PURPOSE: to lay down the conditions of entry and\nresidence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research,\nstudies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training,\nvoluntary service and au pairing.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council (recast of Directives 2005/71/EC and\n2004/114/EC).
\nROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European\nParliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative\nprocedure and on an equal footing with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the European Union’s working age\npopulation has practically stopped growing and over the next couple\nof years it will start shrinking. The EU is also facing a situation\nof 'innovation emergency'. Europe is spending 0.8% of GDP less than\nthe US and 1.5% less than Japan every year on Research &\nDevelopment (R&D). in addition, thousands of the best\nresearchers and innovators have moved to countries where conditions\nare more favorable.
\nTo counterbalance this lack of manpower, immigration\nfrom outside the EU is one source of highly skilled people, and\nthird-country national students and researchers in particular are\ngroups which are increasingly sought after and which the EU needs\nto actively attract.
\nAllowing third-country nationals to acquire skills and\nknowledge through a period of training in Europe encourages\n“brain circulation” and supports cooperation with third\ncountries.
\nHowever, in the absence of a clear legal framework,\nthere is also a risk of exploitation to which trainees and au-pairs\nare particularly exposed, with the subsequent risk of unfair\ncompetition on the labour market.
\nWith a view to better optimising those benefits and\nproperly tackling those risks, and taking account of the\nsimilarities of the challenges faced by these categories of\nmigrants, this proposal amends Council\nDirective 2004/114/EC (“Students’ Directive”) on\nthe conditions of admission of third country nationals for the\npurposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or\nvoluntary service:
\nThe proposal seeks to remedy the shortcomings\nhighlighted in the implementation reports of the two Directives\n[see COM(2011)901\nand 587]\non the conditions of admissions in particular (visas, mobility\naspects…) and procedural safeguards.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the following options were\nconsidered:
\nOption 4 appears to be\nthe most cost-effective option to meet the key objectives and\nbrings about positive economic and social impacts. The main\ndisadvantage of legislative changes would be the costs involved:\nMember States would have to make modifications to their legislative\nframeworks.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 79(2) points (a) and (b) of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposal’s overall objective is to\nsupport social, cultural and economic relationships between the EU\nand third countries, foster the transfer of skills and know-how and\npromote competitiveness while, at the same time, provide for\nsafeguards ensuring fair treatment of these groups of third-country\nnationals.
\nChapter I – General provisions: the proposal has two specific objectives:
\nScope: the proposal\nextends the scope of the “Student” Directive to include\nremunerated trainees and au-pairs. The proposal would not,\nhowever, apply to third-country nationals who are EU long-term\nresidents given their more privileged status and their specific\ntype of residence permit, or refugees, those residing in a Member\nState on a strictly temporary basis in accordance with Union\nlegislation.
\nMember States may grant more favourable\nconditions for the persons to whom the proposal for Directive\napplies, however only in relation to certain specific provisions\nthat concern family members of researchers, rights to equal\ntreatment, economic activities and procedural\nsafeguards.
\nChapter II – Admission:
\nGeneral principle: an\napplicant who satisfies all the general and specific conditions for\nadmission shall be granted a residence permit or a long-stay visa\nby the Member State where the application has been made. The\nproposal lays down the general conditions that applicants must\nfulfil in order to be admitted to a Member State, besides the\nspecific conditions that apply to the different categories of\nthird-country nationals laid down in the proposal. The general\nconditions are very much in line with those developed in the\nexisting acquis on legal migration, and include valid documents,\nsickness insurance and minimum resources.
\nSpecific conditions:
\n- the specific conditions of admission for\nresearchers which already exist in the Researchers'\nDirective are maintained. The proposal lists the elements that\nshould be contained in the hosting agreement: title and purpose of\nthe research project, the confirmation of the organisation that it\nis hosting the researcher so that he or she can complete the\nresearch project, the start and end date of the research project,\netc. For researchers to be aware of research organisations that can\nenter into hosting agreements, emphasis is placed in the proposal\non the need for the list of approved organisation to be publicly\navailable and up-dated regularly;
\n- for students, the specific conditions are\nthose in the “Students’ Directive”;
\n- for pupils, remunerated and unremunerated\ntrainees, volunteers and au-pairs, the specific\nconditions are that these persons are required to show evidence\nof the organisation that is responsible for their exchange,\ntraining or, volunteering.
