Brussels, 10/03/2010 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 9 March, the European Parliament gave its support to a regulation enabling long stay visa holders from non-EU countries (who were granted visas in one member state) to enjoy the same conditions to travel to other member states as those holding a residence permit. The report by Carlos Coelho (EPP, Portugal), which focuses on this regulation was adopted in a first reading by 562 votes in favour, 29 against, with 51 abstentions. The legislation is expected to enter into force before 1 April 2010, the day the Community Code on visas is implemented.
Currently, long-stay visa holders (“D” visas) cannot travel to other member states during their stay and are not authorised to transit via other member states when they return to their countries of origin. This new long stay visa (longer than three months) will have the same effect as having a residence permit, with relation to free movement in the Schengen area: “D” visa holders will be able to move freely during the first three months of a six-month period, as soon as the visa has been granted in compliance with the current rules in force. Longer stay visas are valid for up to a year. If a foreigner is authorised by a member state to stay longer than a year, a residence permit replaces the long stay visa. The new legislation will apply to long stay visa holders as long as they have met the entry conditions and are not on a member state's list of suspects. The rules for consultation, of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and other member states if there is any cause for alarm, are expected to also apply to the processing of requests for long stay visas and subsequently prevent any additional security risk arising in other member states. The United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark (the latter has six months to say if it wants to participate or not) are not participating in the current adoption of the regulation and will not be subject to its application.
During the debate preceding the vote, MEPs denounced the absurdity of a system that enables researchers, students and even businessmen from third countries to obtain a “D visa” in one member state but not to be able to move freely within the Union. These people should not be “prisoners” of a Union country, protested the rapporteur, who also called for member states to grant “valid” visa holders the opportunity to travel without hindrance in other countries. Coelho insisted that this did not involve any risk to security because “D visas” would be subject to “preliminary” controls as stipulated under the Schengen system. The MEP also pointed out that he wanted to see the regulation adopted before 5 April 2010, in an effort to prevent any legal loopholes arising. This is also what European Commissioner for Internal Affairs Cecilia Malmström would like to see. She recognises the “imperative necessity” of finding a solution before the entry into force of the Visa Code. This text received broad consensus among MEPs from across the political spectrum. Several have pointed to cases where scientists have been stuck in one member state. Rui Tavares (Portugal, GUE/NGL) said that they had sometimes had difficulties with guests from non-EU countries coming to the European Parliament. He highlighted the importance of mobility in the knowledge society. Kinga Gal (EPP, Hungary) explained that this was about protecting the freedom of movement of individuals who “travelled in good faith”. Her compatriot, Kristzina Morvai (NI) recalled the specific case of individuals of Hungarian origin who, following the considerable loss of territory in their country, live outside the Union (in the Ukraine and in countries that belong to the former Yugoslavia, amongst others). Simplification of granting visas (currently so complicated that “consular services are finding it difficult to deal with”) according to Andreas Mölzer (NI, Austria) does not involve a threat to security. Vilija Blinkeviciute (Socialist, Lithuania) also supported this view and pointed out the most important aspect of the regulation was not how long the visa was for but the fact that it provided an opportunity to move freely within the Union.
Not everyone, however, agreed with granting this freedom. Georgios Papanikolau (EPP, Greece) wanted to know whether they intended to facilitate things for illegals as well. Frank Vanhecke (Vlaams Belang, Belgium) said that providing this opportunity created a real threat. He said that the borders were already full of holes, facilitating illegal immigration. Gerard Batten from the United Kingdom said that his party, UKIP, was against the regulation. The same apprehension was expressed by the Italian Northern League and by Franz Obermayer (FPÖ, Austria), horrified by the buses (five a day, he asserted) which bring Albanians and Macedonians into the Union as tourists but who stay indefinitely. Simon Busittil (EPP, Malta) described a specific problem involving European workers and entrepreneurs following the decision by Libya to no longer award visas to Europeans due to the problem with Switzerland. Cecilia Malström attempted to reassure him and said that the matter was complicated but that they were tackling it and discussions were taking place in an effort to find a solution. (L.G./B.C./transl.fl)