Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Date: 2024-04-19
Institutions: European Commission, Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, admission of aliens, application of EU law, external border of the EU, foreign national, illegal migration, third country

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.4.2024 
SEC(2022) 146 final

 REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION 

Interim evaluation of the implementation of the 
Union Customs Code

{SWD(2024) 108 final}
{SWD(2024) 109 final}

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board

(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:10)

Brussels, 
Ares(2023)

Opinion

Title: Evaluation of the Visa Code

Overall opinion: POSITIVE

(A) Policy context

The Visa Code sets the rules and procedures for issuing short-stay visas for the Schengen 
area.  It  entered  into  force  in  2010  (Reg.  810/2009).  It was  amended  in  2020  (Reg. 
2019/1155) to provide greater flexibility and harmonisation of visa procedures, adjust the 
visa fees to resource requirements and improve cooperation with third countries on the 
readmission of irregular migrants. The evaluation focuses on the changes introduced in 
2020 and covers the period until spring 2023.

(B) Summary of findings

The Board gives a positive opinion. The Board also considers that the report should 
further improve with respect to the following aspects:

(1) The  report  does  not  sufficiently  differentiate between  the  problems  and 
conclusions  related  to  the  design  of the  initiative  and those  linked  to  its
implementation.

(2) The report does not sufficiently bring out the limitations of the evidence base 

and the representativeness of the conclusions. 

(3) The  assessment  of  continued  relevance  is  limited,  in  particular  regarding the 

functioning of the Visa Code under recent crises.

(C) What to improve

(1) The report should distinguish those issues and problems stemming from the design 
of the intervention from those resulting from shortcomings  of  its implementation. This 
separation should be comprehensively reflected in the conclusions and lessons learned. 
The  report  should  better  explain  the  relation  of  the  initiative  to visa  shopping and
monitoring of external service providers. It should bring out the underlying rationale as to
how the objectives of harmonisation and flexibility of visa procedures are combined, as 
well as their consistency with the cooperation on re-admission of illegal migrants.

________________________________
This opinion concerns a draft evaluation which may differ from the final version.

Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu

(2) The report should clearly set out the points of comparison against which the initiative 
is assessed, also drawing from the preceding impact assessment. The representativeness 
of  the  findings  should  be clear, and  the  conclusions  drawn  should  differentiate 
accordingly. The report should be more transparent on the importance and reliability of 
findings  when  these derive  from a  small  number  of  Member  State  respondents.  Any
extrapolation of views and findings from stakeholder feedback needs to be justified and 
proportionate.

(3) The  report  should  take  account  of the  continued  relevance  of  the  intervention.  It 
should improve the future-proofing assessment of the visa code by analysing the evidence 
from the recent crises beyond being exceptional circumstances to assess the functioning 
of  the  intervention  under  such  crisis  situations. It  should  differentiate  between  the 
problems and results linked to the crises and those that are non-crisis related. 

(4) The  report  should  critically  assess  the  adequacy  of  monitoring  and  reporting 
arrangements of the legislation to provide sufficient evidence on the implementation of 
the initiative, including for evaluation purposes. 

Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.

(D) Conclusion

The DG may proceed.

The  DG  must take these  recommendations  into  account  before launching  the 
interservice consultation.

Full title

Evaluation of the application of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 
(the Visa Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1155

Reference number

PLAN/2021/12656

Submitted to RSB on

28 September 2023

Date of RSB meeting

Written procedure

(cid:40)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:18)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:56)(cid:55)(cid:38)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:90)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:40)(cid:56)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:20)

2