WRITTEN QUESTION E-1740/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Illegal Belgian visas and passports

In a joint reply to Questions E-0234/01 and E-0235/01(1) on illegal Belgian visas and passports, the Council states that the problem raised concerns a matter that has to be settled by the relevant Belgian authorities. The Council adds that it does not usually call on a Member State of the Union e.g., as in this case, the Belgian Federation to give an explanation concerning a matter over which the Member State itself has jurisdiction.

The Council's position is astonishing. The issuing of visas and passports by the fifteen EU Member States requires special attention in the context of the third pillar of the European Union (justice and home affairs). A temporary or permanent residence permit issued by the Belgian Federation affords access to all the Schengen countries. Thus such residence permits are like gold-dust to criminals and create enormous scope for corruption in the field of migration.

In its reply, the Council mentions the Commission's responsibility for monitoring the operation of Community visa regulations. If a Member State's acts or omissions were to affect the operation of Community visa regulations it would be for the Commission to give the Member State concerned the opportunity to submit its comments.

Will the Commission, in accordance with the Council's reply, give the Belgian authorities the opportunity to submit comments on acts or omissions which affect the operation of Community visa regulations, namely (a) trafficking in diplomatic cards at the Belgian Foreign Ministry and (b) fraud relating to visas at the Belgian Embassy in Sofia? If not, why will the Commission not give the Belgian authorities the opportunity to submit comments on acts or omissions which affect the operation of Community visa regulations?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 159.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern. The improper issue of passports, visas and residence permits is one way of evading the various rules of Community and national law aimed at controlling access by nationals of non-EU countries to the territory of the Member States and their residence in this territory.

There are a range of preventive and punitive provisions and measures at national and Community level intended to foil such activities.

Rules on the storage of documents and measures relating to staff:

- Safeguards and precautions are taken at national level to prevent the improper issue of passports, visas and residence permits.

- Community law contains provisions relating to visas. The Common Consular Instructions require the head of the consulate to ensure that the service is organised in such a way as to prevent any type of negligence that might facilitate theft or forgery. Staff should be shielded from local pressures and there should be regular rotation of officials to prevent the development of lax practices. The Instructions also require security measures to be taken on the storage and use of visa stickers.

- Criminal penalties for those who facilitate the illegal entry or residence of non-EU nationals.

- Criminal penalties for those who fraudulently obtain administrative documents, particularly by actively corrupting public officials.

- Criminal penalties and disciplinary sanctions for public officials who improperly issue administrative documents, particularly when they are guilty of passive corruption.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the facts of the matters referred to by the Honourable Member. It would point out that if administrative documents are found to have been issued fraudulently it is for the authorities of the Member State concerned to select the most appropriate measures from amongst those listed above. In the event of a recurrence of the apparently isolated and localised incidents referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission would undoubtedly act to ensure that the Member State in question was not persisting in an administrative practice that was contrary to Community law.