\nChapter III – Authorisations and duration of\nresidence: a series of provisions set\nout the information that should be included on the third-country\nnational's residence permit or long-term visa. For researchers\nand students an authorisation should be granted for at least\none year. For all other groups, the authorisation is limited to\none year as a rule, with the possibility for\nexceptions.
\nChapter IV – Grounds for refusal, withdrawal or\nnon-renewal of authorisations: the\nprovisions lay down the mandatory and possible grounds for\nrefusing, withdrawing or not renewing an authorisation, such as the\ngeneral and specific conditions for admission no longer being met,\nfalse documents etc., which are standard conditions under the\nexisting migration Directives.
\nChapter V – Rights:
\nto ensure the fair treatment of third-country\nnationals falling under the scope of the Directive, a new provision\nentitles them to equal treatment under the Single\nPermit Directive. More favourable rights to equal treatment\nwith nationals of the host Member State as regards branches of\nsocial security as defined in Regulation\nNo 883/2004 on the coordination of social security\nschemes are maintained for third-country national researchers,\nwithout the possibility for the limitations laid down by the Single\nPermit Directive. Furthermore, school pupils, volunteers,\nunremunerated trainees and au-pairs will benefit from equal\ntreatment rights with nationals of the host Member State as regards\naccess to goods and services and the supply of goods and\nservices made available to the public independently on whether\nUnion or national law gives them access to the labour\nmarket.
\nRight to work: provisions exist in the proposal\nwhereby researchers and students are given the right to\nwork, with Member States being able\nto set certain limits. Researchers, as was the case under\nDirective 2005/71, are allowed to teach in accordance with national\nlegislation. Regarding students, whereas under Directive\n2004/114/EC students were allowed to work for a minimum of 10 hours\nper week, this period has been increased to 20 hours. With\nrespect to students' access to economic activities, Member States\nmay continue take into consideration their labour market situation\nbut this should be done in a proportionate way in order not\nto systematically endanger the right to work.
\nThe proposal introduces the possibility for students\nand researchers, if they fulfil the general admission conditions of\nthe proposal (except for the condition on being a minor), to stay\nin the Member State for 12 months upon finalisation of their\nstudies/research in order to look for work or set up a\nbusiness. This provision has the potential to make the Member\nStates more competitive in the search for talents on a global\nstage. It would however not be an automatic work permit. In a\nperiod of more than 3 and less than 6 months, Member States could\nask the third-country nationals to provide documentation that they\nare genuinely seeking for a job (for example, copies of the letters\nand CVs sent to employers) or are in the process of setting up a\nbusiness. After 6 months, they could also ask third- country\nnationals to provide evidence that they have a genuine chance of\nbeing engaged or of launching a business.
\nThe proposal includes specific provisions on the\nadmission and access to the labour market of researchers' family\nmembers in derogation to Directive\n2003/86/EC with a view to increasing the EU’s\nattractiveness to third-country national researchers.
\nChapter VI – Mobility between Member\nStates: a series of articles set out\nthe conditions under which researchers, students and trainees can\nmove between the Member States, in order to facilitate such\nmobility:
\nChapter VII – Procedure and\ntransparency: the proposal introduces\na time-limit that obliges Member States to decide on the\ncomplete application for an authorisation and notify the applicant\nin writing within 60 days (applying for all groups), and\nwithin 30 days for Union programmes including mobility\nmeasures. Procedural guarantees include the possibility of a legal\nchallenge against a decision rejecting an application as well as\nthe requirement for the authorities to give reasons for such\ndecisions in writing, and ensuring respect for the right to a legal\nremedy.
\nProvisions are also included in regard to\ncommunication: the Member States would be required to make\ninformation available on the entry and residence conditions as set\nby this proposal, including on approved research organisations and\non fees.
\nTaxes and fees: Member States may charge fees for the processing of\napplications. However, the amount of such fees should not endanger\nthe fulfilment of the Directive's objectives.
\nChapter VIII - Final provisions:\nMember States would be required to establish\nnational contact points to exchange information on third-country\nnationals covered by the proposal who move between Member States.\nSuch national contact points already exist in relation to certain\nexisting migration Directives such as the Blue Card Directive.\nMember States would be required to communicate to the Commission\nstatistics on the numbers of third-country nationals granted\nauthorisations.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU’s budget.
\nPURPOSE: to lay down the conditions of entry and\nresidence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research,\nstudies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training,\nvoluntary service and au pairing.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council (recast of Directives 2005/71/EC and\n2004/114/EC).
\nROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European\nParliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative\nprocedure and on an equal footing with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the European Union’s working age\npopulation has practically stopped growing and over the next couple\nof years it will start shrinking. The EU is also facing a situation\nof 'innovation emergency'. Europe is spending 0.8% of GDP less than\nthe US and 1.5% less than Japan every year on Research &\nDevelopment (R&D). in addition, thousands of the best\nresearchers and innovators have moved to countries where conditions\nare more favorable.
\nTo counterbalance this lack of manpower, immigration\nfrom outside the EU is one source of highly skilled people, and\nthird-country national students and researchers in particular are\ngroups which are increasingly sought after and which the EU needs\nto actively attract.
\nAllowing third-country nationals to acquire skills and\nknowledge through a period of training in Europe encourages\n“brain circulation” and supports cooperation with third\ncountries.
\nHowever, in the absence of a clear legal framework,\nthere is also a risk of exploitation to which trainees and au-pairs\nare particularly exposed, with the subsequent risk of unfair\ncompetition on the labour market.
\nWith a view to better optimising those benefits and\nproperly tackling those risks, and taking account of the\nsimilarities of the challenges faced by these categories of\nmigrants, this proposal amends Council\nDirective 2004/114/EC (“Students’ Directive”) on\nthe conditions of admission of third country nationals for the\npurposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or\nvoluntary service:
\nThe proposal seeks to remedy the shortcomings\nhighlighted in the implementation reports of the two Directives\n[see COM(2011)901\nand 587]\non the conditions of admissions in particular (visas, mobility\naspects…) and procedural safeguards.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the following options were\nconsidered:
\nOption 4 appears to be\nthe most cost-effective option to meet the key objectives and\nbrings about positive economic and social impacts. The main\ndisadvantage of legislative changes would be the costs involved:\nMember States would have to make modifications to their legislative\nframeworks.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 79(2) points (a) and (b) of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the proposal’s overall objective is to\nsupport social, cultural and economic relationships between the EU\nand third countries, foster the transfer of skills and know-how and\npromote competitiveness while, at the same time, provide for\nsafeguards ensuring fair treatment of these groups of third-country\nnationals.
\nChapter I – General provisions: the proposal has two specific objectives:
\nScope: the proposal\nextends the scope of the “Student” Directive to include\nremunerated trainees and au-pairs. The proposal would not,\nhowever, apply to third-country nationals who are EU long-term\nresidents given their more privileged status and their specific\ntype of residence permit, or refugees, those residing in a Member\nState on a strictly temporary basis in accordance with Union\nlegislation.
\nMember States may grant more favourable\nconditions for the persons to whom the proposal for Directive\napplies, however only in relation to certain specific provisions\nthat concern family members of researchers, rights to equal\ntreatment, economic activities and procedural\nsafeguards.
\nChapter II – Admission:
\nGeneral principle: an\napplicant who satisfies all the general and specific conditions for\nadmission shall be granted a residence permit or a long-stay visa\nby the Member State where the application has been made. The\nproposal lays down the general conditions that applicants must\nfulfil in order to be admitted to a Member State, besides the\nspecific conditions that apply to the different categories of\nthird-country nationals laid down in the proposal. The general\nconditions are very much in line with those developed in the\nexisting acquis on legal migration, and include valid documents,\nsickness insurance and minimum resources.
\nSpecific conditions:
\n- the specific conditions of admission for\nresearchers which already exist in the Researchers'\nDirective are maintained. The proposal lists the elements that\nshould be contained in the hosting agreement: title and purpose of\nthe research project, the confirmation of the organisation that it\nis hosting the researcher so that he or she can complete the\nresearch project, the start and end date of the research project,\netc. For researchers to be aware of research organisations that can\nenter into hosting agreements, emphasis is placed in the proposal\non the need for the list of approved organisation to be publicly\navailable and up-dated regularly;
\n- for students, the specific conditions are\nthose in the “Students’ Directive”;
\n- for pupils, remunerated and unremunerated\ntrainees, volunteers and au-pairs, the specific\nconditions are that these persons are required to show evidence\nof the organisation that is responsible for their exchange,\ntraining or, volunteering.
\nChapter III – Authorisations and duration of\nresidence: a series of provisions set\nout the information that should be included on the third-country\nnational's residence permit or long-term visa. For researchers\nand students an authorisation should be granted for at least\none year. For all other groups, the authorisation is limited to\none year as a rule, with the possibility for\nexceptions.
