THE EU VISA POLICY IN UKRAINE · Lviv Legal Community Institute for Social Studies and Political...

EUROPE WITHOUT BARRIERS

THE EU VISA POLICY IN UKRAINEIndependent Monitoring Findings 2012

Kyiv-2012

The issue contains findings of independent monitoring of the EU visa policy in Ukraine. The field study has been held in summer 2012. The data provided in a comparison with the previous monitoring data (2008-2012), both positive and negative trends are indicated.

According to the research data all consular services of the EU Member States are put into four baskets: «friendly», «neutral», «contrasting» and «problematic» visa practices.

THE EU VISA POLICY IN UKRAINEIndependent Monitoring Findings 2012

Monitoring paper

Iryna Sushko, Olga Suprunenko, Oleksandr Sushko, Maryana Kuzio

Project coordinator: Iryna Sushko

NGOs involved:Europe without Barriers, KyivCentre for Strategic Partnership, UzhgorodLviv Legal CommunityInstitute for Social Studies and Political Analysis, DonetskFoundation for the local democracy, KharkivVolyn Association for Youth Rights Protection, LutskInformation-Research centre «Global», OdesaVinnytsia Regional Information Centre "Creative"

Translation into English: Liliya Levandovska

“Vistka» publishing house. Circulation — 1000 items.

Supported by the European Programme of the International Renaissance Foundation (Open Society Network)

Civic initiative Europe without Barriers www.novisa.org.ua42 Volodymyrska str, Office 21.Kyiv 01034 Ukraine

Phone/fax: 38 044 238 68 43

CONTENT

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

MAIN FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

DETAILED FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1 . Research methodology, specifics of 2012 monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

2 . Measurable outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

2.1. Visa procession and supporting documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152.2. Categories of visa obtained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.3. Long term validity and multiple entry visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.4. Free-of-chage visas, consular fees and payments to intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432.5. Visas applied for and visas obtained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472.6. Refusals and appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3 . Consulates’ perception: subjective assessment by applicants . . . .56

4 . Socio-demographic dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

UKRAINE ON THE EU VISA MAP: CURRENT TRENDS . . . . . . . . 69

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

4

T H E E U V I S A P O L I C Y I N U K R A I N E

FOREWORD

The statistics says that in 2011 the EU consulates in Ukraine issued much more Schengen visas than in previous years with a refusal rate of 3.3% cor-responding to the indicator which EU considers safe (3%) and serving as an additional criterion for further visa liberalization.

In July 2012 positive statistic dynamics was accompanied by the long-awaited signing of the Amendment to the Agreement on the Facilitation of Visa Issuance between Ukraine and the EU (VFA). Expanding the list of privileged categories set out in VFA and the introduction of new advanced provisions promoting better and more effective implementation of existing regulations created a favorable background for optimistic expectations.

At the same time, continuing previous waves of independent monitoring, experts of the Civic Initiative Europe without Barriers concluded that the visa practice of EU and Schengen Member States (MS) constantly changes, al-though not always for the better. Research has been focused on implementa-tion practice of VFA and the EU Visa Code, detecting rather ambivalent and selective approach by the MS consulates.

Inclusive combination of different visa procedure parameters creates an overall comprehensive pattern of visa issuance presented by the authors in this publication.

The research findings are systematic and complex, providing substantial ground for the most of issues to be addressed. The monitoring research cov-ered 23 MS consular services which proved again to apply different standards and practices. The detected differences demonstrate the practice that should be further uniformed since this process has not been complete after the Visa Code entered into force in 2010.

The diversity of research parameters enabled us to shape the «profile» of each consulate. We have applied both traditional methods and new ap-proaches while processing the research findings. For example, the data ob-tained gave us a reason to put all national consular services researched into the four «baskets» showing the «friendly», «neutral», «problematic» and «contrasting» consular practices. Data analysis also detected the leaders of progress and leaders of concern i.e. countries whose practice shows clear positive or negative tendencies.

5

Independent Monitoring Findings 2012

Apart from visa practice monitoring, we provide an analysis of offi-cial visa issuance statistics by EU consulates in Ukraine and other third countries.

Finally, we offer recommendations addressed to all relevant institutions in the EU and Ukraine in order to make visa procedure easier and apply ad-vanced regulations more effectively and fully.

On behalf of the Civic Initiative Europe without Barriers,

Iryna Sushko

6


MAIN FINDINGS

Visa practice of each country reflects both its administrative culture and goodwill standards regarding the country of stay and its citizens. Regardless the existing common EU legislative framework on visa procedures, some Member States introduce stricter or, on the contrary, facilitated and more «human» standards and requirements for visa applicants.

In general, the list of more loyal («friendly») and stricter («problematic») types of visa policies remains the same during the entire monitoring period. For example, most countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Poland, Hun-gary, Slovakia and Baltic countries) demonstrated a relatively loyal visa prac-tice during the entire monitoring period ever since they joined the Schengen area at the end of 2007. Visa requirements of Western European countries are traditionally stricter.

At the same time, the visa practice of individual countries is often chang-ing, particular MS can significantly adjust both its official visa statistics and perception of its policy on behalf of visa applicants. Thus, for example, the visa practice of Greece and Spain has recently demonstrated positive tendencies.

We did not intend to obtain the full and thorough evaluation of Visa Fa-cilitation Agreement (VFA) and the EU Visa Code (the Code): The limited scope of our monitoring made us focus only on those parameters which are the most noticeable and vulnerable for visa applicants.

These important parameters include: issuance of long-term multiple-entry visas, the number of supporting documents required for submission from certain categories of applicants, waiving the consular fee.

Introduction of the regulations mentioned above has already led to a certain improvement of the situation with the EU MS visa issuance. How-ever, it would be premature to state that all law-abiding citizens intending to travel to the EU are able to do so without certain problems.

7


Long-term and multiple-entry visas

Hungary remains the single leader in issuing long term multiple entry visas (58,1% of visas valid for more than 6 months including the record 22,5% of visas valid for 365+, i.e. mainly for 2, 3 and 5 years). Last year (2011) Hungary was also the first in this category having issued 57,2% of all visas valid for more than 6 months.

Apart from Hungary (22.5%), Estonia (15%) and Germany (10.3%) are leaders in terms of the «longest» 365+ visa category. It is important to underline that the record indicator for Hungary has been achieved mainly due to the spe-cial visa policy of its two Consulates located in Transcarpathian region (Uzh-gorod and Beregovo) targeting mostly the local Hungarian ethnic community.

Thus, the evident positive achievement of Hungary registered in our monitoring is determined not merely by better implementation of the Agreement and the Code, but rather by being concerned about its own eth-nic minority which compactly resides in the Transcarpathian region.

If we add up long-term (from 6 months to one year including) and me-dium-term (for more than 3 months and up to 6 months) visas, apart from Hungary, Slovakia, Germany and Estonia, the group of leaders is comple-mented by Poland and Greece.

The number of multiple-entry and long- (medium-) term visas has been gradually increasing each year. Our research shows:1. 41.2% multiple-entry visas (compared to 37.3% in summer 2011)2. 17.8% long-term visas valid for longer than 6 months (compared to 17.7%

in summer 2011)3. 14.1% medium-term visas valid for longer than 3 months and up to

6 months (compared to 11.6% in summer 2009)In addition, this year for the first time the number of 365+ category visas

(mainly valid for 2, 3 and 5 years) has exceeded statistical error and reached 3.7% (in summer 2011 it was as few as 0.4%).

At the same time, comparing the number of multiple-entry and long-term visas, we detected that about one-fourth of all multiple-entry visas are valid for a short term (up to 3 months) significantly decreasing the objective value of such visas for applicants and contradicting the Article 24.2 of the Code according to which multiple-entry visas are issued for a period of «from 6 months to 5 years».

8


The outcomes obtained in different consulates vary significantly.Thus, for instance, the majority of multiple-entry visas issued by Hun-

gary have long-term validity (58% long-term and 68% multiple-entry visas). France shows a similar correlation, although having a smaller share of such visas (20% long-term and 6.7% medium-term while issuing 28.3% multiple-entry visas).

Estonia issues a significant share of long-term and medium-term vi-sas (about 48%), although the share of multi-visas is even much higher (73.3%).

The same goes for Poland, the absolute «champion» in terms of issued visas; 66.8% of issued visas were multiple-entry visas, although only 2/3 of these (43.2% of the total number) were of long- and medium-term validity.

On the other hand, only half of multiple entry visas (14.8% of all visas issued by Czech Republic) are valid for more than three months, of which only 9% are valid for more than six months. In the case of Germany, only half of the 41% of multiple-entry visas are long- and medium-term (over-all — 22.4%).

Thirty-one percent of issued visas by the Consulate of Slovenia were multiple-entry, although only 3.4% of them were valid for more than three months. This constitutes the largest gap between these two interlinked visa parameters detected in our monitoring this year.

Of the total amount of visas issued by Finland, 19.3% are multiple-entry and only 5.3% of these are valid for more than three months. The lowest number of multiple entry visas (12,5%) was registered while monitoring visa practice of Italy which obviously does not correspond to the level of trip intensity to this country on behalf of the citizens of Ukraine.

Long term visas valid for more than 6 months are most rarely issued by the Consulates of Denmark, Greece, Finland, Spain and Slovenia.

9


Additional supporting documents

Requirements concerning a large number of documents which some-times are hard to obtain constitute one of the factors turning visas into a «barrier».

Additional supporting documents in our analysis are all documents required apart from the passport and visa application form. This pa-rameter rather clearly shows the differences in visa practices of the EU Member States, the majority of which adhere to a single Schengen acquis. Obtained data shows that some consulates are satisfied with 4–6 documents while others require 7–9 documents on average. There is a double difference between the marginal indicators. This, in fact, shows the flexibility of the Schengen acquis and the impact of the politi-cal will and administrative culture.

Poland, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Slovenia, Baltic countries, «non-Schengen» Romania and Bulgaria require the least number of documents, while France, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and «non-Schengen» Britain — the largest.

Consular fee waiver

the consulates of Slovakia (46.7%), Estonia (45%), Italy (44.6%), Czech Republic (41.4%), Bulgaria (39.2%), Austria (38.3%), Germany (37.9%), Bel-gium and Latvia (35%) issue the largest number of free-of-charge visas. The consulates of Finland, Denmark and Lithuania issue the least. There is no consular fee waiver in the UK as the Code and Agreement provisions are not applied there.

As persons belonging to preferential categories are proportionately repre-sented among applicants to different countries, the detected differences show an insufficiency of information available to those applicants who are legally entitled to a consular fee waiver.

10


Visa refusal rate

This evaluation component is peculiar due to the availability of official EU data enabling us to compare it to our results obtained during the sur-vey. Thus, according to our monitoring, the average refusal rate is 2.05% while the latest official EU statistics (for 2011) states it at 3.3%. These indi-cators show that Ukraine has reached the unofficial «safe» visa refusal rate (usually considered at 3%).

However, as previously, the relevant situation is different across the Consulates. The Consulates of such countries as Italy, Czech Republic and the Netherlands (the most problematic group) show a relatively high re-fusal rate (more than 5%) both in the official statistics and our monitoring. Countries such as Belgium, Latvia, Germany and Spain show better re-sults according to our monitoring when compared to official data (this can be explained by seasonal circumstances and by certain positive changes). In the case of Finland, Sweden and Portugal, monitoring data show some-what worse outcomes than provided in official statistics. Low refusal rates (up to 2.5%) for Poland, Hungary, France, Slovenia, Slovakia, Austria, Denmark, Greece and Lithuania (the best group according to this indi-cator) have been confirmed by both the official statistics and monitoring outcomes. «Non-Schengen» Romania and Bulgaria are also included into this group. For more details see Table 2.6.1.

CONSULATES IN COMPARISON: FOUR «BASKETS» — FOUR TYPES OF VISA PRACTICE

This year instead of naming the leaders and outsiders as previously, we decided to group EU consular establishments into four nominal «baskets» separating the «friendly», «neutral» and «problematic» consular practices. The «contrasting» consular practice is included into a separate category. This is the practice when certain features of the «friendly» approach towards visa issuance are leveled by «problematic» features in other components. Thus, we defined four visa practice types1:

1 Baskets embrace all researched MS consular services excluding Romania and Bulgaria, as they are under transition with the aim to join Schengen Zone. Romania and Bulgaria cannot be fully compared to others before transition is complete.

11


Basket 1. «Friendly» visa practice: Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia.

