Schengen amendment for visa issuance
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
| 1999 |  | 2004 |
Summit document
FINAL
A5-0006/2003
22 January 2003
*
REPORT
Regarding the initiative of the Kingdom of Spain for the approval of a Council regulation amending the Schengen rules concerning the issuance of visas at the borders, including the issuance of such visas to transiting seafarers.
(8372/2002 – C5‑0289/2002 – 2002/0810(CNS))
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
Presenter: Anna Karamanou
| Glossary of symbols used. |
| * Consultation process. majority of the voters **I Collaboration process (first reading) majority of those voting **II Cooperation procedure (second reading) majority of the voters for the approval of the common position majority of the members of Parliament for the rejection or amendment of the common position *** Agreement majority of the members of Parliament, except in cases mentioned in Articles 105, 107, 161, and 300 of the EC Treaty and in Article 7 of the Treaty. ΕΕ ***I Co-decision procedure (first reading) majority of voters ***II Co-decision procedure (second reading) majority of voters for approval of the common position majority of Members of Parliament for rejection or amendment of the common position ***III Co-decision procedure (third reading) majority of the voters for the approval of the common proposal (The proposed procedure is based on the legal basis suggested by the Commission) |
| Amendments to legislative text |
| In the Parliament’s amendments, the marking is done in bold italics. The marking in regular italics is addressed to the technical services and refers to elements of the legislative text for which corrections are proposed in view of the final text processing (for example, elements that are obviously incorrect or have been omitted in a linguistic version). These correction proposals are subject to the approval of the relevant technical services. |
CONTENTS.
Page
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEDURE……………………………………………………………………………………. 4
DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION ……………………………………………………………….. 5
JUSTIFICATION REPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
By its letter of 19 June 2002, the Council invited the European Parliament to give its opinion, in accordance with Article 67 of the EC Treaty, on the initiative of the Kingdom of Spain for the adoption of a Council Regulation amending the Schengen rules concerning the granting of visas at the borders, including the granting of such visas to passing seafarers (8372/2002 – 2002/0810(CNS)).
At the sitting of 1 July 2002, the President of the European Parliament announced that he had referred the said initiative for substantive examination to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (C5‑0289/2002).
At its meeting on 29 July 2002, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs appointed Anna Karamanou as the rapporteur.
At its meetings on 11 November 2002, 10 December 2002, and 21 January 2003, the committee examined the Commission’s proposal as well as the draft report.
At the most recent of the above meetings, the committee approved the draft legislative resolution with 41 votes in favor, 0 against, and 2 abstentions.
The following Members were present during the vote: Jorge Salvador Hernández Mollar (Chair), Robert J.E. Evans (Vice-Chair), Giacomo Santini (Vice-Chair), Άννα Καραμάνου (Rapporteur), Niall Andrews, Elspeth Attwooll (substituting Francesco Rutelli in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure), Giuseppe Brienza, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg (substituting Pierre Jonckheer), Hans Udo Bullmann (substituting Martin Schulz in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure), Marco Cappato (substituting Mario Borghezio), Michael Cashman, Carmen Cerdeira Morterero, Ozan Ceyhun, Carlos Coelho, Gérard M.J. Deprez, Francesco Fiori (substituting Marcello Dell’Utri in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure), Michael Gahler (substituting Eva Klamt in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure), Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (substituting Adeline Hazan), Roger Helmer (substituting Charlotte Cederschiöld in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure), Margot Keßler, Alain Krivine (substituting Ole Krarup), Jean Lambert (substituting Heide Rühle), Βαρώνη Sarah Ludford, Eryl Margaret McNally (substituting Gerhard Schmid in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure), Claude Moraes (substituting Martine Roure), Peter Michael Mombaur (substituting Thierry Cornillet in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure), Hartmut Nassauer, Elena Ornella Paciotti, Paolo Pastorelli (substituting Mary Elizabeth Banotti), Hubert Pirker, Giovanni Pittella (substituting Walter Veltroni in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure), José Javier Pomés Ruiz (substituting Marcelino Oreja Arburúa in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure), Bernd Posselt, Ole Sørensen (substituting Bill Newton Dunn), Olle Schmidt (substituting Lousewies van der Laan), Ingo Schmitt (substituting The Lord Bethell), Sérgio Sousa Pinto, Patsy Sörensen, The Earl of Stockton (substituting Christian Ulrik von Boetticher), Joke Swiebel, Anna Terrón i Cusí, Maurizio Turco, Rainer Wieland (substituting Timothy Kirkhope in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure).