\nChapter IV – Grounds for refusal, withdrawal or\nnon-renewal of authorisations: the\nprovisions lay down the mandatory and possible grounds for\nrefusing, withdrawing or not renewing an authorisation, such as the\ngeneral and specific conditions for admission no longer being met,\nfalse documents etc., which are standard conditions under the\nexisting migration Directives.
\nChapter V – Rights:
\nto ensure the fair treatment of third-country\nnationals falling under the scope of the Directive, a new provision\nentitles them to equal treatment under the Single\nPermit Directive. More favourable rights to equal treatment\nwith nationals of the host Member State as regards branches of\nsocial security as defined in Regulation\nNo 883/2004 on the coordination of social security\nschemes are maintained for third-country national researchers,\nwithout the possibility for the limitations laid down by the Single\nPermit Directive. Furthermore, school pupils, volunteers,\nunremunerated trainees and au-pairs will benefit from equal\ntreatment rights with nationals of the host Member State as regards\naccess to goods and services and the supply of goods and\nservices made available to the public independently on whether\nUnion or national law gives them access to the labour\nmarket.
\nRight to work: provisions exist in the proposal\nwhereby researchers and students are given the right to\nwork, with Member States being able\nto set certain limits. Researchers, as was the case under\nDirective 2005/71, are allowed to teach in accordance with national\nlegislation. Regarding students, whereas under Directive\n2004/114/EC students were allowed to work for a minimum of 10 hours\nper week, this period has been increased to 20 hours. With\nrespect to students' access to economic activities, Member States\nmay continue take into consideration their labour market situation\nbut this should be done in a proportionate way in order not\nto systematically endanger the right to work.
\nThe proposal introduces the possibility for students\nand researchers, if they fulfil the general admission conditions of\nthe proposal (except for the condition on being a minor), to stay\nin the Member State for 12 months upon finalisation of their\nstudies/research in order to look for work or set up a\nbusiness. This provision has the potential to make the Member\nStates more competitive in the search for talents on a global\nstage. It would however not be an automatic work permit. In a\nperiod of more than 3 and less than 6 months, Member States could\nask the third-country nationals to provide documentation that they\nare genuinely seeking for a job (for example, copies of the letters\nand CVs sent to employers) or are in the process of setting up a\nbusiness. After 6 months, they could also ask third- country\nnationals to provide evidence that they have a genuine chance of\nbeing engaged or of launching a business.
\nThe proposal includes specific provisions on the\nadmission and access to the labour market of researchers' family\nmembers in derogation to Directive\n2003/86/EC with a view to increasing the EU’s\nattractiveness to third-country national researchers.
\nChapter VI – Mobility between Member\nStates: a series of articles set out\nthe conditions under which researchers, students and trainees can\nmove between the Member States, in order to facilitate such\nmobility:
\nChapter VII – Procedure and\ntransparency: the proposal introduces\na time-limit that obliges Member States to decide on the\ncomplete application for an authorisation and notify the applicant\nin writing within 60 days (applying for all groups), and\nwithin 30 days for Union programmes including mobility\nmeasures. Procedural guarantees include the possibility of a legal\nchallenge against a decision rejecting an application as well as\nthe requirement for the authorities to give reasons for such\ndecisions in writing, and ensuring respect for the right to a legal\nremedy.
\nProvisions are also included in regard to\ncommunication: the Member States would be required to make\ninformation available on the entry and residence conditions as set\nby this proposal, including on approved research organisations and\non fees.
\nTaxes and fees: Member States may charge fees for the processing of\napplications. However, the amount of such fees should not endanger\nthe fulfilment of the Directive's objectives.
\nChapter VIII - Final provisions:\nMember States would be required to establish\nnational contact points to exchange information on third-country\nnationals covered by the proposal who move between Member States.\nSuch national contact points already exist in relation to certain\nexisting migration Directives such as the Blue Card Directive.\nMember States would be required to communicate to the Commission\nstatistics on the numbers of third-country nationals granted\nauthorisations.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU’s budget.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 to\ninclude some small Pacific islands on the positive list under the\nRegulation (Regulation, Annex II, list of nationals exempt from the\nobligation to be in possession of visas\nwhen crossing the external borders of Member States).
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nCONTEXT: Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 lists the third countries whose nationals must be in\npossession of visas when crossing the external borders (the\nso-called negative list) and those whose nationals are exempt from\nthat requirement (the so-called positive list).
