, corruption and terrorism.

The new court structure will consist of
Basic Courts, a Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The law on courts
establishes serious crime departments within the Basic Courts and the Court of
Appeal to adjudicate serious crime cases, including those that fall under the
exclusive and subsidiary competences of the Special Prosecution. The government
has considered establishing a special criminal chamber in the Basic Court of
Pristina to adjudicate serious crimes in areas that mirror the exclusive and
subsidiary competences of the Special Prosecution. It remains unclear how such
a special criminal chamber would relate to the serious crime departments to be
set up in Basic Courts and in the Court of Appeal.

Kosovo should implement its judicial reform
in a manner that improves the independence, effectiveness, accountability and
impartiality of the judiciary, including by devoting sufficient financial and
human resources to operating the new court system. Judges and prosecutors
underwent a vetting procedure in 2009. The Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils
should make a particular effort to prevent political interference in the
investigation, prosecution and adjudication of crimes; ensure the transparent
recruitment, vetting and appointment of judges and prosecutors, filling vacant
positions notably from minorities; and enforce disciplinary action in all cases
involving corruption in the judiciary. The Judicial Council should continue to implement
its strategy to reduce the backlog of pending court cases.

A new criminal code was adopted in
April 2012 and entered into force in January 2013. It contains provisions, inter
alia, on the smuggling of migrants, trafficking in human beings, the
production and trafficking of drugs, organised crime, corruption and arms
trafficking. Its provisions respect the exclusive and subsidiary competences of
the Special Prosecution. However, the provisions on corruption offences require
further examination. The provisions on expelling foreigners from Kosovo are not
fully in line with those of the law on foreigners. The section on criminal
records does not include provisions on information exchange with third
countries.

A new code of criminal procedure was
adopted on 22 December 2012 and entered into force on 1 January 2013. Some of its
provisions are in line with EU standards, including those on data protection. Other
provisions constitute grounds for concern. The new code contains some provisions
that may affect the principle of the non-retroactivity of legislation. The
draft code stipulated that ongoing cases would be handled by the previous code,
while the transitional provisions of the adopted code also apply to criminal
proceedings initiated before 1 January 2013, cases in which indictments have
been filed and confirmed, and cases in which indictments have been filed but
not yet confirmed. The new code incorporated a transitional period of only ten
days, leaving insufficient time for all actors to prepare for its
implementation. This could cause problems in the administration of justice.
Finally, the potential retroactivity of the code’s new provisions on pre-trial witness
testimony may restrict the admissibility of pre-trial testimony as grounds for
a conviction in criminal trials that are already in process. Several provisions
of the code of criminal procedure deserve further examination.

The correct implementation of the new law
on courts, the new law on prosecution, the new criminal code and the new code
of criminal procedure is an essential prerequisite of improving the
independence, effectiveness, accountability and impartiality of the judiciary
in Kosovo. Therefore, Kosovo should consider conducting a general review of the
functioning of the restructured criminal justice system in the second half of
2013, including an assessment of the implementation of these four laws.

3.3.1.
Preventing and combating organised crime,
corruption and terrorism

Kosovo has established a legislative and
institutional framework to combat organised crime and corruption, but
cooperation between the police, customs and prosecutors in investigating and
prosecuting such crimes should further improve.[17] Cooperation between the police
and prosecution needs to improve to ensure an increase in the number of
prosecutions following investigations and to ensure a pro-active approach to
fighting serious crime in line with the strategy and action plan on
intelligence-led policing. The investigative capacity of the police is adequate,
but that of customs should improve. Cooperation between the prosecution and the
Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) should improve to ensure a pro-active
approach to launching investigations into inexplicable wealth. The functioning
of the FIU and its cooperation with the police improved in 2012. The
foundations of a new witness protection programme were laid in 2012, but
substantial budgetary allocations and capacity-building will be necessary in
this field. Kosovo is expected to adopt a new anti-corruption strategy and
action plan and has already adopted a new strategy and action plan against
organised crime. It should make a particular effort to establish a track record
of investigations, prosecutions and final court rulings in cases concerning
organised crime and corruption, including drug trafficking, trafficking in
human beings, arms trafficking and money-laundering.

The Special Prosecution plays an
important role in investigating and prosecuting serious crimes in Kosovo.
Special prosecutors include EULEX prosecutors and Kosovo public prosecutors,
with the authority and responsibility to conduct criminal investigations and
prosecute serious crimes that fall under the Special Prosecution’s exclusive[18] and subsidiary[19] competences. In 2012, the
government considered amending the competences of the Special Prosecution or
extending to all prosecutors in Kosovo the Special Prosecution’s exclusive
competence to investigate and prosecute money-laundering cases. Such reforms
should only be undertaken in the light of further experience of how the
restructured criminal justice system works in practice. The exclusive and
subsidiary competences of the Special Prosecution should be maintained. In the
context of the general review of the criminal justice system mentioned above,
Kosovo and the EU may begin a joint reflection on how best to adapt the Special
Prosecution’s competences to the restructured criminal justice system.

The legal and institutional framework to
combat the trafficking of drugs and precursors is in place. However, the
resources to implement Kosovo’s anti-drug policy are insufficient, and an
intelligence-led approach is lacking. Kosovo’s efforts to disrupt the
trafficking of heroin from Afghanistan via Turkey to EU markets, and the
trafficking of cocaine from Latin America via Montenegro and Albania to the EU,
remain inadequate. Kosovo continues to face difficulties in reducing the
cultivation and trafficking of cannabis to the EU. Drug seizures increased in
2012 but remain modest; the judicial follow-up of investigations, inadequate. Kosovo
began cooperating with the EMCDDA in 2009. Its law on drugs, psychotropic
substances and precursors incorporates international standards in the fight
against drug trafficking, as well as the preventive aspects of drug addiction. The
criminal code contains penalties for drug trafficking. The drug strategy and
action plan address demand and supply reduction. Kosovo should considerably improve
its efforts to combat drug trafficking.

The legal and institutional framework against
trafficking in human beings is under development. Kosovo remains a place
of origin and transit for victims of trafficking. The trend of trafficking
women to the EU for sexual exploitation continues. Child trafficking for the
purpose of begging and facilitated irregular migration, often using forged or
counterfeit documents, remain matters of serious concern. The new criminal code
contains provisions on trafficking in human beings and the smuggling of
migrants. It increased penalties for the trafficking of children. The police launched
a number of criminal investigations of trafficking in human beings in 2012, but
the prosecution of such crimes and convictions remain low. Although planned in the
legislative programme, the government has not yet adopted a law on trafficking
in human beings. A strategy and action plan against trafficking in human beings
is in place. However, Kosovo should considerably improve its efforts to combat
trafficking in human beings and facilitated irregular migration, including by drafting
a new law on trafficking in human beings.