The report was submitted on January 22, 2003.
Legislative resolution of the European Parliament on the initiative of the Kingdom of Spain for the adoption of a Council Regulation amending the Schengen rules concerning the issuance of visas at the borders, including the issuance of such visas to passing seafarers (8372/2002 – C5‑0289/2002 – 2002/0810(CNS)).
(Consultation procedure)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the initiative of the Kingdom of Spain (8372/2002[1]),
– having regard to Article 62 of the EC Treaty,
– having been called upon by the Council to deliver an opinion pursuant to Article 67 of the EC Treaty and in accordance with the Protocol annexed to the EC Treaty on the integration of the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union (C5‑0289/2002),
– having regard to Article 67 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A5‑0006/2003),
1. approves the initiative of the Kingdom of Spain, as amended;
2. calls on the Council to amend the text accordingly;
3. calls on the Council, should it intend to depart from the text approved by the Parliament, to inform it accordingly;
4. requests to be reconsulted should the Council intend to make significant amendments to the initiative of the Kingdom of Spain;
5. assigns to its President the task of transmitting the position of the Parliament to the Council, the Commission, and the Kingdom of Spain.
Text proposed by the Kingdom of Spain | Amendments of the Parliament. |
Throughout the text
| In the entire text, the articles and possessive or relative pronouns referring to the terms ‘sailor’, ‘sailors’ should be written in both genders (e.g. ‘the sailor’, ‘the sailor who’, etc.). | |
| (This amendment applies to the entire legislative text; its approval means that technical adjustments will be required throughout the text.) |
Justification
For the sake of clarity, although it is recognized that the number of female sailors is rather limited, they should nevertheless be immediately included in the regulation.
Amendment 2
Recital 1
| The rules for the granting of visas at the border to passing sailors need to be clarified and updated, particularly in order to allow the granting of group transit visas at the border to sailors of the same nationality who are traveling in a group, provided that the transit period is limited. | The rules for granting visas at the border to passing sailors need to be clarified and updated, particularly in order to allow the granting of group transit visas at the border to sailors traveling in a group, provided that the transit period is limited. |
Justification
The granting of a collective visa is based on the assumption that sailors of the same vessel travel in a group of five to fifty people, and there is no sufficient justification for requiring them to have the same nationality.
Amendment 3
Recital 3a (new)
| 3a. The measures necessary for the implementation of this regulation are adopted pursuant to Council Decision No. 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999, establishing the conditions for the exercise of the executive powers delegated to the Commission.1. | |
| [1] ΕΕ L 184 of 17.07.1999, p. 23 |
Justification
Pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 220 of the EC Treaty, the Council, for the texts it issues, delegates executive powers to the Commission and determines the conditions for the exercise of those powers.
Council Decision No. 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 established the conditions for the exercise of the executive powers of the Commission, covering, for example, the amendments provided for in Article 3 of the initiative under consideration, which must be made through the regulatory procedure of Article 5 of the aforementioned Council Decision.
Amendment 4
Article 1, paragraph 1, introductory part
| 1. In exceptional circumstances, a short-stay visa may be granted at the border to a third-country national who must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States, provided that the following conditions are met: | 1. By way of derogation from the general rule laid down in Article 12, paragraph 1 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, signed on 19 June 19901 hereinafter referred to as the “Schengen Convention”, according to which visas must be issued by the diplomatic and consular authorities, a visa may be granted at the border to a third-country national who must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States, provided that the following conditions are met: |
| [1]ΕΕ L 239 of 22.09.2000, p. 19 |
Justification
The Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement provides in Article 12, paragraph 1, that the diplomatic and consular authorities are responsible for issuing the uniform Community visa provided for in Article 10, with a maximum duration of three months.