Basket 2. «Neutral» visa practice: Latvia, Lithuania, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Denmark

Basket 3. «Contrasting» (ambivalent) visa practice: Germany, France, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Slovenia, Portugal, the Netherlands

Basket 4. «Problematic» visa practice: Italy, Czech Republic, Great Britain

Consular missions included into the «friendly» category demonstrate the best overall result according to all important components of visa practice: quality of issued visas (validity and duration of stay), refusal rate, number of visas issued free of charge, duration of visa procedure, number of documents required from the applicants.

Conversely, Consulates are considered «problematic» when they have the worst overall results according to all parameters mentioned above.

«Contrasting» or ambivalent visa practices are registered when «pluses» in some elements are balanced by «minuses» in others. For instance, France serves as an example of «contrasting» visa practice: it has the fastest visa pro-cessing period and a low refusal rate, but requires the largest number of docu-ments. A similar situation has been registered in the Consulate of Portugal. On the contrary, the consulate of Slovenia and Finland, both requiring rela-tively few documents, issue too few long-term visas. Greece has significantly lowered its refusal rate and improved the attitude towards applicants but it also issues few multiple entry and long-term visas.

We consider the visa practice to be «neutral» if there is no approximation towards the extreme indicators (the best or worst).

Apart from the analysis of the current quality of visa practices, we also registered existing tendencies. Significant changes of the visa practice for bet-ter or worse are of utmost importance.

12


Improvement leaders: Recently, the Consular establishments of Spain and Greece have demonstrated the most dynamic progress towards friendlier standards of the consular practice. Due to the detected positive change, these countries have moved from the bottom of the ranking to the «neutral» and «contrasting» consular services, respectively, with the potential to move to the «friendly» category.

We should mention in particular a significant increase (by two times an-nually during two last years) in the number of issued visas by the Consulate of Spain and a rapid decrease in the visa refusal rate for the consulates of Greece. Apart from the economic crisis objectively motivating a greater «openness» of countries, we also see a positive reaction to the critics concerning these countries listed in our previous analysis.

Leaders of concern: The Consulate of Italy is the subject to the largest number of complaints among Schengen countries. The total time and ef-forts necessary to obtain an Italian visa are the greatest. We hope that the recent appointment of the new Consul General will benefit to the problem solution as it happened in the case of the consular establishments of Greece and Spain in Kyiv.

The Czech Republic provides another example since it applies a visa prac-tice which is not typical for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. First and foremost, it concerns the unusually low share of visas with long-term validity and the relatively high visa refusal rate.

The «non-Schengen» United Kingdom raises separate concerns as it fully avoids taking systematic steps towards visa facilitation and applies the most closed and non-transparent visa policy among the EU Member States.

13


DETAILED FINDINGS

1. Research methodology, specifics of 2012 monitoring

There are two interconnected components to be monitored: first, the current practice of visa issuance in Ukraine by the EU MS consulates and, second, implementation of two legislative items: the EU-Ukraine Visa Fa-cilitation Agreement (VFA) enforced in 2008 and the EU Visa Code en-forced in 2010.

The research was conducted within the following components:• Local monitoring (observation) enabling us to collect, update and sys-

temize the general information on 23 EU national visa issuance services;• Sociological survey (polling) of 1,380 respondents in Kyiv and 900 re-

spondents in other cities of Ukraine (applicants to 23 consular services), on the basis of standard questionnaire;

• Analysis of official visa statistics including comparison with the polling data.The innovation of the project is in-depth interviews held with consular

staff aimed at providing balanced and complex assessment and collecting their relevant perceptions.

For the first time, the monitoring covers non-Schengen EU consulates and visa centers: those of the Great Britain, Bulgaria and Romania.

An experimental part of the project provides for a field study of interme-diary visa services functioning in Ukraine as an alternative source to obtain a Schengen visa. That part of study was launched in Summer 2012 and available on our website www.novisa.org.ua .

Research contributors:

The research was held by partner NGOs in the cities where consular es-tablishments of the EU MS are located: Kharkiv, Donetsk, Odesa, Lviv, Uzh-gorod, Lutsk, Vinnytsya, Sevastopol. The field study in all cities was done on the basis of a uniformed methodology developed by EWB.

14


The objects of the research are consular establishments of the EU Mem-ber States and their Visa Centers authorized to collect and process the docu-ments in Ukraine. The monitoring was done at the consulates of Greece, Ger-many, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Finland, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia and Hungary. For the first time since we started monitoring, non-Schengen Visa Center of Great Britain and consulates of Romania and Bulgaria were covered.

How the research was conducted?

The research was based on non-proportional, stratified, systematic ap-proach. It applied a group sample on the basis of random respondent selec-tion. Random selection means that all potential respondents (visitors of the consulates) have equal chances to be surveyed.

Sixty applicants in each of the 23 consular services/visa centers in Kyiv were surveyed on the basis of special standard questionnaire. At the same time, partners made the same surveys in 13 consulates located in the re-gions.

In general, during the research in June-July 2012 2,280 respondents in 36 consulates/visa centers were surveyed including 23 in Kyiv and 13 in regions.

Visitors to consular missions who underwent the entire visa procedure were surveyed. Monitoring involved exclusively persons who underwent a visa procedure independently.

Research’s specific targets:• Timing and procedures of consulates/visa centers: novelties in visa re-

quirements, visa issuing algorithm, availability of information, conduct of security, queues (actual and «virtual»), etc.

• Identification of «privileged categories» according to VFA, share of appli-cants entitled to multiple-entry, long-term and free-of-charge visas.

• The list of document required for proving the purpose of the trip (accord-ing to VFA).

• Adherence to the VFA requirements on the consular fee (EUR 35).

15


• Adherence to the VFA requirements on the duration of document pro-cessing (10 calendar days).

• The share of free-of-charge and multiple entry visas.• Detecting the requirements by consulates not prescribed by the Schengen

legislation.• Implementation of Article 24.2 on issuance of multiple-entry and long-

term visas with regards six months minimum of the term of validity.• Maintaining the maximum fee level for visa application processing by ex-

ternal service providers (Article 17 of the Code) below EUR 30.• Proper explanation of visa refusal and ensuring fair appeal procedure.

2. Measurable outcomes

Visa practice of each country reflects both its administrative culture and goodwill standards regarding the country of stay and its citizens. Regardless the existing common EU legislative framework on visa issuance, some Mem-ber States (MS) introduce stricter or, on the contrary, facilitated and more «human» visa policy standards.

Our monitoring revealed certain similar peculiarities recurring regularly during visa procession in individual MS consulates located in Ukraine. Firstly let us review the general pattern.

2.1. Visa procession period and supporting documents

Visa procession time is an indicator which varies significantly across con-sulates, shaping the peculiarities of visa practices.

16


Table 2.1.1.Application / document procession time (days)

Consulates and Visa Centers in Kyiv, N = 1380

«How many days have passed since you submitted the documents to the Consulate / Visa Center?»

Days Answers Percentage

Up to 5 423 30,7

6–10 715 51,811–15 150 10,9

16–20 19 1,4

21–25 28 2,0

26–30 24 1,7

31+ 21 1,5

Total 1380 100,0

Respondent distribution across the establishments (Kyiv):

Establishment Respondents Percentage

Consulate 834 60

Visa Center 546 40

Total 1380 100,0

In most cases (about 52%) the documents are processed in 6–10 days, with a third of applicants (30.7%) indicating that visa document processing lasted less than 5 days.

The diagram shows the main reasons driving the respondents from Kyiv to apply to Visa Centers instead of Consular establishments:

17


Diagram 2.1.1. Reasons to apply to Visa Centers, Kyiv, N = 546

Thus the main reason is «my own decision» (68.1%) followed by «I did not know it is possible to apply directly to the consulate» (11.9%). This result is often caused by the fact that the electronic or phone information services of the consulates immediately direct the applicants to visa centers. The third most popular reason is «recommendation by consular staff» (9.5%); many applicants cannot explain why they address the visa center (6.6%); for some it was the only possibility to submit the documents as «the Consulate refused to accept my documents and directed me to a visa center» (3.3%). The reason «There is no consular establishment where I live, only a Visa Center» rather rarely (3.1%) even though it is a paradox for Kyiv demonstrating the lack of applicants’ awareness.

Are there any differences in the duration of visa document processing between the consulates and the visa centers?

18


Table 2.1.2.Duration of visa processing in the consulates

and the visa centers in Kyiv:

DaysConsulates Visa Centers

Answers Percentage Answers Percentage

Up to 5 187 22,4 236 43,2

6–10 541 64,9 174 31,9

11–15 72 8,6 78 14,3

16–20 9 1,1 10 1,8

21–25 6 7 22 4,0

26–30 11 1,3 13 2,4

31+ 8 1,0 13 2,4

Total 834 100,0 546 100,0

The majority of applicants to consulates of Kyiv obtain their passports in 6–10 days (about 65%), while the applicants to visa centers wait for a visa decision for less than 5 days in most cases (43%). However, a large share of applicants spent about two weeks waiting for their passports from visa centers (14.3%). In general, if we combine two groups of respondents wait-ing for visa decisions for 10 days the applicants to consulates constitute 87% and 75% — applicants to visa centers. In addition, some visa centers' clients waited for a visa for a month and even longer than 31 days (2.4%).

The applicants’ distribution in terms of the duration of visa processing in the consulates and visa centers in Kyiv is the following:

19


Table 2.1.3.Duration of visa processing, Kyiv, Duration of visa processing,

Kyiv, N = 1380

Days to process the documents

Up to 5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31+

Schengen Zone MS

Austria 26,7% 58,3% 13,3% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0%

Belgium 83,3% 6,7% 0,0% 0,0% 3,3% 0,0% 6,7%

Greece 6,7% 76,7% 13,3% 1,7% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0%

Denmark 31,7% 55,0% 5,0% 1,7% 3,3% 0,0% 3,3%

Estonia 5,0% 93,3% 1,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Spain 60,0% 35,0% 5,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Italy 3,3% 23,3% 33,3% 5,0% 15,0% 15,0% 15,0%

Latvia 56,7% 40,0% 3,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Lithuania 25,0% 61,7% 3,3% 8,3% 1,7% 0,0% 0,0%

The Netherlands 63,3% 31,7% 3,3% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0% 0,0%

Germany 38,3% 48,3% 3,3% 0,0% 1,7% 5,0% 3,3%

Poland 43,3% 50,0% 3,3% 0,0% 1,7% 1,7% 0,0%

Portugal 5,0% 48,3% 46,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Slovakia 8,3% 85,0% 5,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7%

Slovenia 13,3% 86,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Hungary 11,7% 83,3% 3,3% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0% 0,0%

Finland 13,3% 51,7% 11,7% 5,0% 6,7% 6,7% 5,0%

France 85,0% 15,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

20


Czech Republic 16,7% 70,0% 3,3% 0,0% 1,7% 5,0% 3,3%

Sweden 13,3% 63,3% 15,0% 5,0% 1,7% 1,7% 0,0%

Non-Schengen MS

Bulgaria 45,0% 45,0% 8,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7%

Great Britain 10,0% 5,0% 68,3% 5,0% 6,7% 0,0% 5,0%

Romania 40,0% 58,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0%

(the Table presents the percentage in terms of different processing periods in each Consulate)

Belgium and France process the documents in the quickest way, many countries have the processing period of less than 10 days; Portugal and Great Britain make the decision in two weeks on average, while Italy has the longest processing period.

Comparing to the last year, Belgium has improved its position, while France stayed as a leader in terms of the speed of visa decision making. Portugal has slowed down its visa processing, while Italy has become even slower, as last year most visa cases were processed for up to 10 days in the consulate. It is noticeable that Sweden and Lithuania, having the fixed doc-ument processing term of 6–10 days last year, started to review some ap-plications more carefully — for up to 20 days (Sweden took longer time in some cases (1,7%).

See below the general pattern of visa document processing including the regional consulates.