The trafficking of small arms and light
weapons continues to afflict Kosovo. The criminal code contains provision
on arms trafficking, and Kosovo has a strategy and action plan against arms
trafficking. Terrorism originating in Kosovo poses a lesser threat to Kosovo
and the EU than organised crime and corruption. Kosovo has a counter-terrorism
and domestic security strategy and action plan. These strategies should be fully
implemented.

The law on the prevention of money-laundering
and terrorist financing establishes the FIU as an independent institution that
provides financial intelligence to investigative bodies in the field of
money-laundering and terrorist financing. The responsibilities of the EULEX-led
Financial Intelligence Centre have recently been transferred to Kosovo’s FIU. The
FIU’s cooperation with banks improved in 2012, with a growing number of cash
transactions reported. The government has also drafted, with assistance
provided by the EU and the Council of Europe, amendments to this law to address
concerns in four areas: national risk assessment, the criminalisation
framework, sanctions for non-compliance and international cooperation. These
amendments seek to update the law’s definitions in line with Financial Action
Task Force (FATF) recommendations; strengthen the operational independence of
the FIU; and refine the provisions on information exchange, customer due
diligence, suspicious transaction reports, supervisory responsibilities, sanctions
and casinos. The exchange of information with third countries has improved: the
FIU has concluded memoranda of understanding with seven countries.[20] Under Slovenian sponsorship,
Kosovo wishes to apply for membership of the Egmont Group of FIUs. Kosovo should
consider future amendments to its legislation on the prevention of
money-laundering and terrorist financing on specialised training and
statistical indicators and implement the relevant strategy and action plan.

Asset confiscation is regulated, to a certain extent, by the criminal code and code of
criminal procedure. The government has drafted a law establishing extended
powers for the confiscation of assets. This would enable conviction-based
confiscation and, within limits, the confiscation of accumulated wealth. The
powers of confiscation extend to assets that are not material benefits of a
criminal offence, assets acquired by a defendant who died or left Kosovo and
assets transferred to another party. In the case of a bona fide
purchase, transferred assets may not be confiscated. This draft introduces the
concept of a ‘reversed burden of proof,’ requiring defendants to prove how they
acquired their sequestered assets. An agency managing sequestered or
confiscated assets supports judicial and law enforcement authorities with the
execution of decisions on sequestering and confiscating assets. Kosovo should
adopt and implement the draft law establishing extended powers for the
confiscation of assets.

Kosovo has developed an extensive legislative
and institutional framework against corruption, including laws on the
declaration of assets by public officials, the prevention of conflicts of
interest in the public sector, whistle blowers, public procurement and
political party financing. An anti-corruption agency is in charge of
implementing the laws on the declaration of assets and the prevention of
conflicts of interest. This agency may launch preliminary investigations of
corruption, transferring to the police or prosecutors suspected corruption
cases. It has signed a memorandum of understanding with EULEX. Despite its
mandate, it can only verify the origin of assets when it suspects that they
have been acquired illegally. Its expertise in identifying and following up
corruption risks in the public sector, including via risk assessments in
vulnerable sectors, remains limited. Kosovo should consider whether additional
resources are necessary for this agency to discharge its duties.

An anti-corruption council was set up in
2012, under the aegis of the president, to improve coordination among the
various bodies involved in the fight against corruption. The Special
Prosecution has also established an anti-corruption task force, while the
police has set up a directorate against economic crime and corruption. The overlapping
roles and responsibilities of these anti-corruption bodies should be clarified.

Despite a modern public procurement law in
place, the abuse of public procurement procedures continues to be a major
problem in Kosovo. This law should be fully implemented, with any abuse
investigated and prosecuted. The law on political party financing should
be amended in a manner that prohibits or strictly regulates donations from
legal entities that also provide goods and services to the public
administration, obliges political parties to have a single bank account and
defines time limits for publishing financial reports. Kosovo’s entire
anti-corruption framework should be implemented to achieve concrete results in
the fight against corruption.

A new law on the police regulates
the duties and powers of the police. Secondary legislation, notably on the use
of force and firearms by police officers, data protection and disciplinary
measures, remains outstanding. The law on the police inspectorate regulates the
powers of the independent police inspectorate, which handles complaints and
disciplinary action and may launch criminal investigations against police
officers. Relations between the police and the police inspectorate improved in
2012, and the inspectorate also launched several new investigations in 2012. Secondary
legislation is necessary for the full implementation of the law on the police
inspectorate, which have not yet been adopted. All the necessary secondary
legislation for the law on police and the law on the police inspectorate should
be adopted and implemented.

In 2012, Kosovo drafted a law on the interception
of telecommunication, which would enable the police, the Kosovo
intelligence agency, customs and EULEX to lawfully intercept electronic
communication and to request the content, location and traffic data of
electronic communication for the purpose of law enforcement or domestic security.
Whilst the purpose and scope of the draft law appear to be in line with the
provisions of the e-Privacy directive,[21]
concerns have been raised as regards its alignment with the provisions of the Data
Retention Directive.[22]
Future legislation on interception needs to clearly distinguish between
judicial interception and interception for intelligence services, in line with
European best practices. The government should consider regulating data
retention for law enforcement purposes, notably as concerns its scope, purpose,
proportionality, data categories, data access, retention periods and legal
remedies, in line with the Data Retention Directive.

The law on witness protection was
adopted in 2011 and entered into force in 2012. It regulates the protection of
witnesses of serious crimes. It is largely in line with European best
practices, but its implementation requires secondary legislation on issues such
as a change of identity, budgetary provisions, safe house requirements and
questionnaires for victims. An international agreement for relocation, based on
the EUROPOL format, was signed in January 2013. Once operational, Kosovo’s
witness protection directorate will work alongside the EULEX witness security
programme, which is still responsible for protecting witnesses of crime under
EULEX’s mandate.

3.3.2.
Law enforcement cooperation

Kosovo has concluded police cooperation
agreements with Austria, Sweden, Croatia, Albania and the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia; agreements on combatting trafficking in human beings
with France and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; a security
cooperation with Germany; and an agreement to combat organised crime and
irregular migration with Hungary. It has customs cooperation agreements with ten
countries.[23]

Kosovo established an international law
enforcement cooperation unit (ILECU) in 2011. This unit, as elsewhere in the
Western Balkans, seeks to facilitate strategic and operational cooperation with
the law enforcement authorities of neighbouring countries and EU Member States.
As a constituent unit of the police, Kosovo’s ILECU has access to all domestic
databases. It should process personal data strictly in line with the law on
data protection. The police have also recently enabled EULEX’s access to the
police information system and border management system. Such information
sharing is likely to benefit the investigation of serious crimes in Kosovo, but
the police and EULEX should also seek to formalise the exchange of criminal
information and intelligence in a technical arrangement.

