Report from the Commission to the Council on visa waiver reciprocity with certain third countries in accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement as regards the reciprocity mechanism
Date: 2006-01-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, admission of aliens, external border of the EU, foreign national, rights of aliens, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 10.1.2006 
COM(2006) 3 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

on visa  waiver reciprocity with certain third countries 

in accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose 
nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those 
whose nationals are exempt from that requirement as regards the reciprocity 
mechanism 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
I. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 3 

II. implementation of the new reciprocity mechanism:.............................................................. 3 

III. results of the new reciprocity mechanism ............................................................................ 5 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

With certain third countries, a positive outcome has already been achieved: ............. 5 

Costa Rica .................................................................................................................... 5 

Nicaragua ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Panama ......................................................................................................................... 6 

Venezuela..................................................................................................................... 6 

Brazil ............................................................................................................................ 6 

With a series of other third countries, the solution of the non-reciprocity problems 
has already been announced, but needs further implementation and/or verification... 7 

Brunei Darussalam ....................................................................................................... 7 

Malaysia ....................................................................................................................... 8 

Singapore ..................................................................................................................... 8 

Uruguay........................................................................................................................ 9 

With three third countries, we are significantly further from a solution to the issue of 
non-reciprocity. ............................................................................................................ 9 

Australia ....................................................................................................................... 9 

United States of America ........................................................................................... 11 

Canada........................................................................................................................ 13 

Annex 1A ................................................................................................................................. 17 

Annex 1B.................................................................................................................................. 18 

Annex 2 .................................................................................................................................... 20 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
I. INTRODUCTION 

Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 is at the heart of the common EU 
visa  policy,  listing  the  third  countries  whose  nationals  must  be  in  possession  of  visas  when 
crossing  the  external  borders  (Annex  I  to  the  Regulation)  and  those  whose  nationals  are 
exempt from that requirement1 (Annex II to the Regulation). 

The  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  are  not  bound  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  539/2001. 
The  reciprocity  mechanism  and  consequently  this  report  covers  all  other  Member  States 
including those who acceded in 2004 plus Iceland and Norway that are bound by Regulation 
(EC) No 539/2001 because of their association with the Schengen acquis. 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  851/2005  of  2  June  2005  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No 
539/2001  includes  a  new  reciprocity  mechanism2  aiming  at  establishing  reciprocity  through 
appropriate  measures  towards  third  countries  still  requiring  a  visa  from  Member  States 
citizens for stays of less than 90 days while the EU Member States concerned do not apply 
such  visa  requirements  towards  the  citizens  of  these  third  countries.  This  new  reciprocity 
mechanism is being implemented as follows: 

– 

– 

– 

Member States had to notify by 24 July 2005 all existing non reciprocity situations 
and these notifications have been published on 11 October in the Official Journal; 

Following this publication, the Commission, in consultation with the Member States, 
had to take immediately the necessary steps with the authorities of the third countries 
not applying reciprocity, in order to restore visa-free travel; 

Within three months from the publication of the notifications in the Official Journal, 
the  Commission  has  to  present  a  report  to  the  Council,  possibly  accompanied  by  a 
proposal providing for the temporary restoration of the visa requirement for nationals 
of the third countries concerned. This report is the subject of this communication. 

In addition, a Council and Commission joint declaration (OJ C 172, 12.7.2005, p. 1) refers to 
the  possibility  of  taking  other  provisional  measures  towards  the  countries  concerned, 
particularly in political, economic and commercial fields. 

II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW RECIPROCITY MECHANISM: 

Notifications of non-reciprocity situations existing at the time of entry into force of the new 
Regulation (24 June 2005) were made by 18 Member States, namely Austria, Cyprus, Czech 
Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. Iceland and Norway also submitted 
notifications.3 

1 
2 

3 

OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p.1 
On the former reciprocity mechanism, see the Commission Staff Working Paper on the reciprocity in 
visas (Document JAI-B-1 (2004) 1372, 18.2.2004). 
They informed the Council in accordance with Art (2a) of the Agreement concluded by the Council of 
the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latter’s 
association  with  the  implementation,  application  and  development  of  the  Schengen  acquis  that  they 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  first  notifications  were  published  in  the  Official  Journal  on  11  October  20054.  This 
publication started the 90 day period within which the Commission was to take steps with the 
authorities  of  the  third  countries  concerned  in  order  to  convince  them  to  abolish  the  visa 
obligation  they  still  impose  on  nationals  of  certain  Member  States  and  to  report  to  the 
Council. However, several Member States had not submitted the notifications by the deadline; 
consequently, their notifications were published later (on 10 November 2005 for the Austrian, 
Danish and Swedish notifications5 and on 8 December 20056 for the Norwegian and Icelandic 
notifications7). 

In  the  light  of  the  number  of  cases  notified,  it  has  to  be  acknowledged  that  the  situation  as 
regards reciprocity has very much improved since the period which directly followed the last 
enlargement  of  the  EU.  On  the  basis  of  informal  information  collected  by  the  Commission, 
among  the  33  third  countries  that  appear  on  Annex  II  of  Council  Regulation  539/2001,  22 
countries  required  visas  from  one  or  more  new  Member  States.  Altogether  there  were  112 
cases of non-reciprocity towards new Member States as at 1 May 2004 (see Annex 1 A). 

The notification system introduced in the framework of the new reciprocity mechanism shows 
that the number of non-reciprocity cases has fallen significantly since enlargement (see Annex 
1  B).  Only  13  third  countries  were  notified,  and  5  among  the  13  were  notified  for  reasons 
other than imposing a visa requirement. In reference to these 13 third countries 75 cases were 
notified and, among these, 18 cases concerned the limitation of the period of stay under the 
visa  waiver  (less  than  90  days)  and  4  concerned  specific  formalities  for  border  crossing  or 
short stay.  

The improvement of the situation is a result of the diplomatic efforts of the Commission and 
the Member States since 1 May 2004 and confirms the efficiency of the method on which the 
new  reciprocity  mechanism  is  based,  including  dialogue  and  diplomatic  contacts  with  the 
third countries concerned. 