Article 11 defines the categories: a) travel visa, with a duration not exceeding three months per six-month period, b) transit visa, with a duration not exceeding five days.
Article 17 also provides for the possibility of establishing conditions for the exceptional granting of visas at the border, visas which, from a technical point of view, cannot be referred to as “short-stay” visas, since in Schengen terminology “short-stay visas” cover all categories, in contrast to “long-stay visas”, which allow a stay of more than three months and are granted by each Member State in accordance with its own legal provisions.
Finally, in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions in the rest of the text, the shortened title “Schengen Convention” is introduced.
Amendment 5
Article 1, paragraph 1, point (a)
| (a) the said national must meet the conditions laid down in the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 1, points (a), (c), (d), and (e) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 1985, signed in Schengen on 19 June 19901, hereinafter referred to as the “Schengen Convention”, | (a) the said national must meet the conditions laid down in the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 1, points (a), (c), (d), and (e) of the Schengen Convention, |
| [1] ΕΕ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 19 . |
Justification
From a legislative drafting perspective, the introduction of the shortened title “Schengen Convention” should be made in the introductory part of the article and not in one of the articles themselves.
On the other hand, the terms or conditions of entry laid down in the article of the Schengen Convention constitute requirements, the non-compliance with which is grounds for preventing entry into the territory of the European Union.
Amendment 6
Article 1, point (aa) (new)
| (aa) the said national was unable to apply for a visa earlier, |
Justification
Given that visas at the border are granted as an exception, in relation to the rules governing the issue of the “uniform Community visa”, they should only be granted when applicants were unable to apply for them earlier under the normal procedure.
Amendment 7
Article 1, paragraph 2, introductory sentence
| 2. A visa granted at the border, as the case may be and subject to the conditions of paragraph 1, may be: | 2. A visa granted at the border, as the case may be and subject to the conditions of paragraph 1, may be either a travel visa or a transit visa, as laid down in Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Schengen Convention, which: |
Justification
The usual conditions for granting short-stay visas in the EU are justified by the fact that they allow the interested person to make a journey or transit through the territory, heading towards the territory of another state, and are laid down in Article 11 of the Schengen Convention.
Amendment 8
Article 1, paragraph 2, point (a)
| (a) uniform visa or | (a) it shall be valid for all Member States applying the provisions of Chapter 3 of Title II of the Schengen Convention, or |
Justification
Chapter 3 of Title II of the Schengen Convention concerns visas. Article 10 establishes the “uniform visa,” valid across the entire “Schengen area,” and which may be granted for a short stay not exceeding three months. Article 11 defines two types of visas: a) the travel visa, for continuous stay not exceeding three months per six-month period, and b) the transit visa, which is granted to allow the holder to transit through the “Schengen area” on the way to a third country. The duration of the latter cannot exceed five days.
Amendment 9
Article 1, paragraph 2, point (b)
| (b) visa with limited territorial validity within the meaning of the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 3 of the Schengen Convention. | (b) it shall be of limited territorial validity within the meaning of the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 3 of the Schengen Convention. |
Justification
Uniform visas generally apply to the entire Schengen area, but by way of exception, Member States, pursuant to Article 10, paragraph 3 of the Schengen Convention, may restrict their validity to only part of the territory.
Amendment 10
Article 1, paragraph 2, second subparagraph
| In both cases, the granted visa shall not be valid for more than one entry. The validity of the short-stay visa shall not exceed 15 days. | In both cases, the granted visa shall not be valid for more than one entry. The validity of the travel visa shall not exceed 15 days. The validity of the transit visa shall not exceed 5 days. |
Justification
The type of visas granted exceptionally at the border still depends on the reasons for their issuance: for travel or for transit. Their exceptional issuance at the border by non-consular or diplomatic authorities explains why their maximum duration should not exceed 15 days for travel visas. In the case of transit visas, it is considered that, in order for the applicant to reach their destination, their duration must be proportionate, without ever exceeding 5 days, just as when they are granted through the normal procedure.
