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 767/2008, Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, Regulation (EU) 2017/2226, Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Regulation XX/2018 [Interoperability Regulation], and Decision 2004/512/EC and repealing Council Decision 2008/633/JHA
Date: 2018-05-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU visa policy, Schengen Information System, border control, cross-border cooperation, exchange of information, external border of the EU, foreign national, illegal migration

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.5.2018  SWD(2018) 196 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 767/2008, Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, Regulation (EU) 2017/2226, Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Regulation XX/2018 [Interoperability Regulation], and Decision 2004/512/EC and repealing Council Decision 2008/633/JHA {COM(2018) 302 final}  - {SWD(2018) 195 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact  assessment  on  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  767/2008  concerning  the  Visa 
Information  System  (VIS)  and  the  exchange  of  data  between  Member  States  on  short-stay  visas  (VIS 
Regulation) and Regulation 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code). 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? 

A. Need for action 

Building on the 2016 VIS evaluation and in order to respond to new challenges on visas, borders and security 
and to establish interconnectivity with existing and upcoming IT systems, the impact assessment addressed four 
problem areas:  

  Lack of travel documents as evidence in return proceedings – current EU legislation does not provide 
for this possibility, which leads to slow and difficult return proceedings, creating delays and costs for member 
states; 

  Lack of biometric data enabling minors to be identified – under current EU legislation fingerprints are not 
taken  from  children  under  12,  meaning  that  children,  particularly  those  vulnerable  to  trafficking,  are  more 
difficult to identify; 

 

 

Insufficient  information  on  long-stay  visas  and  residence  documents  –  the  information  gap  causes 
problems in external border management and renders the Schengen area more vulnerable to security risks; 

Insufficient  checks  on  migration  and  security  risks  when  processing  visa  applications  –  uneven 
checks across member states, with existing IT-systems (including those that will be interoperable in future) 
not being consulted for this purpose.  

What is this initiative expected to achieve? 

General objectives 

• 

Improve implementation of the common visa policy; 

•  Facilitate checks at the EU's external borders and free movement within EU countries in the border-free 

Schengen area;  

•  Tighten security within the EU and at its borders; 

• 

Improve management of the border between countries in the Schengen area and those that are not. 

Specific objectives 

• 

Improve identification and return of non-EU nationals; 

•  Make the VIS more efficient, to facilitate return procedures; 

•  Facilitate the fight against fraud; 
•  Facilitate checks, both at external border crossing points and within the territory of the Member States; 
•  Take stronger action to counter abuses of children's rights; 

•  Facilitate the exchange of information among Member States on TCNs; 
•  Contribute to the fight against serious crime, including terrorism;  
•  Gather statistics to support evidence-based policy making.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level? 

EU-level  IT  databases  for  borders  and  security  are  in  place  to  help  national  authorities  cooperate  and  share 
information in this field.  

Addressing information gaps that have been identified in these systems will allow the authorities to (more quickly 
and  cheaply)  identify  and  perform  thorough  risk  assessment  for  non-EU  nationals,  and  check  the  status  and 
authenticity of their documents. 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 

B. Solutions 

1 

 
choice (underlined) or not? 

Including a digital copy of the travel document in the VIS – (1) In a centralised database/ (2) Decentralised (by 
Member States individually): 

•  Sub-option A. Storage of biographical page only 

•  Sub-option B. Storage of all used pages of the applicant’s travel document 

Lowering the fingerprinting age of children 

•  Lowering the fingerprinting age to 6 years 

•  Lowering the fingerprinting age to zero (i.e. fingerprint all ages, from birth) 

Including data on long-stay visas and residence documents in the VIS 

– non-legislative options: 

• 

• 

Improve the sharing of bilateral information on a case-by-case basis. 