In response to the notifications the Commission sent letters to the Member States, Iceland and 
Norway inviting them to supply further information on the non-reciprocity cases with special 
regard to the possible reasons for being subject to the visa obligation and the bilateral steps 
taken  in  order  to  remedy  the  situation.  On  the  basis  of  the  information  received  the 
Commission,  where  appropriate,  further  consulted  the  Member  States  in  order  to  clarify 
inconsistencies. The Commission regularly updated the Council on the state of play. 

Following  these  notifications  and  on  the  basis  of  the  information  received  by  the  Member 
States,  Iceland  and  Norway,  the  Commission  delivered  verbal  notes  to  the  third  countries 
concerned and held a series of bilateral meetings with their authorities.  

4 
5 
6 
7 

accept the content of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005. Consequently the reciprocity mechanism 
is applicable to these countries. Iceland has submitted its non-reciprocity notification on 25 October and 
Norway on 15 November 2005. 
OJ C 251 of 11.10.2005 [publication of the initial CZ notification, OJ C 163 of 5.7.2005] 
OJ C 277 of 10.11.2005 
OJ C 310 of 8.12.2005 
The follow up of the notifications by Iceland and Norway is ensured in the same procedure as the non-
reciprocity cases notified by Member States, however, due consideration needs to be taken with regard 
to the legal constraints on the external representation of Norway and Iceland by the Commission. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
III. RESULTS OF THE NEW RECIPROCITY MECHANISM 

As a result of the above-mentioned contacts with third countries authorities, the Commission 
distinguishes three categories of third countries according to the level of achievement8: 

1. 

WITH  CERTAIN  THIRD  COUNTRIES,  A  POSITIVE  OUTCOME  HAS  ALREADY  BEEN 
ACHIEVED: 

1.1. 

Costa Rica 

Notifications: Slovakia and Estonia (visa waiver limited to visits of 30 days).  

Costa Rica’s authorities provided the Commission with the “General Rules of visas for non-
residents”  dated  22  November  2005,  according  to  which  Slovakia  and  Estonia  enjoy  a  visa 
waiver  for  stays  of  up  to  90  days  in  Costa  Rica.  When  verifying  these  general  rules,  the 
Commission  noted  that  Iceland  was  the  only  Schengen  State  not  included  in  the  list  of 
countries  benefiting  from  a  visa  waiver  for  stays  up  to  90  days.  The  Commission  drew  the 
attention of the Costa Rican authorities to this and was told that Iceland will enjoy the same 
status  soon.  An  amendment  of  the  above-mentioned  “General  Rules”  to  that  end  has  been 
announced. 

Assessment 

The  Commission  considers  that,  according  to  the  information  provided  by  the  Costa  Rican 
authorities, citizens from all Member States and associated countries – including, in the very 
near future, Iceland - are now exempt from the visa obligation. 

1.2. 

Nicaragua 

Notifications: Latvia (requirement to procure a tourist card upon arrival), Austria (visa waiver 
for stays up to one month) and Iceland (visa requirement). 

The Nicaraguan authorities provided information to the Commission regarding their national 
legislation  (“Decreto  Presidencial  n°57-2005”),  which  entered  into  force  on  5  September 
2005,  exempting  from  the  visa  obligation  inter  alia  the  citizens  of  all  Member  States  and 
associated countries for stays of up to 90 days. Citizens of all countries which are not subject 
to  the  visa  requirement  have  to  pay  a  tax  and  are  issued  a  tourist  card  upon  entry  into  the 
country. 

Assessment 

According  to  the  information  provided  by  the  Nicaraguan  authorities,  citizens  from  all 
Member States and associated countries are now exempt from the visa obligation.  

8 

Paraguay was notified by Iceland (visa requirement). Because of the late arrival of this notification, the 
verbal  note  was  sent  to  Paraguayan  authorities  only  on  5  December  2005.  No  reply  has  yet  been 
received.  The  specific  case  of  Bolivia  deserves  further  explanation.  Bolivia  was  notified  by  three 
Member States (Malta, Estonia, Latvia). However, the Commission did not include this country in its 
demarches  pursuant  to  the  new  reciprocity  mechanism  with  regard  to  its  forthcoming  proposal  to 
transfer Bolivia to Annex I of Regulation (EC) n° 539/2001. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.3. 

Panama 

Notifications:  Estonia,  Malta,  the  Slovak  Republic,  Iceland  and  Norway  (visa  requirement). 
Estonia, the Slovak Republic and Malta subsequently informed the Commission that Panama 
had exempted their nationals from the visa obligation.  

Panama’s authorities confirmed that citizens of Estonia, Malta and Slovakia are not required 
to  hold  a  visa  to  enter  Panamanian  territory.  Additional  information  was  sent  to  the 
Commission  regarding  a  list  of  countries  (“clasificación  migratoria”)  dated  10  June  2005, 
stating that citizens from all Member States, as well as from Iceland and Norway are exempt 
from the visa obligation.  

Assessment 

The  Commission  considers  that,  according  to  the  information  provided  by  the  Panamanian 
authorities, citizens from all Member States and associated countries are now exempt from the 
visa obligation. 

1.4. 

Venezuela 

Notifications:  Austria  (visa  waiver  only  for  stays  of  up  to  60  days),  Germany  (visa 
requirement when entering Venezuela by land or sea), Latvia and Sweden (requirement of a 
tourist card).  

The  authorities  of  Venezuela  provided  the  Commission  with  a  document  produced  by  the 
country’s  Foreign  Ministry  (General  Directorate  of  Consular  Relations)  and  available  for 
public  consultation  on  the  Ministry’s  website,  in  which  appears  the  list  of  Countries  whose 
citizens do not require a visa for a period of less than 90 days. All Member States appear in 
the list as do Iceland and Norway. 

