EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.4.2019 SWD(2018) 273 final/2 This document corrects document SWD(2018)273 final of 31.5.2018.

Wrong hyperlinks in page 4 and 13 footnotes.

The text shall read as follows: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a



COUNCIL DIRECTIVE establishing an EU Emergency Travel Document and repealing Decision 96/409/CFSP {COM(2018) 358 final}



{SEC(2018) 263 final}



{SWD(2018) 272 final}



TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY 1.Introduction: Political and legal context 2.Problem definition7 2.1What are the problems and their drivers?7 2.2How will the problem evolve? 3.Why should the EU act? 3.1Legal basis14 3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 3.3Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 4.Objectives: What is to be achieved? 4.1General objectives15 4.2Specific objectives15 5.What are the available policy options? 5.1What is the baseline from which options are assessed?16 5.2Description of the policy options16 5.3Options discarded at an early stage26

6.What are the impacts of the policy options? 6.1Impacts from Policy Option 130 6.2Impacts from Policy Option 230 6.3Impacts from Policy Option 338 7.How do the options compare? 8.Preferred option 8.1.REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 9.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? ANNEX 1: Procedural information ANNEX 2: Stakeholder consultation ANNEX 3: Who is affected and how? ANNEX 4: Analytical methods GLOSSARY Term or acronym Meaning or definition Consular Protection Directive Directive (EU) 2015/637 DOVID Diffractive optically variable image device (holographic element) EEAS European External Action Service ETD Emergency Travel Document is a temporary travel document issued to a citizen when his or her passport or travel document has been lost, stolen or destroyed or is temporarily unavailable. This can include both national ETD and the European Format ETD (as provided for in Decision 96/409/CFSP) EU ETD ETD issued to EU unrepresented citizen on the basis of a common format provided for in Decision 96/409/CFSP EU ETD Decision Decision 96/409/CFSP EUR/€ Euro Member States Member States of the European Union MRTD Machine Readable Travel Document PKI Public Key Infrastructure TEC Treaty Establishing the European Community

1.Introduction: Political and legal context The right to equal treatment regarding consular protection is one of the specific rights granted by the Treaties to EU citizens on the basis of their EU citizenship. This right is set out in Articles 20(2)c and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is further spelled out in an EU Directive on consular protection for unrepresented European citizens living or travelling outside the EU, which was adopted on 20 April 2015 and will enter into application on 1 May 2018. On the basis of this right, European citizens are entitled to seek help from the embassy or consulate of any other EU Member State if they find themselves in a situation where they need advice or assistance outside the EU, with no embassy or consulate from their own country to help them (if they are "unrepresented"). Decision 96/409/CFSP introduced the EU common format Emergency Travel Document (hereafter, "EU ETD") to be issued by Member States to unrepresented EU citizens in third countries. EU emergency travel documents are documents being issued such citizens when their passport or travel document has been lost, stolen or destroyed or is temporarily unavailable. EU ETDs are issued in relatively small numbers , but they constitute the most frequent type of assistance provided by Member States to unrepresented EU citizens in distress in third countries and are indispensable in helping these citizens return safely home. Issuing EU ETDs is a type of assistance which normally (outside the EU) cannot be substituted by any other type of assistance, as holding a travel document is a prerequisite for travelling back to and crossing the external borders of the EU. European citizens can thus rely in third countries on the protection deriving from their status as European citizens. This right is an expression of EU solidarity and of the identity of the European Union in third countries, as well as one of the practical benefits of being an EU citizen. It fully aligns with the priorities of the Commission of bringing the EU closer to its citizens. Twenty years on, as the evaluation report accompanying this Impact Assessment shows, there is fragmentation amongst EU Member States in the application of Decision 96/409/CFSP by the Member States. Furthermore, important changes that have taken place since 1996 in the EU acquis on unrepresented citizens' right to consular protection and the global security environment, including improvements to the security of travel documents, are not reflected in this Decision. This Impact Assessment assesses possible policy options to address the difficulties unrepresented citizens face when exercising their right to consular protection in the area of emergency travel documents. It is based on the findings of an external study, public and stakeholder consultations and other sources. Political context The EU common format emergency travel document was established by Member States in 1996 both to provide genuine help to unrepresented EU citizens in distress and to demonstrate the practical benefits of being a citizen of the Union. The EU ETD adds an external dimension to the concept of Union citizenship and strengthens the idea of European solidarity and the identity of the Union in third countries. On 18 January 2011, the Council invited the European Commission to make a proposal for a new European ETD containing security features in line with current practices. In 2012, in its communication Consular protection for EU citizens in third countries: State of play and way forward , the Commission acknowledged that consideration should be given to a possible update of the format of ETDs. In parallel, the International Civil Aviation Organisation ( www.icao.int ) worked on Guidance on Emergency Travel Documents, including principles for recommended practice. The Guidance was published in May 2016 containing an explicit reference to the EU ETD . During their presidencies of the Council, both Lithuania and Luxemburg initiated work in the Competent Working Group of the Council (COCON) regarding the EU ETDs.

More recently, in its Communication entitled “Enhancing security in a world of mobility: improved information exchange in the fight against terrorism and stronger external borders”, the Commission committed to "by December 2016, adopt an Action Plan on document security, as well as to explore enhanced security features for Emergency Travel Documents” . By enhancing the security features of the EU ETD, the risk of counterfeiting and forgery would be reduced, thereby combating fraud as well as the misuse of travel documents. In turn, this should support the fight against terrorism and organised crime. On 8 December 2016, The Commission published the "Action plan to strengthen the European response to travel document fraud". On the basis of the Action plan, the Council adopted, in March 2017, Council Conclusions highlighting the crucial importance of secured travel and identity documents and called the Commission to ensure appropriate follow-up. In the 2017 Citizenship Report, the Commission committed to "in 2017 assess how to modernise the rules on emergency travel documents for unrepresented EU citizens, including the security features of the EU common format, to guarantee that citizens can effectively exercise their right to consular protection". On this basis, the Council adopted in May 2017 Council Conclusions highlighting the importance of secured travel and identity documents and called the commission to ensure appropriate follow-up. The Council in its Conclusions adopted in June 2017 on the 2017 Citizenship Report invited the Commission to "strengthen the security of citizens through continuing to support implementation of the European Agenda on Security and to improve where necessary the security of identity, residence and travel documents." The European Parliament in its resolution adopted at the end of 2017 on the 2017 Citizenship Report called on the Commission "to make a proposal for a new, more secure format for an EU emergency travel document for unrepresented EU citizens outside the EU whose passport has been stolen, lost, destroyed or is temporarily unavailable, in order to guarantee that they can return home safely." The Commission has announced in its work programme for 2018 that it would consider a proposal for a Council Directive to replace the Decision on the establishment of an emergency travel document. Legal context The existing applicable legal instrument is the Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council of 25 June 1996 (Decision 96/409/CFSP) on the establishment of an emergency travel document, which defines the common format for such EU ETDs, the circumstances under which they should be issued and their security features. This Decision was adopted under the legal regime prior to the Lisbon Treaty, where Member States had to establish among themselves the necessary rules to ensure equal treatment on consular protection. Two succinct sui generis decisions were adopted, the one on ETDs and Decision 95/535/EC on consular protection, which has since been repealed and replaced by the Directive on consular protection adopted in 2015 on the basis of Article 23 TFEU. The Treaty of Lisbon abandoned the previous logic of intergovernmental sui generis decision-making and empowered the Commission to initiate legislation on the coordination and cooperation measures necessary to facilitate the right to equal treatment on consular protection. The Treaty took into account the increased need for a European dimension for consular protection by reinforcing and clarifying the capacity of the Union to act. By doing so, it reinforced the status of Union citizenship and strengthened the rights derived from it. Article 23 TFEU now provides for the adoption of directives establishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union. Article 23 TFEU confers to the Commission the right to initiate legislative proposals, i.e. directives establishing cooperation and coordination measures necessary to facilitate the right to consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. Such legislative proposals are, following consultation of the European Parliament, subject to qualified majority voting in the Council. Furthermore, the right to protection by consular and diplomatic authorities as enshrined in Article 23 TFEU is subject to judicial review. The provisions of Part Two of the TFEU are under full review of the European Court of Justice. Also national courts have to apply Article 23 TFEU as any other provision of Union law . In this context the Council approved on 20 April 2015 a Directive “on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries” (the Consular Protection Directive), which lays down the coordination and cooperation measures necessary to facilitate the exercise of the right of EU citizens to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State. The Consular Protection Directive provides a general framework of coordination and cooperation measures applicable to all types of assistance provided by the Member States to unrepresented citizens in third countries. Article 9 of the Directive expressly mentions among the types of assistance included in the scope of consular protection the need for emergency travel documents as provided for in Decision 96/409/CFSP. The Consular Protection Directive shall be transposed by 1 May 2018. Any update of the Decision 96/409/CFSP in the form of a new Directive would therefore particularise and complement the Consular Protection Directive concerning consular protection by means of an EU ETD. Finally, in line with Article 35 of the Treaty on the European Union and as reflected in the Directive on consular protection, Union delegations, in close cooperation with the diplomatic and consular missions of the Member States, contribute to the implementation of the right of union citizens to consular protection . 2.Problem definition 1.1.What are the problems and their drivers? This Impact Assessment has been undertaken following the request of the Council to the Commission to “make a proposal for the production of a new European Emergency Travel Document that contains security features in line with current practices, updating the features described in Decision 96/409/CFSP”. More recently, in 2017, the Council adopted two set of Council Conclusions recognising the importance of secured travel and identity documents and calling on the Commission to ensure proper follow-up. This request was recently echoed by the European Parliament in its Resolution on the 2017 EU citizenship report . In line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, citizenship of the Union should be the fundamental status of EU citizens when exercising their rights under the Treaties. Citizens should be able to make use of their rights with legal certainty. This is not the case currently, since Decision 96/409/CFSP, as an inter-governmental Decision, is not enforceable and does not allow the Commission to perform its role of monitoring and instigating an action against Member States for breaching the rules if necessary. In addition, the wording of the very short Decision is ambiguous on the scope of the legal obligation for Member States to make use of the common format.





