eu-com-schengen-coop

3. State of play
3.1 Application of the Visa Code
MS, assisted by the EUD, focused exclusively on granting uniformity in the concrete application of
the Visa Code locally. This enabled the Plenary to comply with all mandatory prescriptions
contained in the Visa Code (art. 48) on which agreement could be reached. In their discussions, MS
confirmed three major impediments to the uniform implementation of the Visa Code. 1) There is no
operational way to harmonise the visa fee expressed in local currency, as MS follow different
systems and frequencies to set their exchange rate (in most cases imposed by their capitals).
However, the upcoming introduction of biometric data collection could, possibly, entail a future
alignment, at least, of the service fee. 2) Practical granting of a grace period linked with the related
travel medical insurance coverage proved impracticable. 3) Agreeing on common criteria for
(optional) visa fee exemptions related to certain categories of applicants remained an open issue,
which would require further harmonisation efforts.
3.2 Assessment of the need to harmonise the lists of supporting documents
This was carried out in the previous reporting period. The draft harmonised list is likely to be
adopted in the next reporting period.
3.3 Exchange of information
‣ Exchange of information within the LSC
Besides that occurring during the Plenaries (see infra "other issues"), the electronic exchange of
information became very effective, far reaching and timely, through the use of two LSC distribution
lists endorsed, with a specific "mail etiquette/code of conduct", by the Plenary and updated at
regular intervals by the EUD. One, restricted, was dedicated to Plenary interactions. The other,
more comprehensive, to "visa alerts" exchanges (see infra "case of fraud ").
‣ statistics
In compared to 2012-13, the exchange of monthly visa statistics increased drastically, although
some MS still do not send their statistics on a regular basis. Smaller missions, in particular,
confirmed their difficulty in providing this information, as it was not easily accessible via their IT
visa systems. In addition, substantial structural limitations remained. Several MS cannot share their
data regularly as they depend on their capitals to get consolidated statistics. Most MS cannot
provide separate statistics for non-EU citizens not residing in India.
The Plenary analysed the 2012 annual Schengen visa statistics relative to India, on the basis of a
synoptic table comparing the situation with 2011. It concluded that such global numbers provide
useful general information but are of limited use locally, as they cannot detect main trends detailed
per short-stay visa purpose. It also highlighted that a) MS-wise and location-wise data would be
more useful. It is noteworthy that exchange on annual Schengen statistics highlighted b) substantial
discrepancies between MS central authorities' data (monthly and annual ones) and the ones
published in the EU website. As these two issues deserved further attention (also, perhaps at Central
Authorities/Statistical offices level), in the second half of the reporting period, the EUD put forward
a homogeneous statistics table detailed according to broad categories of purposes both for Schengen
(business, tourism, official/mission, etc.) and upon MS' suggestion, for comparison purposes, for
national visas (work, study, family reunification, etc.). These two tables, once in use, would prove
12893/14 PR/lm 93
DG D 1 A
EN