The  citizens  of  all  countries  on  the  list  are  required  to  complete  the  Tourist  Card  DEX-2 
before  or  during  entry  controls.  The  Card  is  composed  of  two  elements:  one  is  kept  by  the 
immigration  officer  and  the  other  is  returned  to  the  person.  The  Venezuelan  authorities 
maintain this measure for statistical reasons. It was confirmed to the Commission, that under 
the current visa and border control system no distinction exists any longer between air, land 
and sea entries to the country  

Assessment 

The Commission considers that, according to the information provided by the authorities of 
Venezuela, citizens from all Member States as well as Iceland and Norway are now exempted 
from  the  visa  obligation.  The  Tourist  Card DEX-2  required  upon  arrival  in  Venezuela  does 
not correspond to a visa obligation. It is uniformly applied to all citizens of countries which 
are not subject to visa requirement travelling to Venezuela; it corresponds to a disembarkation 
card or a declaration of arrival and it is free of charge. 

1.5. 

Brazil 

Notification: Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta (visa 
requirement). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
The  Brazilian  authorities  have  already  expressed  and  formally  confirmed  their  political 
willingness to exempt from the visa requirement the citizens of those Member States who are 
still under such an obligation. In this context, Brazil sent to the Commission in July 2005 a 
draft agreement with the European Community to exempt nationals of those Member States 
that are still required to hold a visa to enter Brazil from this requirement, leaving the existing 
bilateral agreements with other Member States unaffected.  

The  Brazilian  authorities  informed  the  Commission  that  according  to  the  Brazilian 
Constitution, as a visa exemption entails a loss of fiscal revenues, it requires the approval of 
the  Brazilian  Parliament.  Therefore,  an  international  agreement  has  to  be  negotiated.  Brazil 
also informed the Commission of the difficulties, from a political point of view, of replacing 
or amending the existing bilateral agreements with other Member States. 

Assessment 

Given the exclusive external competence of the Community in this area, the conclusion of a 
visa  waiver  agreement  between  the  EC  and  Brazil,  which  would  be  applicable  only  to  a 
limited number of Member States, is not possible. When the Community exercises its external 
competence, it exercises this competence for the whole Community, subject only to the opt-
out provisions concerning Ireland and the United Kingdom.  

Therefore, taking into account the political commitment of the Brazilian authorities to ensure 
full reciprocity with all Member States regarding the exemption from the visa requirement, it 
should be further examined how these legal and political obstacles could be overcome. It is 
the Commission’s intention to present a recommendation to the Council aiming at obtaining 
negotiating  directives  for  a  visa  waiver  agreement  between  the  European  Community  and 
Brazil  covering  all  Member  States  and  which  will  replace  the  existing  bilateral  visa  waiver 
agreements with Member States. 

2. 

WITH A SERIES OF OTHER THIRD COUNTRIES, THE SOLUTION OF THE NON-RECIPROCITY 
PROBLEMS  HAS  ALREADY  BEEN  ANNOUNCED,  BUT  NEEDS  FURTHER  IMPLEMENTATION 
AND/OR VERIFICATION 

2.1. 

Brunei Darussalam 

Notification:  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Portugal,  Slovenia,  Finland 
and Iceland (visa requirement); Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden and Norway (visa-
free stay limited to 14 days); Germany, Greece and Austria (visa free stay limited to 30 days). 

At  technical  level,  Brunei  authorities  acknowledged  the  differences  in  treatment  of  the 
Member  States  and  announced  that  the  competent  authorities  are  to  reflect  on  possible 
solutions  which  would  provide  for  the  equal  treatment  of  all  Member  States.  While  noting 
that the citizens of Brunei benefit from a visa free stay of 90 days within the territory of the 
Member States, it was stressed that Brunei is a small country, which does not grant visa free 
stays  beyond  30  days  even  to  its  Asian  neighbours  (according  to  information  at  the 
Commission’s disposal there is only one third country, the US, which benefits from a 90 day 
visa exemption by Brunei). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Assessment 

Although  a  visa  free  stay  of  less  than  90  days  for  citizens  of  Member  States  (and  with  the 
same period of stay for all Member States’ citizens) cannot be considered a granting of full 
reciprocity,  Brunei  offered  to  apply  as  favourable  conditions  to  all  EU  citizens  as  it  applies 
vis-à-vis its closest Asian partners. The equal treatment between Member States would thus 
be guaranteed. Taking into account the size of Brunei Darussalam, the small number of EU 
citizens  concerned  and  its  approach  towards  the  citizens  of  the  neighbouring  countries,  it 
should be discussed with Member States whether a limited period of visa free stay – up to 30 
days - would not be sufficient  for the  professional and private needs of EU citizens. In any 
case, a visa free stay for all Member States and associated countries albeit limited in time to 
less than 90 days still needs to be confirmed by the authorities of Brunei Darussalam. 

2.2. 

Malaysia 

Notifications: Greece, Latvia and Estonia (visa waiver limited to visits of less than 30 days).  

The  Commission  received  assurances  from  the  Malaysian  side  that  they  do  not  see  major 
difficulties in extending the visa waiver for visits of up to 90 days to this three Member States 
and to Portugal which apparently is in the same situation. The Malaysian authorities informed 
that they are examining this issue and that they would come back with an official reply, which 
has not been received yet. 

Assessment 

Following  the  encouraging  contacts  with  Malaysian  authorities,  the  Commission  considers 
that  this  matter  should  be  followed  up  in  order  to  ensure  full  reciprocity  regarding  the  visa 
waiver regime for the citizens of all Member States and associated countries. 

2.3. 

Singapore 

Notification: Estonia (visa requirement for visits of more than 30 days). 

The  Singaporean  authorities  informed  the  Commission  that  at  the  moment  of  entry  into  its 
territory,  Singapore  provides  an  endorsement  in  the  passport  of  the  citizens  of  the  Member 
States in which their entitlement to remain is specified as 30 days. A citizen of the Member 
States may then apply for two extensions of 30 days each. This application is simple and free 
of charge. This procedure applies to the citizens of all countries benefiting from a visa waiver 
regime. The Singaporean side justified this procedure with the legitimate interest of Singapore 
to  know  the  reasons  of  a  person  who  wishes  to  stay  in  Singapore  for  more  than  one  month 
given the relatively small size of the country.  

