Communication from the Commission to the Council - Kaliningrad: Transit
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, Lithuania, Russia, admission of aliens, document, external border of the EU, organisation of transport, passport, transit

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 18.9.2002
COM(2002) 510 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

KALININGRAD: TRANSIT

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

KALININGRAD: TRANSIT

Introduction

1. 
Following the discussion on Kaliningrad at the Moscow EU-Russia Summit, the Seville European
Council invited the Commission to “submit, in time for its Brussels meeting, an additional study on the
possibilities  for  an  effective  and  flexible  solution  of  the  transit  of  persons  and  goods  to  and  from
Kaliningrad  oblast,  in  compliance  with  the  acquis  and  in  agreement  with  the  candidate  countries
concerned”.

2. 
The Commission has therefore proceeded on the assumption that the Council wishes to explore all
possible  options  for  flexibility  within  the  acquis,  for  movement  of  both  people  and  goods  between
Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia. At the same time, whatever “effective and flexible solutions” emerge
from the study must be acceptable to the candidates. It is also assumed that the Council does not wish as
such to modify the Common Positions in which the EU set out its requirements regarding the application
of the acquis by the candidates. The Common Line agreed by the General Affairs Council on  13 May
2002 (doc. 8304/02), setting out the basic positions of the Schengen acquis, remains valid (Annex III).
This Communication does not cover small border traffic since this issue is not specific to the situation of
Kaliningrad and therefore needs to be considered on an horizontal basis for all the new border regions of
the enlarged Union.  The question of small border traffic is being examined separately in the Council on
the basis of a working paper of the Commission services.

3.  While respecting the Council’s wish that solutions should comply with the acquis, the study does
not start from the premise that the acquis is so inflexible that it cannot cater for special circumstances.
Indeed the acquis is continually under development, and there is as yet no specific acquis on transit of
persons  through  EU  territory  from  a  third  country  to  the  same  third  country.  It  follows  that  the  EU’s
position should, having reviewed a range of options, be defined both by its legal obligations and by its
(and the candidates’) political interests. These might be summarised as follows:

- 

- 

- 

to  ensure  that  the  EU  and  its  current  and  future  Member  States    retain  their  sovereign
ability  to  ensure  the  security  and  safety  of  all  current  and  future  EU  citizens  by  controlling  their
borders and the movement of people and goods on their territory;

to avoid taking any steps which might hinder the success of the enlargement process. This
includes safeguarding the integrity  of  the  acquis  the  EU  has  itself  required  the  candidates  to  adopt,
and ensuring that no obstacle to the lifting of internal border controls is created by any “solution” for
Kaliningrad;

to address Russian concerns in a manner consistent  with the  enlargement process and the
political aim of creating a strategic partnership and enhancing co-operation, not least on issues related
to border management.

Positions of Russia, Poland and Lithuania

4.  Russia: Following a memorandum presented in April by PM Kasyanov, President Putin's personal
representative on Kaliningrad, Mr Rogozin, has circulated a draft "memo of intent" setting out Russia's
proposals for ensuring transit between Kaliningrad and mainland Russia with a minimum of bureaucratic
obstacles. He proposes that the EU and Russia adopt a political commitment to work towards the goal of
visa-free  travel.  As  part  of  this  process,  he  suggests  that  negotiations  be  launched  in  2002  concerning

2

readmission, illegal migration, law  enforcement  and  border  control issues. The memorandum  proposes
that a EU-Russia Ad hoc Joint Working Commission be set up which should report quarterly.

5.  As  an  interim  solution,  pending  the  introduction  of  a  visa  free  travel  regime,  Russia  proposes  a
"simplified procedure" for transit of Russian citizens travelling to and from Kaliningrad. Non-stop trains
and buses would transit Lithuania in accordance with approved schedules and routes.  Lists of Russian
citizens travelling would be provided by Russia to the Lithuanian authorities. Russian citizens, who have
committed offences in Lithuania and whose names would appear in agreed lists would not be entitled to
buy  train  and  bus  tickets.  Those  carrying  valid  international  passports  would  not  require  additional
documentation, although the passports would be stamped, while those carrying internal passports would
be issued with a Lithuanian transit permit. Lithuanian officials would travel on the trains and buses and
controls en route could be carried out. Car passengers would be issued with transit visas, if necessary at
the border.

Russia and Lithuania would sign a readmission agreement.

6.    Lithuania:  No  corridors.  No  relaxation  of  the  acquis  as  regards  transit.  As  regards  Kaliningrad
residents, Lithuania is interested to find flexible arrangements within  the acquis provided that they are
not considered by the EU as an impediment to lifting internal border controls on schedule. It is ready for
co-operation with Russia on practical issues provided that this is in line with the obligations of Lithuania
under the acquis. Lithuania will only be able to agree on any arrangement beyond what has been already
agreed  by  the  Accession  Conference,  provided  that  guarantees  are  inserted  into  the  Accession  Treaty
ensuring that such arrangements will in no way prejudice the lifting of the internal border controls.  Any
option going further than the measures contained in the Common line will have to be accompanied by
clear  political,  legal  and  burden  sharing  guarantees.    In  particular,  Lithuania  stresses  that  discussions
concerning  further  exploration  of  visa-free  non-stop  trains  must  not  in  any  way  disturb  the  political
conditions  for  Accession  Treaty  ratification  in  Lithuania  and  EU  Member  States.    Thus  any  future
evaluation of this option should be taken by the enlarged Union, after Lithuania’s accession takes place.

