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 amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)
Date: 2018-03-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, external border of the EU, foreign national, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.3.2018  SWD(2018) 78 final  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 amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas  (Visa Code) {COM(2018) 252 final} - {SWD(2018) 77 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment for a proposal amending the Visa Code 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  
The Visa Code which regulates conditions and procedures for issuing short-stay visas for the Schengen 
area  is  in  force  since  2009.  In  2014,  the  Commission  proposed  a  modification  of  the  regulation  on  which  co-
legislators could not reach agreement. The Commission decided to present a new initiative in order to address 
three problem areas: 

1.  The  financial  resources  obtained  through  the  visa  fees  are  insufficient  to  support  visa 
processing,  undermining  the  integrity  of  Schengen  visa  issuing  and  the  objective  of  fast  and  client-
friendly  visa  procedures.  The  main  problem  driver  is  that  the  standard  visa  fee  of  EUR  60  has  not 
changed since 2006. 

2.  Regular  travellers  have  to  go  through  repeated  visa  procedures,  as  Member  States  do  not 
sufficiently  issue  multiple-entry  visas  (MEV)  with  long  validity.  This  creates  unnecessary  burdens  for 
applicants  and  consulates  and  leads  to  losses  for  the  EU  travel  and  tourism  industry.  The  main 
problem driver is that the legal basis for issuing long-validity MEV is unclear.  

3.  Member States have difficulties in achieving sufficient levels of return of irregular migrants to 
their countries of origin, which creates an incentive for further illegal migration. The main problem 
driver is third countries' reluctance to readmit their own nationals.   

What should be achieved?  

The general objective of the initiative is to strengthen the common visa policy while addressing migration and 
security concerns on one hand and taking into account economic considerations and general external relations 
on the other hand. There are three specific objectives:  

1.  ensure  sufficient  financial  resources  to  Member  States  in  order  to  safeguard  the  quality  and 

integrity of visa processing;  

2.  ensure more systematic and harmonised issuing of multiple-entry visas with long validity to 

bona fide regular travellers; 

3.  advance the EU's interests in the area of return and readmission by increasing leverage vis-à-vis 

non-cooperative third countries in the area of visa policy. 
What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  
The  abolition of checks at internal borders in the Schengen area requires, among other measures, a  common 
policy on visas. The initiative will further develop and improve the rules in the Visa Code. The short-stay visa in 
principle  allows  its  holder  to  circulate  freely  in  the  Schengen  area,  which  implies  the  highest  degree  of 
harmonised rules and can only be addressed at EU level. 

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why?  
Problem area 1: Insufficient financial resources to support visa processing 
  Option 1A: status quo – unchanged common visa fee at EUR 60 
  Option 1B: national visa fees based on administrative costs 
  Option 1C: increase of common visa fee. Various sub-options are considered: EUR 80, EUR 100, EUR 

120 or EUR 80 for visas up to 6 months, EUR 120 for MEV of 1-5 years.  

The increase to a EUR 80 fee is the preferred option. 

Problem area 2: Repeated visa procedures for regular travellers 

  Option 2A: status quo – Member States determine their approach to issuing MEV with long validity 
  Option 2B: recommended best practice 
  Option 2C: common MEV cascades1 with various sub-options (general MEV cascade, general and country 

MEV cascades, country MEV cascades) 

  Option 2D: standard MEV with 2- or 5-year validity 

The general and country MEV cascade is the preferred option. 

1  

Agreed approach of how many previous visas/trips the applicant has to prove to qualify for a long-validity MEV and 
how the length of validity for each subsequent visa would increase. 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Problem area 3: Insufficient levels of return of irregular migrants to some countries of origin 

  Option 3A: status quo – Council 'toolbox approach' 
  Option 3B: positive incentives in visa policy 
  Option 3C: negative incentives in visa policy with various sub-options  (maximum approach aiming at all 
passports from the start or targeted approach in two phases: diplomatic and service passports, then 
ordinary passports) 

The negative incentives with a targeted approach is the preferred option. 
What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  
Targeted consultations (Member States, associations in the tourism, travel, shipping industries etc.) and an open 
public  consultation  were  carried  out.  Member  States  clearly  favour  an  increase  of  the  visa  fee  as  well  as 
introducing  a  legal  link  between  the  visa  policy  and  readmission  of  irregular  migrants.  Tourism  and  business 
associations  highlight  the  negative  effects  of  repeated  visa  procedures  for  frequent  travellers  and  advocate  a 
more systematic and harmonised issuing of MEV with long validity.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option?  

- The common visa fee at EUR 80 will provide additional revenue for Member States of EUR 205 million (+26%), 
thereby  more  financial  resources  for  visa  processing,  staffing  and  training  –  faster  procedures  and  higher 
security for Schengen area. 

- The general and country MEV cascades would allow for more MEV with long validity issued, creating for travel 
flexibility  for  frequent  travellers;  cost  savings  for  visa  applicants  and  consulates  due  to  fewer  visa  procedures 
and  increased  travel  to  the  EU,  with  positive  repercussions  for  the  EU  tourism  industry  (competitiveness  and 
employment).  

-  Negative  incentives  in  visa  policy  (with  a  targeted  approach)  should  contribute  to  higher  rates  of  return  of 
irregular  migrants  to  previously  non-cooperative  third  countries,  cost  savings  for  Member  States  for  lodging, 
food,  and  administrative  expenses,  and  more  generally  higher  security,  better  acceptance  of  EU  migration 
policy, and a deterrent effect on potential future irregular migrants.  

What are the costs of the preferred option?  

The increase of the common visa fee at EUR 80 would imply additional costs for visa applicants (corresponding 
to  Member  States'  additional  revenue);  however,  due  to  reasonable  increase  no  expected  negative  effect  on 
travel  behaviour.  General  and  country  MEV  cascades  will  have  no  costs.  Negative  incentives  in  visa  policy 
(targeted approach) might have a negative impact on the EU's external relations and image in the world. 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

None of the preferred policy options has any direct impact on SME and competitiveness. Easier access to long-
validity MEV and the resulting increased travel to the EU will strengthen the competitiveness of the EU's tourism 
and travel industry. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

There will be positive impacts from all three preferred options: additional revenue from higher visa fee for visa 
processing; cost savings from fewer visa procedures due to higher issuing of long-validity MEV; cost savings for 
lodging, food, and administrative expenses of irregular migrants.  

Will there be other significant impacts?  
No other significant impacts apart from those outlined above. 

Proportionality?  
All three  preferred options respect the principle of proportionality and do  not  go beyond what  is  necessary to 
achieve the objective. The visa fee increase proposed is proportionate and is closest to the inflation rate since 
2006.  The  approach  proposed  for  issuing  MEV  with  long  validity  brings  progress  to  the  current  situation,  but 
does  not  radically  change  Member  States'  current  practices.  The  negative  incentives  to  encourage  third 
countries' cooperation on readmission would target the government, before affecting the general population. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

The  Commission  should  present  an  evaluation  report  three  years  after  start  of  application  of  the  revised 
regulation (i.e. three and a half years after its entry into force). It should assess the progress with respect to the 
three main problem areas and policy objectives addressed. 

3