Assessment 

The  Commission  considers  that,  taking  into  account  the  circumstances  in  which  the  initial 
visa waiver stay is limited to 30 days (in particular: equal treatment of all nationals exempt 
from  the  visa  obligation;  easy  procedure  for  visa-free  prolongation  of  stay;  size  of  the 
country) and the principle of proportionality, there is no reason to pursue this matter further. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2.4. 

Uruguay 

Notification: Estonia (visa requirement). 

The  Uruguayan  authorities  have  orally  informed  the  Commission  that  there  is  no  legal 
objection  to  the  waiving  of  the  visa  requirement  for  Estonian  citizens  and  that,  as  a 
consequence,  a  decree  establishing  reciprocity  has  been  prepared  and  should  be  approved 
soon. 

Assessment 

The Commission considers that, according to the information provided by the authorities of 
Uruguay, reciprocity for all Member States will be effective soon. The Commission will keep 
the  Council  informed  concerning  the  entry  into  force  of  the  decree  announced  by  the 
Uruguayan authorities. 

3. 

WITH  THREE  THIRD  COUNTRIES,  WE  ARE  SIGNIFICANTLY  FURTHER  FROM  A  SOLUTION 
TO THE ISSUE OF NON-RECIPROCITY. 

Australia,  Canada  and  the  United  States  are  examining  all  Member  States  not  currently 
benefiting  from  visa  reciprocity  on  a  case  by  case  basis  in  accordance  with  their  applicable 
laws  and  other,  non-statutory  criteria.  While  it  is  recognised  that  the  concerned  Member 
States need to take measures to meet those criteria, it is essential that each country is provided 
with a set of comprehensive, specific and measurable criteria which need to be met, thereby 
providing them with a pathway towards achieving visa reciprocity. 

3.1. 

Australia 

All  non-citizens9  must  obtain  a  visa  before  travelling  to  Australia.  Depending  on  the 
nationality  of  the  person  concerned,  the  visa  application  must  be  made  electronically  -an 
Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) or an eVisa (for details see Annex 2)- or at a diplomatic 
mission. In addition, nationals of several countries need to be in possession of a transit visa 
for transiting Australia on the way to another country.  

Australia  requests  only  an  ETA  from  nationals  of  14  Member  States  (Belgium,  Denmark, 
Germany,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Austria,  Portugal, 
Finland, Sweden), as well as the associated States Iceland and Norway. An eVisa is requested 
from the nationals of 9 Member States (Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Hungary,  Poland,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia).  Since  1  November  2005  all  transit  visa 
requirements, which had been requested from nationals of these 9 Member States submitted to 
the eVisa, have been abolished. 

Australia was thus notified for two different reasons of non reciprocity: seven Member States 
as well as the associated States Norway and Iceland notified the Electronic Travel Authority 
(ETA)  system,  nine  Member  States  notified  for  being  submitted  to  a  visa  obligation  going 
beyond the ETA obligation. 

9 

Only New Zealand citizens who hold a valid New Zealand passport do not need to obtain a visa before 
travelling  to  Australia,  unless  there  are  health  or  character  concerns.  On  arrival  in  Australia,  New 
Zealand citizens are automatically granted a Special Category Visa which is recorded electronically. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  eVisa  has  been  available  for  nine  Member  States  since  1  July  2004  (for  stays  of  up  to 
three months, and since 1 July 2005 for stays of up to twelve months for all Member States), 
and  out  of  them  three  Member  States  (Estonia,  Latvia  and  Slovenia)  benefit  from  the 
“autogrant” facility.  

Australian  authorities  stress  that,  compared  with  the  European  Union,  their  “visa”  policy  is 
not focused on a short stay of three months, but it offers a more generous approach for stays 
of  up  to  twelve  months  including  generous  and  facilitated  entry  and  stay  conditions.  These 
include on-line visa applications for visas valid for up to twelve months as of July 2005 (for 
all Member States), working holiday arrangements (11 Member States and Norway), on the 
basis of which travel funds can be supplemented through incidental employment, facilitation 
for visas for students and simplification through issuance of permits covering both residence 
and work. 

In several informal and formal contacts between the Commission services and the Australian 
authorities, the latter underlined that Australia’s universal visa regime is a proportionate and 
cost-effective  response  to  its  geographic  position  and  security  concerns.  Australia  finds  it 
necessary to check passengers prior to departure at least via the ETA, in order to avoid on the 
one hand any security risks (also for the sake of co-travellers) and on the other hand in order 
to avoid major inconvenience which could be caused to travellers, if they were refused entry 
after a long journey. 

Australia stressed that it reacted positively to the accession of ten new Member States in May 
2004 and has provided for facilitation of visa issuing since then.  

As  far  as  the  differences  in  treatment  between  the  Member  States  are  concerned,  Australia 
justifies  the  need  to  maintain  its  current  eVisa  system  for  short  stays  towards  nine  Member 
States as follows: three Member States have shown an increase in the overstay rate since the 
introduction  of  the  eVisa  in  July  2004;  three  new  Member  States  do  not  have  a  system 
allowing  to  distinguish  online  between  travel  documents  issued  to  EU  citizens  and  those 
issued  by  EU  Member  States  to  non-citizens;  for  six  Member  States  the  use  of  fraudulent 
supporting  documents  is  high;  in  addition,  Australia  mentioned  visa  cancellation  rates  and 
visa refusal rates for several Member States. 

However,  in  its  very  comprehensive  reply  to  the  Commission’s  verbal  note,  Australia  also 
underlined its commitment to continue reviewing its procedures on a country by country basis 
within the first semester of 2006: “Australia continues to consider actively the issues that have 
been raised by the Commission including the question of the Visa Application Charge (VAC), 
further reduction of documentation requirements and other refinements to the electronic visa 
facility that will continue to strengthen people movement between Australia and the EU. We 
will  continue  to  make  progressive  adjustments  to  our  systems  to  achieve  this  goal,  and  will 
ensure the Commission and Member States are kept regularly informed of developments.” In 
meetings  with  Commission  services,  Australian  authorities  have  indicated  that  they  will 
provide a timetable for the introduction of these stream lining measures. 