7.
Lithuania requires visas (normally issued by consulates on the basis of international passports) for
all car passengers coming from mainland Russia. No visa is required for rail passengers or truck drivers.
Visas will be required for these categories as from 01.01.2003. Kaliningrad residents will be visa exempt
until 01.07.2003. Military  personnel  require  a  special  permit  from  the  Lithuanian  Ministry  of  Defence
before the transit visa is issued (grouped – no individual visa needed).

8.   Poland:  Does  not  consider  itself  to  be  a  transit  country,  since  there  are  no  economic  or
humanitarian reasons to use Polish territory for traffic between different parts of Russia. No concessions
regarding Kaliningrad which  cannot also  be  applied  on  other  borders.  No  relaxation  of  the  acquis.  No
corridors.  Readiness  to  co-operate  on  all  practical  possibilities  within  the  acquis  on  the  basis  of
flexibility and reciprocity.

At present Poland does not allow Russian citizens to enter without international passports. Visas will be
required as from 01.07.2003.

Movement of people within the acquis

9. 
(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 
(cid:1) 

The flexibilities set out in the EU Common Line of 13 May include:

issue  of  multiple-entry  visas  which  could  be  valid  for  a  substantial  period  of  time.  These
include favourable treatment for  certain  professionals like lorry  drivers and could be issued on a
case by case basis;

before the lifting of internal border controls, flexibility with the visa fees;

visa  exemption  for  certain  categories  of  persons  (e.g.  holders  of  diplomatic  and  service

passports and air and sea crew members).

3

As a rule, visas will be issued by consular offices.1

Normally such arrangements would be reciprocal. At present there is no reciprocity on fees, nor on
delivery times (Russia is slower and more expensive than the candidates).

10. Apart  from  the  Russian  proposal  for  segregated  ("non-stop")  trains  and  buses,  which  are
considered further below, examination of scope for flexibilities concentrates on three areas: issuing
travel documents at the border; use of internal Russian identity documents; and the possibilities for
delivery of special travel documents exclusively for transit to and from Kaliningrad.

Issuing travel documents at the border

11.
It is legally possible to issue visas at the border, but  this is generally not recommended on the
grounds that it is a lengthy procedure which will hamper smooth crossing. Delivery of visas at the
border  could  also  create  problems  with  assuring  security.  After  the  abolition  of  internal  border
controls, issuing visas at the border is admitted "in exceptional circumstances if, due to lack of time
and  for  pressing  reasons,  an  alien  has  been  unable  to  apply  for  a  visa,  (for  example,  serious  and
sudden occurrences involving family members, medical treatment, change of destination of aircraft,
urgent professional reasons); moreover, a list shall be kept of those visas issued at the border". This
is reflected in the EU Common Positions in view of the  eventual  full integration of the candidate
countries into the Schengen system.

Use of internal Russian identity documents

12.  According to the existing Lithuanian legislation, only a passport valid for international travel
can be accepted for crossing the border, unless an international agreement provides otherwise. For
the moment, residents of Kaliningrad (but not Russians living in the mainland unless they use the
existing transit train) can use internal passports for crossing the border. Lithuania has asked the EU
to clarify its view on valid travel documents, especially in view of the possibility that at the time of
the accession not all Russians wishing to travel to and from Kaliningrad will have a passport valid
for international travel.

13. The Russian internal passport is not in accordance with the ICAO recommendations (it is not
securised,  it  is  easy  to  forge,  the  text  is  in  cyrillics);  its  use  therefore  makes  control  procedures
considerably slower. It is not a secure document and no current Member State accepts it as a valid
travel document.

14. However, although it is clear that the use of passports valid for international travel is strongly
recommended,  there  is  nothing  in  the  acquis  that  would  prevent  Lithuania  from  accepting  the
internal  passport  for  crossing  its  territory  (with  a  visa  attached  to  a  separate  sheet  in  accordance
with  Regulation  333/2002)  before  the  lifting  of  internal  border  controls,  if  deemed  necessary  in
cases  where  Russians  travelling  to  and  from  Kaliningrad  do  not  yet  have  passports  valid  for
international travel. Acceptance of Russian internal passports (accompanied by a visa or a special
transit document) could only be a temporary measure and could not continue after internal border
controls have been lifted.

15. Russia has earlier promised that it would phase out the internal passports by the end of 2003.
Now the deadline seems to be in 2006. In the memorandum Russia makes no promises as far as the
internal  passports  are  concerned.  Russia  wants  to  offer  internal  passports  (+  birth  certificates  for
minors)  as  valid  travel  documents  after  accession  as  well  and  also  to  extend  the  use  to  other
Russians  than  Kaliningraders.  However,  in  several  preceding  contacts  Russia  has  informed  the

1 In any event, upon lifting the internal border controls, the common rule that visas can be issued at the border

only in exceptional cases must be fully applied.

4

                                                
Commission that about 25 % of Kaliningraders already have passports valid for international travel
and that the printing of such passports for this category would be stepped up. It was noted in the EU
Common Line of 13 May that the EU expects Russia to issue passports which meet the conditions
set out in ICAO regulations.

