WRITTEN QUESTION E-3512/02 by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission. Problem of mutual recognition in the port of Antwerp involving a visa issued by a Schengen state.
Date: 2002-12-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, admission of aliens, crew, exchange of information, free movement of persons

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/57

the confiscation of property belonging to Community citizens. It should be noted that the EU has criticised
the Zimbabwean regime for its use of humanitarian aid which is reaching only Mr Mugabe’s political allies
and not the million of starving inhabitants of the country.

Why has the EU condemned Zimbabwe while on the other hand approving or at least tolerating in
practice similar behaviour on the part of Ethiopia? What view does the Commission take of the stance
adopted by the British Prime Minister? What view does it take of the action taken by the United States
administration which has proved that it is able to defend effectively the interests of American citizens?
Why does the EU not decide on the immediate suspension of aid to countries which indulge in illegal
practices and the unfair treatment of Community citizens?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission’s position on the return of property confiscated from European citizens under the
Mengistu régime in Ethiopia continues to be as stated in the answer to written question by the Honourable
Member on the same subject of 2001 (E-879/01 (1)). Legally, the Commission has no mandate to represent
Community citizens’ cases vis-à-vis the Ethiopian authorities, and claims for compensation can only be
pursued through the national courts.

However, respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law underpin the Cotonou
Partnership Agreement, and constitute its essential elements. Both the Commission and its Member States,
through dialogue with the Government of Ethiopia, as well as through development aid in support of good
governance, strive to ensure that those essential elements are respected and that democratic cultures are
developed.

Aid is only suspended in such cases where, despite political dialogue, a country is considered to be in clear
breach of its commitments on human rights, democracy or the rule of law, and where it has not
demonstrated any readiness to remedy the situation. This was the case for Zimbabwe: it is not the case for
Ethiopia. The Union remains vigilant in Ethiopia, however, and continues to express its concerns to
Government on issues relating to human rights and democracy in the context of its ongoing political
dialogue.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001.

(2004/C 11 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3512/02

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Problem of mutual recognition in the port of Antwerp involving a visa issued by a Schengen state

As of 1 October 2002 the Vision list has been distributed in the port of Antwerp. The nationalities
included on the Vision list must register using a so-called STVZ form and may not travel on to another
Schengen Member State. They may leave Belgium in order to return to their country of origin or they may
be deported to non-Schengen countries such as the United Kingdom or Switzerland. The rule also applies
in reverse. Seamen holding one of the nationalities on the Vision list and seeking to enter Belgium via
Amsterdam (Schiphol) Frankfurt or Paris are being turned away at the Belgian border, preventing them
from checking whether their ship is docked in a Belgian port. They are thus being forced to enter Belgium
either directly or via a non-Schengen country, such as Switzerland or the United Kingdom. The result of
this requirement to register is that the Belgian border police no longer recognises a visa issued by a
Schengen partner. To my mind, this runs counter to the agreements concluded between and by the
Schengen countries.

C 11 E/58

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Will the Commission, as guardian of the Schengen Convention, examine this matter more closely and
clarify it? To what extent has the Vision list been drawn up by the Belgian authorities in keeping with the
terms of the Schengen Convention? What criteria have the Belgian authorities employed when placing
countries on that list? Why may nationalities on the list enter Belgium directly or via non-Schengen
countries? Does this Vision list in fact constitute a hidden support measure for the national airport in
Brussels? Can the Commission clarify this matter?

Answer by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

First of all, the Commission would point out that ‘Vision’ is an information network and not a database
capable of storing existing information. When the Honourable Member talks about a ‘Vision list’, he may
be referring to the exchange of information between the Members applying the Schengen acquis on third
countries subject to prior consultation under Annex 5B of the Common Consular Instructions.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the procedures and conditions for issuing
uniform Schengen visas are laid down by the Common Consular Instructions to the diplomatic missions
and consular posts of the Schengen States (1).

The Common Consular Instructions state that, in certain cases, applications for a Schengen visa must be
submitted for prior consultation to the central authorities of one or more other Schengen States, and
specify the procedures that must be followed in that case. Thus, each Schengen State decides independently
in which cases its central authority must be consulted by the central authority of another Schengen State
before issuing a Schengen uniform visa. The information on this subject is contained in an annex to the
Common Consular Instructions classified as confidential. Each State may amend this annex by informing
the Secretariat-General of the Council of the changes it wishes to make, after having submitted a proposal
for amendment
they can make comments on the proposed
amendments. These amendments take effect the day of their notification by the Secretariat-General to the
Members of the Council and to the Commission.

to the other Schengen States so that

The prior consultations of central authorities referred to above must be distinguished from the consultation
of the database set up by the Schengen Information System (SIS). Each consular service to which a visa
application is referred must thus consult the SIS to check that the visa applicant is not on the list of
persons registered for refusal of admission in conformity with Article 96 of the Schengen Convention. If
the person in question is flagged in the SIS, it is not possible to issue them a uniform Schengen visa. In
exceptional cases, a Schengen State can none the less issue a visa that is valid only for its territory (VTL).

As regards the procedure for issuing visas at the border, this is an exceptional procedure limited to specific
and duly justified cases. There are special facilitating conditions for seamen in transit (see the decision of
the Executive Committee of 19 December 1996 on issuing visas at borders to seamen in transit [SCH/
Com-ex (96) 27]) (1). In accordance with this decision, visas can be issued at borders to seamen who
present themselves at an external border without an entry visa owing to insufficient time and for
compelling grounds, subject to the condition that they do not belong to the category of aliens who cannot
be granted a visa without prior consultation pursuant to Annex 5B of the Common Consular Instructions.
The visa issued should be a transit visa valid for a maximum of five days and should mention that the
holder is a seaman.

Seamen who belong to the category of aliens who cannot be granted a visa without prior consultation
pursuant to Annex 5B of the Common Consular Instructions may, according to the Decision of the
Executive Committee of 26 April 1994 (SCH/Com-ex (94)2 rev) (1), be issued a limited visa for the territory
of the visa-issuing State.

In order to be able to assess the details of the issue of visas in Belgium for seamen in transit and
acceptance on entry into the territory by seamen in transit holding Schengen uniform visas issued by
another Schengen State, the Commission will make the necessary contacts to obtain further clarification of
the facts presented.

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.