COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the Union Code on Visas (Visa Code) (recast)
Date: 2014-04-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, administrative formalities, consulate, economic growth, third country, transit, traveller













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0067 - EN











|



52014SC0067

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the Union Code on Visas (Visa Code) (recast) /* SWD/2014/067 final */










1.                      
Introduction

This
Impact Assessment (IA) accompanies a proposal for a Regulation on a Union Code
on Visas (Visa Code) (recast) which is the core legal instrument of the common
visa policy as it establishes harmonised procedures and conditions for processing
visa applications and issuing visas. Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of
the European Union and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community
Code on Visas (Article 57) requires the
Commission to send the European Parliament and the Council an evaluation of its
application two years after all the provisions of the Regulation have become
applicable (5 April 2011). On the basis of this evaluation, it may also submit
appropriate proposals for amending the Visa Code. 

2.                      
Problem definition

For
the purpose of the IA, three problem areas have been identified: (1) the
overall length and costs (direct and indirect) as well as the cumbersome nature
of the procedures; (2) insufficient geographical coverage in visa processing; (3) lack
of visa or other authorisation allowing travellers to stay more than 90 days in
any 180-day period in the Schengen area.
(1)
The overall length of the procedure (from the preparation of the application
file until the return of the passport with or without the visa) is probably
considered the primary deterrent and is the subject of much criticism by visa
applicants. At the same time, Schengen States already find the existing
deadlines very tight and have problems respecting them. The majority of
travellers consider the overall cost of a visa application equally problematic (not
necessarily the visa fee but the indirect costs). Schengen States, on their
side, claim that processing visa applications in a speedy, client-friendly
manner would in many places require additional investment,, which they feel unable to make in times of budgetary constraints.
In fact, some Schengen States note that their administrative costs
of processing visa applications are currently not even covered by the visa fee.
Visa applicants and consulates clearly have conflicting interests regarding
these issues, which are unlikely to be resolved in the future. On the other
hand, the ever-increasing number of visa applications will lead to further
bottlenecks, and the applicants' dissatisfaction with the visa procedure will
increase.
The
most cumbersome procedures relate to the requirement to lodge the application
in person (50% of respondents to the public consultation considered this
obligation as a difficulty) and the number (and lack of harmonisation) of
supporting documents to be submitted at each application. The Commission has
already adopted several implementing decisions establishing harmonised lists of
supporting documents to be presented by visa applicants in various third
countries (non-EU countries), but frequent and regular visa applicants in
particular are frustrated that procedural facilitations provided under the Visa
Code (waiver of the above-mentioned requirements) do not apply to them.
Consequently,
the main driver of this problem area is that the same
procedures are applied to all applicants, irrespective of their individual
situation, even though the Visa Code already provides a legal basis to apply
procedural facilitations for applicants known to the consulates. However consulates
do not make sufficient distinction between unknown applicants and those who
have a positive visa record (frequent/regular travellers). This is (also)
due to extensive use of external service providers (ESPs) and commercial
intermediaries: in many places, the possibility of putting such
distinction into practice is impossible because assessing the applicant's
situation against rather vague notions such as 'integrity' and 'reliability'
currently referred to in the Visa Code cannot be done by ESPs or commercial
intermediaries.

(2)
In the past three years there has been progress in ensuring better geographical
coverage for collecting/processing visa applications. However, due to the
lack of visa collecting/processing presence, lodging visa applications can
still be very costly and time consuming in many third countries. In particular,
the number of cases where applicants have to travel abroad to lodge the
application because the competent Schengen State does not have a consulate or
is not represented in the applicant's country of residence needs to be reduced.
There are some 900 "blank spots" such as these. Access to
consulate/ESPs can also be challenging in countries where all or most of the
Schengen States are present in the capital but where many applicants still need
to travel long distances to reach them. This is the case in the emerging
tourism market countries such as Russia, China and India. Finally, there are
still nine third countries subject to the visa obligation where no Schengen
States are present for the purpose of collecting/processing visa applications. 
With
regard to projects aimed at pooling resources, very little progress can be
reported. Co-locations and Common Application Centres (CACs) as defined by the
Visa Code are hardly used, although the Commission promotes, in particular, the
setting up of CACs. There are various reasons for this, one of which is a
legislative problem: co-location and CAC as legally defined in Article 41 of
the Visa Code do not provide the necessary flexibility for establishing operational
structures on the spot.
(3)
There are several categories of third country nationals (TCNs) – both visa
requiring and visa exempted - who have a legitimate reason and need for
travelling in the Schengen area for more than 90 days in any 180-day period without
being considered as 'immigrants' (i.e. they do not intend to reside in any
of the Schengen States for a period beyond 90 days). The main characteristic of
these travellers is that they 'tour around' Europe/the Schengen area. The
current legal framework does not provide an authorisation that would cater for
these travellers' legitimate needs/itinerary. The most vocal interest group
regularly raising this long-standing problem is the live performing industry. Other
categories of travellers (pensioners, business visitors, students,
researchers) also have a strong interest in being allowed to circulate in the
Schengen area for longer than 90 days in any 180-day period. 