Box 21: Lack of enforceability JG, an EU citizen of Member State A was attacked and robbed on her first day of holiday in third country B, where her Member State is not represented. Amongst her stolen possessions were her passport and ID card. She called Member State A's nearest representation abroad to ask for assistance, but was told to call the embassy of another neighbouring country. With no response from them, she turned to her family for help. She was told to contact a certain EU Member State's embassy which should provide consular protection, but was denied any assistance. She then tried another 6 embassies and consulates in order to obtain an ETD – alas without success. She then again called her own Member State's representation in a neighbouring country and spoke with a member of staff that facilitated the procedure by directly contacting one of the embassies in third country B that JG had already turned to. (Report by a citizen submitted during the public consultation) Neither the Commission nor the Court of Justice is empowered to enforce the specific provisions of Decision 96/409/CFSP. At the same time, the Commission and the Court of Justice are competent as regards the Treaty provisions on consular protection and the Consular Protection Directive that will enter into application in May 2018. This creates issues of legal uncertainty. Overall, the evaluation found that the issuance of EU ETDs has been effective in providing genuine help to EU citizens in distress in third countries and provided a practical demonstration of the benefits of EU citizenship. EU ETDs are expected to remain relevant in the future. However, there is room to improve the implementation of the EU ETD Decision, to ensure its consistency with the Consular Protection Directive, which will enter into application very soon, and to improve the security of the EU ETD format in a context of changing security needs. This impact assessment addresses the key problems identified by the evaluation, which are outlined and elaborated below. The evaluation conducted has revealed a fragmented approach regarding the use of EU ETDs, lacking the necessary clarity for citizens and stakeholders. Three Member States are not issuing the EU ETD due to concerns regarding its security features. The problem of non-issuance is aggravated because the three countries in question (UK, Germany and France) are the Member States with the highest level of consular representation in third countries. Instead of using the harmonised EU format, these countries issue national ETDs, arguing that their security features surpass those of the EU ETD . Another issue is the security of the documents used. Document fraud is seen as an enabler of terrorism and organised crime, and is linked to the trafficking of human beings and migrant smuggling. However, the evaluation has revealed that very limited information and data are being gathered by national and international authorities on forgery of the EU ETD. Consultation with the Member States competent authorities, Interpol, Frontex and border police seems to suggest that at the moment the problem remains limited in scope, although this may be due to the low numbers of EU ETD issued annually in comparison with emergency and non-emergency passports. However, recent discoveries (see box below), developments regarding other travel documents, including ID cards, and recently published international guidance by the ICAO give cause for concern that the EU ETD, in its current form, does not have a sufficient level of security features. The current format ETD has indeed little protection against fraud and counterfeits. Box 22: EU ETD and counterfeit passports Since July 2017, EU Member States authorities have discovered a few counterfeited ePassports allegedly issued by other EU Member States containing a paper watermark that appears to be the same as the one used in EU Emergency Travel Document. The investigation is ongoing, but it demonstrates that the 'weak link' of ETDs may have already been targeted by criminal networks trafficking in false documents and that the security features should be increased. (Report by a Member State) Therefore, improving security features is not only important for meeting the standards expected by the Member States, but will also enhance the future-proofing of the document and contribute to the wider goal of EU security, as EU ETDs can be used by a European citizen to travel to his or her country of origin, his or her country of permanent residence or exceptionally to another destination. Apart from lack of enforceability, other areas generating legal uncertainty are inconsistencies between the EU ETD Decision and the Consular Protection Directive, which explicitly refers to EU ETDs as a type of consular assistance provided to unrepresented citizens. These inconsistencies include key concepts such as “absence of representation” and Member State “clearance”. Under the Consular Protection Directive, absence of representation has been further defined to ensure "the effectiveness of the right of unrepresented citizens to be protected by another Member State's embassy or consulate in a non-discriminatory way, taking into account the circumstances of each particular case." According to the Directive, a European citizen is unrepresented in a third country even if their Member State of nationality is locally represented, but is unable for any reason to provide the protection. The Directive states that when establishing the absence of representation, "accessibility and proximity" should be taken into consideration, so that large geographical distances or poor transport connections within some third countries can be taken into account. Decision 96/409/CFSP, for its part, refers exclusively to “citizens of the Union in places where those citizens'” Member State of origin has no permanent diplomatic or consular representation” and its Annex II to the absence of “accessible diplomatic or consular representation with the capacity to issue a travel document or, where that State is not otherwise represented”. The wording is not completely aligned and could therefore lead to situations where an EU citizen could invoke certain rights on the basis of the Consular Protection Directive but could not rely on the EU ETD Decision in the same context. Box 23: Absence of representation A Hungarian national was unable to get an ETD after losing his passport in the Southern province of Guangdong of the People's Republic of China, where Hungary does not have consular presence. Missions of Members States there either do not issue ETD at all or they considered the Hungarian as having a representation in China. (Report by a citizen)