“The Australian Government is committed to this process of continuous improvement and any 
possibility  of  extending  ETA  to  the  remaining  9  EU  Member  States  currently  without  ETA 
access  will  need  to  be  considered  as  part  of  this  process,  taking  into  account  the  current 
security environment.” 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
The Australian authorities have indicated that the visa reciprocity issue would require a broad 
cross-government  approach  and  that  the  subject  would  be  addressed  during  the  first  half  of 
2006. 

Assessment 

It needs to be acknowledged that Australia while maintaining its  current visa system shows 
willingness  and  openness  to  facilitate  entry  into  Australia  for  nationals  of  those  Member 
States who do not yet benefit from access to the ETA system and to facilitate the entry and 
stay  conditions  in  general  also  for  stays  going  beyond  three  months.  A  series  of  facilitating 
measures have indeed already been taken such as the abolition of the remaining transit visa 
requirements (nine Member States), and the use of the eVisa, even with autogrant facility. In 
this  context,  more  clarity  and  transparency  should  be  demanded  from  the  Australian 
authorities  with  regard  to  the  applicable  criteria,  the  exact  sequencing  of  the  streamlining 
measures,  and  the  steps  which  would  need  to  be  taken  by  the  parties  concerned  in  order  to 
achieve progress. 

The Commission has the intention to continue the result-oriented dialogue with Australia. 

A certain number of issues should be further clarified with the Australian authorities, such as 
the  distinction  in  the  electronic  system  between  different  kinds  of  passports  issued  by  a 
Member  State  and  the  efficiency,  criticised  by  certain  Member  States,  of  certain  facilities 
offered  under  the  eVisa  system.  For  the  Commission  the  first  priority  is  to  achieve  equal 
treatment of the citizens of all Member States by bringing those currently subject to the eVisa 
within the scope of the ETA system. The issue of the ETA system – the ETA being a visa, i.e. 
an  authorisation  to  be  obtained  before  travelling,  however  without  the  inconveniences  of 
submitting  a  visa  application  –  can  be  pursued  at  a  later  stage.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  in 
particular  the  Australian  conditions  and  procedures  for  entry  and  stays  going  beyond  three 
months are favourable to travellers and less complex than the respective rules within the EU.  

3.2. 

United States of America 

Ten  Member  States  (Czech  Republic,  Greece,  Estonia,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Hungary, 
Malta, Poland and Slovakia) notified that the US imposes a visa requirement on their citizens.  

The  US  Visa  Waiver  Program10  (VWP)  allows  nationals  from  27  participating  countries  to 
enter the US as temporary visitors for business or leisure without first obtaining a visa from a 
U.S. consulate abroad. 

The  countries  participating  in  the  programme  are  designated  by  the  Secretary  of  Homeland 
Security  in  consultation  with  the  Secretary  of  State.  The  conditions  for  participation  in  the 
VWP are established by US law11 and are summarised in Annex 2. 

10 

11 

The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) was established as a temporary program by the Immigration Reform 
and  Control  Act  of  1986  (P.L.  99-  603).  Congress  periodically  enacted  legislation  to  extend  the 
program’s  authorization.  Finally,  the  program  gained  permanent  status  on  30  October  2000,  by  the 
adoption of the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act (P.L. 106-396). 
The conditions are set by the Immigration and Nationality Act (U.S.C. 1187), the Border Security Act, 
and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The US emphasises “that the requirements for a country’s acceptance into the United States 
Visa  Waiver  Program  (VWP)  have  been  established  by  Congress  as  a  matter  of  law  ... 
Countries desiring to participate in the Visa Waiver Program must individually satisfy all of 
these criteria. Any changes to the current criteria would require an Act of Congress.” The EU 
Member States that are not yet part of it do not fulfil all of those criteria, consequently it is not 
possible to include them in the VWP in the short term. The US does not consider membership 
of the European Union as, in itself, sufficient ground for VWP eligibility. 

US  officials  have  noted  consistently  that  in  the  aftermath  of  the  terrorist  attacks  on  11 
September  2001,  Congress  has  shown  no  enthusiasm  for  softening  the  VWP  eligibility 
criteria. Nevertheless, there has been a public acknowledgement by the US authorities of the 
desirability of bringing the new Member States and Greece into the VWP should they meet 
the  criteria.  With  this  in  mind,  in  February  2005,  President  Bush  proposed  a  “roadmap” 
framework  to  focus  and  guide  these  joint  efforts  toward  the  goal  of  potential  future 
participation in the Visa Waiver Program. Nine of the 10 European Member States concerned 
(Cyprus is the exception) now have such roadmaps. Joint consular working groups have now 
been established in all of the new EU member states and these groups are meeting regularly to 
develop roadmaps and to advance this agenda. 

The  roadmaps  are  shaped  to  the  circumstances  of  each  country  but  contain  a  number  of 
common elements, including: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

A US agreement to look at the visa application review process; 

Removing all pre-1989 cases from overstay calculations; 

The  need  for  the  government  concerned  to  meet  the  well-established  technical 
requirements  of  US  legislation  (eg.:  overstay  and  non-immigrant  visa  refusal  rates, 
biometrics, lost and stolen passport reporting, etc) 

The  need  for  governments  to  promote  public  awareness  campaigns  to  increase 
awareness of the requirements and obligations associated with travel to the US. 

The US has acknowledged that the current roadmaps are not comprehensive (i.e. that is they 
do not cover all the criteria which are applied to a judgement on a country’s VWP eligibility) 
and  that  in  some  cases  criteria  are  essentially  subjective.  In  addition,  some  of  the  statistical 
data on which the criteria are measured (e.g. overstays) are imperfect. 

The issue of visa reciprocity has been put by the EU side on the agenda of EU-US meetings at 
all levels up to and including the Summit. The matter was also discussed at the 18 October 
2005  meeting  between  President  Barroso  and  President  Bush  in  Washington.  In  its  written 
reply to the Commission’s note verbale, the US authorities acknowledged the importance of 
the issue in EU-US relations, recognised the Community aspects of the issue, and agreed to 
provide  the  Commission  with  quarterly  updates  on  progress  on  the  VWP  roadmaps. 
Nevertheless,  the  US  continues  to  stress  that  it  “will  continue  to  evaluate  individually  the 
progress of countries toward VWP membership as required by law”. 