\nThe determination of those third countries whose\nnationals are subject to the visa requirement, and those exempt\nfrom it, is governed by a considered, case-by-case assessment of a\nvariety of criteria relating inter alia to illegal\nimmigration, public policy and security, and to the European\nUnion's external relations with third countries or territories.\nConsideration is also given to the implications of regional\ncoherence and reciprocity. In view of the criteria of public order\nand illegal immigration, particular attention should also be paid\nto the security of travel documents issued by the third countries\nor territories concerned.
\nAs the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 539/2001\ncan evolve over time in relation to third countries, the\ncomposition of the negative and positive lists should be reviewed\nat regular intervals.
\nThis review aims in particular to:
\n· \nensure that the composition of the lists of\nthird countries complies with the criteria set out in Recital 5 of\nthe Regulation, in particular the illegal immigration and public\npolicy criteria and the transfer of countries from one annex to\nanother as appropriate;
\n· \nensure that in accordance with Article 77 (2)\n(a) of the TFEU, the Regulation determines exhaustively whether a\nthird-country national is to be subject to, or exempt from, the\nvisa requirement.
\nAs a result, a new amended version of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 is proposed to add a\ncertain number of States to the positive or negative list of the\nRegulation.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment has been\ncarried out.
\nLEGAL BASE: article 77, par.\n2, point a) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: in line with the approach taken within the\nframework of previous amendments to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, it is proposed\nto:
\n· \ntransfer some countries onto the positive\nlist: the\nimposition of the visa requirement on the nationals of Dominica,\nGrenada, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Saint\nLucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands,\nTimor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu and Vanuatu is no\nlonger justified. These countries do not present any risk\nof illegal immigration or a threat to\npublic policy for the Union in accordance with the criteria set out in recital 5 of Regulation (EC)\nN° 539/2001. Consequently, nationals of those countries should be exempt from the visa\nrequirement for stays of no more than three months in all and references to those countries\nshould be transferred to Annex II. Exemption from the visa\nrequirement should not come into force until bilateral agreements\non visa waiver between the Union and the countries concerned have\nbeen concluded in order to ensure full\nreciprocity.
\n· \ntransfer the groups of “British\nnationals”\nonto the positive list: statistical data show that\nthe groups of British nationals currently listed in point 3\nof Annex I do not pose a risk in terms of\nirregular migration to the Schengen Area and that most of them live\nin islands of the Caribbean region which have strong links and\nsimilarities with neighbouring countries which are exempt from the\nvisa obligation. These groups of British nationals should therefore\nbe exempt from the visa requirement for stays of no more than three\nmonths in all and references to those groups should be transferred\nto Annex II.
\n· \nupdate the negative list (Annex I) by the inclusion of South Sudan: on 9\nJuly 2011, South Sudan declared its independence from Sudan, which\nis on the negative list. On 14 July 2011, the country was granted\nmembership of the United Nations. Annex I should therefore be\namended so as to include South Sudan.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposed amendment has no implications for the Union\nbudget.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 to\ninclude some small Pacific islands on the positive list under the\nRegulation (Regulation, Annex II, list of nationals exempt from the\nobligation to be in possession of visas\nwhen crossing the external borders of Member States).
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nCONTEXT: Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 lists the third countries whose nationals must be in\npossession of visas when crossing the external borders (the\nso-called negative list) and those whose nationals are exempt from\nthat requirement (the so-called positive list).
\nThe determination of those third countries whose\nnationals are subject to the visa requirement, and those exempt\nfrom it, is governed by a considered, case-by-case assessment of a\nvariety of criteria relating inter alia to illegal\nimmigration, public policy and security, and to the European\nUnion's external relations with third countries or territories.\nConsideration is also given to the implications of regional\ncoherence and reciprocity. In view of the criteria of public order\nand illegal immigration, particular attention should also be paid\nto the security of travel documents issued by the third countries\nor territories concerned.
\nAs the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 539/2001\ncan evolve over time in relation to third countries, the\ncomposition of the negative and positive lists should be reviewed\nat regular intervals.
\nThis review aims in particular to:
\n· \nensure that the composition of the lists of\nthird countries complies with the criteria set out in Recital 5 of\nthe Regulation, in particular the illegal immigration and public\npolicy criteria and the transfer of countries from one annex to\nanother as appropriate;
\n· \nensure that in accordance with Article 77 (2)\n(a) of the TFEU, the Regulation determines exhaustively whether a\nthird-country national is to be subject to, or exempt from, the\nvisa requirement.