16. Lithuania  has  indicated  that  for  security  and  practical  reasons  it  would  not  like  to  continue
accepting  internal  passports  as  valid  travel  documents  after  accession.  Lithuania  would  probably
prefer not to extend the use of these passports the way Russia has suggested.

17. Thus,  if  internal  passports  are  to  be  accepted  by  Lithuania  on  a  temporary  basis  after
accession, it should be clear that their use must be phased out as soon as possible. Russia will have
to accept and acknowledge this fact.

Scope for delivery of special (EU) travel documents

18.    The  common  rules  on  visas  include  the  list  of  third  countries  whose  nationals  must  be  in
possession of  visas when crossing the  external  borders;  the  procedures  and  conditions  for  issuing
visas;  and  a  uniform  format  for  visas  and  rules  on  a  uniform  visa  (Article  62  of  EC  Treaty).
Procedures and conditions for issuing visas are introduced by secondary legislation; technical and
practical  modifications  of  secondary  legislation  is  almost  a  continous  exercise,  due  to  new
circumstances arising or the need to respond to new challenges. This would be the case should the
Council decide to develop a travel document  which  would have equivalent value to a transit visa,
specifically for transit between Kaliningrad and mainland Russia.

19. The  issue  of  publicity  within  Russia  about  the  new  requirements  is  important.  Otherwise,
there is a risk of substantial numbers of Russians arriving at border posts or on trains without the
necessary documents.

Movement of goods within the acquis

20. The international conventions on transit of goods by road (TIR) and rail (COTIF) to which the
EC  and  the  candidates  have  acceded  already  offer  the  possibility  to  facilitate  the  international
transport  of  goods  under  seal  (where  required).  For  TIR,  the  presentation  of  internationally
recognised  documentation  (the  TIR  Carnet)  provides  a  guarantee  for  any  duty  and  taxes  which
might  ultimately  be  payable  (i.e.  if  any  of  the  goods  in  transit  fail  to  reach  their  declared
destination). Because of the high risk of fraud, alcohol and tobacco products are currently excluded
from the TIR Convention. For rail movements, the requirements of the COTIF provide the means to
relax certain Customs transit requirements including the need for  a  guarantee.  Although  Russia is
not a party to the COTIF rail convention (it is a signatory of another international rail agreement,
SMGS, as are Poland, Lithuania and the other Baltic States),the candidate countries may, if they are
satisfied  that  EC  rules  will  be  implemented,  accept  Russian  documentation;  SMGS-based
documents, for instance, are already accepted by Germany (and Poland).

21. All the alternatives present substantial difficulties. The acquis requires all goods entering the
Community’s customs territory to be placed under a customs procedure, if not already covered by a
transit procedure. The lifting of all formalities (whether or not leaving it to the Russians to inform
the EC, after transit, whether any merchandise has remained in the EC, rather than proceeding to the
stated destination) would be contrary to this basic requirement. It would leave the  EU exposed to
fraud/duty  and  tax  evasion  as  well  as  evasion  of  non-fiscal  measures.  This  possibility  would
moreover offer Russia a laxer regime than that applicable to movements of non-Community goods
between  EC  Member  States,  which  the  candidate  countries  will  have  to  apply.  In  addition,  the

5

absence  of  any  transit  formalities  whatsoever  would  make  it  impossible  for  Russia  to  distinguish
imports from such transit goods and would put their own revenue collection at risk.

22.
It would be difficult or impossible to segregate road traffic by means of a “corridor”. Whereas
it  might  be  easier  to  imagine  such  a  solution  for  rail  traffic,  safeguards  against  abuse  would  be
expensive and the risk of diversion or fraud would remain high.   Moreover, such a system would
not be acceptable to the candidate countries concerned and would not be consistent with the wider
political  objective  of  creating  a  common  economic  space  with  Russia  aiming,  inter  alia,  at  trade
facilitation.

23. Russia could, in theory, accede to the EC-EFTA Common Transit Convention. But this would
be a very long process, especially given the fact that one of the pre-conditions for accession is that
Russia must be in a position to apply the fully computerised version across its entire territory, which
cannot be envisaged in the short term due to Russia’s current administrative capacity in the field of
customs.  In  addition,  the  only  advantage  for  Russia  over  using  the  TIR  procedure  would  be  that
alcohol and tobacco products excluded from TIR regime are available under the Common Transit
procedure, although at the price of stringent conditions or very high guarantees.

Assessment

24. On the key political issue, movement of people, the acquis is based on the principle that the
EU’s security can best be protected if persons transiting through the territory of EU Member States
provide adequate documentation. The visa requirement for Russian citizens will remain as long as
Russia appears on the list of third countries  whose nationals must  be in possession of visas  when
crossing the external borders of the Member States of the EU.

25. The Commission notes with interest the Russian proposal to open discussions on defining the
conditions necessary for the eventual establishment of a visa-free travel regime. The Commission
believes  that    the  Russian  proposal  contains  useful  elements  which  are  already  under  discussion
within the PCA structures. Even before, the EU and Russia are able to  identify  and carry out the
measures  needed  to  set  the  conditions  for  abolishing  the  visa  regime,  co-operation  on  crime  and
illegal  migration  should  be  stepped  up  immediately  including  preparation  of  a  readmission
agreement.  It would be premature at this stage to  foresee a specific timetable for the abolition of
the visa requirement.