Table 2.1.4.Visa processing period, Kyiv and regions, N = 2280

Number of days that have passed since document were submitted

Up to 5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31+

Schengen Zone MS

Austria 26,7% 58,3% 13,3% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0%

21


Belgium 83,3% 6,7% 0,0% 0,0% 3,3% 0,0% 6,7%

Greece 25,6% 55,6% 13,3% 4,4% 0,0% 1,1% 0,0%

Denmark 31,7% 55,0% 5,0% 1,7% 3,3% 0,0% 3,3%

Estonia 5,0% 93,3% 1,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Spain 60,0% 35,0% 5,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Italy 3,3% 23,3% 33,3% 5,0% 15,0% 15,0% 5,0%

Latvia 56,7% 40,0% 3,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Lithuania 25,0% 61,7% 3,3% 8,3% 1,7% 0,0% 0,0%

The Netherlands 63,3% 31,7% 3,3% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0% 0,0%

Germany 38,3% 48,3% 3,3% 0,0% 1,7% 5,0% 3,3%

Poland 35,0% 39,0% 22,6% 1,0% 1,4% 0,5% 0,5%

Portugal 5,0% 48,3% 46,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Slovakia 6,7% 87,5% 4,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Slovenia 13,3% 86,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Hungary 10,0% 83,9% 5,0% 0,0% 0,6% 0,6% 0,0%

Finland 13,3% 51,7% 11,7% 5,0% 6,7% 6,7% 5,0%

France 85,0% 15,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Czech Republic 10,6% 69,4% 12,2% 0,6% 0,6% 1,7% 5,0%

Sweden 13,3% 63,3% 15,0% 5,0% 1,7% 1,7% 0,0%

Non-Schengen MS

Bulgaria 46,7% 46,7% 5,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,8% 0,8%

Great Britain 10,0% 5,0% 68,3% 5,0% 6,7% 0,0% 5,0%

Romania 66,7% 32,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,8% 0,0%

Adding the regional Consulates’ data to the general figures we can see a similar picture for regional missions, however the distribution has slightly

22


changed: for example, Greece processes the documents much faster in the re-gions — 25,6% include «up to 5 days» comparing to 6,7% in Kyiv Consulate. The same goes for Romania — 66,7% for «up to 5 days» comparing to 40% in Kyiv; Czech Republic issues visas somewhat slower in the regions: 10,6% for «up to 5 days» comparing to 16,7% and 12,2% for «11–15 days» in regions comparing to 3,3% in Kyiv. Polish missions mostly prolong the visa procedure for 2 weeks in 22,6% cases in the regions comparing to just 3,3% in Kyiv.

Additional supporting documents

Additional supporting documents in our analysis are all documents re-quired apart from the passport and visa application form. This parameter rather clearly shows the differences in visa practices of EU Member States, the majority of which adhere to a single Schengen acquis. Table 2.1.5 shows that some consulates are satisfied with 4–6 documents while others require 7–9 documents on average. There is a double difference between the mar-ginal indicators. This, in fact, shows the flexibility of the Schengen acquis and the impact of the political will, the administrative culture and institu-tional instructions.

Requirements concerning a large number of documents which some-times are hard to obtain constitute one of the factors turning visas into «bar-rier». Poland, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Slovenia, Baltic countries, «non-Schengen» Romania and Bulgaria require the least number of documents, while France, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and «non-Schengen» Britain — the largest one.

Table 2.1.5.Average and maximum number of documents required for a visa

Kyiv and regions, N = 2280

Consulates Average Maximum

Poland 4 10

Bulgaria 4 10

23


Germany 5 10

Slovenia 6 9

Finland 6 9

Romania 6 10

Belgium 6 11

Hungary 6 11

Lithuania 6 12

Estonia 6 13

Sweden 6 14

Latvia 7 11

Denmark 7 12

Czech Republic 7 12

Slovakia 7 13

Austria 7 14

the Netherlands 7 15

Spain 8 15

Greece 8 16

Portugal 9 12

Italy 9 14

Great Britain 9 14

France 9 15

Consulates of Greece, France, the Netherlands and Spain require maxi-mum number of supporting documents, sometimes amounting to 15–16.

It should be noted that a year ago, our visa practice monitoring-2011 showed that on average Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands required the largest number of documents — 8 each.

24


2.2. Categories of visas obtained

This year two types of visas were obtained in the Schengen area — C and D types, as after the introduction of the EU Visa Code, the B type (transit) visas have been abolished. Thus, we analyze the overall data by correlating these two visa types.

Diagram 2.2.1.Type (category) of issued visas, Kyiv + regions,

N = 2233 (those who obtained visas)

Thus, the diagram shows that as expected C type («Schengen») visas prevail as they are most popular among visa applicants; they are issued for short term trips (up to three months) excluding the purpose of employment or studies in EU Member States or long term permanent residence (more than 3 months).

At the same time «national» D type visas were issued to 11,6% of ap-plicants (there has been an increase comparing to last year’s relevant share of 6,7%). Such visas are issued to those who either plan single entry stay for more than three months and/or travel for work, studies, family reasons, etc. After the EU Visa Code has entered into force, such visa being simply a «na-tional» and not a «Schengen» one, at the same time entitles its holder to travel freely (up to 3 months within half year) throughout the territory of other Members of the Schengen Zone.

25


It is noticeable to see the shares of visa categories across countries. Which countries issue the largest number of national visas to Ukrainians? It is also interesting to find out how often the Consulates issue other types of visas instead of D type visas applied for.

Table 2.2.1 shows that the largest number of D type visas were issued to our citizens by such countries as Poland (31,1% of all visas issued by this country), Germany (20,7%) and Latvia (18,3%). We have not seen any D type visa holder among applicants to the Consulate of Finland.

Countries where the applicants wish to obtain more national visas than they received are the following: Poland, Germany, Latvia, France, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Denmark, Estonia and Spain.

A year ago Monitoring-2011 determined the biggest share of national vi-sas issued by such countries as Estonia, Poland, Austria, Latvia and Germany.

Table 2.2.1.Type (category) of obtained visas and consulate that issued the visa,

Kyiv + regions, N = 2233 (those who obtained visas)

C D Applied for — D

Schengen Zone MS

Austria 98,3% 1,7% 1,7%

Belgium 96,7% 3,3% 3,3%

Greece 98,9% 1,7% 1,2%

Denmark 95,0% 5,0% 6,7%

Estonia 98,3% 1,7% 3,3%

Spain 98,3% 1,7% 3,3%

Italy 94,6% 5,4% 5,4%

Latvia 81,7% 18,3% 20,0%

Lithuania 96,6% 3,4% 6,8%

The Netherlands 92,9% 7,1% 14,3%

26


Germany 79,3% 20,7% 22,4%

Poland 68,9% 31,1% 33,2%

Portugal 82,8% 17,2% 17,2%

Slovakia 99,2% 0,8% 0,8%

Slovenia 96,7% 3,3% 3,3%

Hungary 96,6% 3,4% 3,4%

Finland 100,0% 0,0% 0,0%

France 83,3% 16,7% 18,3%

Czech Republic 87,0% 13,0% 14,2%

Sweden 89,5% 10,5% 10,5%

Non-Schengen MS

Bulgaria 97,5% 2,5% 2,5%

Great Britain 98,3% 1,7% 1,7%

Romania 94,8% 5,2% 5,3%

Let us see which types of visas are most often obtained by different ca-tegories of visa applicants.

Table 2.2.2.

Type of obtained visa and category of visa applicants who received such visas, Kyiv + regions, N = 2233 (those who obtained visas)

С D

State officials 93,0% 7,0%

Permanent members of official delegations 83,3% 16,7%

Entrepreneurs and businesspersons 85,3% 14,7%

27


Journalists 90,9% 9,1%

Drivers, train crew — international transportation 94,9% 5,1%

Persons participating in scientific, cultural and art activities 94,8% 5,2%

Sportsmen and persons accompanying them 81,8% 18,2%Participants of official exchange programs of twin cities 66,7% 33,3%

Participants of official exchange programs of twin cities 92,3% 7,7%

Pupils, students, PhD students, teachers 88,2% 11,8%

Pensioners 93,4% 6,6%

Disabled and persons accompanying them 87,5% 12,5%

Persons under 18 or 21 — dependants 92,0% 8,0%

None of the above 85,4% 14,6%

Among preferential categories defined by the Visa Facilitation Agree-ment, national visas are most often issued to «members of official exchange programs…» (33,3%), «sportsmen…» (18,2%) and «permanent members of official delegations» (16,7%).

Comparing to last year when «drivers…» (12,8%), «pupils and stu-dents…» (9,8%) and «sportsmen» (8,6%) were leaders in obtaining national visas, the category distribution and the number of D type visas has somewhat changed.

2.3 Long term validity and multiple entry visas

In order to evaluate the «quality» of any visa we take into account both its validity (the first and last date of the planned trip/(-s) indicated on the visa sticker) and duration of stay (indicated number of days). That is why we re-viewed all cross-parameters in terms of validity and duration of stay indicated in visas that were applied for (see 2.5) and obtained.

28


Diagram 2.3.1.Long-term validity visas, Kyiv and regions

N=2233 (all who obtained a visa)

Visa validity period, days, %

As we can see, in general applicants to EU Consulates most frequently obtain visas valid for 21–30 days (20%), visa validity period is also often equal to 10 (15,6%) or 11–20 days (13%).

Based on our observations long term visas (valid for 180 days) are is-sued to about one forth of total applicants (17,8%). 14,1% of such visas are valid for more than six months and up to one year. Majority of visas in this category are valid for about or exactly one year.

365+ category (3,7%) includes visas valid for two, three and even five years. If previously the number of such visas was statistically insignificant (less than 1 percent), this year we noticed an increase in their share. It is one of positive tendencies revealed by current monitoring stage.

There exists a certain share of visas (14,1% of all visas) valid for more than three but up to six months — the so-called «medium term» visas.

How are long term visas distributed by the countries? Are there any peculiarities in issuance of such visas?

29


Table 2.3.1.Visa validity period / Consulate, Kyiv and regions, N=2233 (total number of those who obtained visas)

Visa validity period

up to 10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–90 91–80 181–365 365+

Schengen Zone MS

Austria 1,7% 15,0% 23,3% 5,0% 1,7% 5,0% 13,3% 15,0% 20,0% 0,0%

Greece 22,2% 22,2% 14,8% 0,6% 1,1% 0,0% 11,4% 26,1% 1,7% 0,0%

Denmark 35,0% 21,7% 20,0% 0,0% 1,7% 3,3% 5,0% 6,7% 5,0% 1,7%

Estonia 3,3% 3,3% 16,7% 0,0% 3,3% 1,7% 23,3% 26,7% 6,7% 15,0%

Spain 5,0% 5,0% 73,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 8,3% 5,0% 1,7% 1,7%

Italy 5,4% 5,4% 50,0% 7,1% 1,8% 8,9% 3,6% 8,9% 8,9% 0,0%

Latvia 28,3% 10,0% 28,3% 0,0% 0,0% 5,0% 3,3% 5,0% 18,3% 1,7%

Lithuania 40,7% 11,9% 18,6% 0,0% 3,4% 6,8% 6,8% 3,4% 6,8% 1,7%

The Nether-lands 3,6% 3,6% 39,3% 1,8% 3,6% 7,1% 8,9% 10,7% 14,3% 7,1%

Germany 19,0% 13,8% 25,9% 0,0% 3,4% 0,0% 15,5% 0,0% 12,1% 10,3%

Poland 14,1% 7,5% 10,2% 0,7% 1,0% 5,3% 18,0% 22,6% 20,6% 0,0%

Portugal 22,4% 13,8% 13,8% 0,0% 1,7% 8,6% 17,2% 3,4% 15,5% 3,4%

Slovakia 5,8% 12,5% 18,3% 0,0% 1,7% 5,8% 1,7% 22,5% 31,7% 0,0%

Slovenia 26,7% 31,7% 25,0% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0% 11,7% 1,7% 1,7% 0,0%

Hungary 11,8% 9,6% 6,7% 0,0% 0,6% 2,8% 6,2% 4,5% 35,4% 22,5%

Finland 29,8% 14,0% 14,0% 1,8% 0,0% 3,5% 31,6% 1,8% 3,5% 0,0%

France 5,0% 8,3% 45,0% 5,0% 0,0% 1,7% 8,3% 6,7% 15,0% 5,0%

Czech Republic 11,8% 8,9% 20,7% 1,8% 5,9% 8,9% 27,2% 5,3% 8,9% 0,6%

30


Sweden 28,1% 17,5% 19,3% 1,8% 0,0% 5,3% 12,3% 5,3% 3,5% 7,0%

Non-Schengen MS

Bulgaria 21,7% 27,5% 25,0% 0,8% 0,8% 3,3% 7,5% 7,5% 5,8% 0,0%

Great Britain 1,7% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 86,2% 0,0% 10,3%

Romania 21,8% 21,8% 19,3% 0,0% 1,7% 0,8% 22,7% 5,9% 5,9% 0,0%

If we carefully review which Consular establishments issue long term visas (valid for more than 6 months) most frequently we will see that Hun-gary stays as the leader (58,1% of visas valid for more than 6 months includ-ing the record 22,5% of visas valid for 365+, i.e. mainly for 2, 3 and 5 years). Last year (2011) Hungary was also the first in this category having issued 57,2% of all visas valid for more than 6 months.

Slovakia takes the second position with 31,7% of visas valid for more than half a year.