The Consular Protection Directive also does away with the need for prior agreement of the unrepresented citizen's Member State of nationality before consular assistance can be provided. It stipulates that the assisting Member State shall consult the Member State of nationality to inform it of the situation and verify the identity of the citizen. The Member State of nationality is obliged to provide this information or transfer the case and deliver consular assistance directly. The lack of prior agreement is not considered a legitimate reason for the assisting Member State to deny assistance. For its part, the EU ETD Decision imposes the obligation for the assisting Member State to obtain “clearance” from the Member State of nationality before providing assistance, and does not specify the obligation of the Member State of nationality to provide the requested information. The Consular Protection Directive stipulates that contacts and communication between Member States concerning consular assistance for unrepresented citizens should take place "without delay". However, the evaluation has discovered a wide range of processing times by the Member States for issuing and providing clearance for an EU ETD, from a couple of hours to several weeks. Although exceptional cases must be taken into account, there seems to be a lack of clear target deadlines which would ensure that the unrepresented citizen is provided with assistance in a reasonable time. Box 24: Lack of deadlines A Bulgarian citizen was on holiday with her 17-year-old daughter in Thailand when her hand bag, containing the passports, credit cards and cash, was stolen, losing. She went to the police station in Bangkok, to the 'tourist police' department and requested a copy of the passport from the hotel. There is no embassy of Bulgaria in Bangkok, so she was recommended another EU embassy…. At the beginning the embassy denied issuing an ETD for the 17-year-old daughter and asked for her father’s approval. But after explaining the emergency situation the embassy agreed to provide her with an ETD as well. Although she was told it would take 3-4 business days, in reality it took 10-12 days. (Report by a citizen) The EU ETD Decision still provides for a cumbersome and outdated procedure, which obliges the citizen applying for an EU ETDs to send a filled-in application and certified true copies to "an authority designated to that effect of the applicant's Member State of origin". In the Consular Protection Directive, the responsibility is not on the citizen, but on the Member States to communicate directly and arrange for transfer of any required information. Furthermore, there are financial provisions in the EU ETD Decision that are less favourable to citizens when compared to the Directive. According to the EU ETD Decision, a Member State can require the unrepresented citizen to pay the same fees as it would levy its own citizens for issuing an emergency passport. Under the Consular Protection Directive, and in line with Treaty provisions, the unrepresented citizens should undertake to repay only those costs that would have to be borne by nationals of the assisting Member State under the same conditions. This would equate to the cost of a national ETD, which normally costs less than an emergency passport. Similarly, the Consular Protection Directive provides for situations in which the citizen does not have the financial means to cover the issuance fee and regulates the reimbursement procedure between the assisting and the Member State of nationality. This is currently not adequately covered in the EU ETD Decision. The evaluation conducted for the Impact Assessment has also shown that, in practice, EU ETDs are currently issued by the Member States in a number of situations not listed in the Decision, which refers to travel documents being “lost, stolen or destroyed” or “temporary unavailable”. These cases include issuing EU ETDs to new-born babies or in cases of expired passports. This discrepancy also leads to legal uncertainty. Another aspect that could benefit from enhanced legal clarity relates to the use of the EU ETD outside the scope of the Decision. While the scope of the EU ETD Decision is limited to consular protection of unrepresented citizens in third countries, several Member States issue the EU ETD to unrepresented citizens within the EU (e.g. Austria, Estonia, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Latvia, and Sweden) and one Member State (Italy) issues it also to its own citizens. Finally, the evaluation has revealed problems with regard to the acceptance and recognisability of the EU ETD by third countries, and sometimes also by EU border guards when crossing the EU external borders. As reported by some Member States, using different documents (EU ETD or a national ETD) creates confusion, and if a non-national travels with a national ETD, this may even create suspicion regarding the authenticity of the document. This is especially the case when the national ETD is not actually foreseen to be used by non-nationals, and therefore when used in this way, the indication of nationality must be modified by hand. Some third countries, such as the USA, require entry visas, which currently cannot be attached to the EU ETD due to the lack of blank pages. Member State consulates sometimes have to provide supporting letters explaining the EU ETD to border guards or accompany the citizen to the airport. Several Member States also recommend to citizens that they avoid transiting through certain third countries. Other third countries lack adequate specimens that would allow them to recognise the EU ETD format. Although specimens have been sent in the past by the EU on an ad-hoc basis, the EU ETD Decision does not specify the responsible institution for providing the EU ETD specimens and ensuring their recognition world-wide. 2.2 How will the problem evolve? The number of citizens in need of an EU ETD are expected to increase . In 2015, there were 4.3 million EU citizens that were unrepresented when travelling abroad. Precise numbers of unrepresented EU citizens travelling and living abroad (for professional or family reasons, holidays, studies etc.) are hard to obtain (as statistics are seldom gathered by Member States), but the evaluation report noted that citizens residing abroad could range from 1.1 million to 2.7 million, based on literature review findings and consultation. For citizens, consular assistance through the provision of ETDs will continue to be relevant in the future, especially given that the number of EU citizens travelling to third countries is increasing (see Box 2-2). The provision of ETDs is already the most common type of consular assistance provided to EU citizens (around 65% of all cases) and Member States are expecting this to remain the case for the foreseeable future. Indeed, no Member State that participated in the survey undertaken for evaluation expected a fall in the number of ETDs required for their own citizens. Furthermore, a significant number of Member States also expects that there will be more citizens of other Member States turning to their consulates for EU ETDs. It should be stressed however that the EU ETD by its very nature is not a frequently issued document and therefore any problems in its application will affect a limited yet increasing number of people directly. However, the level of impact on these citizens is significant. Being stranded in a foreign, often far away country without identity document and a possibility to return home is a precarious situation by any measure, producing both psychological distress and potentially significant economic cost Box 25: Tourism trends As the World Travel Monitor® results for the first eight months of 2016 made clear, worldwide outbound travel continues to grow despite terror attacks and political unrest. European outbound travel grew by 2.5%, with growth from the UK by 6% and Germany by 4%. In 2016, three countries moved up in the Top 10 ranking by international tourist arrivals (overnight visitors), China, Mexico and Thailand. Most notably, Thailand moved up one place in arrivals to 9th position (33 million). Currently, 21 Member States have representation in Thailand (based on information provided by the EEAS, 2017) and seven Member States do not (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Malta and Slovenia). According to UNWTO’s long-term forecast report Tourism Towards 2030, international tourist arrivals worldwide are expected to increase by 3.3% a year between 2010 and 2030 to reach 1.8 billion by 2030. Between 2010 and 2030, arrivals in emerging destinations (+4.4% a year) are expected to increase at twice the rate of those in advanced economies (+2.2% a year). Without changes to the EU ETD Decision, the Commission will remain unable to enforce the specific provisions in case of breach of its content by Member States. The Court of Justice will have no competence to intervene. The inconsistencies outlined in the previous section between the EU ETD Decision and the Consular Protection Directive, which will enter into application shortly, may cause additional conflicts.

The inconsistent security features in documents will continue to raise security and border management related issues. Without regular updating, the current format is likely to become more attractive to forgers, especially as the security of other travel documents is gradually increased and they become harder to falsify. This situation, besides posing a security threat in its own right, is likely to lead to EU Member States further abandoning the use of the harmonised format. For the same reasons, it is likely that fewer third countries will recognise the format in the future. This will result in a lack of recognition and denial of entry/transit at borders or denial of boarding aircrafts, with costs implications for citizens and, potentially, insurance companies and carriers. This security threat is potentially aggravated by the fact that the Commission is taking initiatives in related areas, such as to improve the security of ID cards and residence documents, which could leave the EU ETD as the "weak link" in terms of document security. Finally, without a clear role given to a single entity to provide specimens of EU ETD to third countries and to promote acceptance of the document, there is a real risk that this will have a negative impact on the acceptance of the document over time. 3.Why should the EU act? 3.1 Legal basis The Treaties provide for the necessary legal basis for the initiative. In particular, the EU’s competence to adopt legislation on consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens is conferred by Article 23(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. According to the Article, the Council may adopt directives establishing the coordination and cooperation measures necessary to facilitate protection for unrepresented EU citizens. 3.2 Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action The EU is better placed than individual Member States to act given the following factors: 1.In view of the existence of a European format governing ETD, adaptions and changes to the common format can only be carried out at the EU level. 2.In view of the new legal regime created by the Lisbon Treaty, any reform of the CFSP Decision can only be undertaken in the form of EU legislation based on Article 23(2) TFEU. Member States are precluded from adopting further substantial intergovernmental measures. 3.Member States have established a different interpretation of the EU ETD Decision. 4.There is a necessity to ensure the smooth articulation and alignment the EU ETD Decision with the provisions of the Consular Protection Directive, which provides a general framework of coordination and cooperation measures applicable to all types of assistance provided by the Member States to unrepresented citizens in third countries. 5.Assistance for unrepresented EU citizens entails a cross-border dimension, extending the rights granted by EU citizenship beyond the Union's borders. This right illustrates the concrete benefits connected with the status of EU citizenship. 3.3 Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action A more secure EU ETD would contribute to the overall security of the EU by addressing the 'weak link' among the travel documents allowed for entry into the Union. These documents allow entering any EU border and therefore only a common action by all the Member States can close such 'weak links'. Increased security features would also contribute to ending fragmentation among the EU Member States in the issuance of the EU ETD and increasing recognition by third countries. This would reduce the risk of citizens being denied access to aircraft or transit through third countries, allowing them to return to their homes or other destinations hassle free, thus providing relief in stressful situations. This would represent to citizens a clear benefit of EU citizenship and solidarity among the EU's Member States. EU action under the Lisbon Treaty would also allow for effective monitoring of implementation and facilitate enforcement, as for any proposed EU legal measures the full spectrum of enforcement mechanisms would apply (e.g. the duty to transpose a directive into national law, references for preliminary rulings, infringement proceedings for failure to implement requirements, etc.). Finally, economies of scale would also arise in relation to production costs and awareness-raising among citizens. 4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1 General objectives The overarching objectives of the action are as follows: oTo strengthen EU citizenship by facilitating unrepresented EU citizens’ right to equal treatment on consular protection in the area of emergency travel documents; oTo improve security within the EU and its borders by improving the security of the emergency travel document itself as well as the process through which it is granted. 4.2 Specific objectives The specific objectives of the action are: ·To increase legal certainty by making the EU ETD legislation enforceable and by aligning it with the current acquis on citizenship rights (including the Consular Protection Directive); ·To enhance document security and reduce the risk of document fraud, in line with trends and existing policies on improving document security ; ·To simplify the conditions and formalities for issuing the EU ETD, for both citizens and consular staff, and to improve coordination and cooperation measures between the Member States; ·To improve acceptance of EU ETDs, thus minimising the risk of citizens being refused exit from third countries or denied entry in the European Union and allowing them to continue travelling to their destination.



5.What are the available policy options? 5.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed? The baseline was described in the evaluation report. In a nutshell, the evaluation report revealed a plethora of existing approaches for providing consular assistance in the shape of ETDs and identified that this had led to a number of problems that need addressing (as explained in Section 2). The figure below sets out the intervention logic, namely the problems with the existing Decision, their drivers, the objectives of further intervention and the options for achieving these objectives. 5.2 Description of the policy options Three principal policy options are considered: ·Policy Option 1: Status quo; ·Policy Option 2: New legislation – EU ETD with enhanced security features

·Policy Option 3: New legislation – EU ETD with biometric chip The policy options chiefly differ in terms of the security features proposed. This emphasis has two reasons: Increased security is an express request of the Member States and has been highlighted by the Commission in its Action plan to strengthen the European response to travel document fraud. The Council and European Parliament, when calling on the Commission to present a legal initiative on ETDs, placed primary importance on increasing the document’s security features. As part of the consultations for the Impact Assessment, Member States have emphasised the security dimension. Secondly, the need to properly align any measure adopted with the existing legal framework of the Consular Protection Directive limits the policy options available in order to ensure consistency and legal certainty for Member States and citizens. The options are described in further detail below. Policy Option 1: Status quo The first policy option constitutes a baseline scenario and does not involve new actions. The EU ETD Decision would remain in force in the same way as it is now. This Option is thus only presented as a benchmark. The problems identified in Section 2 would continue to exist and, as discussed in Section 3, could be expected to increase over time, leading to increased fragmentation amongst EU Member States, security issues and legal uncertainty.

