WRITTEN QUESTION E-3320/03 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Transit visas in the EU.
Date: 2003-11-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU visa policy, admission of aliens, airport, foreign national, tax system, transit, traveller

C 78 E/258

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

As regards the level of information of citizens concerning the entry into force and content of the
Regulation, financial
institutions have to make available to their customers prior information on the
charges levied for cross-border and national payments, and to communicate to each customer upon
request his IBAN and BIC (Articles 4 and 5 of the Regulation). According to information available to the
Commission, this information has been disseminated, despite a number of complaints by citizens regarding
the information provided by some banks. The Commission continues to closely
lack of clarity of
monitoring the issue.

International Bank Account Number.

(1)
(2) Bank Identifier Code.

(2004/C 78 E/0259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3320/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Transit visas in the EU

In reference to answer E-2738/03 (1), would the Commission care to comment on whether or not an
expensive transit visa, not for landing but for transit only, imposed by a Member State would be likely to
distort travel patterns of passengers as they move through the EU?

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

With regard to the question of airport transit visas (ATVs) raised by the Honourable Member, the
Commission would like to make the following points:

(cid:1) As a general rule, travellers passing through the international transit area of an airport without
actually entering the national territory of the country concerned do not need to be in possession of a
visa. The Chicago Convention of 7 December 1944 on International Civil Aviation, and in particular
Annex 9 thereof, establishes the principle of free transit passage through the international areas of
airports. Exceptions may nevertheless be made to this general principle by notifying the International
Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which means that nationals of certain third countries may be
required to be in possession of airport transit visas. The decision to require nationals of certain third
countries to hold an ATV is prompted by considerations to do with the control of illegal immigration
and national security.

(cid:1) As far as the Member States are concerned, Joint Action 96/197/JHA of 4 March 1996 (1) established,
in the Annex thereto, a joint list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of an ATV.
The countries are Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia, Sri Lanka and
Zaire. The Joint Action does not contain any provision relating to the fees to be charged for the issue
of visas of this type.

(cid:1) The Member States which apply the Schengen ‘acquis’ in full (2) subsequently harmonised their policy
in this area, adding two more countries (Bangladesh and Pakistan) to the joint list and providing that
holders of travel documents issued by third countries included in the joint list are also subject to that
requirement (3). Conversely, where the nationals in question hold a residence permit issued by a
Member State of the European Economic Area or by certain other third countries (4), they are
exempted from the ATV requirement.

(cid:1) The Schengen States have also harmonised the fee to be charged for processing applications for ATVs,
currently EUR 10 (5). Council Decision 2003/454/EC of 13 June 2003 (6), which
which is
Member States must apply from 1 July 2005 at the latest, raised the fee to EUR 35. According to the
information in the Commission’s possession, only France has so far applied the Decision (since
1 October 2003).

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/259

(cid:1) In the case of nationals of third countries not on the joint lists, Member States remain free to decide

whether or not to require an ATV.

(cid:1) The Commission is aware that certain Member States have recently made the ATV compulsory for
nationals of several third countries that do not appear on the joint lists. It notes that the introduction
of visas of this type was prompted by the need to step up action to combat illegal immigration and
avert threats to law and order and security.

(1) OJ L 63, 13.3.1996.
(2) All Member States except the United Kingdom and Ireland.
(3) Annex 3, Part I, of the Common Consular Instructions (CCI), OJ C 313, 16.12.2002.
(4)

In particular Andorra, Canada, Japan, Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland and the United States: Annex 3, Part III, of
the CCI, ibidem, pp. 33-34.

(5) Annex 12 of the CCI, ibidem, p. 65.
(6) Council Decision 2003/454/EC amending Annex 12 of the Common Consular Instructions and Annex 14a of the

Common Manual on visa fees, OJ L 152, 20.6.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0260)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3323/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Suspected infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome

On 30 June 1998 the public transport corporation of Rome, ATAC, issued a call to tender, via resolution
No 162, for the design, construction and installation of a new system of machinery for dispensing and
validating tickets. The requirements turned out to be particularly difficult to meet, as regards both the
technical specifications, which were way above normal market standards, and the extremely short
deadlines for completion, impossible for any of the candidates to meet using current technologies. The
penalty clauses for delayed completion were also unrealistic. For these reasons none of the firms invited to
tender did so, except for TSF, which was excluded by the contracting entity, and ERG Motorola, which was
thus awarded the contract. Can the Commission say whether it considers that this procedure complied
with the provisions of Directive 93/38/EEC (1), Article 18(5) of which stipulates ‘technical specifications
which mention goods of a specific make or source or of a particular process, and which have the effect of
favouring or eliminating certain undertakings shall not be used’? Can it also say whether it considers that
the call to tender complies with Article 23(5) of the same directive which states that the selection criteria
must be ‘clear and non-discriminatory’ and ‘sufficient to ensure genuine competition’?

After the contract was awarded to ERG the specifications were radically altered by decision No 11 of
25 August 1999 issued by ATAC’s sole administrator, whereby the above-mentioned conditions were
cancelled and replaced by contractual terms favourable to the contractor as regards both the technical
characteristics and completion dates, as well as the amount of the penalty. Furthermore, the specifications
of the machinery finally delivered by ERG do not in any way match those described in the call to tender of
1998. Does the Commission not consider that this behaviour infringes the rules on competition laid down
in Article 81(d) of the Treaty?

The contract for maintaining the machines was subsequently also awarded to ERG without a public
tendering procedure. This private arrangement was justified by the claim that the maintenance contract
was inseparable from the other one. ‘Expert’ opinions of dubious origin were used as documentation in
support of this argument. Can the Commission, within the scope of its competences, ensure that the
matter is investigated more thoroughly?

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 138.