RAPORT referitor la propunerea de regulament al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului de modificare a Instrucțiunilor consulare comune privind vizele destinate misiunilor diplomatice și oficiilor consulare în legătură cu introducerea biometriei, inclusiv a dispozițiilor privind organizarea primirii și a procesării cererilor de vize

29.11.2007 - (COM(2006)0269 – C6‑0166/2006 – 2006/0088(COD)) - ***I

Comisia pentru libertăți civile, justiție și afaceri interne
Raportoare: Sarah Ludford

EXPUNERE DE MOTIVE

I. Introduction

The present proposal is the 4th element of the VIS package. In modifying the existing Common Consular Instructions[1] it provides, firstly, for the obligation to give biometrics to be stored in the VIS and the standards for doing so. Secondly, it includes provisions on the organisation of the reception of visa applications.

Although a complete revision of the visa rules is foreseen with the Visa Code[2] the Commission has made this specific proposal separately. The underlying rationale of this approach is that the adoption of the Visa Code is likely to take longer than the present proposal of which the adoption could allow the VIS to start operating.[3] The rapporteur stresses the importance of ensuring coherence between the two proposals.

An introduction into the subject areas covered by the present proposal was given by the rapporteur in two simultaneous working documents.[4] Those documents identified the politically sensitive questions and were the basis for several discussions.

For the preparation of this draft report the rapporteur also took into consideration the very helpful opinions presented by the European Data Protection Supervisor[5] and the Article 29 Working Party.[6]

II. Biometrics

II.1 Fingerprints

The rapporteur proposes to initially exempt persons below the age of 14 and over 79 from the obligation to provide fingerprints, with a review of these age limits after three years following a detailed study.

The choice of these age limits have to be essentially a policy choice at this stage rather than one based on technical guidance, for the simple reason that objective, independent advice is lacking. There was no impact assessment accompanying the proposal from the Commission, which considering its promises and commitments on better regulation is deeply regrettable and pretty shocking. The Commission seems just to have put forward a proposal largely reflecting discussions which took place with the Member States in the Council. In addition, there exists no large-scale experience of fingerprinting children under 14 or elderly persons.

Thus in the absence of credible technical guidance the rapporteur believes that it is wise in the initial stage to adopt age limits which we are sure will be workable, thereby avoiding unnecessary risks of turning the VIS project into a big experiment. Since the only currently comparable large-scale applications of fingerprints are Eurodac (minimum age 14 years) and US-Visit (14 to 79 years) those age limits should also be used for an initial period for the VIS.

But even if there was proven technology to fingerprint children of a very low age one should think twice and ask about how appropriate, necessary and proportionate that would be. Such a full analysis cannot be done here, although the rapporteur believes that at least the following points would deserve further reflection.

Firstly, it has to be considered whether the taking of fingerprints of children below the age of 14 is necessary to achieve the objectives of the VIS as laid down in Article 1a of the agreed text. For the first objective, facilitating the visa application procedure, fingerprints of young children are not necessary. On the contrary, this would complicate the application for a visa through the child having to come to the consulate to provide their fingerprints. Since the fingerprints of children are subject to change, we could see the absurd situation where fingerprints of children would have to be taken for example every two years while those of the parents were taken every four or five years.

For the second VIS objective, the prevention of visa shopping, younger age limits are also unnecessary since usually young children travel with their parents with whose application files their own are linked according to Article 5(4) of the VIS Regulation.

For the third objective, the facilitation of the fight against fraud, it is generally considered that biometrics could make visas more difficult to forge. There is, however, no information available whether there is a problem of forged visas of children.

In case of the fourth objective - the facilitation of border control - biometrics would allow a check at the border as to whether the person present is the same person to whom the visa was issued. Though it is not an explicit VIS objective, this could in theory be relevant to the fight against child trafficking through a check on whether the child at the border it is the same child as the one at the consulate with the parents. But the question of whether the 'family' presenting itself at the consulate is indeed a family is outside the realm of the CCI and the VIS. There is indeed a risk that reliance on VIS certainty would actually mean a reduction in the likelihood of border questioning over whether a group constitutes a family.

It is also important to recall that the VIS Regulation provides for a transitional period of three years after the start of VIS operations during which Member States do not have to check fingerprints at the border (Art. 16(1a)). The rapporteur considers it disproportionate to require fingerprints from young children while they are not systematically checked at the border. She believes that that this three year period should be used for an extended study on age limits for fingerprints so that at the end of the period any decision to change age limits could be made on a better-informed basis.

For the fifth VIS objective, to assist in the identification of undocumented persons, fingerprints of young children are equally unnecessary since they are not of adequate quality to use for identification as the Commission acknowledges.[7]

For the sixth objective, facilitating the application of the Dublin II Regulation[8], taking fingerprints of children below 14 seems in contradiction with the minimum age in the Eurodac Regulation and the present text could not change that limit.[9]

Finally, it is also doubtful whether the fingerprints of children below 14 would contribute to the prevention of threats to internal security. While it is imaginable in very rare cases that children are involved in terrorist acts or other serious crimes there are doubts as to whether this would justify taking fingerprints of so many children.

The rapporteur believes that an upper age limit of 79 as in US-Visit is equally important. Persons over 79 are very unlikely to be an immigration or terrorism risk. It seems disproportionate to burden them with the obligation to travel to a consulate and possibly queue several times outside. Without the obligation to provide fingerprints they could use traditional methods like a travel agency. In addition, the accuracy of fingerprints decrease as people grow older. This means that they might encounter unjustified problems at the consulate or at the border. It is also much more difficult for old people to give fingerprints if they are hesitant or do not understand the technology. The rapporteur would not want the EU to give the image to the outside world of failing to respect older people.

II.2 Photographs

The Commission does not propose any age exemption for photographs and the rapporteur agrees with this. The Commission leaves open the question of whether scanned photographs are used or photographs taken at the consulate. The rapporteur is of the opinion that for persons exempted from fingerprinting, as a rule scanned photographs should be used to avoid them having to come to the consulate just for the taking of a photograph.

II.3 Frequency of collection

The Commission proposes to require the applicant to appear in person for enrolment for the first application and to copy that data for any subsequent application within a period of 48 months. The rapporteur proposes to extend this period to 59 months which still guarantees that the data is available in the VIS in conformity with its retention period of 5 years. This prolongation of the period does not affect the security of the visa process and increases its user-friendliness. The rapporteur also proposes an amendment clarifying that after 59 months new biometric data must be taken, since the Commission proposal seemed to imply that if a person regularly applies for a visa (within the period of 48 months) the same biometric data could be used for a lifetime. Lastly, the rapporteur would like to point out that the choice of 14 as the age limit for fingerprints is linked to the frequency of collection. If the age limit was lowered, than the fingerprints of children would have to be taken more often since they constantly change.

III. Reception of visa applications

III.1 Outsourcing

The rapporteur agrees with the general concept of outsourcing in so far as it improves the service for visa applicants and as long as it takes place under conditions which ensure the integrity of the visa issuing process. These essential conditions are that outsourcing is indeed only used as a last resort that the service provider operates in a building under diplomatic protection, that consular officials are present to closely supervise the staff of the service provider and that the contractual clauses providing for the oversight of the contractor are reinforced.

III.2 Common Application Centres (CACs)

As in the cases of outsourcing the rapporteur is of the opinion that CACs should only be established in a building enjoying diplomatic protection.

• [1]  Consolidated version in OJ C 326 of 22.12.2005, p.1 - 149
• [2]  COM(2006)403; Report Lax
• [3]  Technically it will be inserted in the visa code once this is agreed like was the case for the stamping of documents (Reg. 2133/2004) which was introduced in the Schengen Borders Code (Reg. 562/2006).
• [4]  PE 386.565v01-00, 386.717v01-00 presented in LIBE on 10.4. and 8.5.2007.
• [5]  Opinion of 27.10.2006, OJ C 321 of 29.12.2006, p. 38
• [6]  Opinion 3/2007 of 1.3.2007 (WP 134)
• [7]  "The fingerprints of children aged 6-12 years are useful only for a one-to-one comparison." (p.9 of the proposal)
• [8]  Reg. 343/2003; see Art. 1a(f) of the VIS Reg.
• [9]  Briefing Paper "Biometrics and Visa Applications" by Steve Peers, p.5

PROCEDURĂ

Titlu	Instrucțiuni consulare comune: datele biometrice de identificare și cererile de eliberare a vizelor
Referințe	COM(2006)0269 - C6-0166/2006 - 2006/0088(COD)
Data prezentării la PE	31.5.2006
Comisia competentă în fond Data anunțului în plen	LIBE 15.6.2006
Raportor(i) Data numirii	Sarah Ludford 20.6.2006
Examinare în comisie	19.6.2006		27.11.2006		11.4.2007		17.7.2007
	12.9.2007		20.11.2007
Data adoptării	20.11.2007
Rezultatul votului final	+: –: 0:	31 2 5
Membri titulari prezenți la votul final	Philip Bradbourn, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Giuseppe Castiglione, Giusto Catania, Carlos Coelho, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Esther De Lange, Panayiotis Demetriou, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Armando França, Roland Gewalt, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Lívia Járóka, Ewa Klamt, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Roselyne Lefrançois, Sarah Ludford, Dan Mihalache, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Bogusław Rogalski, Martine Roure, Inger Segelström, Károly Ferenc Szabó, Søren Bo Søndergaard, Vladimir Urutchev, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka
Membri supleanți prezenți la votul final	Edit Bauer, Simon Busuttil, Gérard Deprez, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Ona Juknevičienė, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Mary Lou McDonald, Marianne Mikko, Hubert Pirker
Membri supleanți articolul 178 alineatul (2) prezenți la votul final	Louis Grech