Policy Option 2: New legislation - EU ETD with enhanced security features This Option would provide for the EU ETD Decision to be repealed and a new Directive to be adopted. Under this new Directive: ·The use of the harmonised EU ETD format is compulsory for unrepresented citizens outside the EU. The use of the EU ETD inside the EU or for represented citizens is allowed and the Member States can make use of this facility; ·The new Directive will complement the Consular Protection Directive, aligning their content in all relevant aspects; ·The new format will have improved security features (described below) ·There will improvements to the security of the issuing process, including rules concerning how to dispose of the document once its holder has reached their destination; ·A comitology procedure, aligned with existing ones, will be established to specify necessary further technical specifications for the uniform format for EU ETDs; ·Pricing will be aligned with the fees charged by Member States’ to their own nationals; ·The validity of the EU ETD will be harmonised; it will be issued for a single journey which would not exceed 15 days (unless special circumstances would warrant longer validity). ·Soft measures to assist the implementation would be discussed and addressed as part of the existing Commission Expert Group on the right of unrepresented citizens to consular protection abroad (based on Article 23 TFEU and Directive 2015/637/EC). Legal aspects The use of the EU ETD would be made compulsory for unrepresented citizens outside the EU. Member States would be obliged to issue an EU ETD following a request from an unrepresented citizen that fulfils the legal conditions. This would end the currently observed fragmentation among EU Member States in the provision of the EU emergency travel document and thus contribute to increased acceptance of the document. At the same time, the new Directive would leave open the possibility for Member States to decide to use the EU ETD also for their own citizens or to issue it inside the EU (to both represented and unrepresented citizens). The Directive would also make it possible for Member States to issue EU ETDs to accompanying family members of unrepresented citizens, who are not themselves citizens of the Union, in accordance with the principles set out in the Consular Protection Directive. Whilst the Consular Protection Directive recognises that Member States might not be in a position to deliver emergency travel documents to third-country family members, Member States could be encouraged to do so in order to allow the EU citizen to benefit fully from his or her right to equal treatment on consular protection. In order to address observed issues of legal certainty, the new Directive would also align in all relevant aspects with the Consular Protection Directive. In particular, this would include the concepts of absence of representation and the process of confirming the applicant’s nationality. Furthermore, it would codify present practice to include situations when passports have expired and cases of new-born babies. The Treaty principle of non-discrimination would also apply for pricing (as discussed below under Pricing), and specific provisions would regulate the cooperation between Member States, which would be obliged to communicate directly and act without delay when issuing the document (as discussed below under Cooperation and Coordination). The new legal instrument would equally provide for a specific role for the European External Action Service in providing specimens of the document to third countries authorities and promoting its acceptance. Another way to achieve this is through consular clauses in EU cooperation agreements with third countries. These clauses guarantee that third countries recognise the rights of unrepresented EU citizens to consular protection by other Member States. The new legal instrument would be enforceable and the Commission would be able to perform its role of monitoring and instigating an action against Member States for breaching the rules if necessary. The Court of Justice would have full jurisdiction on the specific provisions of the Directive. Security aspects Under Option 2, the security features of the EU ETD would be improved in order to address issues of acceptance as well as security and border management concerns. These improvements would address the emphasis on greater security features expressed by the Council and the European Parliament. In particular, enhanced security is meant to address concerns raised by some Member States concerning the current system.

The security features proposed under Option 2 are modelled on the response of the Member States to the survey and interviews conducted in the preparatory work for the Impact Assessment. Table 5-2 summarises the security features proposed for this Option.



Table 52: Options for EU ETD and different elements Element Comments Format A5, with a blank page for visas. Although originally A4 was considered, this raised the issue of proper handling against normal wear and tear. A5 format would allow for the document to be folded and carried in a pocket. Inclusion of a blank page would allow for a national visa of a country in transit to be affixed, as the evaluation demonstrated this need (not the least in relation to transit through the USA) Security elements Physical ETD form – The A5 ETD form is the carrier for the ETD sticker described below. This form shall be made of a security substrate stiff enough for holding the ETD sticker and include watermark(s)/ UV fluorescent fibres and reagents. The printing should combine different security printing techniques such as intaglio and offset, and should include guilloche patterns, anti-scanner background and micro lettering. Furthermore, it should use security inks, like UV fluorescent. The ETD form shall be pre numbered including linking it to the ETD sticker. ETD sticker – The ETD sticker will be affixed onto the ETD form. This sticker will be modelled upon the new uniform format for visas and shall contain equivalent security features. It will consist of the visual identification zone (eye readable) containing the photo and other personal data of the bearer (see column to the right), and the machine-readable zone at the bottom for automated reading of the biographic data. It is recommended to digitally sign the ETD document. The information on the sticker would include: - Issuing Member State - Member State of nationality of the citizen - Surname/Name - Date and place of Birth - Date of expiry - Date of issue - Registration number (equal to the number on the EU ETD format) Electronic Two dimensional barcode, which would contain biographical and other data from the sticker. A 16x16mm2 2D barcode is considered large enough for data and signature. This digital ‘seal’ would be similar to the one left optional for the new uniform format for visas . It requires a certain infrastructure operational under a controlled environment . Not all EU consulates are equipped with such infrastructure, which is the reason it is still not used for the new uniform format for visas. However, once the infrastructure becomes available for issuing the new uniform format for visas, its use would be easily extended for the ETD stickers. Personalization/ Data entry Printing technique The ETD sticker will be personalized in the consulate using the same printers as for the uniform format for visas. EU consulates are equipped with printers for issuing the uniform format for visas. Photo Photos should be taken live at the consulates and printed onto the sticker. Only in exceptional circumstances (natural/ massive disasters; system breakdown) should photos be handed over by the bearer. It is highly recommended to take live-photos in/by the consulates. Many consulates are equipped with digital cameras and this would increase security of the document and simplify the formalities for the citizen.



The proposed new security features represent an improvement on the current format and can be delivered using the existing equipment already available in the Member States consulates (tasked with issuing visas to third-country nationals). A notable improvement is the introduction of an ETD sticker, modelled on the existing uniform format for visas. The ETD sticker would be affixed onto the ETD document instead of entering the personal data by printer and attaching a photo separately, as it is currently done. The ETD sticker would have the same format and equivalent security features as the uniform format for visas. It would include a printed photo of the person, their biographic data and a machine-readable zone at the bottom with the same biographic data. There are several advantages to such an approach. Firstly, using equivalent security features to the ones in the uniform format for visas would greatly increase reliability and security of the ETD. Secondly, the machine readability would facilitate the checking and processing of the document at the border. Thirdly, the handling of the ETD sticker would be easier for the consular staff that is already trained and familiar with the uniform format for visas. The new EU ETD sticker would leave empty space for the likely future inclusion of a common 2D barcode, which would provide additional security to the document. The 2D barcode has not been made compulsory in the new uniform format for visas, but similarly an empty space was left for its possible inclusion in the future. Given that the number of EU ETDs issued annually is much smaller than the number of issued uniform format visas, there is no business case for introducing the system only for EU ETDs. However, as the consulates become progressively better equipped with technology capable of delivering this feature for visas, the 2D barcodes could easily be added to the EU ETDs. The new EU ETD format would also include a blank page for a national visa of a country in transit to be affixed, as the stakeholder consultation demonstrated this need (not the least in relation to transit through the USA). In order to increase security and speed of the issuing process, the photo of the citizen would be taken live at the consulate by digital camera or equivalent means. The same photo should be transmitted to the Member State of nationality for the confirmation of the citizen's nationality. Furthermore, the communication would the place directly between the assisting Member State and the Member state of nationality, securing and authenticating the exchanged information. Finally, there will be rules concerning how to dispose of the document once its holder has reached their destination (for example by obliging the holder to return it when applying for a regular passport). Proper disposal of the expired EU ETD is important to increase overall security of the document. A comitology procedure, aligned with existing ones, especially the one on the visa sticker, will be established to specify necessary further technical specifications for the uniform format for EU ETDs including enhanced anti-forgery, counterfeiting and falsification standards and technical standards and methods to be used for the filling in of the EU ETDs and its colours. For security reasons, it will be possible to keep these further technical specifications secret and not to publish them. This Committee will rely on the expertise of Member States experts of the so-called "Article 6 Committee" in charge of technical specifications applicable to visa stickers. The comitology procedure will thus allow for the EU ETD document to benefit from other developments in increased security of other types of travel documents. Cooperation and coordination Under Option 2, and in order to ensure legal consistency, the new instrument would mainly rely on mechanisms established by the Consular Protection Directive (Chapter 2) while providing additional specifications where necessary. This would entail: ·cooperation and coordination between Member States using the Consular On Line (CoOL) website; ·local cooperation meetings; and ·crisis preparedness and cooperation. Citizens would no longer be obliged to transmit any documents to their Member State of nationality, but it would be up to the two Member States working on the case to communicate directly among themselves and transmit any needed documents electronically through the Consular On Line (CoOL) website or other formal channels. The option would also impose some deadlines in terms of exchanges between the Member States, specifying the requirement of the Consular Protection Directive that communication between Member States concerning consular assistance for unrepresented citizens should take place "without delay".

