WRITTEN QUESTION E-2009/01

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Checks on Belgian visas

Under the third pillar if the European Union (justice and home affairs) the improper issuing of Belgian visas merits particular attention, not least because a temporary residence permit for the Belgian Federation also gives access to all the Schengen countries. Such residence permits are worth their weight in gold to criminals and make the migration sector enormously vulnerable to corruption.

In answer to two Questions to the Council on this matter (E-0621/01 and E-0622/01(1)) I was informed by the Council on 30 May that with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, matters relating to immigration, visas and asylum fall within the Community's sphere of competence under Title IV of the TEC. It is therefore for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to verify whether Member States fulfil their obligations in respect of those matters.

In the past year, Belgium issued approximately 9 500 visa to Moroccan applicants; some 88 % of those visas (short- and long-term alike) were issued by the Department for Alien Affairs in Belgium despite an unfavourable opinion from the consular services in Morocco. That unfavourable opinion, on the grounds of failure to comply with the criteria, was thus systematically ignored.

Some of the applicants say openly that it forms no part of their intention to travel to Belgium but to some other Schengen country, where the issue of visas is more strictly controlled. That results in an unfavourable opinion that is forwarded to the Department for Alien Affairs. The latter invariably sends back a report to the effect that the visas should be issued in any event. It is to be feared that more and more people-traffickers will try to use Morocco as a point of entry to the EU.

That will nullify the effect of any action by the EU to bar lucrative routes to human-trafficking.

Is the Commission aware of the irregular issuing of Belgian visas?

If so, what steps has the Commission taken to ensure that the Belgian Federation will seek a solution to this problem?

If not, will the Commission seek further information about the swindle in Belgian visas, given their importance to the third pillar of the European Union (justice and home affairs) and the policy of the Schengen countries?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 163.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2009/01 and E-2010/01 given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The procedures and conditions for issuing short-stay visas are laid down in the Common Consular Instructions (CCI)(1), an instrument of the Schengen acquis now integrated into the framework of the European Union. Long-stay visas remain the responsibility of the individual Member State and are not, therefore, covered by the CCI.

The CCI sets out the criteria for determining which Member State is responsible for handling an application for a short-stay visa. Responsibility rests in the first instance with the Member State that is the sole or main destination of the visit. Failing this, the Member State which is the first point of entry will be responsible.

While recognising that the organisation of visa services is a matter for each Member State, the CCI lays down a number of principles of good organisation addressed to heads of consular posts: staff should not be exposed to local pressures and there should be a regular rotation of officials to prevent the development of habits which could lead to a decline in the level of vigilance.

As far as relations between the consulates and the central administration are concerned, it is for each Member State to make the arrangements it deems necessary in terms of organisation, management and safeguards.

The Commission is not aware of the matters referred to by the Honourable Member and intends to contact the Belgian authorities for further information.

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.