In  a  formal  follow-up  to  the  note  verbale,  the  Commission  met  with  senior  US  officials  in 
Washington in November to further explain the nature of the amended reciprocity mechanism 
and to press for progress on the problem of non-reciprocity. Commission officials also held a 
useful exchange with Washington representatives of the 10 Member States currently outside 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
the  VWP.  This  was  helpful  in  exploring  the  possibility  of  a  more  consistent  and  coherent 
approach to achieving a common objective. 

Assessment 

The  Commission  recognises  the  US  commitment  at  the  highest  political  level  to  the  VWP 
roadmap process. 

Considering  the  reaction  of  Member  States  and  the  realities  of  US  visa  policy,  the 
Commission  believes  that  the  VWP  roadmap  process  could  be  an  adequate  means  for 
ensuring visa exemption for all EU citizens in the medium term and is willing to endorse this 
approach.  However,  to  make  this  approach  fully  effective  we  need  greater  specificity  and 
consistency in setting goals and measurements in these roadmaps. This has been accepted by 
the US administration in the framework of the Joint EU-US Work Programme of November 
2005  in  view  of  the  Implementation  of  the  Economic  Initiative  of  the  June  2005  EU-US 
Summit:  one  of  the  objectives  is  to  “establish  clear  and  comprehensive  Country  Road  Map 
processes  for  all  non-Visa  Waiver  Programme  (VWP)  EU  Member  States  providing  a 
pathway  for  non-VWP  EU  Member  States  to  meet  the  requirements  and  to  join  the  US 
VWP.”  

The specific activities include: efforts to “develop and implement comprehensive and specific 
country road maps for all non-VWP EU Member States covering statutory and non-statutory 
aspects, with appropriate benchmarks”, and to “work together to promote visa waiver status 
and use consular committees in all EU Member States seeking entry into the VWP to further 
refine individual country plans, including mechanisms for measuring progress.”  

The US has so far shown no willingness to consider interim facilitation measures such as visa 
fee exemption. Nevertheless, the US should continue to be pressed at least to streamline some 
aspects of the visa application process. 

3.3. 

Canada 

Seven  Member  States  (Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Hungary,  Poland  and 
Slovakia) notified that Canada imposes a visa requirement on their citizens. 

The approach of the Canadian authorities concerning visa exemption for EU Member States is 
similar to that of the US. Canada evaluates visa exemption for a country individually and does 
not grant a block exemption on the basis of EU Membership. In Canada clear criteria as to the 
preconditions  for  visa  waiver  are  not  legally  defined.  As  the  Canadian  authorities  put  it  in 
their reply of 13 December 2005 to the Commission’s note verbale: “Canada’s visa review is 
an  administrative  process  founded  on  an  objective  assessment  of  the  risks  and  benefits 
associated with the movement of a country’s citizens.” The assessment criteria are outlined in 
Annex 2. 

In  2004  Citizenship  and  Immigration  Canada  (CIC)  undertook  a  review  of  its  visa  waiver 
scheme.  The  seven  Member  States  concerned  received  questionnaires  differing  rather 
significantly  in  terms  of  content.  Canadian  authorities  confirmed  that  “the  review  was 
conducted  on  a  country-by-country  basis  and  took  into  consideration  the  extensive  reforms 
and  fast  pace  of  change  within  the  affected  new  Member  States”.  There  was  considerable 
disappointment when it was announced in May 2005 that none of the seven would have the 
visa requirement waived as a result of this evaluation. The Canadian authorities gave various 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
reasons as to why these decisions had been taken, such as passport and document security and 
related  fraud,  high  refusal  rates  of  visa  applications,  organised  crime,  economic  migration, 
government  corruption,  labour  market  liberalisation  in  the  EU12,  unemployment  and  wage 
rates, social disparities, refugee claims and links with US policy13. 

Visa reciprocity has been put on the agenda of EU-Canada meetings at all levels by the EU 
side and it was clarified that the EU considers that it is an issue of EU-Canada relations. 

The leaders of the EU and Canada agreed, on the occasion of the video conference summit on 
24  November  2005,  “to  take  forward  a  transparent  process  of  intensified  dialogue  on 
establishing visa-exempt travel for citizens of all EU Member States and Canada”. 

Canada confirmed  its  commitment to continue the dialogue and “to continue to monitor the 
progress  being  made  and  to  begin  another  comprehensive  visa  review  in  2007  for  countries 
which have not gained visa-free status by then. … The timing of Canada’s next review will 
follow the Schengen evaluation process when it is expected that the new Member States will 
have assumed full membership in the Schengen border-free area.” 

In  the  framework  of  this  dialogue  Canadian  authorities  conducted,  in  November  2005, 
technical visits to the Baltic States and Poland and propose further visits to Hungary, Slovakia 
and the Czech Republic in January 2006. Canada confirmed that the seven Member States are 
at  different  level  of  compliance  and  “Canada  is  monitoring  developments  on  an  on-going 
basis and remains open to taking action towards visa waiver in advance of the 2007 review 
should the developments in any new Member State allow it to do so. New Member States are 
welcome to share with Canada any developments of which they would like it to be aware at 
any time.”  

Canada  also  refers  to  its  joint  commitments  with  the  US  with  regard  to  security  and  border 
management  issues:  “Canada  and  the  US  are  committed  to  the  close  coordination  of  our 
distinct  visa  policies.  While  each  country  continues  to  maintain  independence  in  the 
development of their own visa policy and requirements, each country has agreed to consider 
the implications of anticipated changes to their visa policy and/or requirements on the other. 
We  therefore  consult  one  another  regularly  to  ensure  that  the  direction  we  are  seeking 
continues to meet our mutual objectives and interests.” 

The abolition or substantial reduction of visa fees suggested by the Commission as a first step 
in the process leading to visa exemption was rejected.  

Assessment 

Canada  has  engaged  in  a  dialogue  on  establishing  mutual  visa  free  travel,  however  without 
real  progress  until  now.  It  remains  open  for  further  dialogue  and  confirmed  its  readiness  in 
principle to waive the visa requirement for nationals of all EU Member States in due course.  