Kosovo’s strategic and operational law
enforcement cooperation with neighbouring countries and EU Member States works
on an informal basis. Law enforcement cooperation with Albania and the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is strong; relations with Serbia, via EU
facilitation, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are improving. Kosovo is planning to
deploy law enforcement liaison officers to Austria, Hungary, Germany, Sweden
and Switzerland. Kosovo should continue deepening law enforcement cooperation
with all interested neighbouring countries and EU Member States. It should
explore modalities of cooperation with EUROPOL, INTERPOL and regional law
enforcement organisations.

3.3.3.
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters

Kosovo has concluded agreements on mutual
legal assistance with Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and Turkey; agreements on extradition with the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia and Turkey; and agreements on the transfer of sentenced persons with
Belgium, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. Negotiations
with Germany, Italy and Albania on mutual legal assistance, extradition and the
transfer of sentenced persons have been completed. Kosovo has approached
another 23 states to negotiate further agreements.[24]

In addition to these bilateral agreements, the
law on international legal cooperation provides a legal basis for mutual legal
assistance with third countries. EULEX continues to act as an interface with
non-recognising states under the terms of a technical arrangement with the
ministry of justice. The law on international legal cooperation requires reciprocity
for the processing of requests for mutual legal assistance. Kosovo has sent
several requests to Serbia, but refused to process such requests from Serbia in
the absence of reciprocity.

Although not a member of the Council of
Europe, Kosovo should consider ratifying all the relevant Council of Europe
conventions in the field of mutual legal assistance. It should also explore modalities
of cooperation with EUROJUST.

3.3.4.
Data protection

The right to the protection of personal
data is safeguarded by the constitution, the law on access to official
documents and the law on personal data protection. Further data protection
rules are set out in the law on the classification of information and security
clearance. A regulation on the data protection agency and secondary legislation
on assessing the officials of the data protection authority seek to implement
this legal framework.

The data protection law regulates data
processing by public and private bodies, obligations of data controllers and
processors and the rights of data subjects. It provides sanctions for serious
violations of data protection provisions. This law largely complies with the EU
acquis, but further progress in data protection requires the
implementation of the relevant regulation and secondary legislation.

This law contains a set of restrictions on
the information to be given to data subjects, the right of access and the right
to supplement, correct or delete data. Public security constitutes such an
exception. This clause is in line with the EU acquis, but its
implementation should be monitored. Most Member States have provisions that
allow the restriction of data subjects’ right of access to their personal data
on public security grounds. The scope and possible exemptions regarding data
subjects’ rights requires further clarification.

The independence of the chief supervisor of
the data protection agency is established by the data protection law. While the
formal aspects of independence are guaranteed, these provisions must be
implemented in practice. The de facto independence of supervisors
appears appropriate: all five supervisors have been appointed and took up their
posts.

This agency has its own budget administered
independently in accordance with the data protection law. Its budget appears
appropriate, and the agency has filled most of its posts. It has established
working groups to draft regulations on the processing of personal data in
police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. A list of countries and
international organisations with an adequate level of data protection has been
approved by the data protection council. Despite insufficient staffing, it has
conducted fifty inspections and audits among public and private organisations
to assess their compliance with data protection rules.

This agency is also consulted prior to the
adoption of legislative and administrative measures relating to the processing
of personal data. It has been consulted on thirteen draft laws and regulations,
but was not consulted prior to the adoption of the law on police or the new
criminal code of procedure. In line with its mandate, this agency should be
consulted in future on all draft legislation involving the processing of
personal data.

3.4.
Block 4: Fundamental Rights related to the Freedom of Movement

Human and fundamental rights are enshrined in Kosovo’s constitution. The constitution lists the
main international agreements and instruments directly applicable in Kosovo.[25] In case of conflict, the
international agreements that Kosovo has ratified take precedence over domestic
legislation. The human and fundamental rights enshrined in these agreements are
to be interpreted in line with the decisions of the European Court of Human
Rights.

The constitution empowers individuals to
refer to the constitutional court violations of their fundamental rights. The
assembly has a committee on human rights, gender equality, missing persons and
petitions with a mandate to review all issues pertaining to human rights, to
review petitions by citizens and to oversee the implementation of laws within
its competence. Kosovo has established structures at central and municipal
level to assist with the protection, promotion and enforcement of human and
fundamental rights. A new strategy and action plan on human rights is due to be
drafted soon.

Kosovo has a solid legal framework for the
protection of human and fundamental rights. There are a large number of
institutions and authorities at different levels of government with
responsibilities relating to the implementation of such rights. Kosovo is
currently working on secondary legislation in this area, which should include
the consultation of municipal authorities.

The European Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities, which mandates the protection of persons
from threats, hostility, violence or discrimination as a result of their
ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity, is directly applicable in
Kosovo. The domestic legal framework also includes provisions urging Kosovo
institutions to protect the security and safety of minorities through, inter
alia, the law on the protection and promotion of the rights of communities
and their members and the law on the use of languages. Kosovo has a strategy
and action plan on the integration of the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian minorities,
but the situation of these minorities remains very poor. The implementation of
this strategy and action plan remains limited, mostly due to a lack of
political will and weak capacity in ministries and municipalities.

Kosovo has a legal framework guaranteeing anti-discrimination,
including a gender equality law, an anti-discrimination law, a law regarding
the employment of persons with disabilities and an ombudsman law. The
anti-discrimination law is being reviewed to strengthen its sanction mechanism.
However, there has been limited progress in the area of social inclusion,
including anti-discrimination. Combined with weak civil society activism, the
anti-discrimination law has not yet created an effective protection mechanism
against discrimination. The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite and
transsexual (LGBT) community faces stigmatisation and the threat of violence.
Despite the legislation, people with disabilities face serious problems in
accessing infrastructure, assistance, medical care, employment and protection
from discrimination. The legal framework should be enforced to ensure gender
equality in Kosovo.

The legal framework supporting minorities’
access to travel and identity documents, including civil registration, is
satisfactory, but implementation remains limited. A recent OSCE report found
that, despite municipalities’ obligation to provide
services in all official languages, individuals who belong to minorities that
are in a numerical minority in a given municipality are often unable to
communicate with civil registration officials and obtain documents in their own
language. Illiterate members of minorities face additional obstacles in completing
forms to access civil registration.[26]

Persons belonging to the Serbian minority
have raised concerns about the freedom of movement in the context of Kosovo’s
implementation of the agreement with Serbia on the freedom of movement. They
have faced delays in obtaining driving licences and vehicle registration
documents, as well as in language compliance, all of which may have an adverse
impact on the freedom of movement. The ombudsperson has taken up some of these
complaints, mostly related to the lack of implementation at municipal level.