Improve  the  feeding  and  use  of  information  in  the  Schengen  Information  System  as  regards  alerts  on 
withdrawn long-stay and residence documents 

•  Promote  the  use  of  security  features  for  documents  containing  a  chip:  Passive  Authentication  and 

Extended Access Control 

– legislative options: 

•  Further harmonise and secure long-stay and residence documents 
•  Create  an  interconnection  between  relevant  national  databases  that  would  allow  all  Member  States  to 

query each other’s  

• 

Include in the VIS – (a) without data on rejected applications / (b) with data on rejected applications  

Automated migration and security checks 

•  Systematic and automated check against available databases  

•  Automated cross-checks + screening rules 

Who supports which option? 

A broad range of stakeholders have expressed their support for the objectives of the revised VIS (eu-LISA (the 
EU agency managing security-related IT systems), the EU borders agency Frontex and EU governments, who 
all provided input for the supporting studies).  

Some  stakeholders  (EDPS,  FRA)  drew  attention  to  the  need  to  respect  fundamental  rights,  consistently 
underlining the need for strong and clear data protection measures and for taking into account the best interests 
of the child. 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

The proposed measures will provide a reliable means of systematically presenting evidence of the nationality of 
anyone overstaying on a non-EU national visa. This should facilitate the execution of return decisions – resulting 
in estimated savings of €6.7m – €32.1m.  

Reduced  delays  in  return  procedure  will  also  help  decrease  costs  related  to  pre-removal  detention  centres, 
subsistence, etc. by €46.3m – €92.6m.  

Additional savings worth €3.9m – €15.5m are expected in related administrative costs.  

Including fingerprints of children in the VIS will enable the authorities to verify their identity, and so any claimed 
relationship  between  children  and  adults  presenting  themselves  as  their  parents  or  guardians.  This  will  help 
reunite children found unaccompanied in the Schengen area with their parents, family or care givers, and it will 
facilitate  the  application  of  the  Dublin  Regulation  (the  rules  for  determining  which  EU  member  state  is 
responsible for processing individual asylum applications).  

Border management and law enforcement authorities will have access to data on long-stay visas and residence 
documents which will enable rapid checks of status and authenticity.  

2 

 
The document holders will also benefit from smoother and quicker border checks.  

Consulates and migration authorities will mainly benefit from automatic checks against other databases, thereby 
fully exploiting the interoperability of the overall system. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 

Immediate  economic  costs  will  be  limited  to  the  investment  or  set-up  costs  of  changing  procedures  and  legal 
acts.  

The main one-off costs will fall to the EU budget and to the national authorities operating the systems and are 
estimated at €21.4m – €21.5m.  

The recurring administrative cost resulting from increased workload per application will be borne primarily by EU 
member states' consulates and the external service providers.  

The quantitative analysis was, however, conducted separately for each policy area. The estimated costs do not 
therefore  take  into  account  the  considerable  long-term  cost-reduction  aspects  of  the  preferred  policy  options, 
such as economies of scale and potential investment overlaps. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? 

The proposed policy measures are not expected to directly impact small and medium-sized businesses.  

Travellers  and  genuine  non-EU  holders  of  a  long-stay  visa  or  residence  permit  will  benefit  from  faster  border 
checks. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 

The costs resulting from additional administrative work related to scanning documents and taking fingerprints of 
children will be outweighed by significant savings.  

 Member States are expected to substantially benefit from: 

fewer assistance requests for supporting documents from migration and return authorities 
fewer requests for copies of travel documents 

 
 
  an easier return procedure for migrants overstaying on a non-EU national visa.  

Will there be other significant impacts? 

Societies at large will benefit from the higher security resulting from more effective protection of external borders, 
protection of children, and easier return procedures for irregular migrants.  

Addressing  the  current  information  gap  in  the  documents  issued  to  non-EU  nationals  will  complement  the 
border-management information system. This system is designed and implemented in full respect of all relevant 
legislation, such as the General Data Protection Regulation, and the principles of data protection by design and 
by default, and accompanied by a range of safeguards. 

When will the policy be reviewed? 

D. Follow up 

4  years  after  the  revised  VIS  Regulation  begins  to  be  applied,  the  Commission  will  present  a  report  to  the 
European Parliament and the EU Council. 

3