In this context, it will be essential that the timing of the lifting of the internal border controls with
new  Member  States  concerned  is  kept  completely  independent  of  the  timing  for  the  eventual
establishment of a visa-free regime between the EU and the Russian Federation.

The  Subcommittee  dealing  with  JHA  matters  (N°6)  could  be  used  as  the  forum  for  such
discussions.  Whenever  relevant,  notably  with  regard  to  the  border  management  and  control,
candidate countries concerned should be invited to participate.

26. 
In addition to the flexibilities set out in the Common Line (cheap or free multiple-entry transit
visas) solutions could be explored by considering  some or all of the following transitional measures
(subject to review after an appropriate period of time):

(i)  the  Commission  believes  that  issue  of  a  special  transit  document  (“FacilitatedTransit
Document” should be considered. The document would be deemed equivalent to a multiple-entry
transit visa for bona-fide persons who are Russia citizens travelling frequently and directly between
Kaliningrad and the Russian mainland. Lists of frequent travellers could be provided in advance by
the Russian authorities.  The Document  would then be issued at low cost or  free  of  charge  by  the

6

consulates  of  the  candidate  countries  concerned.  Fuller  details  of  how  such  a  new  system  could
work are set out in annex I.

 (ii)
the Commission is open to study further the feasibility of visa-exemption for passengers on
non-stop trains (adequate segregation could not be assured for transport by bus). The security of
these  trains  would  require  that  they  travel  at  sufficiently  high  speed,  and  that  the  coaches  are  so
constructed,  as  to  prevent  passengers  from  leaving  the  train  without  the  permission  of  the
Lithuanian authorities. At present, such trains do not yet exist. It is clear that significant upgrading
of  the  trains  and  track  will  be  required;  necessary  investment  will  take  time    and  Lithuania  in
particular    will    need  substantial  support  in  order  to  achieve  it.    As  set  out  in  the  Russian
memorandum, the Lithuanian authorities must retain the right to refuse entry and carry out controls
during transit. Adoption of such an option could not imply that Russia would obtain extraterritorial
rights analogous to the "corridor" concept. Any decision concerning this option could only be taken
by the enlarged EU on the basis of a thorough evaluation and once the technical obstacles have been
overcome.  After  the  accession  of  Lithuania,  the  EU  is  ready  to  examine  the  legal  and  technical
feasibility of visa-free non-stop trains.

This option is examined in greater detail in annex II.

27.  The introduction of the Transit Facilitation Document would  require  the  full  cooperation  of
the  candidate  countries  and  adequate  administrative  and  financial  support  from  the  EC.    Full
cooperation  would  also  be  needed  from  Russia,  especially  regarding  the  establishment  of  new
consulates, the provision of lists of Russian citizens considered eligible for the “Facilitated Transit
Document”,  the  readmission  of  overstayers  by  way  of  the  conclusion  and  implementation  of  a
readmission  agreement  and  the  ratification  of  the  border  agreement  with  Lithuania.  Moreover,
Russia is expected considerably to accelerate the issuance of international passports to its citizens
within  a  fixed  timetable.    During  a  short  transitional  period,  internal  Russian  passports  could  be
accepted in conjunction with visas/Facilitated Transit Document.

28.  The implementation and management of the arrangement proposed for the Facilitated Transit
Document should be monitored, if necessary, through meetings involving all the parties concerned
including candidate countries, in the context of the PCA institutions. 2

29.   The  EU  would  need  to  guarantee  to  the  candidate  countries  that  their  acceptance,  and
implementation,  of  the  above  flexibilities  would  not  in  itself  create  any  risk  of  delay  in  lifting
internal border controls, i.e. full integration into the Schengen area.

30.   On the movement of goods, the Commission's assessment is that the customs transit regime
which  will  apply  after  enlargement,  ensuring  the  free  movement  of  goods  between  Russia  and
Kaliningrad  across  the  Community  without  customs  duties  or  any  other  transit  duties  other  than
charges for transport and administration (as set out in the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement)
is apt and that, in terms of formalities, existing Conventions/procedures offer appropriate flexibility.

31. Any decision to waive  formalities for goods in transit across the Community would not meet
the basic requirement, which  applies  world-wide, including in Russia, that  the movement  of third
country  goods  within  the  territory  of  a  country  should  be  monitored.  This  would  therefore  be
incompatible  with  the  acquis.    In  addition,  the  transit  of  goods  via  designated  corridors  would
present considerable practical problems. It would also be unacceptable to the candidate countries.

Conclusions

2  Technically  more  advanced  solutions  such  as  electronic  cards  equivalent  to  visas  would  require  time  and  a
great deal of money to introduce, as well as particularly close co-operation with the third countries (i.e.
Russia and Belarus).  If need be, these ideas could be pursued in the longer term.