Apart from Hungary (22.5%), Estonia (15%) and Germany (10.3%) are leaders in terms of the «longest» 365+ visa category. It is important to un-derline that the record indicator for Hungary is formed mainly due to the special visa policy of its two Consulates located in Transcarpathia (Uzh-gorod and Beregovo) targeting mostly the local Hungarian ethnic commu-nity. The Hungarian Consulate in Kyiv does not show similar results. At the same time, indicators for Estonia and Germany were formed in their Kyiv Consular establishments.

We should also mention Greece, Estonia and Poland as countries issu-ing «medium term visas» valid for 3–6 months most frequently.

A large number of medium-term visas issued by the UK (86%) attracts attention among «non-Schengen» countries. This is caused by the fact that the regular UK visa is valid for 6 months and the majority of applicants travelling to this country obtain such a visa.

According to the last year’s results «drivers, train crew …» and «persons under 18 years» obtained visas with the longest validity period. Which cat-egories were registered this year?

31


Table 2.3.2.Visa validity period / Categories of visa applicants, Kyiv and regions

N=2233 (total number of those who obtained visas)


up to 10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–90 91–80 181–365 365+

Schengen Zone MS

State of-ficials 12,3% 14,0% 19,3% 0% 0% 7,0% 5,3% 17,5% 22,8% 1,8%

Permanent members of official delega-tions

33,3% 33,3% 8,3% 0% 0% 0% 8,3% 0% 16,7% 0%

Entrepre-neurs and business-persons

20,9% 17,4% 13,4% 4% 6% 2,3% 10,3% 16,1% 16,9% 1,7%

Journalists 50,0% 18,2% 9,1% 0% 0% 0% 9,1% 0% 9,1% 4,5%

Drivers, train crew — interna-tional transporta-tion

14,8% 11,1% 8,6% 0% 2,5% 0% 14,8% 14,8% 33,3% 0%

Persons partici-pating in scientific, cultural and art activities

20,6% 12,4% 19,6% 0% 0% 4,1% 8,2% 14,4% 19,6% 1,0%

32


Sports-men and persons accom - panying them

19,4% 11,1% 19,4% 5,6% 0% 8,3% 8,3% 13,9% 11,1% 2,8%

Par-ticipants of official exchange programs of twin cities

8,3% 8,3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25,0% 8,3% 50,0% ,0%

Close rela-tives of EU residents

10,3% 9,5% 20,3% 5% 1,5% 5,6% 19,5% 16,4% 8,5% 7,9%

Pupils, students, post-graduates, teachers

10,1% 11,8% 22,4% 2,1% 3,8% 7,2% 18,6% 14,8% 8,0% 1,3%

Pensioners 9,2% 10,5% 26,8% 0% 1,3% 2,6% 7,8% 13,1% 19,0% 9,8%

Disabled and persons ac-company-ing them

0% 12,5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25,0% 62,5% ,0%

Persons under 18 or 21 — depen-dants

4,0% 4,0% 16,0% 4,0% 4,0% 8,0% 4,0% 4,0% 28,0% 24,0%

Other (tourism, etc.)

17,3% 13,1% 25,4% 1,4% 1,9% 3,2% 12,5% 11,8% 10,7% 2,6%

The table shows the extended scope of such categories this year: last year’s «leaders» were complemented by «disabled and persons accompany-ing them», «participants of official exchange programs» and «state officials».

33


Diagram 2.3.2.Duration of stay in EU Member States, Kyiv and regions,


Distribution pattern shows that about 36,2% of all applicants are entitled for a long duration of stay (from 60 days) (comparing to 27,3% in 2011). Ukrainian applicants most often obtain the right to stay for up to 10 days (24,7%), which is very close to last year’s indicator (24,4%).

It is interesting to see whether the countries issuing the largest number of long term visas correspond with those issuing visas entitling to longest duration of stay.

Table 2.3.3.Duration of stay / Consulate, Kyiv and regions


Duration of stay

up to 10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–90 91–80 181–365 365+

Schengen Zone MS

Austria 11,7% 11,7% 25,0% 1,7% 1,7% 6,7% 25,0% 10,0% 6,7% 0,0%

34


Greece 29,5% 21,0% 10,8% 0,6% 1,7% 1,1% 32,4% 2,3% 0,6% 0,0%

Denmark 45,0% 25,0% 11,7% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7% 5,0% 5,0% 5,0% 1,7%

Estonia 10,0% 10,0% 15,0% 0,0% 10,0% 1,7% 46,7% 0,0% 1,7% 5,0%

Spain 20,0% 26,7% 43,3% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0% 8,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Italy 16,1% 25,0% 26,8% 5,4% 3,6% 3,6% 5,4% 10,7% 3,6% 0,0%

Latvia 38,3% 18,3% 15,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,7% 10,0% 5,0% 5,0% 1,7%

Lithuania 47,5% 18,6% 10,2% 1,7% 1,7% 6,8% 3,4% 3,4% 6,8% 0,0%

The Nether-lands 26,8% 14,3% 12,5% 3,6% 1,8% 7,1% 21,4% 7,1% 1,8% 3,6%

Germany 27,6% 20,7% 24,1% 0,0% 1,7% 1,7% 12,1% 6,9% 3,4% 1,7%

Poland 19,7% 9,2% 11,2% 1,2% 2,7% 5,3% 23,3% 21,4% 6,1% 0,0%

Portugal 25,9% 12,1% 15,5% 0,0% 1,7% 10,3% 27,6% 1,7% 5,2% 0,0%

Slovakia 15,0% 17,5% 14,2% 5,8% 5,0% 7,5% 25,8% 5,0% 4,2% 0,0%

Slovenia 41,7% 18,3% 26,7% 0,0% 0,0% 5,0% 5,0% 1,7% 1,7% 0,0%

Hungary 16,9% 10,7% 7,3% 0,6% 1,7% 0,6% 60,7% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0%

Finland 38,6% 10,5% 15,8% 0,0% 0,0% 14,0% 19,3% 1,8% 0,0% 0,0%

France 23,3% 33,3% 13,3% 0,0% 3,3% 0,0% 18,3% 3,3% 1,7% 3,3%

Czech Republic 23,7% 13,0% 21,9% 0,6% 1,2% 8,9% 21,9% 2,4% 5,9% 0,6%

Sweden 31,6% 28,1% 17,5% 0,0% 0,0% 8,8% 8,8% 1,8% 3,5% 0,0%

Non-Schengen MS

Bulgaria 26,7% 35,8% 18,3% 0,8% 1,7% 0,8% 9,2% 1,7% 5,0% 0,0%

Great Britain 1,7% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 86,2% 0,0% 10,3%

Romania 31,1% 21,0% 21,0% 0,0% 1,7% 1,7% 13,4% 4,2% 5,9% 0,0%

The following countries take leadership in issuing visa with the lon-gest duration of stay (61–90 days): Hungary (60,7% of all visas), Estonia

35


(46,7%), Greece (32,4%), Portugal (27,6%), Austria (25%), and Poland (23,3%).

Among «privileged» categories of visa applicants «members of official ex-change programs» obtain the longest duration of stay — 16,7% in each of the following intervals: 51–60, 61–90, 91–180 and 181–365 days (see Table 3.3.4). «Disabled…» obtain large share of visas entitling long term stay (91–190) — 50%. Apart from this category, «persons under 18…» (48%), «drivers, train crew…» (35,8%), «close relatives» (34,4%) and «pensioners» (26,8%) obtain visas valid for 61–90 days.

Table 2.3.4.Duration of stay / Category of visa applicants, Kyiv and regions,



up to 10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–90 91–80 181–365 365+

Schengen Zone MS

State of-ficials 21,1% 17,5% 12,3% 8,8% 0,0% 3,5% 12,3% 14,0% 8,8% 1,8%

Permanent members of official delega-tions

50,0% 25,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 8,3% 0,0% 16,7% 0,0%

Entrepre-neurs and business-persons

31,4% 14,6% 11,1% 0,2% 2,5% 3,3% 19,5% 10,9% 6,1% 0,4%

Journalists 63,6% 9,1% 9,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 18,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Drivers, train crew — in-ternational transporta-tion

33,3% 1,2% 6,2% 0,0% 3,7% 3,7% 35,8% 12,3% 3,7% 0,0%

36


Persons partici-pating in scientific, cultural and art activities

30,9% 15,5% 21,6% 0,0% 1,0% 3,1% 23,7% 3,1% 0,0% 1,0%

Sports-men and persons accom - panying them

25,0% 16,7% 19,4% 5,6% 2,8% 5,6% 5,6% 3,9% 5,6% 0,0%

Par-ticipants of official exchange programs of twin cities

8,3% 8,3% 0,0% 8,3% 8,3% 16,7% 16,7% 16,7% 16,7% 0,0%

Close rela-tives of EU residents

14,4% 15,9% 16,9% 0,0% 1,8% 6,2% 34,4% 5,6% 3,1% 1,8%

Pupils, students, post-graduates, teachers

18,6% 15,2% 20,7% 1,3% 1,7% 8,4% 17,3% 11,4% 5,1% 0,4%

Pensioners 15,0% 17,0% 20,9% 1,3% 0,7% 4,6% 26,8% 9,2% 2,0% 2,6%

Disabled and persons ac-company-ing them

0,0% 12,5% 0,0% 0,0% 12,5% 0,0% 12,5% 50,0% 12,5% 0,0%

Persons under 18 or 21 — depen-dants

4,0% 16,0% 12,0% 4,0% 4,0% 4,0% 48,0% 8,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Other (tourism, etc.)

28,6% 21,0% 15,2% 1,3% 2,4% 2,4% 16,6% 9,3% 3,0% 0,2%

37


Multiple entry visas

We can see that in most cases the citizens are allowed to enter once (51,3%), however, a rather large share (41,2%) are allowed to enter multiple times on the basis of obtained multi-visa. Last year according to our data the respective correlation equaled to 59,3% of single entry and 37,3% of multiple entry visas. Thus, we detect rather stable positive trend.

See below which countries give biggest chances for applicants to obtain a multiple entry visa (see Table 3.3.5).

Diagram 2.3.3.Number of entries indicated in issued visas, Kyiv and regions,

N = 2233 (total number of those who obtained a visa)

We can see that in most cases the citizens are allowed to enter once (51,3%), however, a rather large share (41,2%) are allowed to enter multiple times on the basis of obtained multi-visa. Last year accord-ing to our data the respective correlation equaled to 59,3% of single entry and 37,3% of multiple entry visas. Thus, we detect rather stable positive trend.

See below which countries give biggest chances for applicants to obtain a multiple entry visa (see Table 3.3.5).

(51,3) — One

(4,0) — Two

(41,2) — Multiple entry visa

(3,6) — Hard to say

38


Table 2.3.5. Table 2.3.5. Number of entries / Consulates, Kyiv and regions,

N=2233 (total number of those who obtained a visa)

Number of entries

One Two Multiple entry

Schengen Zone MS

Austria 45,0% 0,0% 55,0%

Belgium 45,0% 0,0% 55,0%

Greece 67,6% 17,9% 14,5%

Denmark 73,3% 5,0% 21,7%

Estonia 25,0% 1,7% 73,3%

Spain 81,7% 3,3% 15,0%

Italy 87,5% 0,0% 12,5%

Latvia 80,0% 0,0% 20,0%

Lithuania 76,3% 3,4% 20,3%

The Netherlands 58,9% 0,0% 41,1%

Germany 55,2% 1,7% 43,1%

Poland 31,6% 1,6% 66,8%

Portugal 69,0% 0,0% 31,0%

Slovakia 31,7% 2,5% 65,8%

Slovenia 68,3% 0,0% 31,7%

Hungary 28,1% 3,9% 68,0%

Finland 64,9% 15,8% 19,3%

France 71,7% 0,0% 28,3%

Czech Republic 72,0% 2,4% 25,6%

39


Sweden 67,9% 7,1% 25,0%

Non-Schengen MS

Bulgaria 72,0% 13,6% 14,4%

Great Britain 3,4% 0,0% 96,6%

Romania 61,0% 5,0% 34,0%

More than half of obtained visas entitling to multiple entries are issued by the Consulates of the following countries: Estonia (73,3%), Hungary (68%), Poland (66,8%), Slovakia (65,8%), Austria and Belgium (55% each).

Comparing to the last year, when Hungary (64,4%), Poland (54,6%) and Slovakia (47,9%) were respective leaders, this year Consulates of such coun-tries as Estonia, Austria and Belgium demonstrated the change of allowed entries by increased number of multiple entry visas.