Amendment 11
Article 1, paragraph 3
| 3. The third-country national applying for a transit visa at the border must be in possession of the visas required for the continuation of their journey to transit countries other than the Member States, and for the destination country. The transit visa granted allows for direct passage through the territory of the relevant Member State or relevant Member States. | 3. The third-country national applying for a transit visa at the border must be in possession of the visas required for the continuation of their journey to transit countries other than the Member States that apply the provisions of Chapter 3 of Title II of the Schengen Convention, and for the destination country. The transit visa granted allows for direct passage through the territory of the relevant Member State or relevant Member States. |
| The validity of the said transit visa shall not exceed 5 days. |
Justification
Not all EU Member States participate in the “Schengen area.” The United Kingdom and Ireland are not bound by the Schengen acquis and can participate operationally and, in part, in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty on the acceptance of the Schengen acquis within the framework of the European Union.
On the other hand, the final clause is removed, as it has already been properly incorporated into the previous paragraph.
Amendment 12
Article 1, paragraph 4a (new)
| 4a. In any case, safeguards must always be in place regarding the rules for the protection of personal data. |
Justification
In the event that personal data needs to be transmitted for the granting or refusal of a visa, the safeguards concerning the accuracy, use, and protection of personal data must not be limited.
Amendment 13
Article 2, paragraph 1
| 1. By way of derogation from Article 1, paragraph 1, a transit visa may be granted at the border to a seafarer who must be in possession of a visa for crossing the external borders of the Member States when: | 1. By way of derogation from Article 1, paragraph 1, a transit visa may be granted at the border to a seafarer who must be in possession of a visa to enter from the external borders of the Member States when: |
Justification
It is logical for a transit visa to be granted to seafarers who arrive at the border and wish to enter for the purpose of embarking or disembarking from a ship.
Amendment 14
Article 2, paragraph 1, item a)
| a) he/she meets the requirements of Article 1, paragraph 1, points a) and c), and | a) he/she meets the requirements of article 1, paragraphs 1 and 3, and |
Justification
For reasons of consistency with the previous amendments.
Amendment 15
Article 2, paragraph 1, final sentence
| The transit visa indicates that the holder is a seafarer. | The passage permit, granted based on the provisions of Article 1, paragraph 2, staes that itsholder is a sailor. |
Justification
For reasons of consistency with the previous amendments.
Amendment 16
Article 2, paragraph 2.
| 2. A group passage permit at the border may be granted to sailors of the same nationality who are traveling in groups of five to fifty people, provided that each sailor meets the requirements of paragraph 1. | 2. A group passage permit at the border may be granted to sailors traveling in groups of five to fifty people, provided that each sailor meets the requirements of paragraph 1. |
Justification
This amendment has the same justification as amendment 1.
Amendment 17
Article 2, paragraph 4a (new).
| 4a. Information regarding the flag and the registry of the said ships must also be exchanged. |
Justification
The exchange of information regarding the flag of the state under which the ships are traveling and the registry of the said ships must no longer be of an informal nature, and there must be the possibility of electronic data exchange.
Amendment 18
Article 3
| The Council, deciding by a special majority, amends Annexes I and II whenever necessary, following an initiative by one of its members or on the proposal of the Commission. | 1. The Commission is assisted by the committee established pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation EC/1683/95 1 of 19 May 1995. |
| 2. Whenever reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Council Decision EC/1999/4682 of 28 June 1999 shall apply. | |
| 3. The committee referred to in Article 6 adopts its internal rules of procedure. | |
| ____________________[1]ΕΕ L 164, 14.07.1995, p. 1 2ΕΕ L 184, 17.07.1999, p. 23 |
Justification
The amendment has the same justification as amendment 2.