The deadlines would be: ·Notification: the assisting Member State shall inform the Member State of nationality of the case of their unrepresented citizen asking for an EU ETD within 24 hours; ·Confirmation: 36h for the Member State of nationality to confirm the unrepresented citizen’s nationality; ·Next day issuance: the assisting Member State shall provide the unrepresented citizen with EU ETD at the latest the next working day following receipt of the confirmation. The provision on deadlines would allow for exceptions in cases where longer periods for the treatment of the application can be justified on objective grounds. Pricing The cost of the EU ETD for the citizen would be aligned with the Treaty's principle of non-discrimination and the Consular Protection Directive. The Directive does not harmonise the price of consular assistance provided to the citizens, but stipulates that the unrepresented citizens cannot be charged more than own nationals. Similarly, under the new legal instrument governing EU ETD, the Member States could not charge more for an EU ETD than they charge to their own citizens for national ETD. In cases where the citizen does not have the financial means to cover the issuance fee, the reimbursement procedure from the Consular Protection Directive would apply. The citizen would undertake to repay the fee to their Member State of nationality, which would reimburse the fee to the assisting Member State. Validity Concerning period of validity, the evaluation report revealed different practices. According to Annex II of the Decision, EU ETDs should be made valid for barely longer than the minimum period required for completion of the journey for which the ETD has been issued. The study survey asked Member States authorities about the duration of the ETD, in days. Although most Member States agree that it should not exceed 30 days, current Member States' practices vary on setting the validity period of the EU ETD. ICAO Guidance on Emergency Travel Documents notes that issuing Authorities should restrict validity to the minimum period required consistent with the purpose for which the document was issued and in line with the security of the document. Under Option 2, an EU ETD would be valid for a single return journey, depending on travel arrangements in place, usually not exceeding 15 days. In exceptional circumstances, a Member State should be able to consider extending the validity to cover travel arrangements for the entire return journey. Policy Option 3: New legislation - EU ETD with biometric chip This Option would provide for the EU ETD Decision to be repealed and a new Directive to be adopted. Under this new legal instrument governing EU ETDs: ·The use of the harmonised EU ETD format is compulsory for unrepresented citizens outside the EU. The use of the EU ETD inside the EU or for represented citizens is allowed and the Member States can make use of this facility; ·The new Directive will complement the Consular Protection Directive, aligning their content in all relevant aspects; ·The new format will have new improved security features – biometric chip (described below); ·There will improvements to the security of the issuing process, including rules concerning how to dispose of the document once its holder has reached their destination; ·A comitology procedure, aligned with existing ones (visa stickers, passports etc.) will be established to specify necessary further technical specifications for the uniform format for EU ETDs; ·Pricing will be in line with the non-discrimination clause of Consular Protection Directive (i.e. the EU ETD cannot cost more than similar national document issued to an own national).;

·The validity of the EU ETD will be harmonised; it will be issued for duration of up to 12 months, allowing for continuation of onward journey; ·Soft measures to assist the implementation would be discussed and addressed as part of the existing Commission Expert Group on the right of unrepresented citizens to consular protection abroad (based on Article 23 TFEU and Directive 2015/637/EC). Legal aspects and coordination and cooperation measures would be the same as under Option 2. Security aspects This option differs primarily in introducing the highest possible level of security – biometric chip – in the EU ETDs. Biometrics are currently used in some travel documents, for instance in all Member States passports, some national identity cards and also in the European Union laissez-passer. Biometric documents have an embedded electronic microprocessor chip which contains biometric information that can be used to authenticate the identity of the holder. It uses contactless technology, including a microprocessor chip (computer chip) and antenna (for both power to the chip and communication). Public key infrastructure (PKI) is used to authenticate the data stored electronically in the passport chip, making it expensive and difficult to forge when all security mechanisms are fully and correctly implemented. Because of the technical requirement, a biometric EU ETD would have to be issued in a booklet format rather than the current the single-sheet A4 paper. Other security features of the booklet would correspond to those of Member States passports, as described in the Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004. To specify necessary technical specifications, a comitology procedure similar to the one outlined for Option 2 would be established. Pricing The pricing would be in line with the non-discrimination clause of the Consular Protection Directive (i.e. the EU ETD cannot cost more than similar national document issued to an own national). In view of the biometric features proposed under this Option, this would correspond to the costs for documents with similar biometric features. The same similar reimbursement system as outlined under Option 2 would be established. Validity ICAO Guidance notes that issuing authorities should restrict validity of a document to the minimum period required consistent with the purpose for which it was issued and in line with the security of the document. Taking into account this Guidance, ETDs in booklet form should be issued with an absolute maximum validity of 12 months (including any six months entry and visa requirements), whereas a single sheet ETDs should be issued with a single journey restriction (which can include transit points). Under this Option, the validity of the EU ETD would be harmonised; it would, taking into account its similarity to the security measures contained in passports, be issued for a duration up to 12 months, allowing for continuation of onward journey. 5.3 Options discarded at an early stage 5.3.1 Soft measures: non legislative measures related to EU ETDs Consideration was given to the option of introducing soft measures only, such as best practices and guidelines prepared in close cooperation with Member States experts, including in the framework of the Commission's expert group in charge of consular protection. Although soft measures could help with some practical aspects of implementation (for example by clarifying the use of certain tools for communication or awareness raising measures), they could not address the main identified problems: ·The security format, related to the problems of fragmentation and reduced acceptance, can only be changed by an update of the Decision and not through soft measures;

·Legal uncertainty cannot be eliminated through soft measures, as the Decision cannot be adapted to the Consular Protection Directive, made enforceable or legally binding in this way. Therefore, this option does not appear sufficient to meet the objectives. However, where possible, soft measures should be put in place to assist the implementation of the preferred option with a view to supporting the smooth implementation of the applicable legal text. In particular, awareness-raising activities should be conducted to inform citizens of the EU ETD and their entitlement to obtain one under certain conditions. These and other soft measures would be discussed with Member States' experts, including in the framework of the existing Commission Expert Group on the right of unrepresented citizens to consular protection abroad . 5.3.2 Revoking the EU ETD Decision An option that should be considered is the possibility for the EU ETD Decision to be revoked. This option would effectively see EU ETDs disappear and replaced entirely by national ETDs. The institutions and main stakeholders (Council, European Parliament, Member States and citizens) have expressed the desire to retain and improve the common EU ETD format. During consultations, no Member State stated that it would like the common format to be abolished and to return to the exclusive use of national ETDs. The vast majority of Member States are using the EU ETDs, and many of them also inside the EU. One Member State (Italy) uses it also for its own citizens. Revoking the common EU ETD is likely to increase fragmentation and increase the risk of form shopping (citizens would seek assistance from the Member State offering the cheapest and/or easiest to obtain national ETD). It would add difficulties for citizens travelling abroad as third country authorities and EU border authorities would be faced with increased complexity. Additional training would be necessary to familiarise border guards with the different national ETDs. Furthermore, increased diversity of national ETDs would limit the possibility of saving due to economies of scale (joint training, printing of forms, etc.) At the same time, when seeking an emergency travel document, unrepresented citizens could face a vast array of different national documents, procedures and deadlines. This approach would make enforcement of citizens' Treaty rights difficult and would not ensure consistency with the Consular Protection Directive. Furthermore, the EU ETD is accepted as one of the key visible demonstrations of the practical benefit of EU citizenship and in particular of the unrepresented EU citizens' right to equal treatment on consular protection. From the citizens' perspective, the EU ETD with its name, design and multilingualism represents a travel document that clearly identifies them as European citizens and assists them in third countries pursuant to their EU citizenship right. With national ETDs, this link is not clearly established. The evaluation conducted for this study has shown that problems do occur for unrepresented citizens when travelling on national ETDs (see box below), precisely due to the confusion that a national document issued for a citizen of different nationality may create for border authorities and other concerned entities. Problems described above are likely to increase would the EU ETD be abolished. As reported by some Member States, using several different documents creates confusion, and if a non-national travels with a national ETD, this may even create suspicion regarding the authenticity of the document. As a result of this confusion, some citizens were asked by third countries to travel to the Member State of their nationality, rather than to other EU destinations. Pursuing this Option could thus pose particular problems to EU citizens residing in another Member State. Box 53: Problems encountered by citizens when travelling on a national ETD Having lost my passport in Thailand, and being a Spanish person residing fully in the UK was very complex as my consulate could only give me a 'Salvoconducto'. This is a document that enabled me to travel back to Spain but the UK authorities would not accept even though I have lived there for 28 years. Those type of inconsistencies and difficulties should really be removed. (Report by a citizen) Travelling on a French laissez-passer as a Polish citizen I was refused entry into China and Korea. I was kept in airport in China for 10 hours and airline company refused to accept my ticket. (Report by a citizen) There are other practical and financial reasons for not favouring this option. Should EU ETDs disappear, Member States that currently do not have single journey national ETDs, but issue their citizens instead with emergency passports, would have to create new national formats to replace the EU ETD in order to comply with the legal obligation to offer consular protection to unrepresented EU citizens. The same is true for the one Member State that only uses the EU ETD format. Other Member States that do have national single journey ETDs would have to amend their formats to account for other nationalities. Apart from raising issues of acceptance and recognisability by third countries and EU border guards, the cost of such national interventions (costs to introduce or adapt national ETDs in addition to the costs of non-harmonised issuing procedure) would thus also greatly outweigh the cost of modernisation of EU ETD. For the reasons stated above, this Option was discarded. 5.3.3 Compulsory EU ETD for all citizens An option that should also be considered is the possibility for the new EU ETD to be made compulsory for Member States' own nationals, represented and unrepresented citizens, both inside and outside the EU. This option would effectively see national ETDs disappear and replaced entirely by EU ETDs. This Impact Assessment reflects the request of the Council to the Commission to make a proposal for the production of a new European Emergency Travel Document that contains security features in line with current practices, updating the features described in EU ETD Decision. This Decision is based on the right to equal treatment on consular protection, which is only enjoyed by unrepresented EU citizens in third countries. Likewise, the Consular Protection Directive, which sets out the general framework for the provision of consular protection, concerns consular protection for such citizens. Making EU ETDs mandatory for all citizens would be beyond the scope of EU citizenship rights and would thus have to be considered under a separate legal basis.