Table 2.3.6.Number of entries / Categories of visa applicants, Kyiv and regions,


One Two Multiple entry

Other (none of the above) 21,1% 17,5% 1,8%

State officials 21,1% 17,5% 1,8%

Permanent members of official delegations 50,0% 25,0% 0,0%

Entrepreneurs and businesspersons 31,4% 14,6% 0,4%

Journalists 63,6% 9,1% 0,0%

Drivers, train crew — international trans-portation 33,3% 1,2% 0,0%

Persons participating in scientific, cultural and art activities 30,9% 15,5% 1,0%

Sportsmen and persons accom panying them 25,0% 16,7% 0,0%

Participants of official exchange programs of twin cities 8,3% 8,3% 0,0%

40


Close relatives of EU residents 14,4% 15,9% 1,8%

Pupils, students, PhD students, teachers 18,6% 15,2% 0,4%

Pensioners 15,0% 17,0% 2,6%

Disabled and persons accompanying them 0,0% 12,5% 0,0%

Persons under 18 or 21 — dependants 4,0% 16,0% 0,0%

This year more than half of multi-visas were issued to such «preferential» categories as: «disabled» (87,5%), «drivers and train crew» (67,6%), «mem-bers of official programs…» (66,7%), «persons under 18…» (64%), «state offi-cials» (59,6%) and «sportsmen and persons accompanying them» (52,8%). In 2011 respective cohort included three categories: «disabled» (100%), «driv-ers» (80,5%) and «state officials» (66,6%).

Table 2.3.7. Number of multiple entry visas in Kyiv and in the regions

Percentage of all visas issued by the Consulate

Consulate Kyiv, N = 469 Region, N = 450

Schengen Zone MS

Austria 55,0%

Belgium 55,0%

Greece 10,0% 17,6%

Denmark 21,7%

Estonia 73,3%

Spain 15,0%

Italy 12,5%

Latvia 20,0%

Lithuania 20,3%

41


The Netherlands 41,1%

Germany 43,1%

Poland 41,7% 71,5%

Portugal 31,0%

Slovakia 48,3% 83,3%

Slovenia 31,7%

Hungary 23,3% 90,7%

Finland 19,3%

France 28,3%

Czech Republic 29,8% 23,4%

Sweden 25,0% %

Non-Schengen MS

Bulgaria 21,7% 6,9%

Great Britain 96,6% 0

Romania 31,7% 37,5%

In general this year 35% of respondents in Kyiv and 51% of the surveyed in regional consulates obtained multiple entry visas. The following coun-tries issued the largest number of such visas on the regional level: Hungary (90,7% of all visas issued by consular establishments of this country), Slovakia (83,3%), Poland (71,5%); while Estonia (73,3%) proved to have issued the most of such visas in Kyiv.

Share correlation between multiple-entry and long-term visas

Previously we noted that monitoring results show differences between the two interlinked visa characteristics — the right of multiple entries (multi-visa) and the long visa validity. Sometimes the multiple visa was is-sued for several weeks or even days which we regarded as discrediting this type of visas (fake multiple visa).

42


While comparing the number of multiple-entry and long-term visas this year, we saw that about a quarter of multiple-entry visas are valid for short period (up to 3 months). This significantly lowers the value of such vi-sas for applicants and contradicts the Code Article 24.2 according to which multiple-entry visas should be valid for «from six months up to five years.»

In this aspect we should underline MS issuing not only a significant num-ber of multiple-entry visas but where their number corresponds to the share of long-term visas (including, with certain reservations, medium-term visas) and also those countries where these parameters significantly contradict.

Thus, for instance, the majority of multiple-entry visas issued by Hunga-ry have long-term validity (58% long-term and 68% multiple-entry visas). France demonstrates a similar correlation, although having a smaller share of such visas (20% long-term and 6.7% medium-term while issuing 28.3% multiple-entry visas).

Estonia issues a significant share of long-term and medium-term visas (about 48%), although the share of multiple visas is much higher (73.3%).

We can say the same about Poland, the absolute «champion» in terms of number of issued visas; 66.6% of issued visas were multiple-entry visas, although only 2/3 of these (43.2%) were of long- and medium-term validity.

On the other hand, 25.6% of surveyed applicants to Consulates of the Czech Republic obtained multiple-entry visas which constitute a rather low indicator, especially taking into account the high intensity of visits to this country. However, only slightly more than half of such visas (14.8%) are valid for more than three months, of which 9% — for more than six months.

In the case of Germany, only half of the 41% of multiple-entry visas are long- and medium-term (in general, 22.4%).

Thirty-one percent of issued visas by the Consulate of Slovenia were multiple-entry ones, although only 3.4% of these were valid for more than three months. This constitutes the largest gap between these two interlinked visa characteristics detected in our monitoring this year.

Of the total amount of visas issued by Finland, 19.3% are multiple-entry and only 5.3% of these are valid for more than three months.

Comparing the results received from different Consulates, we take into account that geographical location of the country and other factors deter-mining the traveling frequency can significantly influence the dominant visa categories. Evidently, we do not expect Consulates of Spain and Fin-

43


land to issue the same share of long-term visas as the Consulates of Poland and Hungary which receive the largest flows of travelers from Ukraine.

The correlation of 9–10% of long-term visas issued by the Consulates of Czech Republic, Lithuania and Sweden does not reflect well first of all on Czech Republic and Lithuania taking into account the intensity of exchange between these countries and Ukraine.

2.4. Free-of-charge visas, consular fees and payments to intermediaries

This year, a total of 22.5% of the surveyed applicants did not pay for visa (last year — 28.8%). We should underline that we consider the visa to be free-of-charge if the applicant paid neither the Consular fee nor for outsourc-ing services (of Visa Centers). A significant decrease in the share of free-of-charge visas is caused by the extension scope of Visa Center services. For ex-ample, being the largest «supplier» of Schengen visas in Ukraine, this year Poland started applying outsourced services. Let us analyze the distribution of free visas across MS.

Table 2.4.1. Consular and other visa fees, Euro


Have you paid the Consular fee? Consular fee Visa fee (total)

Yes No Hard to say Average Average Maximum

Schengen Zone MS

Austria 61,7% 38,3% 0,0% 41 25 100

Belgium 51,7% 35,0% 13,3% 35 47 90

Greece 83,0% 17,0% 0,0% 36 30 70

Denmark 68,3% 13,3% 18,3% 42 61 240

Estonia 55,0% 45,0% 0,0% 36 20 70

44


Spain 76,6% 18,3% 5,0% 35 50 92

Italy 48,2% 44,6% 7,1% 34 43 105

Latvia 63,3% 35,0% 1,7% 43 28 145

Lithuania 83,1% 10,2% 6,8% 44 46 180

The Netherlands 66,1% 32,1% 1,8% 35 45 98

Germany 51,7% 37,9% 10,3% 38 30 90

Poland 74,3% 25,5% 0,2% 28 27 175

Portugal 63,8% 36,2% 0,0% 39 25 70

Slovakia 53,3% 46,7% 0,0% 36 19 70

Slovenia 73,3% 26,7% 0,0% 36 28 112

Hungary 66,3% 33,1% 0,6% 35 24 60

Finland 80,7% 8,8% 10,5% 38 44 70

France 61,7% 18,3% 20,0% 34 51 70

Czech Republic 58,6% 41,4% 0,0% 40 28 170

Sweden 66,7% 15,8% 17,5% 39 60 170

Non-Schengen MS

Bulgaria 60,8% 39,2% 0,0% 38 26 195

Great Britain 0,0% 1,7% 98,3% ?* 124 690

Romania 79,0% 21,0% 0,0% 53 42 150

* Visas to the UK are processed exclusively by the Visa Center that is why the applicants cannot separate the Consular fee from the total visa payment.

The largest number of free visas has been detected in the Consulate of Slovakia (46.7%), followed by Estonia (45%), Italy (44.6%), Czech Republic (41.4%), Bulgaria (39.2%), Austria (38.3%), Germany (37.9%), Belgium and Latvia (35%). The total visa expense, as perceived by applicants, (including payment for visa center or other intermediary services) varies from 19 to 124

45


euro in general or a maximum from 60 euro (Hungary). The costs of interme-diary services are listed in greater detail here:

Table 2.4.2. Intermediary service and its cost (including only those countries where

the relevant expenses were registered) Kyiv and regions, N = 1636

Payment for Visa Center services (euro)

Payment for services of other intermediaries (euro) Intermediaries

Average Maximum Average Maximum (example)

Schengen Zone MS

Belgium 24 26 2 2 SMS to Visa Center

Denmark 25 26 40 40

Spain 21 40 · ·

Italy 23 25 · ·

Lithuania · · 60 60 Translation, booking

The Nether-lands 21 25 · ·

Germany 25 30 15 15 Bank services

Poland 20 35 25 140

Filling in the application form;Preparation of documents;registration / Internet;Medical insurance

Finland 25 27 · ·

France 24 26 · ·

Czech Re-public · · 22 50

Medical insurance;Preparation of documents/ travel agency

Sweden 26 40 30 70Assistance for document preparation

46


It should be mentioned that not all respondents are able or willing to dis-close the amount paid for intermediary services. Besides, not everybody can list the obtained services even if they paid for them.

Services of Visa Centers mostly cost from 1 to 26 euro. Not being limited to «official» outsourcing payments, our monitoring provides incomplete al-beit realistic picture of certain grey/black market «visa traders».

The distribution of free-of-charge visas also depends on the number of persons belonging to the «privileged» categories that have applied to a par-ticular Consulate. Let us see which categories of applicants received the larg-est number of free-of-charge visas:

Diagram 2.4.1.Free-of-charge visas / Categories of applicants,


47


As we can see, «close relatives…» and «pensioners» (21%) occupy the first position. A large share of «pupils and students…» (18.6%) have the right to travel free of charge to the EU Member States followed by «persons partici-pating in scientific, cultural and artistic activities» (11%) and others.

Last year, the first three positions were the same and «entrepreneurs and businessmen» occupied the fourth position having received the share of 7.9% of free-of-charge visas among those who did not pay the Consular fee. We can say that certain leader groups have been formed among prefer-ential categories of applicants in terms of this parameter.

2.5. Visas applied for and visas obtained

We have partially discussed the difference between visas applied for and visas obtained (see Table 3.2.1). However, we would now like to review this aspect of our research in more detail. We differentiate among several key pa-rameters in a visa: 1.Type of visa; 2.Visa validity; 3.Duration of stay; 4. Number of entries. According to each parameter we can determine the general num-ber of applicants most frequently obtaining the visas they have applied for.

Table 2.5.1. Visa type — obtained and applied for, Kyiv and regions,

N = 2233 (total number of those who obtained visas)

Obtained Applied for

C D C D

Schengen Zone MS

Austria 3,0% 0,4% 3,0% 0,4%

Belgium 2,9% 0,8% 3,0% 0,8%

Greece 8,7% 0,8% 8,7% 0,8%

Denmark 2,9% 1,3% 2,9% 1,6%

Estonia 3,0% 0,4% 3,0% 0,8%

48


Spain 3,0% 0,4% 3,0% 0,8%

Italy 2,7% 1,3% 2,7% 1,2%

Latvia 2,5% 4,7% 2,4% 4,7%

Lithuania 2,9% 0,8% 2,8% 1,6%

The Netherlands 2,6% 1,7% 2,4% 3,1%

Germany 2,3% 5,1% 2,3% 5,0%

Poland 14,1% 53,8% 13,9% 52,3%

Portugal 2,4% 4,2% 2,4% 3,9%

Slovakia 6,0% 0,4% 6,1% 0,4%

Slovenia 2,9% 0,8% 3,0% 0,8%

Hungary 8,7% 2,5% 8,8% 2,3%

Finland 2,9% 0,0% 2,9% 0,0%

France 2,5% 4,2% 2,5% 4,3%

Czech Republic 7,4% 9,3% 7,4% 9,3%

Sweden 2,6% 2,5% 2,6% 2,3%

Non-Schengen MS

Bulgaria 5,8% 1,3% 5,9% 1,2%

Great Britain 2,9% 0,4% 2,9% 0,4%

Romania 5,5% 2,5% 5,5% 2,3%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

The following Consulates demonstrate the largest differences in terms of applied-for and obtained visas: Poland and Portugal issue more D type visas than applied for; the Netherlands, Lithuania, Estonia and Spain issue much fewer such visas than applied for.

49


The diagram graphically shows all the differences. All visas issued by a certain country represent 100% and consequently the greater the dispersion of the graphs, the greater the difference.

Diagram 2.5.1.Type of visa — obtained and applied for, Kyiv and regions,

N = 2233 (total number of those who obtained visas)

Countries such as the UK (issuing mostly visas with a standard va-lidity and duration of stay for 180 days) and Estonia, both issuing visas for longer periods than applied for, can be positively characterized from the aspect of applied-for and allowed validity and duration of stay. Lithu-ania, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and France show the opposite since the visa validity is shorter than applied for by applicants.