Ethnically-motivated crime is committed against all minorities in Kosovo, including Albanians
in areas where they do not constitute a majority. There has been an increase in
ethnically-motivated crime committed against Serbian returnees, and security
for Serbs south of the river Ibar has deteriorated.

Municipal community safety councils,
chaired by local mayors and made up of members representing minorities within a
municipality, are the main local bodies mandated to address the security of
minorities. The functioning of these councils remains inconsistent, and many
municipalities have yet to establish such bodies. The government adopted a
strategy and action plan for community safety in 2011.

4.
Assessment of security and migratory impacts of
visa liberalisation
4.1.
Security impact of visa liberalisation with
Kosovo

Kosovo continues to face major challenges
in effectively preventing and combating organised crime and corruption. Criminal
activities such as the trafficking of heroin, cocaine and cannabis, facilitated
irregular migration, trafficking in human beings, arms trafficking, as well as
cigarette and fuel smuggling are widely undertaken.[27] The combination of lucrative
cross-border illicit activities, economic underdevelopment and limited
administrative capacity create considerable incentives for bribery, money-laundering
and the abuse of public procurement procedures. Despite marginal improvements
detected by the OECD[28]
and Transparency International[29]
in 2012, corruption remains a major problem in Kosovo.

Kosovo has established a legislative and
institutional framework to combat organised crime and corruption, but
cooperation between the police, customs and prosecutors in investigating and
prosecuting such crimes should further improve. Cooperation between the police
and prosecution needs to improve to ensure an increase in the number of
prosecutions following investigations and to ensure a pro-active approach to
fighting serious crime in line with the strategy and action plan on
intelligence-led policing. The investigative capacity of the police is
adequate, but that of customs should improve. Cooperation between the
prosecution and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) should improve to ensure
a pro-active approach to launching investigations into inexplicable wealth. The
functioning of the FIU and its cooperation with the police improved in 2012. The
foundations of a new witness protection programme were laid in 2012.

The resources to implement Kosovo’s
anti-drug policy are insufficient, and an intelligence-led approach is lacking.
Kosovo’s efforts to disrupt the trafficking of heroin from Afghanistan via
Turkey to EU markets, and the trafficking of cocaine from Latin America via
Montenegro and Albania to the EU, remain inadequate. Kosovo continues to face
difficulties in reducing the cultivation and trafficking of cannabis to the EU.
Drug seizures increased in 2012 but remain modest; the judicial follow-up of
investigations, inadequate.

The legal and institutional framework
against trafficking in human beings is under development. Kosovo remains a
place of origin and transit for victims of trafficking. The trend of
trafficking women to the EU for sexual exploitation continues. Child
trafficking for the purpose of begging and facilitated irregular migration,
often using forged or counterfeit documents, remain matters of serious concern.
The trafficking of small arms and light weapons continues to afflict Kosovo.

Kosovo has an extensive legislative and
institutional framework against corruption. The anti-corruption agency is in
charge of implementing the laws on the declaration of assets and the prevention
of conflicts of interest. However, its expertise in identifying and following
up corruption risks in the public sector, including via risk assessments in
vulnerable sectors, remains limited. Two other anti-corruption bodies have
overlapping roles and responsibilities in the fight against corruption, which
limits their effectiveness in this endeavour.

Despite a modern public procurement law in
place, the abuse of public procurement procedures remains a major problem in
Kosovo. The law on political party financing does not prohibit donations from
legal entities that also provide goods and services to the public
administration.

Under the current state of legislative and
institutional development, Kosovo’s capacity to effectively combat organised
crime and corruption remains limited, with a potentially severe impact on the EU’s
internal security. Compared to the threats posed by organised crime and
corruption, terrorism originating in Kosovo appears to pose a lesser threat to the
EU’s internal security.

Kosovo is encouraged to consider the
recommendations set out in this report to limit the threats posed by organised
crime and corruption to the EU’s internal security.

4.2.
Migratory impact of visa liberalisation with
Kosovo

The Commission has continued to monitor the
five performance indicators set out in the visa roadmap, namely the visa
refusal rate, the rate of refused entry to the Schengen area, the number of
illegal stays in EU Member States, the number of asylum applications and the
number of rejected readmission applications. A substantial decrease in these
performance indicators over the course of the visa dialogue will be used as an
indicative reference to assess the migratory impact of visa liberalisation with
Kosovo.

Between 2010 and 2011, the following trends
could be observed:

–
The visa refusal rate for Kosovo citizens showed
considerable variation in the Schengen area;

–
The number of Kosovo citizens refused entry to
EU Member States doubled from 315 to 645;

–
The number of Kosovo citizens found to be illegally
staying in Member States fell from 5,060 to 4,180;

–
The number of asylum applications lodged by
Kosovo citizens in Member States fell from 14,325 to 9,865, while the
recognition rate, at 6%, remained fairly stable;

–
The number of rejected and pending readmission
applications fell from 243 to 199.

Figures 6.1 to 6.6 in the Annex set out the
data underlying these observations:

–
According to current rules, all short-stay visas
issued by Member States for Kosovo citizens are visas with limited territorial
validity (LTV).[30]
The statistics submitted by Member States and Schengen Associated States in
2011 confirmed considerable variation in the Schengen area: Switzerland
(16,288), Germany (12,526), Italy (7,066) and Greece (4,083) issued the highest
number of LTV visas for Kosovo citizens;

–
The number of Kosovo citizens refused entry to
EU Member States increased from 315 to 645 between 2010 and 2011, driven by
higher figures in France and Hungary;

–
The number of Kosovo citizens found to be illegally
staying in Member States fell from 5,060 to 4,180 between 2010 and 2011.
Germany, France, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland reported the highest number of
illegal stays by Kosovo citizens;

–
The number of asylum applications lodged by
Kosovo citizens in Member States fell from 14,325 to 9,865 between 2010 and
2011. France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland continued to receive the
highest number of asylum applications from Kosovo. The recognition rate of
asylum applications, at first instance, remained fairly stable at 5.7% and 6%
in 2010 and 2011, respectively, indicating that Member States still granted a
form of international protection to applicants from Kosovo;

–
The number of rejected readmission applications
fell from 243 to 199 between 2010 and 2011.[31]
The number of pending readmission applications also fell from 1,572 to 903
between 2010 and 2011. Germany and Belgium continued to report the highest
number of rejected and pending readmission applications from Kosovo.

Kosovo is encouraged to consider the set of
recommendations set out in this report so as to mitigate the potential
migratory impact on the EU of a visa-free regime with Kosovo.