3.                      
Analysis of subsidiarity

The
abolition of checks at internal borders requires, among other things, a common
policy on visas. Under Article 77(2)(a) of the TFEU, the
EU has the power and even the obligation to adopt measures relating to the
common policy on visas and other short-stay residence permits. The rules for
processing short-stay visas are already regulated by a regulation that is
directly applicable, i.e. the Visa Code.
The
problems described in the IA are unlikely to disappear as they are directly
related to the existing provisions of the Visa Code. Some progress can be
achieved by enforcing correct implementation. However, introducing procedural
facilitations for travellers in a harmonised manner, as well as making
considerable progress in increasing the geographical coverage in visa
processing, requires EU action, i.e. a review of the Visa Code.
As
regards establishing a new authorisation for stays exceeding 90 days in a given
180-day period in the overall Schengen area, the need for intervention at EU
level is clear: any authorisation which would be valid in all of the Schengen
States can only be introduced at EU level. Article
77 of the TFEU empowers the Union to act
on 'short-stay' permits in the Schengen area and Article 79 of the TFEU
empowers the Union to act on visas and residence permits in the context of
legal residence in EU Member States (i.e. for stays beyond 3 months in an EU
Member State). It follows that the EU also has competence to introduce an
authorisation for stays exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period in the overall
Schengen area.

4.                      
Policy objectives

The
general policy objectives of the proposal are: to foster economic
growth in the EU; to ensure more coherence with other EU policies and to
maintain the security of the Schengen area. 
The specific
objectives are: to move towards a truly harmonised, genuinely common
visa policy; to tailor visa procedures more to the needs of legitimate
travellers; and to make the visa procedure more efficient by streamlining the
rules.
The operational
objectives, in light of the problems outlined above, are; to provide
mandatory procedural facilitations for "well-known" travellers by
making use of the possibilities offered by the Visa Information System (VIS);
to increase and rationalise the visa collecting/processing presence in third
countries; and to provide the possibility of stays exceeding 90 days in a
180-day period in the Schengen area.

5.                      
Policy options

For
the purpose of the IA the following policy packages were drawn up:
Policy
package 0 - Status quo: The existing
legal framework remains unchanged and on-going activities will continue. 
Policy
package A: Non-regulatory measures: With respect to
problem area 1, a range of 'soft law measures' are envisaged aiming to
better implement the Visa Code. Concerning problem area 2, the funding
possibilities from the future Internal Security Fund would be largely promoted
by the Commission. Regarding problem area 3, since the problem driver is
a legislative gap, a non-regulatory option was not developed. 
Policy
package B-D: These options would require EU level regulatory
action to amend the Visa Code. The policy options are grouped according to
their level of ambition (political feasibility) in three packages - minimum,
intermediate and maximum.
For
problem area 1, policy package B (minimum) would introduce
mandatory procedural facilitations (i.e. a waiver of the requirement to appear
in person to lodge the application;  a waiver to present certain supporting
documents) and mandatory issuing of MEVs valid for at least one year and
subsequently (after two MEVs for 1 year) an MEV for three years for
applicants who have previously lawfully used at least three visas (within
the previous 12 months prior to the date of the application) that are
registered in the VIS ('frequent travellers'). For problem area 2, the
proposed option would repeal Article 41 of the Visa Code (co-location, CAC) and
introduce a general concept of 'Schengen Visa Centre' which would provide
a more realistic, more flexible definition of certain forms of consular
cooperation. For problem area 3, a new type of authorisation would be
established, allowing certain categories of applicants (i.e. artists and their
crew members) to stay more than 90 days but not more than 360 days in the
Schengen area.
Concerning
problem area 1, policy package C (intermediate)
envisages mandatory procedural facilitations, similar to the minimum package,
and mandatory issuance of MEVs valid for at least three years and
subsequently for five years. In addition, the beneficiaries are defined
more broadly: applicants who have previously lawfully used at least two
visas that are registered in the VIS ('regular travellers').
Regarding problem area 2, in addition to the introduction of the
flexible concept of 'Schengen Visa Centres', the concept of 'mandatory
representation' would also be introduced: when a Schengen State competent to
process the visa application is not present nor represented (by virtue of an
arrangement) in a certain third country, any other Schengen State present in
that country would be obliged to process visa applications on its behalf. Regarding
problem area 3, as with the minimum package, a new type of authorisation
would be established that would apply not only to certain categories of TCNs,
i.e. live performing groups, but also to all TCNs (i.e. 'individuals' as well)
who can demonstrate a legitimate interest for travelling for a period exceeding
90 days in the Schengen area. 
Policy
package D (maximum) would extend mandatory procedural
facilitations and mandatory issuance of MEVs immediately for five years
to the majority of applicants by requiring only one lawfully used visa
that is registered in the VIS. Regarding problem area 2, in order to
ensure adequate visa collecting/processing coverage, Commission implementing
decisions would define what the Schengen visa collecting network in third
countries should look like in terms of representation arrangements, cooperation
with ESPs and pooling of resources by other means. Finally, as regards problem
area 3, it would introduce the same type of authorisation as in the
intermediate package; anything more ambitious is deemed highly unrealistic.