As the study for this impact assessment has shown, Member States issue to their own citizens a broad range of national ETDs, which vary in their formats, level of security features, duration and price. Some Member States issue their citizens with temporary passports, which bring added value in terms of possibility to continue onward journey to third countries. However, not all Member States consulates or other national agencies have the necessary equipment and technology to allow such best practices to be implemented. Any harmonisation of national ETDs to a common EU format would therefore either impose a significant financial burden on some Member States to meet the highest standard or would, on the other hand, reduce the standard provided by some Member States to their own citizens. For these reasons, this Option was not considered appropriate and was discarded. However, both Options 2 and 3 envisage that the use of EU ETD is left optional to Member States for their own citizens or inside the EU.



6.What are the impacts of the policy options? The main criteria to assess the different policy options include: ·the effectiveness of the options in meeting the objectives, as defined in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 (see also Figure 5-1); ·the social impacts and impacts on fundamental rights, namely the impacts on the right to equal treatment on consular protection abroad by unrepresented citizens (in line with the Treaty and the provisions of the Consular Protection Directive); ·financial and economic impacts from the different options, in particular for Member States competent authorities, citizens and, potentially, other stakeholders such as travel operators, aircraft carriers and other businesses (employers and insurance companies). No direct environmental impacts are envisaged from the options. As a result, these are not considered further. 6.1 Impacts from Policy Option 1 Inaction will result in the persistence and likely increase of the current problems, described in Section 2, as the underlying drivers will remain unaffected or become stronger. The EU ETD will not be as effective in providing genuine help to citizens in distress as it could be and will not fulfil the aim of demonstrating the practical benefits of being a citizen of the Union. 6.2 Impacts from Policy Option 2 The main stakeholders impacted by Option 2 can be broadly divided into Member States' authorities, citizens and other stakeholders. The impacts are examined in greater detail below. The summary of impacts presents the assessment of Option 2 against the objectives identified earlier in Section 4. 6.2.1 Impacts on Member States' authorities Option 2 introduces a new and significant improvement in security features responding to concerns voiced by the Member States, but it does so at a relatively small increase in the cost to Member States. The modelling of the EU ETD sticker on the existing uniform format for visas re-purposes this already widely used tool in EU consulates to strengthen the security of the EU ETD. This represents a considerable saving as opposed to solutions requiring purchase of new equipment A new legislative instrument governing EU ETDs adapted to the Consular Protection Directive would provide Member States with increased legal certainty. Similarly, it would clarify the coordination and cooperation measures used and deadlines for both assisting and issuing Member State. Option 2 would explicitly allow for EU ETD to be used optionally by Member States for their own citizens and within the EU, as is the case already in practice. A more secure EU ETD format, which is multilingual and produced at EU-level, can thus also represent a cost-efficient alternative to Member States considering replacing any outdated national ETDs. 6.2.1.1 Administrative costs

Under this option, the administrative costs involved in processing applications for EU ETD and verifying the applicant’s nationality are expected to either stay the same as compared to the status quo or to be reduced due to the harmonisation and streamlining of the administrative procedures governing EU ETDs, including the consultations between Member States. The impact on the individual Member State will largely depend on that Member State’s consular network. Generally, while the processing costs for better represented Member States will be higher, the costs for verifying an applicant’s nationality will be smaller as the nationals of these Member States are more likely to be represented in a third country by their Member State. The same is true in reverse for Member States with smaller consular networks, which will have higher identification and smaller processing costs. Furthermore, given the broad consular network of the UK, the burden on other Member State consulates (in particular of those Member States with a similarly broad network) is likely to increase in response to the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. The deadlines provided for under Option 2 derive from best practices reported by the Member States. Given the infrequent need for EU ETDs and their distribution across a wide network of countries and Member State consulates, it is considered that their impact on any particular Member State consulate will be minor. Finally, Member States would be entitled to have their costs reimbursed by the citizens requesting an EU ETD in a non-discriminative manner and in line with the provisions of the Consular Protection Directive. It can thus be expected that some of the arising costs will be passed on to the citizens benefiting from the service. 6.2.1.2 Transposition costs An implementation of the new legal instrument will not cause significant transposition costs for Member States. The main change would be the update of the format and alignment with the Consular Protection Directive. Transposition costs may vary slightly depending on whether the Member States decide to issue a new piece of legislation or amend the existing legislation. According to a study conducted in 2009, 14 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EL, HU, LU, MT, PT, SE, SI and SK) have implemented the EU ETD Decision in their internal legal order while the remaining have not, assuming they could rely on its direct application. In addition, some Member States are not issuing the EU ETD, namely the UK, France and Germany. Costs will therefore be larger for these three countries than for those that already use the EU ETD, as some hassle costs may arise from having to make redundant their current framework for issuing national ETDs to unrepresented citizens. Nevertheless, these costs are not expected to be significant. There will be reporting obligations as part of the new legal instrument governing EU ETD, but these could be timed to coincide with those from the Consular Protection Directive, thereby minimising the associated costs. 6.2.1.3 Training costs There will be costs related to training consular staff to complete the new ETD format. However, the training needs will not be significant as consular staff are already trained to issue visas, and the main aspect of issuing the new EU ETD under this option will be the production of ETD sticker modelled on the visa system. A cheap and effective option to train staff on the new format may be the use of an e-learning tool. E-learning costs less than more traditional methods of training. Savings stem from a variety of factors, including reduced travel and accommodation expenses, but also ease of adaptability and more targeted information. Illustrative costs for e-learning (eL) The cost to create e-learning can vary and depends on several factors, such as the content and the level of interactivity and instructional complexity. Expenses include the software applications used to create the online presence, establish management functions, create the courses, and enable their delivery. According to Tagoras, an hour of e-learning featuring moderate interactivity and limited animations requires anywhere from 90 to 240 hours to develop. If you were to assume an average hourly labour cost of €52, a cost of €4,700 to €13,000 can be estimated. A mid-estimate of €9,000 per produced hour for “moderate” level content can be assumed. Source: https://www.tagoras.com/cost-to-create-e-learning/ Should Member States wish to conduct further training on the ETD in overseas countries, the costs would be borne by the Member States. The survey asked Member States' competent authorities how long it currently takes them to train staff in the issuance of ETDs in a year. A realistic range was from 1h to 1 day per year, with an average of half a day. The level of training and costs will also depend on the level of representation by Member States. The costs given in Table 6-2 are based on the level of representation and assume 1 hour to a day per year at €182 daily rate. These costs exclude the trainer’s fee and travel and accommodation costs; in that sense they are an underestimate. On the other hand, this option may also entail cost savings by combining it with train-the-trainers type of activities, trainings on their national ETD and other consular activities (such as the visa system). However, as can be seen from the table, the costs would appear to be larger for those countries with a greater level of representation. Table 61:Costs of training from Option 2 based on the level of representation of Member States (2017 data as provided by EEAS) Level of representation Member State (in ascending order) Notes Lower bound (€) for group Upper bound € for group48 Low MT, EE, LU, LT, LV Representation in less than 20 countries (assumes 20 for calculation) € 2,000 € 18,000 Low to moderate SL, CY, HR, IE Representation in over 20 countries and below 40 (assumes 30 for calculations) € 3,000 € 22,000 Moderate SK, DK, FI, BG, PT, EL Representation in over 40 countries (assumes 50 for calculations) € 7,000 € 55,000 Moderate to high AT, HU, BE, PL, CZ, RO, SE, NL Representation in over 60 countries (assumes 75 for calculations) € 14,000 € 109,000 High ES, IT, UK, DE, FR Representation in over 90 countries (assumes 160 for calculations) € 19,000 € 146,000 Total (rounded) € 45,000 € 350,000 6.2.1.4 Costs of new EU ETD The production cost of the new EU ETD will consist of the cost of the new blank form and the cost of the ETD sticker.