Furthermore, it should be established that the regulatory committee assisting the European Commission, consisting of representatives of the member states and chaired by the Commission’s representative, will adopt its internal rules of procedure, as provided by Article 7 of Council Decision EC 1999/468 of 28 June 1999, which sets out the conditions for the exercise of the executive powers delegated to the Commission pursuant to the third indent of Article 202 of the EC Treaty.
Amendment 19
Article 5, paragraph 1, point (c).
| c) Annex 14 of the Common Handbook. | c) is deleted |
Justification
It should not be abolished, but a part of the Annex should be replaced.
Amendment 20
Article 5, paragraph 2
| 2. Point 5 and point 5.1 of Part II of the Common Handbook are replaced with the following reference to the text of this regulation: | 2. Point 5 and point 5.1 of Part II of the Common Handbook are replaced with the following text: |
| “The rules regarding the granting of border visas are included in Council Regulation (EC) No. …/2002 of … concerning the granting of border visas, including the granting of such visas to passing sailors.” | “The rules regarding the granting of border visas are included in Council Regulation (EC) No. …/2002 of … concerning the granting of border visas, including the granting of such visas to passing sailors (see Annex 14).” |
Justification
On the one hand, the wording has been simplified.
On the other hand, it is clear that, if the initiative under consideration is approved by the Council, a logical consequence, for reasons of consistency, will be to replace the corresponding points of the Common Handbook that are affected by it.
Amendment 21
Article 5, paragraph 2a (new).
| 2a. The first sentence of Annex 14 is replaced by the following text: | |
| “The rules regarding the granting of border visas, including the granting of such visas to passing sailors, are included in Council Regulation (EC) No. …/2003 of … or are approved under that regulation.” | |
| The remainder of Annex 14 is abolished. |
Justification
For reasons of consistency with the content of the initiative under consideration, the sections of the Common Handbook that are affected must be revised, and those that become incompatible must be abolished.
J. INTRODUCTION
In the 20th century, the Industrial Revolution, which began in the United Kingdom in the late 19th century with the widespread use of the steam engine, gradually spread throughout the 20th century to most European countries, the United States, and Japan.
Among its consequences, it is worth emphasizing the massive movements of population, both within the internal borders of each country and on an international scale, which forced European states to enact legislation regarding foreigners.
In this way, provisions were established that regulated the type of visa with which the consular office of each state had to stamp the passports issued by foreign authorities in order to control the entry of third-country nationals into their national territory.
After the First World War, through international agreements within the framework of the League of Nations, states attempted to abolish the passport visa. However, the tragic political developments that led to the Second World War thwarted these efforts.
After the end of the war, an extensive system of international agreements was established, many of which were bilateral, with the aim of regulating and facilitating the movement of citizens with different nationalities.
The creation of an area of freedom, security, and justice within the EU, where individuals can move freely across its internal borders, undoubtedly implies, as a complementary essential measure, the adoption of a harmonized migration policy.
A harmonized migration policy includes a wide range of measures, one of the most important of which is the visa policy required for foreigners crossing the external borders.
For this reason, within the EU legal framework that provides for the control of foreigners when crossing its external borders, in order to combat illegal immigration and crime, the passport visa has a dual purpose:
(a) The visa appears as a supplementary measure that is issued outside the Community territory, since only individuals who hold such a visa are allowed to enter it;
(b) The visa serves as a facilitation, as it guarantees a third-country national that their documents will be accepted by the authorities of the country of entry and that, in this way, they will be admitted at the border.
ΙΙ. EVOLUTION OF THE VISA POLICY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
A) Within the framework of the intergovernmental cooperation provided for in the Schengen agreements
Before the Schengen agreements came into effect, each state conducted its own entry control at its national borders, taking into account that Article 54 of the EC Treaty defined the principle of free movement for workers originating from the member states and, consequently, the prohibition of issuing visas between member states.
The Schengen agreements, signed in 1985 by France, Germany, and the Benelux countries, were part of intergovernmental cooperation, as at that time not all countries that were members of the European Communities shared the idea of opening the European space to the free movement of persons, whether European citizens or foreigners. The implementation convention was signed in 1990 and came into force on March 26, 1995. Later, all EU member states, except the United Kingdom and Ireland, acceded to these agreements. In addition to these 13 countries, Iceland and Norway, which are associated with the EU, must also be included.