5.
Recommendations for Kosovo

Building upon the assessment in the
previous chapters on the progress made by Kosovo in fulfilling the requirements
of the visa liberalisation roadmap and without prejudice to EU Member States’
position on status, the Commission recommends that the Kosovo authorities take
appropriate action in the following areas:

5.1.
Readmission

–
Readmit from all EU Member States Kosovo
citizens, third-country nationals and stateless persons who no longer fulfil
the conditions of entry and stay in those states;

–
Implement the readmission law;

–
Continue negotiating readmission agreements with
interested Member States and the main transit countries and countries of origin
of irregular migration to Kosovo;

–
Reduce the number of pending readmission
requests from all Member States, in line with the provisions of the readmission
law or bilateral readmission agreements;

–
Improve data exchange with Member State
authorities concerning the special needs of returnees, including victims of
human trafficking;

–
Corroborate domestic readmission statistics with
those from EU Member States;

5.2.
Reintegration

–
Commit and disburse the reintegration fund;

–
Supply transparent financial data on commitments
and payments from this fund;

–
Shift the focus of the reintegration programme
from emergency to sustainable reintegration services;

–
Increase the number of beneficiaries from the
reintegration programme;

–
Enhance the role of regional coordinators and
municipal reintegration committees in financial decision-making;

–
Set up a case management system to track
returnees’ access to reintegration services;

5.3.
Document security

–
Amend the law on personal names to permit name
registrations in the Cyrillic alphabet; ensure the strict application of this
law to eliminate fraudulent name changes; verify the identity of all applicants
for name changes;

–
Amend the secondary legislation on applications
for travel documents to ensure that fingerprints are taken from all applicants above
the age of twelve;

–
Ensure the production and issuance of biometric
identity cards in full compliance with International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO) standards;

–
Put into use the new civil status system; ensure
the reliability of the single civil status central registry by improving data
quality; updating, cross-referencing and matching all data entries; eliminating
inconsistencies between databases; and strengthening audit procedures;

–
Ensure the integrity of the civil registration
process by investigating all corruption cases; implement the code of ethics;
vet and train all staff at the civil registration agency, municipal civil
status offices and municipal civil registration centres;

5.4.
Border/boundary management

–
Draft a law on inter-agency cooperation that
defines the roles and responsibilities of all public authorities involved in
integrated border/boundary management;

–
Amend the definitions and corresponding
provisions of the law on border control and surveillance and secondary
legislation in line with the Schengen Borders Code;

–
Ensure the operation of the border management
system;

–
Conclude agreements in law enforcement
cooperation with all neighbouring countries, including operational cooperation
and information sharing for the purpose of preventing and combating irregular
migration and cross-border crime;

–
Amend the IBM strategy on the basis of the 2006
Council Conclusions, the Schengen Borders Code and the Schengen Catalogue to
cover all key elements of IBM;

–
In line with the IBM Agreed Conclusions of 2
December 2011 and in a coordinated manner establish the interim and permanent
crossing points as scheduled; implement the provisions on law enforcement
information exchange, mutual legal assistance and customs information exchange;
exchange a liaison person with Serbia;

–
In coordination with Montenegro, delineate the
mutual border;

–
Explore modalities of cooperation with FRONTEX;

5.5.
Migration management

–
Amend the list of entry conditions and transport
carriers’ obligations in the law on foreigners and the law on border control
and surveillance in line with the Schengen Borders Code;

–
Amend the law on foreigners, the law on border
control and surveillance and the corresponding secondary legislation so that
visa issuance at border/boundary-crossing points is in line with the Visa Code;

–
Harmonise the provisions of the law on
foreigners and the law on granting a permit for work and employment on work
permits and stay permits;

–
Amend the law on foreigners so that is
provisions meet the essential elements of the EU acquis on legal and
irregular migration;

–
In line with the data protection law, amend the
law on foreigners to regulate authorities’ processing of, access to and sharing
of data on migration and asylum;

–
Complete the new migration strategy involving
all competent stakeholders, including by developing a migration profile for
Kosovo;

5.6.
Asylum

–
Amend the law on asylum so that its provisions
comply with essential elements of the EU acquis on asylum and the Geneva
Convention;

–
Investigate allegations of corruption in the
management of asylum facilities and rental accommodation for returnees;

–
Explore modalities of cooperation with EASO;

5.7.
Preventing and combating organised crime,
corruption and terrorism

–
Implement the reform of the criminal justice
system in a manner that improves the independence, effectiveness,
accountability and impartiality of the judiciary, including by devoting
sufficient resources to operating the new court system;

–
Prevent political interference in the
investigation, prosecution and adjudication of crimes; ensure the transparent
recruitment, vetting and appointment of judges and prosecutors; enforce
disciplinary action in all corruption cases in the judiciary;

–
Reduce the backlog of pending court cases;

–
Clarify the provisions of the criminal code
concerning corruption offences; align its provisions on the expulsion of
foreigners with the law on foreigners; incorporate in the provisions on
criminal records information exchange with third countries;

–
Clarify several provisions of the code of
criminal procedure, including its transitional provisions and those on pre-trial
witness testimony so as not to curtail the admissibility of evidence;

–
Consider conducting a general review of the functioning
of the restructured criminal justice system in the second half of 2013,
including an assessment of the implementation of the new law on courts, the new
law on prosecution, the new criminal code and the new code of criminal
procedure;

–
Establish a track record of investigations,
prosecutions and final court rulings in cases concerning organised crime and
corruption, including drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, arms
trafficking and money-laundering;

–
Maintain the exclusive and subsidiary competences
of the Special Prosecution;

–
Consider future amendments to the legislation on
the prevention of money-laundering and terrorist financing on specialised
training and statistical indicators;

–
Adopt the draft law establishing extended powers
for the confiscation of assets;

–
Draft a law on trafficking in human beings;

–
Implement the law on public procurement;

–
Amend the law on political party financing in a
manner that strictly regulates donation rules and clarifies the reporting
obligations of political parties;

–
Adopt the secondary legislation necessary for
implementing the law on the police and the law on the police inspectorate;

–
Ensure that future legislation on interception
distinguishes clearly between judicial interception and interception for
intelligence services, in line with European best practices, while the provisions
on data retention for law enforcement purposes comply with the EU acquis
on data retention;

–
Adopt the secondary legislation necessary for implementing
the law on witness protection; implement the international agreement for
witness relocation;

–
Clarify the roles and responsibilities of all
anti-corruption bodies in Kosovo; consider whether additional resources are
necessary for the anti-corruption agency to discharge its duties;

–
Implement all strategies and action plans in the
field of public order and security, including the new strategies and action
plan against organised crime and corruption;