12 

13 

Canadian  authorities  stated  that  “worker  registration  programs  in  Ireland,  UK  and  Sweden  have 
demonstrated  that  the  populations  in  the  new  Member  States  are  mobile  and  seeking  employment 
opportunities out-of-country”. 
It  was  recalled  that  Canada  abolished  the  visa  requirement  for  Hungary  in  1994  and  for  the  Czech 
Republic  in  1996.  However  it  was  reintroduced  for  the  Czech  Republic  in  1997  and  for  Hungary  in 
2001 following an influx of asylum seekers from these countries. Canadian authorities emphasised that 
thorough  evaluations  are  necessary  before  lifting  the  visa  requirement  again,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
repetition of such a situation. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission believes that the dialogue initiated with Canada must continue but that this 
dialogue  should  become  more  result-oriented.  Therefore,  a  transparent  process  with  clear 
benchmarks should be established  that leads to a visa waiver for the citizens of all Member 
States. 

IV. Conclusions: 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  dialogue  with  third  countries  under  the  new  reciprocity 
mechanism has already proven its efficiency: 

– 

– 

– 

For  four  third  countries  -  Costa  Rica  (if  confirmation  is  given  regarding  Iceland), 
Nicaragua,  Panama  and  Venezuela  -  visa  waiver  reciprocity  has  already  been 
achieved; for Brazil, the legal solution has already been announced. 

For four third countries - Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore and Uruguay - the 
solution 
in  sight,  but  further 
implementation and/or verification is required in the coming months. 

the  non-reciprocity  problems 

is  already 

to 

For  three  other  third  countries,  while  some  progress  has  been  made  on  issues  of 
transparency, there has been no movement yet in terms of extending visa waivers to 
cover the citizens of all EU Member States. 

As  regards  Australia,  there  is  no  immediate  prospect  of  having  the  ETA  system 
applied  to  the  citizens  of  all  Member  States.  However,  Australia  has  already 
introduced  a  certain  number  of  facilitations  in  the  procedure  for  issuing  visas  to 
citizens of Member States that do not benefit from the ETA system and expressed its 
willingness to further streamline its visa issuing procedures. This is already a positive 
step  but  it  can  only  be  considered  as  a  transitional  measure,  our  first  objective 
remaining the participation of all Member States in the ETA and thus equal treatment 
of all EU citizens (without prejudging the EC’s final position on the ETA). 

Following  discussion  at  the  highest  levels,  the  Commission  has  seen  a  political 
commitment  from  the  United  States  and  Canada  to  continue  the  dialogue  and  to 
become  more  transparent  and  precise  on  the  requirements  for  the  Member  States 
concerned  for  obtaining  the  visa  waiver.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  engage 
with  US  and  Canadian  interlocutors  to  ensure  that  these  commitments  are  fulfilled 
and to explore concrete ideas for resolving the non-reciprocity problem. We should 
also  continue  to  explore  with  these  countries  possibilities  for  facilitating  visa 
issuance as an interim measure. 

After  this  first  round,  which  has  brought  some  success,  it  is  important  that  both  the 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  remain  committed,  involved  and  united  towards  the 
achievement of the common objectives in this area. The full support of the Member States to 
the Commission, their contribution at every stage of the process, and the solidarity between 
all of them remains absolutely essential to achieve the expected results. 

According  to  Article  1§5  of  Regulation  539/2001  as  amended  by  Regulation  851/2005,  the 
Commission  will  prepare  by  July  2006  a  second  report  monitoring  whether  the  solutions 
announced by certain third countries have materialised in the meantime and whether further 
dialogue with others has opened up the perspective of reciprocal visa free travel. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
The  Commission  considers  that  taking  into  account  the  progress  made  with  our  partners, 
albeit  at  variable  rates,  there  is  no  need  at  this  stage  to  accompany  this  report  by  draft 
measures  such  as  those  provided  by  Article  1§4c  of  Regulation  539/2001  as  amended  by 
Regulation 851/2005 or by the joint declaration made by the Council and the Commission at 
the time of the adoption of Regulation 851/2005.  

However, the Commission will continue to monitor progress carefully, to ensure that existing 
commitments  by  our  partners  are  fulfilled.  With  regard  to  those  countries  where  full 
resolution of non-reciprocity issues is not imminent progress in implementation of the criteria 
will  be  essential.  While  recognising  this  will  require  efforts  on  both  sides,  the  Commission 
recalls that Article 4 of Regulation 539/2001 and the joint declaration of the Council and the 
Commission  concerning  Regulation  851/2005  refer  to  specific  measures  in  view  of 
facilitating the achievement of reciprocal visa free travel.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Annex 1A 

Visa requirement imposed by third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation No 539/2001 upon nationals 
of the new Member States on 1 May 2004. 

CY  CZ 

EE  HU 

LT 

LV  MT 

PL 

SI 

SK 

Andorra 

Argentina 

Australia 

Bolivia 

Brazil 

Brunei 

Bulgaria 

Canada 

Chile 

Costa Rica 

Croatia 

Guatemala 

Holy See 

Honduras 

Hong Kong SAR 

Israel 

Japan 

Macao SAR  

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Monaco 

New Zealand 

Nicaragua 

Panama 

Paraguay 

Romania 

Salvador 

San Marino 

Singapore 

South Korea 

United States 

Uruguay 

Venezuela 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

(V)

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

(V)

V

V

(V)

V

V

V

V

V

V

(V)

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

*

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V 

V 

V

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

(V) 

(V)

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V

(V)

V 

V 

(V)

V 

V 

V

(V)

V 

V 

V 

* ETA required.  (V) : visa exemption agreement not yet entered into force. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1B 

Visa requirement imposed by third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation No 539/2001 upon 
EU citizens on 24 June 2005. 