6.                      
Assessment of impacts

The
procedural facilitations, and, in particular issuing of MEVs with long validity
has the potential to lessen the administrative burden of consulates and at the
same time provide a very important facilitation to travellers. By making the
Schengen area an even more attractive destination, the options would increase
the overall number of trips of visa-obliged TCNs whose spending would have a
positive impact on the EU economy. As regards problem area 2, the concept of
'mandatory representation' would considerably increase the visa-issuing
presence in third countries. It would secure consular coverage in any third
country where there is at least one consulate processing visa applications.
This concerns some 900 'blanks spots' and could have a positive impact on some
100 000 applicants who would be able to lodge the applications in their country
of residence instead of having to travel to a country where the competent Schengen State is present or represented. Finally, the introduction of a new authorisation
for stays for a period exceeding 90 days for all TCNs would affect some 120 000
travellers, which at most could lead to an estimated EUR 1 billion additional
income to the Schengen area. 
As
regards the anticipated financial and economic impacts see the table under
point 7 for further details.

7.                      
Comparison of options

Policy
package A would only have a small positive impact on addressing the problems
and achieving the policy objectives. Therefore it is not considered very
effective.
Policy
packages B, C and D would progressively addresses the problems, meets the
operational objectives and has a positive impact on travel to and spending in
the Schengen area. Policy package B is the least effective; it would
partially address the problems to the benefit of a smaller group of visa
applicants. Packages C and D are almost equally effective in terms of
addressing the objectives. The expected economic benefits are higher in the
case of package D (over EUR 3 billion per year), but it is associated with a
potentially higher security risk. 
As
far as efficiency is concerned none of the policy packages/options
would, in principle involve considerable additional costs[1]. In fact, one of the
driving forces behind the policy options is to generate savings for both the
Schengen States/consulates and the visa applicants. Policy packages B, C and D
progressively lead to cost savings for applicants, mainly due to the increasing
number of MEVs issued with long validity. From the applicants' point of view,
policy package D is the most efficient and policy package B the least
efficient. In each package the economic benefits for the EU as a whole
considerably exceed the estimated costs for individual Schengen States.
The
table below presents an overview of the anticipated impact of each policy
package[2].
 Policy option/ Criteria || Non-regulatory package (A) || Minimum regulatory package (B) || Intermediate regulatory package (C) || Maximum regulatory package (D) 
 Effectiveness ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Mandatory procedural facilitations for certain categories of travellers || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 
 Increased and rationalised visa collecting/processing presence in third countries || 1 || 2 || 4 || 4 
 Possibility to stay longer than 90 days in a 180-day period in the Schengen area, on the basis of a new type of authorisation || 0 || 2 || 4 || 4 
 Impact on the security of the Schengen area || 0 || 0 || -0,5 || -2 
 Economic benefits - income from travellers' spending (millions of EUR per year) || - ||     Ca. 800 || More than 2 000 || More than 3 000 
 Jobs supported (number of FTEs) || - || Ca. 20 000 || Ca. 60 000 || Ca. 80 000 
 Efficiency ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Direct costs saved by visa applicants (millions of EUR per year) || - ||   Ca. 50 || Ca. 200 || Ca. 300 
 Indirect costs saved by visa applicants (millions of EUR per year) || - ||   Ca. 120 || Ca. 500 || Ca. 800 
 Net financial impact on Schengen States (millions of EUR per year) || - || Ca. -1 || Ca. -5 || Ca. -9 
 Feasibility ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Legal || Good || Good || Good || Good 
 Political || Good || Reasonable || Reasonable || Poor 
 Practical || Good || Good || Good || Reasonable 
As far as problem area 1 is
concerned (lengthy, cumbersome and costly procedures), the assessment is
inconclusive with regard to what the preferred option should be. This is
because the very high potential economic impact of the proposal in policy
package D is however associated with a potentially higher security risk. The
proposal in the intermediate package (C) is associated with a low security
risk, but its potential economic impact is estimated to be almost EUR 1 billion
less. With regard to problem area 2 (geographical coverage) and problem
area 3 (new type of authorisation), the options identified in the
intermediate package are the preferred ones (introduction of the new
concept of the 'Schengen Visa Centre' and the 'mandatory' representation for
problem area 2; new authorisation for stays exceeding 90 days for all TCNs as
for problem area 3).

8.                      
Monitoring and evaluation

Three
years after the entry into force of the recast of the Visa Code, the Commission
will present an evaluation report. 
[1]               One exception is the policy option related to the
geographical coverage in visa processing.
[2]               0: no impact; 0-1: small impact, if any; 2: medium
impact; 3: high impact; 4: very significant impact. The rating is negative (-)
if the impact is negative.