5.8.
Law enforcement cooperation

–
Conclude law enforcement cooperation agreements
with interested neighbouring countries and EU Member States, potentially covering
the exchange of strategic and operational data, including criminal records, in
line with data protection rules;

–
Step up operational law enforcement cooperation
with interested neighbouring countries and EU Member States;

–
Consider concluding a technical arrangement with
EULEX on the exchange of criminal information and intelligence;

–
Explore modalities of cooperation with EUROPOL,
INTERPOL and regional law enforcement cooperation organisations;

5.9.
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters

–
Amend the law on international legal cooperation
in line with the relevant EU acquis and Council of Europe conventions; consider
ratifying all the relevant Council of Europe conventions in the area of mutual
legal assistance in criminal matters;

–
Conclude agreements on mutual legal assistance
in criminal matters with interested neighbouring statues and EU Member States;

–
Explore modalities of cooperation with EUROJUST;

5.10.
Data protection

–
Clarify the scope of restrictions applying to
data subjects’ right of access to and their right to supplement, correct or
delete personal data;

–
Implement the data protection law and its
secondary legislation;

–
Implement the provisions of the data protection
law guaranteeing the independence of the chief supervisor of the data
protection agency;

–
Ensure that the data protection agency is
consulted on all future draft legislation concerning the processing of personal
data;

5.11.
Fundamental rights related to the freedom of
movement

–
Amend the anti-discrimination law to strengthen
its sanction mechanism; enforce the anti-discrimination framework for women, members
of the LGBT community and people with disabilities;

–
Amend the law on foreigners to enhance the
socio-economic integration of refugees; amend the law on citizenship to ease
refugees’ acquisition of citizenship;

–
Draft a new strategy and action plan on human
and fundamental rights;

–
Implement and enforce the strategy and action
plan on the integration of the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian minorities;

–
Implement in coordination with Serbia the
agreement on the freedom of movement;

–
Investigate and prosecute all
ethnically-motivated crimes;

–
Ensure the functioning of municipal community
safety councils throughout Kosovo.

6.
Statistics
6.1.
Applications for short-term Schengen visas in
Prishtinë/Prishtina, Kosovo, 2010-2011

Year || Visa category || Belgium || Germany || Greece || Finland || Hungary || Italy || Slovenia || Switzerland || Norway || Total

2010 || A visas issued || - || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0

B visas issued || 1 || 1 || 19 || - || 10 || 2 || 1 || - || 0 || 34

C visas issued (MEV included) || 2,128 || 13,283 || 5,099 || 17 || 2,767 || 345 || 2,493 || 3,147 || 532 || 29,811

Multiple C visas issued || 726 || 1,214 || - || 52 || 1,834 || 2,357 || 2,482 || - || 69 || 8,734

C visas applied for || 2,942 || 17,079 || 5,477 || 742 || 3,968 || 1,038 || 3,073 || 4,668 || 759 || 39,746

Total A, B, C visas issued || 2,129 || 13,284 || 5,118 || 17 || 2,777 || 347 || 2,494 || 3,147 || 532 || 29,845

Total A, B, C visas applied for || 2,945 || 17,080 || 5,496 || 742 || 3,981 || 1,040 || 3,073 || 4,668 || 759 || 39,784

Total A, B, C visas not issued || 816 || 3,796 || 378 || 725 || 1,175 || 693 || 579 || 1,521 || 227 || 9,910

Not issued rate for A, B, C visas || 27.71% || 22.22% || 6.88% || 97.71% || 29.52% || 66.63% || 18.84% || 32.58% || 29.91% || 24.91%

Total LTV visas issued || 5 || 11,629 || 3,749 || 563 || 8 || 4,301 || 3 || 12,305 || 519 || 33,082

D visas issued || 135 || 3,585 || 39 || - || 160 || 3,087 || 35 || 2,481 || 17 || 9,539

“D+C” visas issued || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || 3 || 0 || 3

Total A, B, C, LTV, D, “D+C” visas issued || 2,269 || 28,498 || 8,906 || 580 || 2,945 || 7,735 || 2,532 || 17,936 || 1,068 || 72,469

Rate LTV visas issued / B+C visas issued || 0.23% || 87.54% || 73.25% || 3311.76% || 0.29% || 1239.48% || 0.12% || 391.01% || 97.56% || 110.8%

2011 || A visas issued || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

C visas issued (MEV included) || 1,647 || 1,281 || 565 || 7 || 2,937 || 258 || 2,804 || 416 || 637 || 10,552

Multiple C visas issued || 436 || 1,063 || 190 || 92 || 1,786 || 258 || 2,790 || 174 || 101 || 6,890

C visas applied for || 2,735 || 6,170 || 725 || 916 || 4,152 || 2,037 || 3,884 || 5,099 || 820 || 26,538

C visas not issued || 1,088 || 4,889 || 160 || 909 || 1,215 || 1,779 || 1,080 || 4,683 || 183 || 15,986

Total A, C visas issued || 1,647 || 1,281 || 565 || 7 || 2,937 || 258 || 2,804 || 416 || 637 || 10,552

Total A, C visas applied for || 2,735 || 6,170 || 725 || 916 || 4,152 || 2,037 || 3,884 || 5,099 || 820 || 26,538

Total A, C visas not issued || 1,088 || 4,889 || 160 || 909 || 1,215 || 1,779 || 1,080 || 4,683 || 183 || 15,986

Not issued rate for A, C visas || 39.78% || 79.24% || 22.07% || 99.24% || 29.26% || 87.33% || 27.81% || 91.84% || 22.32% || 60.2%

Total LTV visas issued || - || 12,526 || 4,083 || 769 || 1 || 7,066 || - || 16,288 || 630 || 41,343

Total A, C, LTV visas issued || 1,647 || 13,807 || 4,648 || 776 || 2,938 || 7,324 || 2,804 || 16,684 || 1,267 || 51,895

Rate LTV visas issued / C visas issued || 0.00% || 977.83% || 722.65% || 10,985.71% || 0.03% || 2,738.76% || 0.00% || 3910,58% || 98.90% || 391.8%

Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for
Home Affairs

6.2.
Kosovo citizens refused entry at the Schengen
external borders, 2009-2011

Member State or Associated State || 2009 || 2010 || 2011

Belgium || 0 || 5 || 40

Bulgaria || 45 || 70 || 50

Czech Republic || 5 || 0 || 5

Denmark || 0 || 0 || 0

Germany || 45 || 60 || 50

Estonia || 0 || 0 || 0

Ireland || 5 || 0 || 5

Greece || 140 || 90 || 75

Spain || 0 || 0 || 0

France || 70 || 30 || 280

Italy || 0 || 20 || 35

Cyprus || 0 || 0 || 0

Latvia || 0 || 0 || 0

Lithuania || 0 || 0 || 0

Luxembourg || 0 || - || 0

Hungary || 5 || 10 || 85

Malta || 0 || 0 || 0

Netherlands || 5 || 0 || 5

Austria || 15 || 10 || 15

Poland || 0 || 0 || 0

Portugal || 0 || 0 || 0

Romania || 0 || - || 0

Slovenia || 0 || 0 || 0

Slovakia || 0 || 0 || 0

Finland || 0 || 0 || 0

Sweden || 0 || 0 || 0

United Kingdom || 50 || 20 || 0

Iceland || 0 || - || -

Liechtenstein || 10 || 5 || 0

Norway || 0 || 0 || 0

Switzerland || 40 || 45 || 45

Total (EU-27) || 385 || 315 || 645

Average (EU-27) || 14 || 13 || 24

Standard deviation (EU-27) || 31 || 24 || 56

Source: EUROSTAT and DG Home Affairs calculation

6.3.
Kosovo citizens found to be illegally present in
EU Member States, 2009-2011

Member State or Associated State || 2009 || 2010 || 2011

Belgium || 75 || 90 || 250

Bulgaria || 10 || 20 || 5

Czech Republic || 10 || 15 || 20

Denmark || 0 || 5 || 0

Germany || 1,605 || 1,935 || 1,715

Estonia || 0 || 0 || 0

Ireland || 50 || 35 || 15

Greece || 45 || 30 || 25

Spain || 0 || 0 || 0

France || 835 || 575 || 630

Italy || 5 || 40 || 15

Cyprus || 0 || 0 || 0

Latvia || 0 || 0 || 0

Lithuania || 0 || 0 || 0

Luxembourg || 75 || 80 || -

Hungary || 20 || 20 || 50

Malta || 0 || 0 || 0

Netherlands || 25 || 20 || 20

Austria || 1,390 || 740 || 530

Poland || 0 || 5 || 10

Portugal || 0 || 0 || 0

Romania || 0 || 0 || 0

Slovenia || 0 || 0 || 0

Slovakia || 0 || 0 || 0

Finland || 250 || 0 || 0

Sweden || - || 1,335 || 810

United Kingdom || 185 || 115 || 85

Iceland || 0 || - || -

Liechtenstein || - || 0 || -

Norway || 0 || - || 0

Switzerland || 0 || 0 || 1,285

Total (EU-27) || 4,580 || 5,060 || 4,180

Average (EU-27) || 176 || 187 || 161

Standard deviation (EU-27) || 417 || 451 || 376

Source: EUROSTAT and DG Home Affairs calculation

6.4.
Asylum applications lodged by Kosovo citizens,
2009-2011

Member State or Associated State || 2009 || 2010 || 2011

Belgium || 2,515 || 3,230 || 2,320

Bulgaria || 0 || 0 || 0

Czech Republic || 20 || 5 || 5

Denmark || 120 || 160 || 135

Germany || 1,900 || 2,205 || 1,885

Estonia || 0 || 0 || 0

Ireland || 30 || 15 || 10

Greece || 10 || 0 || 0

Spain || 0 || 0 || 0

France || 4,580 || 5,285 || 3,240

Italy || 290 || 300 || 110

Cyprus || 0 || 0 || 0

Latvia || 0 || 0 || 0

Lithuania || 0 || 0 || 0

Luxembourg || 130 || 160 || 140

Hungary || 1,785 || 380 || 210

Malta || 0 || 0 || 0

Netherlands || 45 || 60 || 30

Austria || 1,305 || 610 || 340

Poland || 0 || 0 || 0

Portugal || 0 || 0 || 0

Romania || 0 || 0 || 0

Slovenia || 30 || 20 || 20

Slovakia || 0 || 0 || 0

Finland || 240 || 140 || 75

Sweden || 1,235 || 1,715 || 1,320

United Kingdom || 40 || 40 || 25

Iceland || 0 || 0 || 0

Liechtenstein || 5 || 5 || 20

Norway || 0 || 245 || 145

Switzerland || 695 || 600 || 660

Total (EU-27) || 14,275 || 14,325 || 9,865

Average (EU-27) || 529 || 531 || 365

Standard deviation (EU-27) || 1,053 || 1,206 || 812

Source: EUROSTAT and DG Home Affairs calculation

6.5.
First instance decisions on asylum applications
lodged by Kosovo citizens, 2009-2011

Member State or Associated State || Total decisions || Positive decisions || Recognition rate

2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011

Belgium || 1,065 || 1,820 || 2,760 || 115 || 140 || 240 || 10.8% || 7.7% || 8.7%

Bulgaria || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Czech Republic || 20 || 10 || 0 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 25% || 0 || 0

Denmark || 70 || 150 || 140 || 15 || 35 || 25 || 21.4% || 23.3% || 17.9%

Germany || 1,355 || 2,255 || 1.850 || 75 || 90 || 50 || 5.5% || 4% || 2.7%

Estonia || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Ireland || 30 || 15 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Greece || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Spain || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

France || 2,460 || 3,480 || 3.395 || 110 || 105 || 100 || 4.5% || 3% || 2.9%

Italy || 255 || 335 || 220 || 75 || 80 || 95 || 29.4% || 23.9% || 43.2%

Cyprus || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Latvia || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Lithuania || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Luxembourg || - || 90 || 90 || - || 5 || 5 || 0 || 5.6% || 5.6%

Hungary || 650 || 85 || 135 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Malta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Netherlands || 25 || 55 || 35 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 20 || 0 || 0

Austria || 1,115 || 665 || 365 || 80 || 70 || 35 || 7.2% || 10.5% || 9.6%

Poland || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Portugal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Romania || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Slovenia || 25 || 25 || 20 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 40% || 0 || 0

Slovakia || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Finland || 85 || 215 || 85 || 10 || 15 || 5 || 11.8% || 7% || 5.9%

Sweden || 1,300 || 975 || 1.200 || 105 || 35 || 50 || 8.1% || 3.6% || 4.2%

United Kingdom || 45 || 40 || 20 || 15 || 5 || 10 || 33.3% || 12.5% || 50%

Iceland || - || 0 || 0 || - || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Liechtenstein || 5 || 0 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Norway || 0 || 245 || 125 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Switzerland || 245 || 370 || 255 || 45 || 80 || 55 || 18.4% || 21.6% || 21.6%

Total (EU-27) || 8,500 || 10,215 || 10,325 || 620 || 580 || 615 || 7.3% || 5.7% || 6%

Average (EU-27) || 315 || 378 || 382 || 23 || 21 || 23 || || ||

Standard deviation (EU-27) || 602 || 822 || 867 || 39 || 39 || 51 || || ||

Source: DG HOME calculation based on EUROSTAT data

6.6.
Readmission applications processed by Kosovo,
2009-2011

Year || Member State or Associated State || Total readmission applications || Rejected applications || Pending applications || Returns