The last section is related to the number of entries according to obtained visas. We are primarily interested in the share of multi-visas that have been applied for and obtained since it serves as an indicator of the greater loyalty of the Consulate towards Ukrainian applicants. We took the total of applicants to each Consulate (those who obtained visas) to be 100% which is why upon comparing the share of multi-visas, we will also notice the differences in the practice of issuing other visas.

50


Table 2.5.2. Number of entries applied for and allowed in obtained visas,


Obtained visas — number of entries

Visas applied for — number of entries

One Two Multiple One Two Мультивіза

Schengen Zone MS

Austria 45,0% 0% 55,0% 46,7% 0% 53,3%

Greece 67,6% 17,9% 14,5% 54,1% 21,6% 24,3%

Denmark 73,3% 5,0% 21,7% 71,7% 6,7% 21,7%

Estonia 25,0% 1,7% 73,3% 28,3% 0% 71,7%

Spain 81,7% 3,3% 15,0% 78,3% 3,3% 18,3%

Italy 87,5% 0% 12,5% 87,5% 0% 12,5%

Latvia 80,0% 0% 20,0% 76,6% 1,7% 21,7%

Lithuania 76,3% 3,4% 20,3% 71,2% 3,4% 25,4%The Nether-lands 58,9% 0% 41,1% 53,6% 0% 46,4%

Germany 55,2% 1,7% 43,1% 53,4% 1,7% 44,8%

Poland 31,6% 1,6% 66,8% 30,3% 1,6% 68,1%

Portugal 69,0% 0% 31,0% 67,2% 0% 32,8%

Slovakia 31,7% 2,5% 65,8% 31,7% 3,3% 65,0%

Slovenia 68,3% 0% 31,7% 68,3% 0% 31,7%

Hungary 28,1% 3,9% 68,0% 26,0% 1,1% 72,9%

Finland 64,9% 15,8% 19,3% 66,7% 14,0% 19,3%

France 71,7% 0% 28,3% 66,7% 0% 33,3%Czech Re-public 72,0% 2,4% 25,6% 69,6% 1,2% 29,2%

51


Sweden 67,9% 7,1% 25,0% 70,2% 3,5% 26,3%

Non-Schengen MS

Bulgaria 72,0% 13,6% 14,4% 72,9% 13,6% 13,6%

Great Britain 3,4% 0% 96,6% 24,1% 0% 75,9%

Romania 61,0% 5,0% 34,0% 60,4% 4,0% 35,6%

In general, almost all MS are inclined to issue fewer multiple entry vi-sas than applied for. However, there are Consulates demonstrating a positive tendency: Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia and Slovakia. There are also Consulates issuing the same number of multi-visas as applied for. The UK has its own legislative peculiarities according to which the majority of ordinary visa for short-term visitors are multiple-entry regardless of the application.s

2.6. Refusals and appeals

The rate of visa refusals is sometimes considered decisive. However, we regard it only as one of the important indicators for visa practice evaluation. The availability of official EU data in this respect is decisive enabling us to compare our data obtained during surveys.

Table 2.6.1. Refusals by Consulates,

Kyiv and regions 2012, N = 2280; 2011, N = 1860

Have you obtained a visa?Visas refused

(EU official statistics)Source: EU official website

2012 2011

YES NO Multiple

Schengen Zone MS

Austria 100,0% 0% 1,31%

Belgium 100,0% 0% 7,17%

52


Greece 97,8% 2,2% 1,2%

Denmark 100,0% 0% 1,93%

Estonia 100,0% 0% 4,37%

Spain 100,0% 0% 5,05%

Italy 93,3% 6,7% 8,49%

Latvia* 100,0% 0% 10,78%

Lithuania 98,3% 1,7% 1,91%

The Nether-lands 93,3% 6,7% 5,95%

Germany 96,7% 3,3% 5,64%

Poland 98,1% 1,9% 2,4%

Portugal 96,7% 3,3% 1,41%

Slovakia 100,0% 0% 1,2%

Slovenia 100,0% 0% 0,68%

Hungary 98,9% 1,1% 1,78%

Finland 95,0% 5,0% 3,80%

France 100,0% 0% 1,99%

Czech Re-public** 93,9% 6,1% 5,04%

Sweden 95,0% 5,0% 1,48%

Non-Schengen MS

Bulgaria 100,0% 0% 1,50%

Great Britain 96,7% 3,3% no data

Romania 99,2% 0,8% 1,00%

Total in the EU 2,05% 3,3%

* — Consulate of Latvia refutes the given indicator, published by the European Commission on its official website as an official visa statistics data for the last year (2011). See here: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/borders/borders_visa_en.htm.

** — Embassy of the Czech Republic in Ukraine refutes the given indicator, published by the Euro-pean Commission as an official visa statistics (see here: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/borders/borders_visa_en.htm),stating that real indicator is equal to 2 %.

53


We can see that for countries such as Italy, Czech Republic and the Netherlands both the official statistics and our monitoring show a relatively high refusal rate. Countries such as Belgium, Latvia, Germany and Spain show better results according to our monitoring when compared to official data. This can be explained by seasonal circumstances and by certain posi-tive changes. In the case of Finland, Sweden and Portugal, monitoring data show somewhat worse outcomes than provided in official statistics. Low re-fusal rates demonstrated by Poland, Hungary, France, Slovenia, Slovakia, Austria, Denmark, Greece and Lithuania have been confirmed by both the official statistics and monitoring results.

Let us analyze the situation concerning the appeals of the applicants who were refused a visa this year. First of all, let us see the reasons for refusal.

Diagram 2.6.1. Main visa refusal reasons, Kyiv and regions,

N = 47 (those who were refused visas)

54


«Other»: Additional reason for refusal Frequency

«wrong information stated in the documents / information is false» 2

Error in the documents 1

«The intention to leave the territory after visa expiration can not be clearly defined / No reasons to return» 2

Did not understand Dutch language 3

The invitation was not received bу fax 1

«Undefined period of stay» 1

Wrong documents — copy of the student record book instead of the original 1

Wrong usage of the previous visa 1

We can see that an incomplete set of documents is the most frequent visa refusal reason followed by non-standard reasons («other») related to false in-formation in the documents or undefined suspicion on behalf of the Consul-ate concerning the applicant. Other reasons included into our questionnaire were: «A year has not passed since the last refusal», «Insufficient passport validity», «Believe that the purpose of the trip indicated in the application is false» and «Not adhering to the requirements of the indicated visa type». Refusal reasons are often not explained at all and the document inserted into the passport of the applicant does not provide a clear answer.

Were the applicants who were refused visas told about their right to ap-peal?

Table 2.6.2. Explanation of the appeal procedure and the intention to appeal,

Kyiv and regions, N = 47 (those who were refused visas)

Has the appeal procedure been explained to you?

Have you applied your right to appeal?

YES NO YES NO

Greece 100% 0% 0% %

55


Italy 0% 100,0% 25,0% 75,0%

Lithuania 100,0% 0% 100,0% 0%

The Nether-lands 75,0% 25,0% 50,0% 50,0%

Germany 100,0% 0% 50,0% 50,0%

Poland 62,5% 37,5% 37,5% 62,5%

Portugal 100,0% 0% 100,0% 0%

Hungary 100,0% 0% 0% 100,0%

Finland 100,0% 0% 66,7% 33,3%

Czech Re-public 63,6% 36,4% 18,2% 81,8%

Sweden 100,0% 0% 66,7% 33,3%

Great Britain 100,0% 0% 0% 100,0%

Romania 100,0% 0% 100,0% 0%

Last year Italy also demonstrated a high level of unexplained appeal regu-

lations (~90%). Many applicants did not receive relevant explanations in 2011 in the Consulates of the Netherlands and the Czech Republic. However, on the contrary, the Polish Consulate showed rather good performance, as only 6% of applicants who were refused visas did not receive adequate explanation con-cerning their right of appeal. This year, the refusal rate is lower and that is why it is hard to assess relevant parameters, although the existence of cases when the person who was officially refused a visa was not informed about his/her hu-man right to appeal constitutes a breach of certain visa procedure regulations.

Disappointment and skepticism about positive decisions are the most fre-quent reasons why the applicants do not appeal coupled with the knowledge that the next visa procedure would take up lots of time and funds. These rea-sons were among the most important ones mentioned by the applicants who were refused visas last year as well.

There are special cases when a person who was refused a visa does not intend to appeal to the Consulate but hopes to obtain a visa with a next ap-plication. As we can see there are applicants who do not intend to apply to the

56


same country, but they will «go to another country». We believe that these scarce cases are rather typical, so they should be taken into account.

3. Consulates’ perceptions: subjective assessment by applicants

In order to get personal assessment of contact between the applicant and the Consulate, we put several questions into our questionnaire concerning the satisfaction with the treatment of Consular officers during the visa pro-cedure. Regardless of the fact that this evaluation block is not divided, we obtained the results that could address some questions:• How many applicants in general and in each Consulate are satisfied with

obtained visas?• Which categories of applicants are unsatisfied most frequently and with

what exactly?• Are our citizens ready to appeal the Consular decisions concerning their

visas?• Which institutions do the unsatisfied applicants intend to address?• What was the applicant’s general impression about the Consular staff —

positive or negative?Which categories of applicants had most negative impressions?

Table 3.1. Satisfaction with the obtained visa

Frequency Percentage

YES 2118 92,9

NO 113 5,0

Result 2231 97,9

no reply 49 2,1

Total 2280 100,0

57


In general, there are 93% of satisfied and 5% (113) of unsatisfied appli-cants out of the total number.

Table 3.2. Not satisfied with the obtained visa /MS Consulate service

N = 113 осіб

Not satisfied

Austria 0,9%

Latvia 0,9%

The Netherlands 0,9%

Slovenia 0,9%

Finland 0,9%

Sweden 0,9%

Bulgaria 0,9%

Belgium 1,8%

Estonia 1,8%

Spain 1,8%

Lithuania 2,7%

Portugal 3,5%

France 3,5%

Romania 3,5%

Germany 4,4%

Denmark 5,3%

Czech Republic 6,2%

Italy 7,1%

Hungary 8,8%

58


Poland 14,2%

Slovakia 14,2%

Greece 15,0%

Unsatisfied applicants were noted at Consulates of all countries with the largest number of them at the Consulates of Greece, Poland and Slovakia this year.

Table 3.3. Satisfaction with the obtained visa / Category of applicants

N = 2233 (those who obtained visas)

YES NO

Drivers, train crew — international transportation; sailors 100,0% 0,0%

Participants of official exchange programs of twin cities 100,0% 0,0%

Disabled and persons accompanying them 100,0% 0,0%

Pupils, students, PhD students, teachers 99,2% 0,8%

Persons participating in scientific, cultural and art activities 95,9% 4,1%

Journalists 95,5% 4,5%

Other (none of the above) 95,4% 4,6%

Sportsmen and persons accompanying them 94,4% 5,6%

Pensioners 94,1% 5,9%

Close relatives of EU residents 93,3% 6,7%

Entrepreneurs and businesspersons 93,1% 6,9%

State officials 93,0% 7,0%

Persons under 18 or 21 — dependants 92,0% 8,0%

Permanent members of official delegations 91,7% 8,3%

59


As the table shows, the largest share of applicants unsatisfied with their obtained visas is seen in categories such as «permanent members of official delegations», «persons under 18…», «state officials», «entrepreneurs…» and «close relatives of EU residents».

Table 3.4. Not satisfied with the obtained visa / Category of applicants

N = 113 (unsatisfied persons)

Drivers, train crew — international transportation; sailors 0,0%

Participants of official exchange programs of twin cities 0,0%

Disabled and persons accompanying them 0,0%

Permanent members of official delegations 0,9%

Journalists 0,9%

Sportsmen and persons accompanying them 1,8%

Pupils, students, PhD students, teachers 1,8%

Persons under 18 or 21 — dependants 1,8%

State officials 3,5%

Persons participating in scientific, cultural and art activities 3,5%

Pensioners 8,0%

Close relatives of EU residents 23,0%

Other (none of the above) 25,7%

Entrepreneurs and businesspersons 29,2%

As we see, the largest share of all unsatisfied applicants belongs to the category of entrepreneurs (29.2%) as this category is one of the most nu-merous applicant categories present in our monitoring. There are many unsatisfied applicants among categories of «other» and «close relative». Let us attempt an analysis of what the representatives of these categories are unsatisfied with most frequently.

