The last months illustrated an aggravated sense of discord between the overall positive informational background concerning Ukraine-EU visa dialogue, the perspective of visa free regime for Ukrainian citizens and the actual visa practice of EU Consulates. Such practice exists by its own and does not always evolve towards visa liberalization. (This article was written by Oleksandr Sushko for “Dzerkalo Tygnya” newspaper)
Oleksandr Sushko
The year following the introduction of the EU Visa Code displayed the futile expectations for swift unification of standards and requirements for visa applicants and introduction of actual valid preferences for those law abiding citizens who need to travel abroad on a regular basis and who do not breach the migration rules.
Taking into account that the political decision concerning visa free perspective for Ukraine was taken, it seemed logical for the Consular services to gradually facilitate visa procedure by removing the most complicated obligatory requests, shortening the list of documents required and minimizing formalities, while politicians were negotiating visa free regime and the government was engaged in implementing the Action Plan on Visa Liberalization.
Objective data from official sources attest the need for such approach. The data available indicates gradual reduction of migration risks originating in Ukraine. The share of visa refusals received by the citizens of Ukraine applying for trips to the Schengen zone decreased from 10% to about 4% over the last 5 years. About five thousand of cases were registered last year when Ukrainian citizens were not admitted to the EU territory at the border crossing points. It makes up for less than 0,5 % of the general number of border crossings. In addition, over the last years the number of Ukrainians detained for illegal stay on the EU territory has been constantly decreasing – from 22 thousand in 2006 to 12,5 thousand in 2009. Ukraine is not even listed in top 30 world states according to the number of the citizens applying for asylum in the EU.
Nevertheless, the Consulates tighten the screws in a discreet but masterful way…
On the positive note we should point out that more EU Member States have recently expressed their readiness to reduce fees for their national visas or completely waive such fees. However, the proportion of such visas (D category) is not so large; it makes up about 15% of the general number of the EU visas. That is why fees for national visas are not crucial for visa applicants as in most cases they leave with the aim of employment, long terms studies or residence.
The overall long term professional monitoring of Consular practice combined with close observation of the current situation clearly shows the deterioration in major visa practice parameters complicating visa obtaining conditions for many Ukrainian citizens, i.e. entrepreneurs, journalists, intellectuals and overall regular travelers.
We should not simplify the situation blaming it on the “evil will” of Consular services. Many problems are of complex nature. Current situation demonstrates that the pace of liberalization of internal EU rules in the spheres of the freedom of movement, social life, and business are far ahead the Consular practice and even the entire EU visa philosophy.
Schengen area creates Europe without borders both for the EU citizens for everyone staying legally on Schengen territory. International organizations, corporations and associations are already engaged in vigorous activities not noticing national borders, while Consular establishments remained in the era of nation-states Europe. Schengen law makers weren’t quite prepared for the new realities and that is why Schengen visa practice is still based on the principles which are archaic even for Europe itself, for example, “the country of main destination” and “first border crossing”. In most cases they can’t be determined in advance, especially if considering the multi-entry long term visas necessary for frequent travelers.
The obligation to identify “the main country of destination” creates deadlock both for Consulates and many Ukrainian citizens keeping intensive communication ties with the EU Member States. For example, if the IO’s headquarters is located in one country (and the invitation arrived from there), but the nearest event is planned in another country, there is a high risk of visa refusal.
If one organization from country A plans several events in country A, but the first one is held in country B, then the Consulate of country A will refuse visa or refer the applicant to the Consulate of country B. In its turn, that Consulate (B) will issue only single entry visa exclusively for the duration of the first event.
One vivid example is the recent case involving Olga Kalashnyk and Lyudmyla Kovalchuk, managers of Ukrainian “La Strada”. It is a well known human right organization with the Headquarters located in the Netherlands engaged in combating human trafficking. The Consulate in the Netherlands refused to issue visas to them twice, regardless long term visa history of the individuals and unblemished reputation of the organization. Even the specific EU Directive aimed to promote the activities of human rights activists including urgent visa issuance was not effective. The issue was that the first event with the participation of Ukrainian representatives was to be held in Italy. Regardless the fact that the trips to the Netherlands were planned after that, visas were refused. Such approach taken by the Consulate serves as a vivid example of absurd application of “country of main destination” and “the first border crossing” principles.
Overall intensification of the requirement to confirm “the main job” is another problematic case emerging over the recent months. Now the Consulates are not satisfied with the certificates issued by the employer, stating the position and the salary of individuals, even though such certificates were always sufficient, long before the Agreement on the Facilitation of the Issuance of Visas was concluded.
Now even the once liberal Polish Consulates require from visa applicants to submit unique documentary atavism inherited from Soviet times – the Labour Record Book (Trudova Knyzhka – Ukrainian). Obviously, it creates difficulties for thousands of people who simply see the labor book and personal registration as useless formalities as they are often irrelevant to their real main jobs and actual location for professional activities.