2009 || Belgium || 58 || 12 || 14 || 32

Bulgaria || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Germany || 2,385 || 91 || 1,753 || 541

France || 500 || 24 || 0 || 476

Italy || 80 || - || 3 || 77

Hungary || - || - || || 133

Austria || - || - || || 234

Slovenia || 85 || - || 10 || 75

Slovakia || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Norway || - || - || || 125

Switzerland || 403 || 35 || 0 || 368

Total || 3,511 || 162 || 1,780 || 2,061

2010 || Belgium || 61 || 3 || 18 || 40

Bulgaria || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Czech Republic || 7 || 0 || 0 || 7

Germany || 2,339 || 197 || 1,536 || 606

France || 522 || 21 || 4 || 497

Italy || 65 || - || 1 || 64

Hungary || - || - || || 60

Austria || - || - || || 253

Slovenia || 68 || - || 13 || 55

Slovakia || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Norway || - || - || || 103

Switzerland || 419 || 22 || 0 || 397

Total || 3,481 || 243 || 1,572 || 2,082

2011 || Belgium || 365 || 17 || 50 || 298

Bulgaria || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Czech Republic || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1

Germany || 1,483 || 155 || 832 || 496

France || 372 || 9 || 9 || 354

Italy || 77 || - || 2 || 75

Hungary || - || - || || 62

Austria || - || - || || 140

Slovenia || 35 || - || 10 || 25

Slovakia || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Norway || - || - || || 100

Switzerland || 259 || 18 || 0 || 241

Total || 2,592 || 199 || 903 || 1,792

2012 || Belgium || 355 || 14 || 104 || 237

Germany || 691 || 80 || 302 || 309

Greece || 21 || 0 || 0 || 21

France || 226 || 10 || 8 || 208

Italy || 39 || - || 0 || 39

Hungary || - || - || || 64

Netherlands || 18 || 1 || 7 || 10

Austria || - || - || || 94

Slovenia || 15 || - || 8 || 7

Sweden || 489 || 15 || 0 || 474

Norway || - || - || || 50

Switzerland || 225 || 11 || 0 || 214

Total || 2,079 || 131 || 429 || 1,253

Source: EU Member States and Associated States

*               This designation is without prejudice to positions on
status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/99 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo
declaration of independence.

[1]               Austria, the BENELUX states (in a joint agreement),
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Malta,
Slovenia, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Albania and Montenegro have concluded
readmission agreements with Kosovo.

[2]               Kosovo has initialled readmission agreements with
Estonia and Croatia and initiated negotiations with Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and Turkey.

[3]               Reintegration is also supported by the strategy for
communities and return and the strategy for the integration of the Roma,
Ashkali and Egyptian communities.

[4]               Such municipal offices for communities and return are
still missing in three of Kosovo’s 38 municipalities.

[5]               These standards are set out in ICAO Document 9303
(Part 1) of Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention.

[6]               These standards are set out in ICAO Document 9303
(Part 3) of Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention.

[7]               Schengen Borders Code (Regulation 562/2006)

[8]               Local Border Traffic Regulation (Regulation
1931/2006)

[9]               Schengen Borders Code (Regulation 562/2006); Council
conclusions of 4-5 December 2006; Schengen Catalogue on External Border
Control, Return and Readmission

[10]             Kosovo has a customs cooperation agreement with
Montenegro and a police cooperation agreement with Croatia.

[11]             Single Permit Directive (Directive 2011/98/EU);
Directive on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for studies
and training (Directive 2004/114/EC); Directive on admitting third-country
nationals for research (Directive 2005/71/EC); Directive on the right to family
reunification (Directive 2003/86/EC); Directive on long-term residents
(Directive 2003/109/EC); Directive on the residence permit issued to
third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who
have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who
cooperate with the competent authorities (Directive 2004/81/EC)

[12]             Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC); Directive on
assistance in case of removal by air (Directive 2003/110/EC); Directive
providing for minimum standards for sanctions against employers of illegally
staying third-country nationals (Directive 2009/52/EC)

[13]             The citizens of EU Member States do not require visas
under Kosovo’s planned new visa regime.

[14]             Visa Code (Regulation 810/2009)

[15]             Directive defining the facilitation of unauthorised
entry, transit and residence (Directive 2002/90/EC)

[16]             Directive on reception conditions for asylum-seekers
(Directive 2003/9/EC), the Qualification Directive (Directive 2004/83/EC and
Recast Directive 2011/95/EC), the Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive
2005/85/EC) and the Temporary Protection Directive (Directive 2001/55/EC)

[17]             cf. European Court of Auditors, European Union
Assistance to Kosovo Related to the Rule of Law, Special Report No. 18, 2012

[18]             Exclusive competences include the investigation and
prosecution of, inter alia, terrorism, war crimes, organised crime and
money-laundering.

[19]             Subsidiary competences include the investigation and
prosecution of, inter alia, the smuggling of migrants, trafficking in
human beings, drug trafficking, unlawful gambling, tax evasion, weapons
trafficking, the abuse of office, bribery and fraud in office.

[20]             These countries include the following: Slovenia,
Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, San
Marino and Turkey.

[21]             Directive 2002/58/EC, Article 15(1)

[22]             Directive 2006/24/EC

[23]             These countries include the following: Bulgaria, the
Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Switzerland,
Canada, the United States and Saudi Arabia.

[24]             These countries include the following: Austria,
Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Croatia, Switzerland, Norway and Turkey.

[25]             These instruments include the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; the European Convention on Human Rights and its
Protocols; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its
Protocols; the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of
National Minorities; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination; and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women; the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Kosovo
is a member of neither the UN nor the Council of Europe.

[26]             OSCE, Access to civil registration in Kosovo, Pristina,
July 2012

[27]             EUROPOL, EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment, 28 April
2011

[28]             OECD, Support for Improvement in Governance and
Management, Kosovo Assessment, March 2012

[29]             In Transparency International’s Corruption Perception
Index (CPI), Kosovo ranked lowest in the Western Balkans in 2010 and 2011, but
overtook Albania in 2012.

[30]             A short stay visa with limited territorial validity
(‘LTV’) entitles the holder to stay only in the Member State(s) for which the
visa is valid. A LTV visa may be issued in cases where the traveller does not
fulfil all the entry conditions, when at least one Member State does not
recognise the travel document on which the visa will be affixed or when, for
reasons of urgency, a visa is issued without carrying out, when applicable, the
prior consultation.

[31]             The sample of Member States and Schengen Associated States,
as set out in Figure 6.6, included the following: Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria,
Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland.