In Ukraine field study covered 454 interviewed persons, who represent real proportion of visa applicants at eight consulates (visa sections) of the EU Member states. Four of them are members of Schengen zone (Germany, Belgium, France, and Finland), four others are currently out of it (Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Great Britain).

Recommendation given below were formulated on the basis of findings received in all four countries surveyed Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Moldova.

Findings of Ukrainian part of the survey conducted by CPCFPU are to be published in the separate Policy Paper.

Lifting the visa obligation with respect to Eastern European countries should be the long-term objective of the EU. In the short term, however, changes designed to facilitate the visa procedure and mitigate the related inconvenience are indispensable.
Some of these recommendations require amendments to the Common Consular Instructions, yet, the majority of them fit well within the range of the applicable Schengen rules demanding some modification by the EU Member States of their visa practices, which – as shown in our monitoring – go in diverse directions in particular Member States.

1. ATTITUDE DISPLAYED BY THE STAFF

This seemingly minor factor – professional and polite treatment of applicants – affects to a considerable extent the perception of the visa procedure as a whole. The EU Member States should make every effort to ensure that Consulate employees are not only experts on the applicable provisions but also represent a high standard of personal conduct and adequate interpersonal skills. In practice, an essential thing to do would be to provide training sessions making Consulate staff understand the importance of the treatment of visa applicants and the need to show a professional and polite attitude towards customers. The above relates not only to the consular officers of the specific country, but also to local personnel providing service to individuals at counters, and to security personnel.

Applicants wish to receive reliable information. An improvement of applicant notification methods is required to facilitate the procedure. Consulates should establish standard and comprehensive information facilities for those applying for a visa (such information to be made available on information boards or included in free leaflets, on web pages or by phone).
Visa application forms and examples of completed forms should be made readily available outside the Consulate (making it unnecessary to queue up to obtain them) and on web pages. Opening a separate information stand and appointing an employee to provide information in the local language would be an example of good practice (so far only few Consulates apply this solution).
Establishing uniform methods of information and uniform lists of required documents (shortest possible) for the entire Schengen area would be felt by applicants to be a considerable improvement.

2. BETTER ORGANISATION OF THE PHASE PRECEDING THE TECHNICAL PROCEDURE

A negative perception of the visa procedures was predominantly noted with respect to the steps preceding the technical procedure itself, such as acquiring the application, queuing up to make an appointment and submitting the documents required.
Consulates should assume the responsibility for those non-technical stages (queues), moreover taking part mostly outside a Consulate. Monitoring of the queues and the attitudes of Consulate security guards is required.

Procedures should be in place to enable the applicants to lodge documents at their convenience without having to stand in the line (appointment on the phone, via internet or via electronic facilities installed in front of the Consulate involved).

3. SHORTENING THE VISA PROCEDURE AND CUTTING THE NUMBER OF VISITS TO A CONSULATE

The length of the procedure is not the only element perceived as being a major problem. The number of visits necessary to obtain a visa is an important factor too. Having to make numerous visits to a Consulate is an onerous problem since the relevant Consulate is usually a long distance from the place of the applicant’s residence. A decrease in the number of visits should be accompanied by a concurrent cut in the duration of the procedure. Even if two visits are sufficient to obtain a visa, if they are dispersed over time, the effect on the applicant will be negligible.

It is necessary to eliminate the practice of sending the applicants back for additional documents. In each such case, Consulates should accept documents by post or e-mail. The visa procedure is likely to be shortened as a result of less time being consumed by Consulate staff in the processing of each application (some examples have been described below).

4. SHORTER LIST OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRED

In our opinion, the requirements regarding the scope of informationand the list of documents to be submitted by the applicant should be much simplified. For example, the latter should be reduced to embrace only those documents that are absolutely necessary. The extensive list provided in the Common Consular Instructions leaves Consulates with too much discretion in this respect. This frequently leads to situations where the applicant is sent away with an admonition to provide supplementary documents that have not been required of them initially. For instance, the demand on the applicant to supply any title to their property should be eliminated. The same applies to the obligation on students to submit their University consent to their absence, and on the inviting parties to substantiate their income.

5. WAIVER OF THE INTERVIEW PROCEDURE

The practice of interviewing visa applicants wishing to visit a Schengen State has proven to be quite diverse. The talks are usually aimed at determining circumstances that are vital for the case and which cannot be elicited from the documents or the visa application submitted. However, in some Consulates interviews are only a formality and bring no additional knowledge to the decision maker. Departing from the interview procedure in obvious cases and holding extended talks in the case of doubt would be good practice. More freedom for Consulates to waive the interview procedure should be legally admissible.

6. SIMPLIFIED REAPPLICATION PROCEDURE

Simplified procedures should be employed with respect to individuals applying for another visa within a period of two to three years (provided no violation of the law was recorded). Good practice here could involve: an interview waiver and reducing the list of required documents (attached to the visa application and the invitation) and the possibility of written communication. Individuals who have not been penalised by court sentences and are frequent travellers to the EU should receive long-term multiple-entry visas as part of a routine procedure.

7. ELIMINATION OF THE OBLIGATION TO REPORT BACK

Our survey displayed recurring cases where the successful applicant was instructed to report back to the relevant Consulate upon their return. Being obliged to follow this practice, the applicants feel they are treated as second class citizens, to make things worse, it brings back memories of Soviet times when you had to report your return from a foreign trip and surrender your passport. This practice has also a negative impact on the length of the visa procedure since instead of dealing with visa applications, Consulates have to register those coming back from abroad.

8. OBLIGATION TO JUSTIFY REFUSAL

Among the Consulates surveyed, the Belgian and British ones are obliged to provide the applicant with a written justification for the refusal, whereas the German and French Consulates provide no reasons for their decisions. On the other hand, Consulates of Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Poland apply this procedure in exceptional cases only. The justification for the deci sion is of significant importance to visa applicants: on the one hand it allows them to prepare another, correct application (or an appeal – if possible), on the other – it builds the image of the Consulate as a friendly, open and transparent institution. The indirect advantage of providing a justification is that the decisions become less arbitrary – a consular officer must present concise and logical reasons for his or her refusal to grant a visa.

9. RECOURSE TO THE RIGHT OF APPEAL

An important factor when evaluating the visa procedure is the right of appeal against the decision to refuse a visa. If we focus on the Member States surveyed, a foreigner is able to appeal against decisions issued by representative offices of Belgium, Germany and the UK – yet, in the latter case, only in respect of long-term visas. It is true without doubt that the right of appeal is the key issue in our endeavour to ensure a proper visa procedure, plus it confines potential arbitrary decisions of the consular officer involved and any related abuse of power. Neither the option to appeal against the decision nor the obligation to give justification for the refusal is governed by the Schengen rules. Their incorporation into the Common Consular Instructions as obligatory procedures for the Consulates would be a significant improvement in the visa procedure.

10. EXPEDITING THE QUEUES

None of the Consulates surveyed ensured a place to sit or shelter against bad weather to those waiting outside. Finding an effective and suitable solution seems difficult in a situation where the number of waiting applicants is usually several dozen and sometimes several hundred people, however, introduction of the improvements described herein would certainly contribute to expediting the entire procedure and reducing queue length. The introduction of all possible methods of making appointments at specific hours is essential.

11. SHORTENING DISTANCES TO CONSULATES

The distances from the place of residence to the nearest Consulate for citizens of the four countries surveyed proved to be very long. A simple solution, apart from increasing the number of Consulates, would be the coordination of activities among the Consulates to make the required visa attainable at the closest Consulate of an EU Member State, irrespective of whether it represents the intended destination country. This solution should be incorporated into the Schengen rules and not bilateral agreements which are currently implemented only in exceptional cases. It may involve the implementation in the future of the Euro-Consulate system.

12. ACCESSION OF POLAND AND OTHER NEW EU MEMBER STATES TO THE SCHENGEN AGREEMENT

The current Polish visa system applied towards our Eastern neighbour countries is based on easy-to-get visas and free visas for citizens of the Ukraine, Moldova and Russians from the Kaliningrad Oblast, and also cheap visas for Russians and Belarusian citizens (a short-term visa costs USD 12 in Russia and USD 6 in Belarus). The current visa simplification is aimed not only at facilitating an intensive cross-border exchange and cooperation but also at sending a political signal that the EU enlargement is not against its Eastern neighbours and is not leading to a new polarization.

Taking into account the scale of the movement of persons to Poland from Belarus and the Ukraine (in 2004 for instance, Polish Consulates in the East issued over one million visas to Belarusian citizens, Russians and Ukrainians), the citizens of the Ukraine were granted the largest number of them (575,471). In the same period, German Consulates in the East issued only slightly over half a million visas to citizens of the three said countries, including 123,434 visas to Ukrainians, which is roughly equal to one fourth of the number of such visas issued by the Polish Consulates referred to above. The scale of the movement of persons into Poland from the neighbouring countries implies that the consequences of introducing visa charges that are now applied within the Schengen area coupled with additional visa barriers would be really dramatic. Apart from the negative consequences for thousands of travelers, this solution would put the European Union in a very bad light; this step would punish rather than reward the Ukraine for its democratic changes and Moldova for its European aspirations. Furthermore, it would deprive the inhabitants of the Russian enclave in the EU of their privilege of free visas to Poland and Lithuania. Finally, in spite of all the declarations to the contrary, it would exacerbate the isolation of the Belarusian nation.

Every effort should be made to prevent the accession of Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and the Baltic States to the Schengen Agreement from bringing about deterioration in conditions for Eastern Europeans wishing to travel to those countries. This may require taking up discussions on the Schengen acquis, as well as looking for solutions regarding national (long-term) visas.

Long-term visas (for visits longer than three months) do not fall under the harmonization scheme and remain under the national competence of the individual Schengen States. Such visas are valid only within the territory of the issuing State (and for transit purposes, also in other Schengen States). A holder of this type of visa can easily enter an EU Member State, however, the risk of the resulting sanctions if an offence is revealed (prohibition to enter the EU for several years) should serve as a sufficient discouraging measure.

The issuance of long-term visas may become an essential policy towards our Eastern neighbours. Yet, Western European countries may fear that national visas will increase the risk of migration from the Ukraine, therefore, this issue must become a topic of political dialogue between the new and old EU Member States.

The good intentions of Poland and other new Member States should be confirmed by introducing effective controls to monitor national visas against the abuse of their intended purpose.

In order to enable citizens from the neighbouring countries to obtain long-term visas, the Polish visa policy should be combined with the migration policy and the facilitation of legal employment for foreigners in Poland. At present, large numbers of people coming to Poland on a tourist visa undertake illegal work (especially in such sectors as agriculture, household maids, the building industry).

It is likely that once Poland accedes to the Schengen Agreement, the current liberal visa practices in respect of short-term visas will be restricted. Upon materialization of this scenario, the first consequence will be the detrimental effects on many sectors of the economy if the current level of arrivals drops.

Secondly, many people coming to stay on a temporary basis may decide to stay illegally in Poland in fear of problems with obtaining another visa. Opening legal ways of employment for foreigners and issuance of national visas as well as the implementation of the proposed changes in visa issuance procedures are all necessary steps to preventing membership in the Schengen area from causing aggravation to the situation of Eastern European citizens wishing to travel to Poland and other new EU Member States.