Steve Peers

The EU’s visa policy has traditionally focused on managing illegal immigration and security threats while considering foreign policy goals. However, in recent years, promoting economic growth, particularly in the tourism sector, has become increasingly important. This shift, initiated by a 2012 Commission communication, is evident in recent updates to the EU’s visa ‘whitelist’. The criteria for visa liberalization now include trade and investment, leading to the inclusion of Peru and Colombia after they signed a trade agreement with the EU.

This policy shift raises the question of its potential impact on the EU’s visa code, which outlines detailed visa application procedures. The Commission proposed a revision of the code last year, alongside a separate proposal for a ’touring visa’ allowing stays exceeding three months within the Schengen area, without exceeding three months in a single Schengen State. This analysis, based on ongoing work for the fourth edition of EU Justice and Home Affairs Law, builds upon previous examinations of specific issues within the visa code proposal.

Visa code proposal

The proposal aims to simplify the Schengen visa application process while maintaining the code’s fundamental structure. It does not alter the criteria determining who requires a visa to enter the EU. The code applies only to states fully implementing the Schengen system: 22 EU Member States and four Schengen associates. It’s worth noting that this excludes the UK, Ireland, Croatia, Cyprus, Romania, and Bulgaria, although the latter four are obligated to implement it upon joining Schengen.

The proposal wouldn’t impact the existing CJEU ruling in the Koushkaki case, which affirms that anyone meeting the Schengen visa criteria outlined in the visa code is entitled to receive one.

The proposal suggests numerous amendments, primarily focused on simplifying the Schengen visa application process. The requirement for in-person consulate applications would be eliminated, except for fingerprint collection for the Visa Information System database (required every five years). Currently, only 30% of applicants appear in person, as many countries outsource visa application information collection to private companies. The revised rules would clarify which Member State consulate handles each application, ensuring applicants can apply without traveling to consulates in other countries. Applicants could apply up to six months in advance, extending the current three-month window.

The proposal suggests easing accommodation, financial means, and return intention checks for frequent travelers with good immigration records, verifiable through the Visa Information System. Applicants would no longer need travel medical insurance, and Member States would be required to expedite decision-making. The €60 visa application fee waiver rules would be standardized, ensuring fee exemptions for individuals like children under 18, researchers, and diplomats. Regular travelers with clean records would qualify for multiple-entry visas valid for three years, potentially extending to five, compared to the current minimum of six months. The proposal also expands opportunities for border visa applications, currently limited mainly to seafarers.

While the European Parliament hasn’t issued a formal response, the Council expressed initial reservations. A report indicated concerns among Member States regarding the proposed liberal multiple-entry visa rules, the removal of the medical insurance requirement due to unpaid medical bills, the shortened application timeframe, and any facilitation for EU citizens’ family members. Some opposed additional mandatory fee waivers. A subsequent text revision revealed Member States’ willingness to accept stricter multiple-entry visa rules and some fee waivers while retaining the medical insurance requirement.

Touring visa proposal

Currently, some Member States have agreements with countries like the USA or New Zealand, enabling their citizens to combine short stays in different Schengen States. However, this applies to a limited number of countries. The Commission proposes replacing these agreements with a unified Schengen-wide approach. While an estimated 120,000 individuals would benefit, their higher spending power is projected to generate a €1 billion net benefit for the EU economy.

The touring visa could be granted for up to one year, with a potential extension to two. It would also cover citizens of countries like the USA who typically don’t require short-term visas if their intended total stay in the Schengen area exceeds the usual limit (90 days within 180 days). The EU’s Visa Information System database would be applicable, but non-visa nationals, such as Americans, would be exempt from fingerprint requirements. The standard visa code rules, including the proposed amendments, would apply with some exceptions. Notably, border applications would be prohibited, the first Member State of entry would handle the entire touring visa application, and sickness insurance would be mandatory.

The Council’s response to this proposal has been lukewarm, with some Member States preferring to maintain bilateral agreements and others voicing security concerns.

Comments

The Commission’s proposals offer several benefits. They simplify the process for individuals wanting to visit the EU by reducing costs for families and researchers, streamlining applications, and making it easier for frequent, trusted visitors.

If the Commission’s projections are accurate, these proposals could significantly benefit the EU economy. In addition to the anticipated €1 billion boost from the touring visa, a Commission paper suggests the main visa code changes could contribute between €4 billion and €12 billion to the economy and create 80,000 jobs.

The lukewarm reception from Member States, with some even suggesting increased costs associated with the visa code proposal, is surprising. It’s unclear how consulate costs would rise overall, given the potential reduction in visa applications due to extended multiple-entry visa validity. However, individual Member States might face increased costs if the revised rules lead to a greater share of visa applications. Providing financial compensation from the EU budget or through bilateral agreements with Member States where applicants primarily travel could address this concern. Regarding unpaid medical bills, the Commission argues that these are not solely incurred by visitors holding Schengen visas.

While the cost concerns related to different national budgets might be valid, objections to simplifying travel for EU citizens’ family members are unfounded. This facilitation is already an obligation under the EU citizens’ Directive. The Commission’s proposal merely clarifies its implications for legal clarity. Irregular migration risks related to core family members are not a valid concern because EU citizens have the right to reside in another Member State with their family.

Whether the personal and economic benefits of the Commission’s proposals can outweigh the objections from national interior ministries remains to be seen. The European Parliament’s response and negotiations with the Council will be crucial in determining the outcome. Input from other ministries, such as foreign affairs and economics, advocating for a broader perspective on modern visa legislation will also play a significant role.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26