The blank form would keep the same level of security features and would only see its design changed. It is estimated that this would not change the current production cost of roughly 1 euro per piece. With regard to the cost of the ETD sticker, preliminary investigation with several mints in charge of printing visa stickers revealed that a sticker with the same security features as that of the Schengen visa and produced in low quantities (under 5000 annually) would cost roughly 7 euros net per piece. Assuming that about 1000 EU ETDs are issued each year, the annual costs of the producing the EU ETD foreseen under Option 2 would thus be under €10,000 for all Member States. Several measures can be undertaken to further reduce the cost of production: ·Appoint through a tendering procedure a single mint for production of the stickers; ·Order a larger initial quantity to cover longer term needs of all Member States consulates. Further economies of scale can be achieved if some Member States decide to adopt the use of the new format in lieu of national ETDs, as is currently the case with Italy. A more secure EU ETD format, which is multilingual and produced at EU-level, can represent a cost-efficient alternative to Member States whose national ETDs have outdated security features. 6.2.2 Impacts on citizens The elements considered under Option 2 are expected to reduce the time citizens spend waiting to be issued an EU ETD, in particular due to improved coordination and cooperation procedures between the Member States and deadlines applicable to the exchange of information and issuance of documents. Assuming each unpresented citizen saves, conservatively, a day in applying and receiving an EU ETD and that the opportunity costs of this is the average daily wage of €93 , the savings based on 1000 annual cases per year can be estimated at €93,000 across all citizens. Due to the improved security features and the modernised EU ETD, the risk for citizens to receive sub-optimal assistance will be reduced. Improving security features as well as increased promotion of the document by the EEAS is expected to improve the acceptance of the EU ETD around the world (something that was considered to be “very important” by 19 of the 25 Member States that responded to this question in the survey). Consequently, there will be reduced inconvenience when travelling on an EU ETD and a reduced risk of having to change travel itineraries and alter travel arrangements. Citizens would also benefit from greater legal clarity surrounding notions of representation and confirmation of nationality, which would give them a right to an EU ETD in more situations than under the current EU ETD Decision. The same applies to cases of expired passports and new-born babies, which would now be covered. Other benefits are short and simple deadlines for Member States processing an EU ETD request. A citizen seeking an EU ETD would know by which date he or she could expect to be issued the document and could plan accordingly. Citizens would also profit from no longer being required to themselves send the application to their Member State of nationality and to bring a photo (in cases where the consulate is equipped with a digital camera). These measures would reduce the pressure on citizens often already distressed due to the fact that their travel documents were stolen or lost. It is important to note, however, that these benefits will accrue particularly to citizens of those Member States with less worldwide representation, namely MT, EE, LY, LT and LV. However, nationals of other, better represented Member States could further profit from increased acceptance if these Member States opt to issue EU ETDs also to their own nationals. On the other hand, such benefits will have to be compared with the additional costs of a potentially more expensive but more secure EU ETD. However, under Option 2, the manufacturing costs are not expected to rise significantly. Table 62: Benefits to citizens based on the level of representation of Member States (2017 data as provided by EEAS) Benefits to citizens from improved ETD format Member States (in ascending order) Additional notes (out of a total 195 countries globally) High MT EE, LU, LT, LV Representation in less than 20 countries Moderate to high SL, CY, HR, IE Representation in over 20 countries. Moderate SK, DK, FI, BG, PT, EL Representation in over 40 countries. Low to moderate AT, HU, BE, PL, CZ, RO, SE, NL Representation in over 60 countries. Low ES, IT, UK, DE, FR Representation in over 90 countries In crisis situations, the EU ETD may be issued with the sticker filled in by hand and at no charge. This is already the case today with the current format and is an accepted practice in crisis situations where the safety of the citizen is paramount. The variety of situations during crisis and the unpredictability of their occurrence make it impossible to quantify the impact accurately. In crisis situations, even represented citizens may become unrepresented if their consulates are not in position to provide service. Therefore, estimating savings and benefits to citizens in crisis cases is necessarily more complex and is addressed qualitatively. However, one would expect that the benefit to EU citizens from obtaining assistance, or obtaining it quicker and more efficiently, could be substantially higher in crises than in everyday cases. 6.2.3 Impacts on other stakeholders Some benefits from an improved EU ETD are expected to accrue to businesses, as employees may be able to return to work more quickly if the EU ETD is more widely accepted and more quickly issued. With respect to airline carriers, any costs related to denied entry of citizens travelling on EU ETD at final destinations would diminish as a result of more widely accepted format. 6.2.4 Summary of impacts from Option 2

The following Table summarises the main impacts from Option 2 relative to the objectives. Table 63: Expected impacts from Option 2 Effectiveness in attaining objectives 1. To adapt the EU ETD legislation to the Consular Protection Directive A new legislative instrument governing EU ETDs aligned to Consular Protection Directive will bring about several benefits. The new legal instrument will be enforceable and will allow the Commission to monitor compliance and bring forward enforcement measures if necessary. It will clarify the situation with regard to new-born babies and expired passports, currently not covered by EU ETD Decision. Similarly, it will align the notions of absence of representation and confirmation of nationality, the fees charged for the EU ETD and the obligation for Member states to communicate directly and without delay with the Consular Protection Directive. 2. Simplify the conditions and formalities for issuing EU ETD and improve the cooperation and coordination among Member States. Consular staff are already familiar with the systems and equipment for issuing visas. This will make this knowledge easily transferable to the new ETD sticker. The citizen would no longer be obliged to send application to their Member State of nationality, but the two Member States working on the case would have to communicate directly and without delay, within proposed deadlines. Whenever possible, the photo of the citizen would be taken live at the consulate. 3. Improve acceptance of EU ETD. The new security features will alleviate the concerns expressed by some Member States currently not issuing the document and therefore contribute to ending fragmentation amongst EU Member States in the application of the EU ETD. Improved security features, including adding a machine readable zone, will equally increase acceptability of the document by third countries and facilitate its processing at the borders. Adding space for national transit visas would further facilitate travel through a number of countries requesting transit visa for ETDs (such as the USA). The greater role envisaged for the European External Action Service in providing specimens and facilitating acceptance of the document should also contribute favourably to this objective. 4. Enhanced document security and reduce the risk of document fraud. The new proposed EU ETD format with enhanced security features will reduce the risk of document fraud and contribute to the security of the EU borders. Social impacts and fundamental rights This option will contribute to the greater value the EU citizens can derive from their European citizenship right to equal treatment on consular protection when they are unrepresented in third countries. The social impact is also positive due to reduced risk of document fraud, increased security of travel documents and EU borders. The EU ETD will require some biographical data and an obligatory facial image. This data is collected at the citizen's request and it is proportionate to the information needs required for a travel document. No data other than those listed on the EU ETD might be put in machine-readable form. Data processing involved in this option will not significantly change as compared to the baseline. The Member States will be obliged to exchange data through formal and secure channels, such as the CoOL website. The data is exchanged between Member States for the purpose of confirming the identity of a citizen without other valid travel documents and is justified on those grounds. At all times, during data collection, storage and transmission, the Member States are obliged to follow the EU's acquis and fundamental rights, particularly in relation to data protection. Financial and economic impacts New security features will raise production cost, but with the application of economies of scale and other mitigating measures proposed, the increase should not be significant. It is uncertain whether any increase in the production costs would be passed on to the citizen or absorbed by the Member States themselves. However, the non-discrimination provision of the Treaties and of the Consular Protection Directive prohibits charging greater price for EU ETDs than for national ETD, thus guarding against any spike in fees. The costs of processing applications and confirming identity by the Member States are expected to remain the same as currently or be positively affected by more efficient coordination between the Member States in accordance with the Consular Protection Directive. A more secure EU ETD format, which is multilingual and produced at EU-level, can also represent a cost-efficient alternative to Member States considering replacing their outdated national ETDs. Better recognition of the new format will accrue financial savings for unrepresented citizens from reduced opportunity costs and other savings, e.g. on hotel stays and alternative travel arrangements. 6.3 Impacts from Policy Option 3 6.3.1 Impacts on Member States' authorities The biggest impact on the Member States from this option would be the cost of providing their consulates with the equipment necessary for personalising the biometric document on the spot. Consultations undertaken for this Impact Assessment on the EU diplomatic laissez-passer passports have produced useful comparisons. The cost of equipment per issuing post is estimated between 10 000 and 15 000 euros. Currently, only a minority of EU Member States' consulates have such equipment available, with many Member States treating their requests for passports either domestically or at several regional centres in the world. This in turn involves a waiting period of several days to several weeks and does not correspond to the needs of an emergency travel document, which should be readily available. Equipping all consulates with the required equipment on the other hand would be prohibitively expensive in proportion to the number of cases of EU ETDs issued every year. Even if certain cost-effective measures are undertaken, such as for example sharing or buying common equipment between consulates, the level of total investment needed would remain significant. At the same time, any sharing or centralising of equipment would have the negative effect of slowing down the issuance process. Besides the cost of equipment needed for personalisation, there is also the cost of the new EU ETD booklet. Although it is difficult to the estimate the exact cost, it is likely to be in the range of 60-100 euros per printed copy, based on the example of the EU laissez-passer biometric passport printed in relatively low quantities. The Member States would also have to train their staff to use the new equipment for personalisation and would have to invest in maintenance of the equipment. The Member States’ costs of processing applications and confirming the applicant’s identity are expected to be largely the same as under Option 2. There would be some benefits to the Member States as well, but these are mainly due to some marginal extra security that can be derived from the biometric passport compared to Option 2. The Member States could also benefit from the spill-over effect of using the same equipment for issuing their biometric national passports at consulates. However, many Member States do not have such equipment in place at their consulates for this much bigger business need (in terms of number of cases), which shows that the level of required investment remains prohibitively high. 6.3.2 Impacts on citizens Those citizens who lost their passport in a third country, while planning onward journey, would stand to benefit most from this option. It is impossible to know their exact numbers, but it is safe to assume that they represent a minority within the already low numbers of unrepresented citizens requiring an EU ETD. The benefit of being able to continue their journey would have to be weighed against a likely high cost of issuance of such a document. For the majority of other citizens requiring the EU ED for a single return journey home the costs of a biometric document would be significantly higher. In crisis situations, the EU ETD may be issued without the biometric data, filled in by hand and at no charge. This is already the case today with the current format and is an accepted practice in crisis situations where the safety of the citizen is paramount. 6.3.3 Impacts on other stakeholders The impacts on other stakeholders are similar to those under Option 2. 6.3.4 Summary of impacts of Option 3