7

                                                
32.  The  Commission  considers  that  regarding  the  transit  of  persons  between  Kaliningrad  and
mainland  Russia,  a  number  of  the  proposals  presented  by  Russia  merit  serious  consideration.  It
recommends, therefore, that the EU's position be based upon the following package of measures in
addition to what has already been set out in the Common line of 13 May 2001:

 (a) a “Facilitated Transit Document” could be issued by consular authorities in EU or candidate
countries to Russian citizens travelling by road or rail, under the conditions set out in annex I,
exclusively for direct transit between Kaliningrad and the Russian mainland. The operation of
the  Document  would  be  reviewed  regularly  through  meetings  involving  all  the  parties
concerned including the relevant candidate countries, in the context of the PCA institutions.

(b) this  would  assume  Russian  co-operation  in  quickly  agreeing  to  the  establishment  of  new

consulates requested by Lithuania.

(c) transit visas would be obtainable at borders  in humanitarian cases, as foreseen in the acquis.
In  the  very  short  term,  before  the  opening  of  the  essential  consular  facilities,  some  latitude
may be necessary. The Facilitated Transit Document would not be issued at the border.

(d) for a period of two years up to the end of 2004, the Lithuanian authorities may agree, for the
purposes of issuing visas or Facilitated Transit Documents, to accept Russian internal travel
documentation.  As  a  consequence,  Russia  is  expected  to  accept,  that  in  2005  only
internationally-recognised passports would be accepted.

(e) the EU should be open to explore with Russia and Lithuania the feasibility of allowing visa-
exempt  travel  by  specific  "non  stop"  trains,  as  proposed  by  Russia,  and  in  particular  the
conditions for secure transit. Any decision concerning this option could only  be taken by the
enlarged  EU on  the basis  a thorough  evaluation  and  once  the  technical  obstacles  have  been
overcome.  After  the  accession  of  Lithuania,  the  EU  is  ready  to  examine  the  legal  and
technical feasibility of visa-free non-stop trains.

It would need to be clear that the Lithuanian authorities must retain the right to refuse entry
and carry out controls during transit. Adoption of such an option could not imply that Russia
would obtain extraterritorial rights analogous to the "corridor" concept.

 (f) the EU should examine the Russian proposal to open discussions on defining the conditions
necessary  for  the  eventual  establishment  of  a  visa-free  travel  regime.    Discussions  in  PCA
institutions,  notably  sub-committee  6  should  be  intensified  and  should  involve  candidate
countries. This sub-committee also discusses co-operation on border management, including
combating  trans-border  crime  and  illegal  migration,  and  should  prepare  a  readmission
agreement. Progress on JHA issues in general will be important in the wider context.

33. The EU would need to provide legally binding guarantees to Lithuania that:

- the acceptance of any of the measures in  the above package would in no way prejudice or
present an obstacle to the lifting of internal border controls;

- assistance will, as appropriate, be provided for the implementation of these measures.

34. As  regards  the  introduction  of  the  Transit  Facilitation  Document,  technical  changes  to
existing  regulations  would  need  to  be  incorporated,  as  in  the  case  of  other  relevant  secondary
legislation, in the lists to be submitted to the candidate countries.

35. Regarding  the  movement  of  goods,  the  existing  international  convention  for  road  transport
(TIR) allows the transit of goods with relatively little bureaucracy, and for transit by rail EC rules
allow  Member  States  to  adopt  simplified  procedure,  e.g.  acceptance  of  existing  Russian
documentation  (SMGS).  The  alternatives  (passage  without  formalities,  whether  or  not  with  post-
facto  controls  exercised  in  Russia)  are  either  unacceptable  or  provide  no  procedural  advantage

8

 
(Russian  accession  to  the  Common  Transit  and  SAD  Conventions,  which  is  in  any  case  for  the
moment unrealistic).

36. The  EU  has  already  offered  assistance  to  Russia  through  Tacis  with  a  view  to  expediting
border  crossing  and  delivery  of  ICAO-compatible  passports,  especially  to  Kaliningrad  residents.
However,  solutions  to  the  problem  of  movement  of  people  and  goods  should  be  paralleled  by
broader  co-operation  regarding  the  future  of  the  Kaliningrad  region,  covering  both  the  common
challenges  in  the  fields  of  organised  crime,  border  management,  environment  and  human  health,
and economic development, as foreseen in President Prodi's letter to President Putin of 23 May.

If  possible,  the  above  “package”  of  measures  should  be  attached  to  the  Joint  Statement

37.
submitted for approval to the EU-Russia Summit in Copenhagen on 11 November.

9

OPERATION OF THE “FACILITATED TRANSIT DOCUMENT”

 Annex I

1.  All  Russian  citizens  who  travel  frequently  and  directly  between  Kaliningrad  and  the
Russian  mainland  would  be  entitled  to  apply  for  the  "Facilitated  Transit  Document
(FTD)".  Russian  authorities  could  send  beforehand  lists  containing  suggestions  for
eligible persons to speed up the issuing of the document. The transit countries will retain
the right to disqualify persons, for instance, in case of evidence of abuse of the system or
public security concerns of the transit country.

2.  The FTD could take the form of a securised booklet, the first page of which would contain
personal  data  similar  to  those  foreseen  in  the  ICAO  recommendations  on  passports.  To
this, a securised sticker would be attached. Its validity may be of one year or more.

The  booklet  would  be  equivalent  to  a  multiple-entry  visa  valid  exclusively  for  transit
between  two  territories  belonging  to  the  same  country  but  separated  by  the  territory  of
one or more Member States.