The “third sector” is particularly sensitive towards such situation as non-governmental organisations are based on the principles of membership; they unite associates, enthusiasts, and not necessarily full time staff members. In most cases Consular system is not able to adequately perceive the information that the Labour Record Book of the respectable expert, leading representative of NGO may be kept in another city, at the enterprise with the name that may not mean anything. The expert may be refused a visa if he or she submits the invitation to his/her name as an NGO representative and the Labour Record Book lists his/her position at a different company.
Entrepreneurs face similar problems. While their own government cuts the ground under their feet with the introduction of the new Tax Code, EU Consulates demonstrate their own attitude towards the surviving Ukrainian middle class. In particular, lately there have been numerous cases when complications were created for the journalists having the status of free lancers (private entrepreneurs) who are not listed among editorial staff and work in a way lots of their European colleagues do. They are now requested to submit the detailed cash flow schemes on their current account over the last months in addition to the proof of sufficient funds for the period of the trip (the updated bank statement would be sufficient in this case). In other words, they are asked to disclose the data that is definitely considered to be a commercial secret of the entrepreneur.
The same applies to the entrepreneurs from other fields. It is a paradox that the self organized citizens, ensuring work and individual business for themselves and consequently being the most active, self-sustainable and the least dangerous in terms of migration risks, face the biggest obstacles while applying for visas. More and more documents relating to their economic activities are requested from them.
If the unification of regulations and rules indicated, it is rather directed towards stricter principles. Total refusal of the Consulates to accept hotel bookings made online, turned into a big and unpleasant surprise for the travelers over the last months. Not all Consulates allowed for such option previously too, but since the beginning of this year Poland intensified its requirement in this aspect as well, even though this country issues about 40% of all Schengen visas and that is why the active part of Ukrainian population is extremely sensitive to any changes introduced by Polish Consulates.
Currently in order to apply for tourist visa the applicant who plans the trip individually, cannot make use of the previously available option to book the hotel via world famous internet portals, such as www.booking.com, and submit the printed booking secured by the credit card, similarly to how it is done in the whole world (more than 50% of hotel reservations in the world are made online now).
Presently the applicant is requested to submit the document confirming the pre-paid booking. It entails at least 3 problems. Firstly, the tourist is left without a chance to change the traveling route when necessary at no financial loss. Secondly, additional substantial time is spent and efforts are made (the applicant needs to contact the hotel, agree on the terms of payment, filing the necessary document and sending it to Ukraine). Thirdly, the choice of hotels is substantially narrowed as not all of them are ready to waste the working time of their staff on such problematic issues of their foreign guests.
Moreover, Ukrainian tourists are limited to choose the major low-cost accommodation options, which are cheap hotels and hostels. Such hotels mostly do not accept full advance payments and do not issue confirmation documents. Consequently Ukrainian youth is not able to find accommodation in the hostels similarly to their EU peers as visa system requires the fully prepaid (meaning expensive) accommodation. As a result in most cases none goes anywhere. Companies, supporting individual tourists, such as makemytrip.com.ua, record the attitude deterioration towards their clients on behalf of the Consulates.
General tendency shows that Consulates aim to limit the visa validity period to the minimum extent, issuing in most cases single entry visas with the period of stay only for the exact number of days of the intended first event. The cases of single entry visa issuance even if one or two Schengen multi-entry annual validity visas were stamped before are not rare as well.
Measures taken by the Consulates are irrational as they do not hit the target: persons intending to stay in the EU Member States illegally (as a rule, such people are mentally prepared to invest lots of time and efforts into the visa procedure) will not have difficulties submitting additional bank statement, ask for a Labour Record Book from the employer, pay for a couple of nights at the hotel and apply to the Consulate where their application will meet the requirements to the maximum extent. Burdensome procedure discourages law abiding citizens, it seems increasingly untenable for those who value their time and who have work to do in their country.
Excessive caution of the Consulates in issuing long term validity visas is not understandable as the risk of misuse of such visas is not higher than in the case of single entry visas. In most cases potential illegal migrant needs only one legal entry on the territory of the Schengen zone and that is why he/she will settle for a single entry visa.
And perhaps the most important remark: the complicated practice of getting access to the Schengen visas affects the immature and fragile European identity of Ukrainian society, undermines the motivation of its Europe-oriented segment, promotes moral alienation of Ukrainians from Europe and strengthens the arguments of those who take advantage of favorable political moment and push Ukraine into the arms of persistently alluring past.
This article was written for "Dzerkalo tygnya" newspaper, #13, April 8, 2011
You can find the original version of this article using the links:
Schengen Zone of Turbulence or
https://europewb.org.ua/analitic/shengenska-zona-tyrbylentnosti/ua