The following Table summarises the main impacts from Option 3 relative to the objectives. Table 64: Expected impacts from Option 3 Effectiveness in attaining objectives 1. To adapt the EU ETD legislation to the Consular Protection Directive Same as Option 2. 2. Simplify the conditions and formalities for issuing EU ETD and improve the cooperation and coordination among Member States. Most of the consulates would have to be equipped with the required equipment for personalising biometric documents and the consular staff would have to be trained to use biometric equipment. Otherwise same as Option 2. 3. Improve acceptance of EU ETD. Biometric features would make the document accepted for onward journeys. Otherwise same as Option 2. 4. Enhanced document security and reduce the risk of document fraud. The biometric EU ETD would include more security features compared to Option 2 and would equal Member States' passports. Social impacts and fundamental rights The citizens would benefit from longer duration EU ETD enabling them to continue onward journey. In terms of data protection, Option 3 will add the requirement to collect fingerprints. As this is currently not done under national ETD schemes (though for national passports), more people will be affected in their rights to the protection of personal data. No data other than those listed on the EU ETD and biometric data might be put in machine-readable form or in the chip. The biometric features shall only be used for verifying the authenticity of the document and the identity of the holder by means of directly available comparable features when the EU ETD are required to be produced by law. The EU data protection acquis would apply. The question of whether and how Member States set up their national databases to store biometrics is not touched upon by this policy option, keeping with the principle of administrative autonomy of the Member States, though naturally any implementation would have to be compatible with EU law and the fundamental rights it protects (in particular the right to the protection of personal data under Article 8 CFEU). Financial and economic impacts Biometric security features would require installation of expensive equipment in many consulates. This equipment is currently not in place in many consulates even for the much bigger business case of issuing national passports. While some cost-efficient measures can be undertaken, they would still require high levels of investment and would cause some delays in the issuance of the EU ETD, which by very nature should be a readily available document. The cost of the printed EU ETD booklet with biometrics is also likely to be high, given its high security features and low quantities in which it is produced. Any harmonisation of Member States issuance fees would likely have to be toward the highest fees in order to discourage anyone from applying for an EU ETD with long validity period instead of national passport. 7.How do the options compare? Effectiveness: Options 2 and 3 are both effective in addressing the all of the issues highlighted. They will both include a legislative proposal that will increase legal certainty in the application of the EU ETD and improve coordination and cooperation among Member States. Both Options 2 and 3 will increase the level of security of the travel document and have a positive effect on improving its acceptance both by Member States and around the word. Option 3 goes further in increasing document security, providing a smaller number of citizens requiring onward journeys with the possibility to do so. However, the process of issuance may be slowed down significantly depending on the availability of the necessary equipment. In comparison, Option 2 re-uses already available equipment in consulates, which allows for faster processing and issuance. Both options ensure that compliance can be monitored and, if necessary, enforced. Efficiency: Both Options 2 and 3 will have benefits for the stakeholders in terms of streamlined and harmonised procedures, higher security, increased acceptance and faster processing at borders. Option 3 offers further benefits by allowing onward journeys. In terms of costs, the two options differ greatly. Whereas under Option 2 the cost of EU ETD remains low as there is no need to invest in new equipment, this is not the case with Option 3. Biometric security features would require installation of expensive equipment in many consulates. The cost of the EU ETD to citizens under Option 3 would equally increase significantly. On the other hand, under Option 2 the cost of the EU ETD to the citizens is unlikely to increase due to low production costs. Coherence: Both Options 2 and 3 would be compatible with the existing EU framework and align the rules on issuance of EU ETD with the Consular Protection Directive. This alignment would in particular include notions of absence of representation and confirmation of nationality, but would also align rules on coordination and fees. Both options would also include situations already used in practice, such as expired passports and new-born babies. Data processing under both options would follow the relevant EU and national legal provisions, ensuring full respect of fundamental rights. Both options are compliant with ICAO Guidance on emergency travel documents. Proportionality: Option 2 raises security features of the document to the standard expected by the Member States and third countries and it does so using existing equipment and at a low cost. The citizen would benefit from a more secure document, less likely to be mistrusted and easier to process at the border. Option 3 will go beyond current expectations for emergency travel documents and it would involve significantly larger costs for the Member States without achieving considerably higher positive effects. The costs are more likely to be transferred to citizens. From the perspective of fundamental rights, and in particular of data protection, Option 2 is more proportionate as it guarantees the citizen's right to consular protection abroad while only requiring the collection of personal data necessary to achieve this purpose. Table 71: Expected impacts from Option 2 and 3 Criteria Option 1 - Baseline Option 2 – ETD sticker Option 3 – biometric chip Effectiveness towards specific objectives Improve legal certainty ++ ++ Improve security and reduce document fraud 0 + ++ Improve acceptance of EU ETD 0 + ++ Simplify conditions for formalities and issuance 0 + -/0 Improve coordination and cooperation among Member States 0 ++ ++ Efficiency Costs 0 -/0 ---/-- Benefits 0 + ++ (COSTS VS BENEFITS) 0 0/+ -/0 Coherence 0 ++ ++ Proportionality 0 ++ - The main problems of security features and legal certainty cannot be effectively addressed by option 1 – baseline. Options 2 and 3 are both effective in addressing these problems, but with varying impacts on the stakeholders. The main difference stems from the treatment of the update of security features. Option 2 introduces a new and significant improvement in security features, but it does so at a relatively modest increase in the cost to all stakeholders. The modelling of the EU ETD sticker on the existing uniform format for visas re-purposes this already widely used tool in EU consulates to strengthen the security of the EU ETD. The EU and the Member States benefit from increased security, whilst the citizen benefits from expedient solution and increased acceptance of the document. The Option 3 matches the security features of Option 2 and raises them to the level of fingerprints and biometric chip. It offers some marginal benefits in return, by further increasing document security and allowing for onward journeys. However, the production cost and the equipment needed is prohibitively high. Under Option 3, the vast majority of citizens who require an EU ETD to return home would also be faced with a significantly more expensive document than needed for their purpose. As a result of the comparison of the options, Option 2 is the preferred option and ranked first. 8.Preferred option Option 2 would end the current fragmentation amongst EU Member States in the application of EU ETD and it would bring legal certainty to unrepresented EU citizens in the exercise of their right to equal treatment on consular protection abroad. Importantly, Option 2 would make the issuance of EU ETD compulsory for unrepresented citizens in third countries and it would enable the Commission to perform its role of monitoring and taking any measures in this regard if necessary. Both the Council and the Parliament have called on the Commission to make a proposal for a new EU ETD containing security features in line with current practices. The preferred option reflects this assessment and the views expressed by Member States during consultations, including the three Member States with the biggest consular networks, on the best way to modernise the common format.

The Member States who currently do not issue EU ETDs due to concerns over security features, would be required to issue the document to unrepresented citizens in third countries. This would be justified by the security improvements to the document itself as well as the issuing process. The proposed EU ETD sticker would have equivalent security features as the uniform format for visas and can be issued easily by consular staff using the equipment available in all EU consulates for issuing visas. Additional advantage of the EU ETD sticker is its machine readability, which will make processing time at the borders quicker. A specific area would be added to the EU ETD form to allow for affixing any transit visa (as is for example asked by the USA). A comitology procedure, aligned with existing ones especially the one on the visa sticker, would be established to specify necessary further technical specifications for the uniform format for EU ETDs, including enhanced anti-forgery, counterfeiting and falsification standards and technical standards and methods to be used for the filling in of the EU ETDs and its colours. The comitology procedure would thus allow for the EU ETD document to benefit from other developments in increased security of other types of travel documents. Importantly, the new legal instrument governing EU ETD would be aligned with the Consular Protection Directive. Member States and citizens would thus benefit f