The FTD would be renewable.

3.  Other technical and practical issues should be introduced into the  secondary legislation,
such as the stamping of the FTD on entry and exit to control the length of stay, the cost of
issuance, place of issuance, etc.

4.  The FTD would be issued by a consulate of a relevant candidate country. There would be
no  automatism  and  therefore  no  infringement  of  sovereignty.  The  candidate  countries
should consider extending the network of their consulates.

They  could  also consider  mutually  recognising  all  kinds  of  visas,  including  the  FTD,  in
order  to  avoid  the  need  for  Russian  citizens  transiting  through  two  or  three  different
countries  to  request  two  or  three  visas;  in  this  way  they  would  anticipate  the  mutual
recognition of visas required under the Schengen provisions.

5.  Moreover:
(cid:1)  The issue would not need to be addressed in the accession negotiations on chapter 24 as
the  basic  principle  of  the  acquis,  in  this  case  the  visa  requirement  for  Russia,  would
remain  in  place.  The  technical  changes  would  be  included,  along  with  other  secondary
legislation, in the lists to be submitted to the candidate countries.

(cid:1)  The regulation related to the FTD would be binding on all Member States. Therefore, such
a  special  system  would  not  in  itself  be  an  obstacle  for  the  lifting  of  the  internal  border
controls by the future Member States.

6.  An EC Regulation could establish the necessary legal conditions
(cid:1) 

to  define  a  new  form  of  transit,  from  one  part  of  a  third  country  to  another  part  of  that
same third country via the territory of one or several EU Member States. Such a definition
is not specified at the moment in the acquis;

(cid:1) 
(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

to confirm that such a FTD would be deemed equivalent to a visa;

to allow for multiple-entry transit between different parts of the same third country and to
set its validity for a substantial period of time (several years, where appropriate);

to limit transit time, e.g. to 24/36 hours rather than 5 days as for normal transit;

10

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

to  prescribe  sanctions  in  case  of  misuse,  such  as  financial  sanctions  or  ultimately
withdrawal of the document;

to  define  adequate  security  features  using  the  procedure  provided  for  in  Regulation  N°
334/2002.

11

VISA EXEMPTION FOR PASSENGERS ON NON-STOP TRANSPORT

ANNEX II

1.  THE ACQUIS REQUIREMENTS

The  relevant  acquis  is  a  combination  of  the  Schengen  inheritance  (now  EC/EU  acquis)  and
the Visa Regulation which lists Russia as a country whose citizens should be submitted to a
visa obligation for the purposes of entering EU territory.

According  to  Article  5  of  the  Schengen  Convention,  for  stays  not  exceeding  three  months,
third country nationals fulfilling the following conditions may be granted entry:

1.  Possession of valid travel document and visa if required.

2.  If necessary, to produce documents justifying the purpose and conditions of the intended
stay  and  prove  that  they  have  sufficient  means  of  subsistence  for  the  intended  stay  and
return or are in a position to acquire such means lawfully.

3.  An alert has not been issued for the purposes of refusing entry.

4.  The  person  is  not  considered  to  be  a  threat  to  public  policy,  national  security  and

international relations of the Member States.

The  first  condition  is  the  key  issue  and  has  been  discussed  extensively  in  the  context  of
Kaliningrad transit. The question of internal passports is addressed below.

The  second  condition  is  not  directly  relevant  to  transit  to  and  from  Kaliningrad.  It  is  quite
unlikely that for direct transit to and from Kaliningrad, the Member States concerned (mainly
Lithuania)  would  set  conditions  concerning,  e.g.  sufficient  means  of  subsistence  for  the
intended stay. No candidate country has raised this question.

The third condition, which entails using the SIS and Article 96 of the Schengen Convention,
can  be  applied  fully  as  from  the  lifting  of  the  internal  border  controls.  Until  then,  the  new
Member States will use national registers to check unwanted persons and to refuse their entry.
Later, the SIS will be used for checking whether entry should be denied. The Member States
have  to  use  the  common  register  of  Article  96  data  in  the  SIS  to  refuse  entry,  because  the
internal border controls have been lifted.

The  Member  States  exchange  information  (outside  the  SIS)  also  concerning  the  fourth
condition.

Nationals of certain third countries, including Russia, shall be required to be in the possession
of  a  visa  when  crossing  the  external  borders  of  the  Member  States  (Article  1(1)  Visa  List
Regulation).  The Court has indicated that in the light of Article 3(d) of the EC Treaty, if such
crossing  of  the  external  borders  is  not  for  entry  into  and  circulation  within  Community
territory, a visa may not be required (Case C-170/96, point 22).  Therefore, passengers on a
through train through Community territory might under certain circumstances not be subject
to the  requirement  of  having  a  visa.    However,  the  Court  has  applied  this  approach  only  to
transit in an airport and the Council, following this case law, has formulated Article 2, second

12

indent,  of  the  Visa  Regulation  so  as  not  to  require  transit  visa  for  transit  through  Member
States'  territory  only  for  transit  at  airports.    However,  a  broadening  of  this  exception  is  not
excluded on the basis of the Court's judgement and an adjustment of the acquis on this point
would be possible.