60


Table 3.5. The reasons for dissatisfaction voiced by specific categories of applicants, %

N = 88: 33 («entrepreneurs») + 26 («close relatives») + 29 («other cat-egory»)

Entrepre-neurs

Close relatives

Other category

Do not need to reply 3,0 7,7 17,2

Wrong visa type 18,2 34,6 24,1

Shorter visa validity period 75,8 42,3 48,3

Visa was issued too late 0 3,8 3,4

OTHER 3,0 11,5 6,9

Total 100,0 100,0 100,0

Below is a list of other reasons for dissatisfaction with the obtained visa:• «entrepreneurs»: «too expensive», «long visa processing period», «few-

er visa privileges»;• «close relatives»: «we paid a lot, unnecessary expenses», «there is no

feedback and no information whether the visa is ready»;• «other category / tourism»: «long list of documents, not everything

that needs to be submitted is listed right away», «information listed on the website of the visa center is unclear», «we could not register on the server in advance», «visas are sent to the Consulate from the visa center and they are often lost», «the visa center is not responsible for delivery and is unorganized», «everything takes long to process», «nominal at-titude without respect, everything takes too long».

We asked whom representatives of different categories would address to solve the problem:

• «entrepreneurs»: «Consul», «public organizations», «friends»;• «close relatives»: «Consul», «public organizations»;• «other category / tourism»: «Consul».

61


However, the majority of applicants reply that they «would not address anyone».

How are the reasons for dissatisfaction distributed among all the respon-dents?

Table 3.6. The reasons for dissatisfaction with the obtained visa, %

N = 113 (all unsatisfied)

Share

No reply 8,0

Wrong visa type 23,0

Shorter visa validity period 57,5

Visa was issued too late 2,7

OTHER 8,8

Total 100,0

In general, the unsatisfied respondents do not intend to address anyone, although those who do, most often name the Consul of the country they have applied to.

Here we discuss another block of questions even more connected to the subjective perception of respondents of their cooperation with the Consu-late. This block includes three main questions which can be reviewed sepa-rately or as a whole.

Table 3.7. The evaluation of certain parameters in the interaction with Consulate,

% N = 2280 (all)

YES NO Hard to say Total

Were the Consular offices respect-ful towards you? 96,0% 2,7% 1,3% 100%

62


Were you discriminated? 0,2% 98,6% 1,1% 100%

Was the staff polite during the visa procedure? 96,1% 2,6% 1,3% 100%

We tried to detect certain social and status parameters of unsatisfied per-sons and we found out that employed females aged 21–30 who are qualified professionals with a higher degree most frequently believe that Consular staff were disrespectful and impolite towards them. Unemployed women aged 31–40 felt most discriminated.

The share of applicants who had negative impressions concerning the visa procedure out of all applicants is 3.5%, among them 1.5% were not satisfied with one parameter out of three listed, 1.9% were not satisfied with two as-pects of cooperating with Consular officers and 0.1% were not satisfied with any of the three parameters.

We created a country pattern setting the average level of dissatisfaction on a scale of 1 to 3 (parameters) (1 — minimum, 3 — maximum):

Table 3.8. Level of dissatisfaction across Consulate cervices of MS

N = 80 (unsatisfied)

Average

Greece 1

Italy 1

Latvia 1

Hungary 1

Austria 2

Denmark 2

The Netherlands 2

Germany 2

63


Poland 2

Portugal 2

Slovakia 2

Czech Republic 2

Great Britain 2

Romania 2

The maximum of dissatisfaction with all three parameters was seen only at the Consulates of Czech Republic.

Table 3.9. Level of dissatisfaction among the categories of applicants,

N = 80 (unsatisfied)

Dissatisfaction,average Share of persons

Drivers, train crew — international transpor-tation; sailors 1 1,3%

Persons under 18 or 21 — dependants 1 1,3%

Journalists 1 3,8%

Persons participating in scientific, cultural and art activities 1 3,8%

Other (none of the above) 1 37,5%

State officials 2 2,5%

Pensioners 2 6,3%

Pupils, students, PhD students, teachers 2 11,3%

Entrepreneurs and businesspersons 2 13,8%

Close relatives of EU residents 2 12,5%

Sportsmen and persons accompanying them 2 6,3%

64


Thus, the majority of persons are not satisfied with two parameters. Sometimes, according to interviewers, these negative answers did not relate directly to the questions asked about the respectful and polite attitude of Con-sular officers, but rather reflected the general frustration of the applicant.

We also found out that, among persons negatively evaluating the coopera-tion with Consulates, the largest number are persons having visited Schengen members more than once over the last two years, (56.3%) followed by those who have not visited these countries over the last two years (25%). Thus, we can presume that the dissatisfaction with Consular missions «accumulates» in those who travel frequently and have encountered such cooperation. It is also expressed by persons who travel rarely and are likely to have high expectation about cooperating with Consular missions but are disappointed at the end.

4. Socio-demografic dimension

There are following feature of 2012 audience of those polled at the Consulates:

There are following feature of 2012 audience of those polled at the Consulates:• females and males are represented almost proportionally (53% and

47%), with small prevalence of women; it corresponds to the general sta-tistics across Ukraine;

• significant presence of young people aged 21–30 years as well as of adults aged 31–40 years is noticed (both in Kyiv and in regions);

• about 70% of applicants in Kyiv and 62% of persons applying in regions are permanently employed;

• students and pensioners constitute the biggest share of those unemployed;• 12,5% of applicants in Kyiv are unemployed, while 23,3% of applicants

from regions do not have a steady job;• qualified professionals with higher degree (46,6%), managers or deputy

heads/ private entrepreneurs (22,7%), and heads of divisions (15,5%) most often apply for visas in the capital city;

• in the regions the picture is similar: qualified professionals with higher degree (36,2%), managers or deputy heads/ private entrepreneurs (17,9%)

65


and qualified workers (13,3%) most often apply for visas to travel to the EU Member States at regional diplomatic missions;

• visa applicants in Kyiv apply under such categories as «tourists», «entre-preneurs» and «close relatives», while in regional Consulates the catego-ries include «tourists», «close relatives» and «entrepreneurs»; it means that more «close relatives» apply to the regional diplomatic missions than «entrepreneurs»;

• The aim of travel does not necessary coinsides with the «privilegded cat-egory» some persons belong to. About 40% of «pupils and students» in-dicate that the purpose of their trip is not «study» (including Kyiv and regions) and a large share of «business people» category doesn’t intend to travel for business.

Portrait of typical visa applicants

• This year we tried to find out whether there are any «profiles» of ap-plicants for specific destination country, whether there is a recurring tendency comparing to the last year data.

• We selected typical categories of visa applicants in each sector for indi-vidual countries, and then we detected sex and age dominating in that typical category. In this way we obtained an «portrait» of applicants applying to specific countries (See Table 4.1.1).

• We see, for example, that most frequent visa applicants to Slovenia are men aged 21–40 years in the category «entrepreneurs», while Poland processes mostly applications by males from the «tourists»category of the same age group. It is peculiar that about one fifth of the respon-dents (21%) in Kyiv is made up of females aged 21–30 years, applying as tourists or under «other category» (40% of them), businesswomen (22%) and students (16%). Thus, women aged 21–30 years are active in applying for EU visas.

• Comparing «typical portraits» with the results obtained last year we should mention that categories of visa applicants fully correspond to the previous data only for the following seven countries: Greece, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Germany and Slovakia; these are the destination countries for Ukrainian «entrepreneurs», while Poland attracts more «tourists».

66


Table 4.1.1.Portrait of typical applicants according to the countries

(Consulates in Kyiv), N = 23 consulates

Austria Entrepreneurs, businessmen

41–50 m Germany Entrepreneurs,

businessmen21–30

f

Belgium Close relatives of EU residents

51–60–70 f Poland Other category

(tourism, etc.)21–31–40

m

Greece Entrepreneurs, businessmen

31–40 m Portugal Other category

(tourism, etc.)21–30

f

Denmark Entrepreneurs, businessmen

21–31–40 m Slovakia Entrepreneurs,

businessmen31–40

f

Estonia Entrepreneurs, businessmen

21–30 f Slovenia Entrepreneurs,

businessmen21–31–40

m

Spain Other category(tourism, etc.)

21–30 f Hungary Entrepreneurs,

businessmen21–30

f

Italy Other category(tourism, etc.)

31–40 m 21–30 f Finland Other category


m

Latvia Other category(tourism, etc.)

21–30 f France Other category


f

Lithuania Entrepreneurs, businessmen

31–40 m

Czech Republic

Pupils, stu-dents, PhD students, teachers

21–30 f

The Nether-lands

Other category(tourism, etc.)

21–30 f Sweden Close relatives

of EU residents21–30

f

Additional countries monitored this year receive the following «typical» applicants:

Bulgaria Other category (tourism, etc.) 21–30 f

Great Britain Pupils, students, PhD students, teachers up to 21 f

Romania Entrepreneurs and businesspersons 31–40 m

67


Our research has another element for comparison in terms of the profiles of applicants applying to the same country in different consular establish-ments. These data are presented in the following table:


(Consulates in Kyiv and regional offices), N = 31 consulates of 7 countries represented in regions and in Kyiv

Kyiv Regions correspon-dence

Bulgaria Other category(tourism, etc.)

21–30 f


31–40 m +

Greece Entrepreneurs, businessmen

31–40 m

Close relatives of EU residents

31–40 f +

Poland Other category(tourism, etc.)

21–30–40 m


21–30 f +

Romania Entrepreneurs, businessmen

31–40 m


21–30 f

Slovakia Entrepreneurs, businessmen

31–40 f

Persons participating in scientific, cultural and art activities

31–40– 51–60

m+

Hungary Entrepreneurs, businessmen

21–30 f

Інша категорія (туризм, тощо)

21–30 m +

Czech Republic

Pupils, students, PhD students, teachers

21–30 f


31–40 m

Thus, almost same profiles of the applicants are seen only for Bulgaria and Poland, where «tourists» (and «other category») are typical applicants in all Consulates. According to our data currently there is no close correspondence for other countries, apart from age or sex category of travelers. That is why we indicate differences in the regions and the capital with regards to the prevail-ing profile of applicants.

However, we can also notice the changes in the portrait of typical re-gional visa applicants over 2011–2012:

68



(regional consulates), N = 11 consulates of 5 countries represented in regions in 2011

Regions — 2011 Regions — 2012 Correspon-dence

Greece Other category(tourism, etc.)

31–40f


31–40f + +

Poland Other category(tourism, etc.)

21–30m


21–30f + +

Slovakia Entrepreneurs, businessmen

31–40m

Persons engaged in science, culture, artists

31–4051–60

m+ +

Hungary Other category(tourism, etc.)

41–50f


21–30 m +

Czech Republic

Entrepreneurs, businesspersons

31–40 m


31–40 m + +Pupils, students,

PhD students, teachers

31–40 f

Thus, it is clear that correspondence is more typical for regional offices: in Poland and Hungary it is reflected in visa applicants’ category; in Greece, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic it can be seen in age and sex in-dicators. We see that such peculiarity tends to recur each year. If we review visa applicants’ portraits more carefully taking each representative office in a specific region, more specific features will be revealed reflecting cross-border social mobility of the certain region.

69


UKRAINE ON THE EU VISA MAP: CURRENT TRENDS

Nearly two years ago we released an analysis of Ukraine’s position on the «visa map of the EU»2. The analysis revealed a second position steadily oc-cupied by Ukraine (after Russia) in terms of Schengen visas issued to its citi-zens — 9% out of the total number of Schengen visas issued across the planet. What has changed since then?

This year the European Commission published official visa statis-tics for the last year3 much earlier than previously. This fact indicates increased efficiency of the EC’s activities. At the same time, the meth-odology of presenting official statistical data has somewhat changed: D type (national) visas are omitted from general data posted on the official website of EC. Such visas amounted to about 10% of general number of visas issued to Ukrainians by the EU Member States and to even much larger share in the case of Poland. This year the category is not included into general European statistics, which not only shrinks the data but also complicates the analysis in terms of adequate data comparison for previ-ous years. Nevertheless, we will make attempts at a comparative analysis, without including D type visas this time.

In 2011, thus, 1,103,391 Schengen visas were issued in Ukraine, while the number for previous year was 932,701 (excluding D type visas). Due to this indicator Ukraine keeps the second position globally in terms of the absolute number of obtained Schengen visas. However, the gap between China, that is on the third position, continues to decrease — if 3–4 years ago Chinese people obtained twice as less visas compared to Ukrainians, the current dif-ference is less than 10%.

At the same time, Russia, occupying the first position, has strengthened its leadership adding up by one million of obtained visas annually over the last two years. As a result, Russians receive more than 40% of all Schengen visas in the world (two years ago this indicator did not reach 30%).

