WRITTEN QUESTION E-2114/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Exclusion of visitors other than invited guests, government officials and businessmen from non-EU European states with a low standard of living.
Date: 2003-06-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU visa policy, Europe, Schengen Agreement, administrative formalities, admission of aliens, foreign national, third country

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/75

After about a quarter of an hour, paramedics arrived; they left about a quarter of an hour later, carrying
the person questioned, who was unconscious, on a stretcher. According to some police officers, an
accident had occurred when that person had drawn a knife. The Italian citizen was then ushered in to the
interior of the police station, where he saw a policewoman cleaning a room covered in blood. He was
released at about 9 p.m. after a statement had been made.

Can the Commission say:

(cid:1) what type of agreement provides the basis for the Belgian police force to carry out such operations on

Dutch territory?

(cid:1) whether it is lawful for the Belgian police, on Dutch territory, to force an individual to board a train
to Belgium in order, subsequently, to accuse him of international drug smuggling, and whether it is
lawful for the Belgian police to question a foreign citizen on Dutch territory in connection with an
offence punishable in Belgium on the assumption of intent to commit that offence?

(cid:1) whether it has information about the ‘accident’ which occurred at about 8 p.m. on 26 April 2003 at

the police station at Anvers Central railway station?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Members that it is not aware of the incidents
related in their written question and that it, therefore, can not comment.

Since the case apparently involves the Belgian police, the Commission has informed the Belgian federal
authorities about the question. The Commission judges it more appropriate for the Honourable Members
to address the Belgian authorities themselves in order to get more information about the case.

The only information which the Commission can provide at this stage is that co-operation agreements
exist between Belgium and the Netherlands, which allow police of both Member States to undertake
controls on the territory of the other Member State, particularly in the field of the fight against drug
trafficking.

(2004/C 70 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2114/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Exclusion of visitors other than invited guests, government officials and businessmen from non-EU

European states with a low standard of living

1.
Is it part of the standard arrangements in the EU and the Schengen Agreement countries for their
embassies in non-EU European states with a low standard of living to require the inhabitants of those
countries to produce the following documents in support of a visa application before every visit:

(a)

the original of a recent pay slip,

(b) evidence of agreement from the applicant’s employer,

(c) proof of return travel if travelling by air,

(d) an invitation from a guarantor in the host country,

(e) proof of the professional need for the visit,

(f)

travel insurance approved by the embassy concerned?

2.
Is it also part of these standard arrangements that applicants can be made to wait for a long period
and that the payment they made in advance of the application is not refunded if the visa application is
turned down?

C 70 E/76

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

3. What percentage of people from the countries concerned who are interested in visiting EU territory
are prevented from doing so by these measures?

Is the aim of these restrictive conditions to make visits from these countries for people other than

4.
government officials, heads of large businesses and invited guests completely impossible?

Does the Commission think it wise to prevent inhabitants of countries which could become EU

5.
members in the future from visiting EU territory by means of a new kind of Iron Curtain?

How does the Commission intend to prevent the future withdrawal of the visa requirement in
6.
preparation for approaching EU membership from causing a rush to make up for lost time which will lead
to the arrival of a much larger number of ill-prepared visitors and permanent residents from the countries
in question?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

As regards the evidence to be provided in support of an application for a short-stay visa, Article 5(1) of the
Schengen Convention (1) lays down the conditions for entry into the territory of the Schengen States for
stays not exceeding three months. In accordance with point (c) of that provision, a third-country national
must, in order to be granted entry, ‘produce, if necessary, documents justifying the purpose and conditions
of the intended stay and […] have sufficient means of subsistence, both for the period of the intended stay
and for the return to their country of origin or transit to a third State into which they are certain to be
admitted, or are in a position to acquire such means lawfully’.

subject

third-country nationals

to the visa requirement under Regulation (EC)
In the case of
No 539/2001 (2), compliance with the entry conditions is first checked when the visa application is being
vetted. The Common Consular Instructions (‘CCI’) (3) thus stipulate that the visa applicant must enclose
with his application ‘where necessary, documents supporting the purpose and the conditions of the
planned visit’ (4), on the understanding that ‘the number and type of supporting documents required
depend on the possible risk of illegal immigration and the local situation […] and may vary from one
country to another’ (5). The CCI give a number of examples of supporting documents regarding the
purpose of the journey,
the means of subsistence and accom-
modation (6).

the means of transport and return,

The documents listed by the Honourable Member are some of the documents which, depending on the
circumstances and local conditions, may have to be provided in support of an application for a short-stay
visa.