2.  PROPOSALS CONCERNING TRANSIT

By flying or using the planned ferry connection Russians can travel to and from Kaliningrad
without a visa and using internal passports. The acquis requirements come into play only for
purposes  of  travel  by  land.  It  is  clear  (and  the  Russian  memorandum  concedes  this)  that
passengers  travelling  by  car  will  need  to  be  subjected  to  normal  acquis  requirements  (visa,
travel document, border control), including the possibilities within the acquis for facilitating
transit (multiple-entry visas, visa fees). This is already the case for car transit from mainland
Russia (since 1995).

The Russian memorandum proposes a visa-free transit arrangement for passengers travelling
by  train  and  coaches.  In  addition,  Russia  has  asked  for  “simplified  visa-issuance”  at  the
border  for  car  passengers.  These  proposals  are  obviously  very  relevant  to  the  Seville
European  Council’s  invitation  to  the  Commission  to  study  the  possibility  of  flexibility  “in
compliance with the acquis”.

The three ways to travel by land

1.1.  Train

In  order  for  the  train  transit  system  to  be  in  compliance  with  the  acquis,  it  would  have  to
conform  with  one  basic  requirement:  no  travellers  would  be  able  to  leave  the  train  while
crossing  Lithuanian  territory.  If  this  can  be  guaranteed,  the  above  mentioned  acquis
requirements,  most  importantly  the  visa  obligation,  need  not  be  applied.  However,  it  is
obvious that in order to make this kind of secure transit possible, Lithuania needs to be in a
position to exercise full control of the train and its passengers - something which the Russian
memorandum appears to concede.

In  other  words,  the  transit  train  possibility  can  only  be  used  after  accession  if  accepted  by
Lithuania and if the security of the transit can be guaranteed in order to verify that all persons
crossing the external borders are identified before the train enters Lithuania and that nobody
can  enter  or  exit  the  train  after  the  controls  have  been  made.  If  agreed  to  be  Schengen-
compatible,  these  same  rules  would  equally  apply  after  the  lifting  of  the  internal  border
controls, and would constitute no obstacle to Lithuania applying the Schengen acquis in full.

In practice this means that Lithuania should be able to

1.  check travel documents to verify identity and to control who is on the train (including the

possibility to refuse entry of unwanted persons),

2.  ensure physically the security of transit meaning that no entry to the Lithuanian territory is

possible.

The train would have to be a non-stop train, which is fully guarded during the transit through
Lithuania. Only technical stops would be possible. Ideally, the transit train would be a “high-
speed” train. However, “high speed” in  this context means only that  such  a  non-stop transit

13

train need to travel sufficiently and consistently fast to prevent people jumping from the train.
It will be essential to be able to guarantee that this condition is or will be met.

For  the  moment,  Lithuania  has  clearly  stated  that  the  security  of  the  transit  is  not  at  an
acceptable level: so-called train-jumpers profit from the fact that the train runs slowly, stops
several  times  in  the  territory  of  Lithuania  and  it  is  not  guarded  well  enough  during  transit.
This option would therefore require careful further examination.

For  its  part,  Russia  has  made  a  number  of  proposals  aimed  at  contributing  to  the  secure
functioning of the system.

The EU should look into the Russian proposal concerning transit trains in a positive way, with
a  view  to  making  a  well-informed  decision  about  its  Schengen-compatibility  and  its
implications  for  Lithuania’s  full  application  of  Schengen.  Some  further  questions  related  to
the  functioning  of  the  system  should  be  presented  to  the  Russian  side.  This  will  determine
whether the EU can guarantee Lithuania that this arrangement will not hinder/delay the lifting
of the internal border controls vis-à-vis Lithuania.

1.2.  Buses

The same basic requirement applies to the Russian proposal concerning transit buses: In order
for  the  transit  system  to  be  in  compliance  with  the  acquis,  travellers  would  not  be  able  to
leave the bus while crossing Lithuanian territory. However, in the case of buses, the security
of  transit  cannot  be  guaranteed  in  an  acceptable  way.  The  first  condition  can  be  fulfilled:
everyone crossing the Lithuanian border will be checked. The second condition, the security
of transit, will not be easy to organise and is even impossible to impose on human beings. In
practice people can be expected to need to stop during transit which would amount to entering
Lithuania without a visa. Further, securing such transit, would put a disproportionate burden
for  the  Lithuanian  authorities  as  they  would  have  to  accompany  all  buses  throughout  the
transit.

In conclusion, transit traffic by buses cannot anyway be organised in a way that would be in
compliance with the acquis. Lithuania might in any event find the idea of transit buses hard to
accept politically and practically.

1.3.  Cars

Russia  no  longer  insists  on  visa-free  transit  for  private  vehicles,  but  insists  on  simplified
issuance of visas at the border in these cases.