2 Oleksandr Sushko. Ukraine on «visa map» of the European Union. — «Dzerkalo tyzhnya» №34, 2010.3 Official website of European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/borders/borders_visa_en.htm

70


The indicator of annual increase in the number of issued visas in Ukraine is slightly higher than the world average (18,3% comparing to 14,4%). How-ever, countries occupying neighboring positions in the rating have mostly im-proved their indicators at an even faster rate: Russia — by 24,7% during 2011, China — by 31,8%, and Belarus by a record 35,1%.

Ukraine is close to the visa refusal rate which the EU considers to be safe – 3% by having it at 3,3% due to a stable decrease of this indicator over the last years. This factor will facilitate the shaping of the EU’s positive attitude towards future visa liberalization. At the same time this factor does not act separately but only together with other indicators. For example, the visa refusal rate, be-ing at almost zero in Belarus, guarantees neither any privileges for this country nor full visa liberalization taking into account current political circumstances.

Ukraine’s share of multiple-entry Schengen visas (35,5%) is significant, three times larger than just 3–4 years ago. However, the world average indica-tor is even higher (38,7%), thus neither the Visa Facilitation Agreement, nor the declared status of a privileged partner (in terms of Eastern Partnership) provides added value for Ukraine in this aspect. Russia and Belarus demon-strate better indicators (more than 45%). Only current modest relevant figure for China may serve as conciliation (11,8%).

Peculiar visa statistics appears while attempting to calculate the «density» of visa issuance, i.e. the proportion of population obtaining one Schengen visa. Belarus is an obvious leader (1 visa per 16 persons) according to this pa-rameter, being ahead of Russia (1 visa per 28 persons) by almost two times and Ukraine by almost three times (1 visa per 41 persons). In terms of this indicator Turkey is significantly lagging behind (1 visa per 126 persons); evidently trips to the EU remain as hardly available exotic for the majority of Chinese citizens (1 visa per 1316 persons). However, this does not disclaim the obvious in-creasing presence of Chinese tourists and businessmen in European countries as only two years ago one visa was issued per 3 thousand of Chinese citizens.

In the case of Ukraine we should take into account that C type (Schengen) visa statistics do not fully describe the issue of visa availability since, unlike Chinese, Ukrainians traditionally obtain a significant share of D type visas, which are national visas of the EU Member States entitling the holders for short term visits to the other Members of the Schengen area. In 2010 the share of such visas issued to the citizens of Ukraine amounted to about 17% of the general number of Schengen area visas.

71


Table 1.Top 5 countries-recepients of Schengen visas and the other Eastern Patrtnership countries

World Russia Ukraine China Turkey Belarus

Obtained Schengen visas in 2011 12 647 747 5 152 548 1 103 391 1 026 283 592 070 579 924

Obtained Schengen visas in 2010 11 060 261 4 132 614 932 701 779 122 522 667 429 132

Increase by year (%) 14,4% 24,7% 18,3% 31,8% 13,2% 35,1%

Refusals (%) 5,5% 1,5% 3,3% 4,5% 5,0% 0,5%

Multiple entry 4 887 470 2 439 656 391 396 121 329 219 273 262 469

Share of multiple entry visas

38,7% 47,3% 35,5% 11,8% 37,0% 45,3%

Share in the world 100% 40,7% 8,7% 8,1% 4,7% 4,6%

Number of citizens per one issued Schengen visa throughout the year (2011)

— 28 41 1 316 126 16

World Mol- dova Georgia Armenia Azer -

baijanObtained Schengen visas in 2011 12 647 747 50 300 59 603 33 528 43 009

Obtained Schengen visas in 2010 11 060 261 45 612 50 324 29 323 35 693

Increase by year (%) 14,4% 9% 18,7% 14,4% 20,5%

Refusals (%) 5,5% 9,5% 14,4% 8,8% 5,5%

Multiple entry 4 887 470 11 558 15 397 5 086 7 512

Share of multiple entry visas 38,7% 23% 25,8% 15,2% 17,5%

Share in the world 100% 0,4% 0,5% 0,27% 0,34%

Number of citizens per one issued Schengen visas over the year (2011)

86 74 92 213

72


Thus the analysis of available official data on visa issuance by Schengen Members shows the following:

More than half of all Schengen visas in the world are issued in Eastern Europe. What is considered to be the «Schengen Wall» and is vulnerably per-ceived in the region, amounts to 60% of visa statistics in the EU and forms its policy embodying relevant stereotypes concerning migration threats and in-cluding large financial revenues in the form of Consular fees. That is why visa liberalization for Ukraine and Eastern Europe in general will be perceived in the EU mostly as an unpopular step significantly changing existing status-quo even if individual countries in the region receive visa free regime gradually and not as a group.

The EU Visa Code that entered into force in 2010 entailed significant increase in the share of multiple entry visas (from 10–15% several years ago to current 38%). At the same time official statistics does not enable an analysis of the share of long term visas (valid for from one and up to five years) among them and it does not allow to follow what is the percentage of formally multiple entry visas with short term validity (valid for several days and up to several months).

Schengen visa issuance dynamics, increase in their absolute and rela-tive number, the share of multiple entry visas as well as the visa refusal rate have little dependence on whether the Visa Facilitation Agreement has been signed with the EU or not. The rapid increase in the number of issued visas in the case of China and a record low visa refusal rate coupled with the highest visa issuance density per person in the case of Belarus show that positive results can be achieved even without applying Visa Fa-cilitation Agreements.

The atmosphere of political relations between the EU and third countries, democracy and human rights record constitute sensitive factors for the EU without significantly influencing the easiness or strictness of the visa policy in particular countries. It is clearly confirmed by the visa issuance for Russia, Belarus and China on behalf of the EU MS.

73


Prognostic conclusions:

• It is expected that in 2012 Ukraine will yield to China in terms of absolute numbers of obtained Schengen visas and will lose its second position by the number of citizens traveling to the EU;

• As an outcome of the limited impact of Visa Facilitation Agreements, further eagerness of third countries to conclude such agreements is likely to be decreased. Under such circumstances the interest in such agreements on behalf of the countries that have not concluded but have been invited to conclude such agreements with the EU (Turkey, Arme-nia and Azerbaijan) can be preserved only if the agreement conclusion is presented as the first and necessary step on the way to full visa waiver for these countries.

• Whatever the dynamics of political processes in Ukraine, it will not signif-icantly influence current EU visa practices. Visas will not be less available for ordinary citizens even if authoritarian tendencies are to be increased. At the same time, further steps towards visa liberalization can be placed under question as they depend not only on the completion of technical criteria but also on the general atmosphere of relations and perception of the country. The issue of the rule of law, in particular (in)dependent justice, can turn into an obstacle for Ukraine on its way. The launch of the second phase of the Action Plan on Visa Liberalization can be postponed; however, incomplete technical requirements can become the main "of-ficial" argument justifying this.

• As further liberalization/waiver of visa regimes will stay an unpopular policy in the EU Member States and supporters of such a policy will most-ly represent a minority, the success of further efforts depends on system-atic impact on target groups shaping public opinion in the EU Member States and influencing political decisions. Such impact should be achieved in order to create the critical mass of «visa skeptics» — those who do not see the visa regime as an effective instrument of migration control and/or do not regard the migration potential of Eastern European countries, and Ukraine in particular, as a threat.

74


RECOMMENDATIONS

TO THE CONSULAR MISSIONS OF THE EU MEMBER STATES

• The Consular missions should more actively apply the existent flexibility of the Schengen acquis in order to issue a larger number of multiple-en-try/long-term visas. Consulates and Visa Centers should inform the ap-plicants about their right to obtain long-term visas and offer such visas to those who meet the criteria (even if the person does not apply for such a visa). Such a policy would relieve the Consular missions not increasing migration risks. Long-term visas valid for a minimum of one year should become the usual norm, not the exception, as it follows from the existing Schengen regulations.

• The Consulates should avoid issuing single-entry or short-term visas in the cases when the applicant has previously used, in the legitimate way, multi-ple-entry Schengen visas issued by the Consulates of this or any other Schen-gen country. (Currently, numerous cases of issuing single-entry or short-term visas to those who previously held long-term visas are registered.)

• The minimum validity of a long-term visa should equal to six months as it is prescribed by the EU Visa Code (Article 24.2).

• The Consulate should not require the exact plan of traveling from the per-sons applying for long-term visas, particularly stating the exact dates of trips to the country during the entire visa validity period (up to 5 years) in the invitation itself. Calendar event planning for the organizations of physical persons almost never extends to five years. Thus, the submitted long-term plans (in order to justify the long-term visa validity) are usu-ally fake.

• Until the relevant changes to the Schengen acquis are made, in terms of the Schengen Consular cooperation the countries should agree on the comprehensive list of documents required from the applicants and unify such a list to the maximum extent. The documents not included into such a list should be required only in extraordinary cases.

75


• Electronic copies of documents, especially of those sent from abroad, should be accepted as originals as it does not contradict the existing Schengen acquis and does not increase the risk of accepting forged docu-ments but it significantly eases the document preparation for the appli-cants and makes it faster.

• The Consulates should not apply stricter rules to the applicants in Ukraine than to those applied in other countries in the region. For ex-ample, more liberal approaches to issuance of visas in Russia and Be-larus by several EU Member States have been perceived in Ukraine as patterns of double standards.

• The practice of the return report of applicants (obligatory visits to the Consulates after the trip) should be abandoned as it is not regulated by any EU legal norm.

• The opening of Visa Centers (external service providers) may be welcomed if its location doesn't coincide with the location of the Consulate network. At the same time, transferring the applications to the Visa Centers in the cities where the Consulates are located, primarily in Kyiv, is perceived as creating monopoly for rather non-transparent foreign company (VFS Global). Such a practice should be minimized and applicants should be given a real choice — whether to address the Visa Center or apply directly at the Consular mission.

• Choosing external service providers for the Visa Center operation should be done on the basis of more transparent procurement condi-tions. Local companies should have access to the tenders on the basis of non-discriminatory principles.

• Visa Centers should guarantee the adherence to Ukrainian and EU leg-islation on personal data protection.

• The appeal procedure should be improved by making it easier and less expensive.

• Welcoming greater public openness of Schengen Consulates in Ukraine compared to previous years, we consider further participa-tion of the consular officers in the public dialogue on the matters of rules of travel, freedom of movement and public safety to be of signifi-cant importance.

76


TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, EEAS AND GOVERNMENTS OF THE EU MEMBER STATES

• The reasons determining inconsistency or incorrectness of EU visa sta-tistics should be eliminated. There are several cases of Consular mis-sions of individual MS objecting to statistical data listed on the official EU website (for example, the official EU statistics on the visa refusal rate were rebutted by the Consulates of Spain in 2009 and Latvia in 2011).

• Additional statistic parameters enabling better assessments of the im-plementation of the most sensitive provisions of the Visa Code and the VFA should be established; in particular, an indicator of issued visas valid for more than one year should be introduced.

• Further steps on unifying the requirements for visa application should be reviewed. For instance, approving the single comprehensive list of documents required in order to obtain a visa.

• Taking into account frequently occurring incidents with travelers most-ly on the territory of Germany, the following items should be explained: a) the order of using multiple-entry visas in the case of entering differ-ent Schengen countries for different purposes; b) the «first entry rule», especially in the case of transit by air and/or land.

• Review the possibility to introduce sanctions targeting those Consular missions that systematically do not adhere to the provisions of the EU Visa Code and EU-Ukraine Visa Facilitation Agreement.

TO THE MFA OF UKRAINE, AND THE JOINT EXPERT COMMITTEE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF VISA FACILITATION AGREEMENT

• The entry into force of changes and amendments to the existent Visa Fa-cilitation Agreement that were signed on July 23rd 2012 is a step in the right direction. Consular establishments, Visa Centers and potential ap-plicants should be informed about the changes. Defining the minimum

77


validity of multiple-entry visas at one year for certain categories of appli-cants prescribed by the Agreement is of utmost importance. The imple-mentation of this provision will require close monitoring.

• The information and consultation support for applicants should be strengthened, in particular when their rights are violated. Information should be provided concerning existing algorithms of appealing with complaints or registering applicants’ rights violation.

• The provision concerning the right to obtain multiple-entry visas after at least one single-entry visa had been used (Article 5 of the existing VFA) should be explained and adhered to. Several cases were registered when the Consulates processing applications for long-term visas do not take into account previous visas if they are issued by other Schengen members as well as visas obtained for other purposes. This significantly narrows the sense of that provision and does not correspond to the existing Schengen acquis.

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE

• Take measures in order to combat the illegal market of visa services, pri-marily the industry of «visa support» on the basis of forged documents. More actively respond to relevant reports by the EU side and inform the society on the disclosed criminal networks.

78


Date post:	05-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

THE EU VISA POLICY IN UKRAINE · Lviv Legal Community Institute for Social Studies and Political...

Documents