CY  CZ  EE  EL  FI  HU  LT LV  MT PL PT SI SK  DE  AT 

IT 

SW  DK

Andorra 

Argentina 
Australia 1 
Bolivia 

Brazil 

Brunei 

Bulgaria 

Canada 

Chile 

Costa Rica 

Croatia 

Guatemala 

Holy See 

Honduras 

Hong Kong SAR 

Israel 

Japan 

Macao SAR  

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Monaco 

New Zealand 

Nicaragua 

Panama 

Paraguay 

Romania 

Salvador 

San Marino 

Singapore 

South Korea 

United States 

Uruguay 

Venezuela 

V  V  V

V 

  V  V V

V

V

V V

V

V  V  V  V 

(V)

(V) V

V  V  V

V V

(V)  V  V

(V)  V 

(V)  V V

V

V

V V (V)

(V)

V4 
(V)  (V)  (V) 

V  V

  V  V V

V

(V)

V

(V)

(V)

(V) 

(V)

V³

V

(V) 

V

(V)

V  V  V

V 

  V  V V

V

V

V

V

V3

V²

(V) 

V3 

V : visa requirement 

(V) : visa exemption for a period of less than 90 days. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Australia : Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) is required from citizens of EL, FI, MT, PT, DE, AT, IT, SW, 
DK, IS, NO as well as from citizens of the other Member States not indicated in the table 

2. in case of entry at land and sea borders 

3. tourist card is required upon entry 

4. visa is required from business travellers 

IS notified the following cases of non-reciprocity: Australia, Brunei, Nicaragua, Panama and Paraguay 

NO notified the following cases of non-reciprocity: Australia, Brunei (for stays exceeding 14 
days), Panama (visa issued free of charge on arrival) 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
Australian visa procedures 

Annex 2 

The two visa procedures subject of the notifications can be summarised as follows: 

The ETA: Before travelling and before an air ticket is issued, the traveller himself/herself, or 
the  travel  agent/airline  on  his/her  behalf,  sends  an  electronic  application  for  an  ETA  to  the 
relevant Australian authorities. This involves entering in the ETA system data identifying the 
traveller and details of his/her passport. The data are compared with an on-line file held by the 
relevant Australian authorities (Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous 
Affairs, DIMIA) on persons whose entry into Australia is undesirable (Movement Alert List, 
MAL).  

The  response  is  almost  immediate.  If  the  response  is  positive,  i.e.  if  consultation  of  the  file 
does not produce an alert with respect to the traveller or his/her passport, an ETA number is 
assigned electronically and  the air ticket can be issued. If the response is negative, no ETA 
number  can  be  assigned  and  the  traveller  is  asked  to  contact  the  Australian  consular 
authorities. On arrival in Australia, the immigration authorities check that the passport holder 
has an ETA. 

The  eVisa  (e676  visa):  applicants  or  travel  agents  can  apply  for  a  visa  on  the  internet.  The 
applications  are  processed  in  Australia  and,  depending  on  the  risk  assessment  level  further 
supporting  documents  can  be  required  from  the  applicant.  If  the  risk  is  low,  they  can  be 
granted more or less automatically (“autogrant” facility). 

US Visa Waiver Programme 

To qualify for the VWP, a country must: offer reciprocal privileges to United States citizens; 
have had a non-immigrant refusal rate of less than 3% for the previous year; certify that the 
country  issues  machine-readable  passports;  have  a  program  to  incorporate  biometric 
identifiers  into  the  passports;  certify  that  it  reports  the  theft  of  blank  passports  on  a  timely 
basis to the U.S. authorities. 

In addition the Department of Homeland Security in consultation with the Secretary of State 
has  to  prepare  an  evaluation  report  on  the  effect  that  a  country’s  designation  as  a  VWP 
participant  would  have  on  the  law  enforcement  and  security  interests  of  the  United  States, 
including  interests  related  to  enforcement  of  immigration  laws  and  the  existence  and 
effectiveness  of  extradition  agreements  and  procedures.  In  order  for  a  country  to  be 
designated as a VWP participant, a determination must be made that such interests would not 
be compromised by the designation of the country. 

Furthermore  there  are  specific  factors  that  are  considered  but  are  not  established  in  the 
legislation:  security  of  a  country’s  passport  application,  production  and  issuing  process; 
security of passports and other documents  used to  demonstrate identity and citizenship,  and 
incidence of fraud or misuse involving such documents; nationality and citizenship laws, and 
their  implementation;  existence  of  security  and  law  enforcement  threats  in  the  country 
(terrorist activities, organised crime, money laundering, human and drug trafficking, etc.), and 
efforts  to  address  such  threats;  immigration  controls  and  alien  smuggling  activities  in  the 
country,  and  efforts  to  address  such  threats;  stability  of  the  government  politically  and 
economically;  degree  of  cooperation  with  the  U.S.  and  other  international  partners  on  law 
enforcement issues, including extradition. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Canadian assessment criteria for visa exemption 

The  Canadian  authorities  take  into  consideration  the  complex  push  and  pull  factors  that 
trigger  migration  movements,  from  broad  socio-economic  conditions  to  specific  regional 
issues. The country assessment of risks and benefits includes many factors, such as (but not 
limited to):  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Immigration  issues  (i.e.  non  bona-fide  refugee  claimants  and  clandestine  or 
undocumented migrants),  

public  safety  and  security  issues  (i.e.  organized  crime  and  counter  terrorism,  the 
trafficking  and  smuggling  of  persons  and  goods,  serious  criminal  activity,  health 
risks and concerns),  

the  stability  of  government  and  public  institutions  (level  of  public  confidence  in 
institutions,  legal  system,  police  and  security  agencies,  immigration  and  asylum 
systems, protection of human rights),  

the  health  and  stability  of  the  economy,  such  as  unemployment  rates  and  regional 
disparities, 

the social and human rights environment, 

the trends and patterns related to incidences of application fraud, passport fraud and 
visa refusal rates. 

Factors  are  reviewed  to  ensure that  they  are  consistent  with  Canadian  immigration  program 
and the broader mandate, objectives and priorities of the Government of Canada. Decisions to 
change  the  visa  status  of  a  given  country  are  well-informed  and  are  made  after  a 
comprehensive review of key considerations and upon extensive internal consultation. 

EN 

21 

   EN