Issuing visas at the borders is legally possible until the lifting of the internal border controls,
but it is not in the interests of the EU to recommend that this possibility be used more widely
than described in the Schengen acquis (i.e. exceptional cases). It is time-consuming and even
difficult to check properly at the border the relevant national registers before issuing a visa. In
addition,  the  visa  application  form  and  the  modern  visa  sticker  (Regulation  1683/1995  and
334/2002) take time to complete and to print, and  this might  further  hamper  smooth  border
crossing, taking into account the fact how difficult and slow it is at the moment. The border
crossing  points  would  also  have  to  be  equipped  appropriately  with  the  sophisticated  and
expensive equipment needed for producing visa stickers. Lithuania has stated that it does not
wish  to  use  this  possibility  in  a  wider  sense  than  provided  in  the  Schengen  acquis.    It  is

14

essential  to  ensure  sufficient  consular  facilities  to  make  sure  that  visas  will  be  issued
efficiently  and  accurately.  It  is  a  completely  different  matter  to  acknowledge  that  the
candidate  countries  may  have  to  issue  visas  at  the  border  than  to  build  this  into  any
understanding with Russia.

If consular facilities could be established near the border, this would greatly facilitate matters,
given that the Commission would recommend that the principle of visa issuance at the border
should not be accepted in discussions with Russia. Lithuania is ready to open consulates at the
borders  in  Kaliningrad  (Sovetsk)  and  Belarus  (Grodno).  It  will  need  to  be  seen  whether
additional Community funding would be required.

15

Annex III

COMMON LINE OF 13 MAY 2002

KALININGRAD: MOVEMENT AND TRANSIT OF PEOPLE

In view of efforts made to investigate the possibilities within the acquis and the long  list of
meetings  scheduled  this  spring  between  EU  and  Russia,  it  is  clear  that  EU  treats  the
Kaliningrad  situation  with  very  high  priority.  However,  final  responsibility  for  Kaliningrad
remains with Russia. No other actor can do more to improve the situation of Kaliningrad than
Russia itself

The EU acquis and its consequences for Kaliningrad

This informal paper refers to the time period between EU-accession and the lifting of internal
border controls vis-à-vis the new Member States. After that period, the Schengen acquis will
be fully implemented.

The  acquis  in  force  requires  that  third  country  nationals  listed  in  Annex  1  of  Regulation
539/2001, as amended by Regulation 2414/2001, are in possession of visas attached to a valid
travel  document  when  crossing  the  external  border  of  the  Member  States.  This  requirement
applies for transit as well as for short stay up  to  three  months.  The visas  issued by  the new
Member States will be national visas issued in accordance with national legislation, following
the principles concerning the issue of visas in the acquis.

The  EU  has  consulted  the  candidate  countries  concerned  with  a  clear  understanding  that
before  accession,  measures  are  subject  to  their  sovereign  national  decision.  However,  no
measures should be considered which might put the full implementation of Schengen at risk,
and  the  candidate  countries  would  be  expected  not  to  introduce  any  measures  which  would
run counter to the basic principles of the acquis.

With this in mind, the main possibilities within the acquis are:

(cid:1)  multiple entry visas issued on a case-by-case basis, including favourable treatment for
certain  professionals  such  as  lorry  drivers  and  crews  of  means  of  transport  who
regularly need to cross the border,

(cid:1) 

flexibility with the visa fees until the lifting of internal border controls,

(cid:1)  exemptions from the visa requirement for certain categories of persons as provided in

Regulation 539/2001.

(cid:1)  as a rule, visas will be issued by consular offices.

When implementing the possibilities within the acquis, the candidate countries will normally
expect the application of reciprocity.

It is important to note that the acquis ensures, in the interest of both sides of the border, that
the border crossing can take place in a controlled and secure way and without unnecessarily
hampering the movement of persons.

16

The way forward

Further efforts, which would improve the situation of Kaliningrad, are being discussed in the
PCA framework. Support is provided, and may be provided, by EU external aid programmes,
e.g.  development  of  infrastructure  at  border  crossing  points,  modernisation  of  border
procedures  and  training  to  facilitate  the  movement  of  persons  and  goods,  as  well  as
cooperation with Russia in the fight against organised crime and corruption. Useful joint law
enforcement  operations are  in this respect being  organised  by  the  Baltic  Sea  Task  Force  on
organised crime.

Support  by  other  Community  programmes  are  used  and  may  be  used,  as  appropriate,  for
similar activities, including for consular facilities.

As part of co-operation aimed at facilitating visa issuance and border crossing, the EU  would
expect  Russia  to  do  its  part  to  facilitate  collaboration  between  Russian  and  EU  customs,
border  management  and  immigration  authorities,  as  is  also  foreseen  in  the  Protocol  to  the
PCA.  Such  collaboration  must  go  wider  than  purely  Kaliningrad-related  aspects  and  should
include: conclusion of a readmission agreement and appropriate arrangements in this respect;
facilitation of the establishment and operation of consulates on the territory of the Kaliningrad
oblast and mainland Russia; border management supported by demarcated borders based on
ratified agreements; the issuance in Kaliningrad of passports meeting the conditions required
by ICAO regulations; and such other JHA problems as may be considered relevant.

17

PROVISIONAL TIME TABLE FOR NEXT STEPS

Annex IV

-  12-14 September:

informal JHA Ministerial

-  18 September:

-  25 September:

-  30 September: 

-  24-25 October: 
Russia Summit

Communication to be discussed in Commission
1st discussion at COREPER
1st discussion at General Affairs Council

European Council to approve the EU’s position for the EU-

-  25 October -10 November: Contacts with Russian government

-  5 November:

Planned EU/Russia JHA Troika

-  11 November: 

EU-Russia Summit in Copenhagen (joint declaration)

18