Today, the entry control of citizens from third countries into the territory of the countries that have signed the above agreements is carried out by the country whose borders correspond to the term “Schengen area.” These borders are referred to as “external borders” in order to distinguish them from the “internal borders,” which separate the territories of the states that have signed the agreements.
The Schengen Convention defines the possession of a visa as one of the conditions for entry into the territory of the contracting states, which must adopt a common policy on this issue by establishing a unified visa system as a compensatory measure for the establishment of free movement of persons.
The Schengen Convention also regulates in the first section of Chapter 3 (which refers to short-stay visas):
(a) Article 10 establishes a uniform visa that is valid for the territory of all the contracting countries and is issued for stays of up to a maximum of three months.
(b) Article 11 defines the two forms of the uniform visa:
– a travel visa, which allows a stay of no more than three months,
– a transit visa, the duration of which cannot exceed 5 days;
(c) Article 12 regulates the issuance of the uniform visa by the diplomatic or consular authorities of the contracting countries;
(d) Article 17, paragraph 3, states that it is the responsibility of the Schengen Executive Committee to determine the conditions for issuing “border” visas when the visa could not be issued in the third-country national’s country of origin who is requesting it.
Finally, in the second section of Chapter 3, which refers to “visas for long stays,” the Schengen Convention establishes in Article 18 that visas for stays longer than three months constitute national visas issued by one of the contracting countries in accordance with its domestic legislation.
B) Within the framework of the European Union
Before the Maastricht Treaty, which was signed on February 7, 1992, the competencies of the European Communities concerning external borders were essentially nonexistent. After the treaty came into effect, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 100C, a common list of third countries was established at the Community level, whose nationals are required to hold a visa in order to be allowed entry into the territory of the Union. Today, the list established by Council Regulation (EC) No. 539/2001 of March 15, 2001 1 , is in effect.
However, after the establishment of this list, each member state was free to determine the conditions of movement for third-country nationals who were not included in the list.
Furthermore, in order to fulfill the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 100C of the Maastricht Treaty, a uniform visa model was established through Council Regulation (EC) No. 1683/95 of May 29, 1995 2 , as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 334/2002 of February 18, 2002 3.
Finally, it is important to clarify that, according to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1683/95, a visa, for the purposes of the Regulation, is understood as:
“An authorization or decision granted by a member state, which is required for entry into its territory for the purpose of:”
– a planned stay in the said member state or in several member states for a duration not exceeding three months in total (a “travel” visa);
– transit through its territory or through an airport transit area of the said member state or several member states (a “transit” visa).”
In any case, the legislation concerning visas or residence permits was highly heterogeneous and of very different legal value: at times it was based on Community law (regarding the form of the visa and the list of countries whose citizens are required to obtain a visa to enter the EU), while at other times it relied on the intergovernmental “Schengen” cooperation (regarding the conditions for issuing the visa, the authorities that can issue them, the documents on which the visa may be based, as well as border controls).
C) The Amsterdam Treaty
The Amsterdam Treaty, which came into force in May 1999, gave a final boost to the visa policy, among many other issues, and to the integration of the Schengen acquis within the framework of the European Union. It also facilitated the communitarization of policies related to visas, political asylum, migration, and other policies concerning the free movement of persons through the creation of a new Title IV of the EC Treaty.
In this context, it is necessary to mention:
– Article 62, paragraph 2, point (b) of the EC Treaty, concerning the adoption of a series of legislative measures covering all aspects of a harmonized policy on short-stay visas, that is, for stays not exceeding three months;
– Article 62, paragraph 3, of the aforementioned Treaty, which defines, within the framework of migration policy, the set of necessary measures to regulate the conditions of entry and residence, and the rules governing the process of issuing long-term visas and residence permits by the member states, including those aimed at family reunification.