As regards the fees levied, Council Decision 2002/44/EC of 20 December 2001 (7) replaced visa fees by
‘the fees to be charged corresponding to the administrative costs of processing visa applications’. These are,
therefore, administrative fees that are charged irrespective of whether the visa is issued. It should be noted
that the Council Decision must be implemented not later than 1 July 2004 but that the Member States
it before that date. Most Member States have already replaced visa fees by such
may implement
administrative fees.

As regard visa rejections,
the Commission does not possess any detailed statistics prepared by the
Member States that make it possible to ascertain the number of cases in which visa applications were
turned down because applicants were not in a position to establish by way of appropriate documents the
purpose and conditions of their stay.

As regards the effects of visa requirements,
concern as to the barriers to which visa requirements might give rise.

the Commission understands the Honourable Member’s

It would make two observations:

(cid:1) the common visa policy is one of the instruments that help to safeguard Member States against illegal
immigration and public order infringements. This justifies an appropriate level of vigilance when it
comes to processing visa applications;

(cid:1) the effect of visa requirements must be viewed in the light of the overall statistics on the number of
visas issued and visa applications turned down. These do not provide any justification whatsoever for
the Honourable Member’s concerns regarding a new kind of Iron Curtain.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/77

Lastly, as for visa conditions (entry and stay) in preparation for enlargement, ten accession countries as
well as Bulgaria and Romania appear on the list (cid:1) annexed to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, of the third
countries whose nationals are exempt from the visa requirement.

Ireland and the United Kingdom, which do not apply Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, have retained the visa
requirement for one or other of these third countries. Accession to the Union, which will mean that
nationals of the new Member States will benefit from the provisions of Community law relating to
freedom of movement for citizens of the Union, will require Ireland and the United Kingdom to put an
end to the visa requirement for such nationals.

After accession, stays by nationals of the new Member States on the territory of the present Member States
will be governed by the provisions of Community law relating to free movement, with account also being
taken of the relevant provisions in the Accession Treaty.

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in
from that

possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt
requirement, OJ L 81, 21.3.2001.

(3) OJ C 313, 16.12.2002.
(4) Point III.2(b) of the CCI.
(5) Point V.I.4. of the CCI.
(6) Point V.I.4. of the CCI.
(7) Council Decision 2002/44/EC of 20 December 2001 amending Part VII and Annex 12 to the Common Consular

Instructions and Annex 14a to the Common Manual, OJ L 20, 23.1.2002.

(2004/C 70 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2133/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Subject: Illegal immigration: US Department of State against Greece and Turkey

The press agency Reuters reported on 12 June 2003 that the US Department of State had placed Greece
and Turkey, a Member State and a candidate for membership of the European Union respectively, on its
blacklist of countries implicated in international human trafficking.

As a result, Greece and Turkey could face sanctions from the US authorities from 1 October 2003.

Does the Commission not feel that the above clearly illustrates once again the EU’s inability to deal
effectively with illegal immigration?

What steps does the Commission intend to take as a matter of urgency against Greece and Turkey, which
are clearly facilitating the illegal trafficking in human beings into the EU and, in particular, towards the
Italian coast?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

In June 2003, the State Department of the United States issued the third annual Trafficking in Persons
Report as required by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. This document is a report about the efforts of
governments to combat severe forms of trafficking in persons. Countries are placed in three different tiers,
15 countries (cid:1) among them Turkey and Greece (cid:1) are placed in tier 3. In this context the Honourable
Member raises a question on the activities of the Union as far as the fight against illegal immigration and
the smuggling of human beings is concerned.