ΙΙΙ. INITIATIVE OF THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN AIMING AT THE ADOPTION OF A COUNCIL REGULATION AMENDING THE SCHENGEN RULES REGARDING THE GRANTING OF BORDER VISAS, INCLUDING THE GRANTING OF SUCH VISAS TO SEAFARERS
A) General
The general rules governing the issuance of “uniform visas” as well as “visas with limited territorial validity” follow the common rules regarding consular services (“ICC” according to the linguistic agreement).
In contrast, the general rules governing the issuance of “border visas,” as well as the specific rules concerning “visas for transiting seafarers,” are addressed in various provisions of the Schengen acquis:
(a) in the Common Manual for Borders,
(b) in Annex 14 of the Common Manual,
(c) in the common rules regarding consular services,
d) in the two decisions of the Schengen executive committee that have not been incorporated into either the common manual or the common rules regarding consular services.
B) Content
The goal of the Kingdom of Spain’s initiative is to bring some order to the existing Schengen acquis by gathering in a single legal instrument of the EC (Council regulation proposal) the scattered legislation governing “border visas,” as well as “visas for transiting seafarers.”
The future regulation is set to repeal:
a) the decision of the Schengen executive committee SCH/Com. ex (94) 2, of April 26, 1994, regarding the issuance of uniform border visas (which appears as Annex 14 of the common manual for the control of the crossing of the EU’s external borders);
b) the decision of the Schengen executive committee SCH/Com. ex (96) 27, of December 19, 1996, regarding the issuance of border visas for transiting seafarers (which has not yet been incorporated into the common manual, nor in the form of an annex).
The regulation proposal consolidates into a single legislative text the provisions and practices set out in the two aforementioned decisions and, in addition, introduces the innovation of granting transiting seafarers who travel as a group of 5 to 50 people of the same nationality a “label” visa that covers all members of the group, i.e., a “collective” visa. This “label” will be affixed to a separate sheet, which is not considered a travel document. The definition of the single model for this independent sheet is entrusted to the Commission.
The future regulation is set to become Annex 14 of the common manual and will incorporate into it the practices currently followed for transiting seafarers, which are not currently included in the common manual, even though they are applied at all the EU’s external borders.
The only legislative innovation that is set to be established is the possibility of issuing collective visas for groups of transiting seafarers, whereas, until now, only the issuance of a “label” visa with uniform validity in all Schengen member states on an individual basis has been foreseen, i.e., one label for each seafarer. This practice results in a loss of valuable time detrimental to seafarers, ships, and airlines because, often, flights or connections are missed.
G) Evaluation
The rapporteur initially disapproves of the fact that the Kingdom of Spain’s initiative lacks ambition, as a systematic approach is required in order to bring the Schengen acquis out of the current chaotic state it finds itself in regarding the issuance of visas.
It is disappointing that, with the proposal to establish a collective visa for transiting seafarers, the opportunity for in-depth reforms, which are necessary to bring order to the labyrinthine, secretive, and complex Schengen acquis, is not being seized.
That being said, the rapporteur, judging the matter completely objectively, cannot help but point out that the Kingdom of Spain’s initiative clarifies and simplifies, through a legal instrument falling within the first pillar of the EU, the current complex system of border visa issuance.
If we add to this the establishment of collective visas for transiting seafarers, which will help resolve serious practical problems that have remained unsolved until now, resulting in significant personal and financial harm, the rapporteur believes that the current initiative of the Kingdom of Spain, duly corrected and amended, contributes to making the complex Schengen acquis more understandable and offers solutions to problems of European scale.
For this reason, with a constructive spirit and without ceasing to urge the governments of the member states, the Council, and the Commission to urgently bring order to the incomprehensible Schengen acquis, the rapporteur wished to submit 19 amendments with the corresponding justifications.
[1] ΕΕ C 139 Ε, of 12.06.2002, p. 6.
1 ΕΕ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p. 1
2 ΕΕ L 164 of 14.7.1995, p. 1
3 ΕΕ L 53 of 23.2.2002, p. 7