\nAs a result, a new amended version of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 is proposed to add a\ncertain number of States to the positive or negative list of the\nRegulation.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment has been\ncarried out.
\nLEGAL BASE: article 77, par.\n2, point a) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: in line with the approach taken within the\nframework of previous amendments to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, it is proposed\nto:
\n· \ntransfer some countries onto the positive\nlist: the\nimposition of the visa requirement on the nationals of Dominica,\nGrenada, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Saint\nLucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands,\nTimor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu and Vanuatu is no\nlonger justified. These countries do not present any risk\nof illegal immigration or a threat to\npublic policy for the Union in accordance with the criteria set out in recital 5 of Regulation (EC)\nN° 539/2001. Consequently, nationals of those countries should be exempt from the visa\nrequirement for stays of no more than three months in all and references to those countries\nshould be transferred to Annex II. Exemption from the visa\nrequirement should not come into force until bilateral agreements\non visa waiver between the Union and the countries concerned have\nbeen concluded in order to ensure full\nreciprocity.
\n· \ntransfer the groups of “British\nnationals”\nonto the positive list: statistical data show that\nthe groups of British nationals currently listed in point 3\nof Annex I do not pose a risk in terms of\nirregular migration to the Schengen Area and that most of them live\nin islands of the Caribbean region which have strong links and\nsimilarities with neighbouring countries which are exempt from the\nvisa obligation. These groups of British nationals should therefore\nbe exempt from the visa requirement for stays of no more than three\nmonths in all and references to those groups should be transferred\nto Annex II.
\n· \nupdate the negative list (Annex I) by the inclusion of South Sudan: on 9\nJuly 2011, South Sudan declared its independence from Sudan, which\nis on the negative list. On 14 July 2011, the country was granted\nmembership of the United Nations. Annex I should therefore be\namended so as to include South Sudan.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposed amendment has no implications for the Union\nbudget.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 to\ninclude some small Pacific islands on the positive list under the\nRegulation (Regulation, Annex II, list of nationals exempt from the\nobligation to be in possession of visas\nwhen crossing the external borders of Member States).
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nCONTEXT: Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 lists the third countries whose nationals must be in\npossession of visas when crossing the external borders (the\nso-called negative list) and those whose nationals are exempt from\nthat requirement (the so-called positive list).
\nThe determination of those third countries whose\nnationals are subject to the visa requirement, and those exempt\nfrom it, is governed by a considered, case-by-case assessment of a\nvariety of criteria relating inter alia to illegal\nimmigration, public policy and security, and to the European\nUnion's external relations with third countries or territories.\nConsideration is also given to the implications of regional\ncoherence and reciprocity. In view of the criteria of public order\nand illegal immigration, particular attention should also be paid\nto the security of travel documents issued by the third countries\nor territories concerned.
\nAs the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 539/2001\ncan evolve over time in relation to third countries, the\ncomposition of the negative and positive lists should be reviewed\nat regular intervals.
\nThis review aims in particular to:
\n· \nensure that the composition of the lists of\nthird countries complies with the criteria set out in Recital 5 of\nthe Regulation, in particular the illegal immigration and public\npolicy criteria and the transfer of countries from one annex to\nanother as appropriate;
\n· \nensure that in accordance with Article 77 (2)\n(a) of the TFEU, the Regulation determines exhaustively whether a\nthird-country national is to be subject to, or exempt from, the\nvisa requirement.
\nAs a result, a new amended version of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 is proposed to add a\ncertain number of States to the positive or negative list of the\nRegulation.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment has been\ncarried out.
\nLEGAL BASE: article 77, par.\n2, point a) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: in line with the approach taken within the\nframework of previous amendments to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, it is proposed\nto:
\n· \ntransfer some countries onto the positive\nlist: the\nimposition of the visa requirement on the nationals of Dominica,\nGrenada, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Saint\nLucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands,\nTimor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu and Vanuatu is no\nlonger justified. These countries do not present any risk\nof illegal immigration or a threat to\npublic policy for the Union in accordance with the criteria set out in recital 5 of Regulation (EC)\nN° 539/2001. Consequently, nationals of those countries should be exempt from the visa\nrequirement for stays of no more than three months in all and references to those countries\nshould be transferred to Annex II. Exemption from the visa\nrequirement should not come into force until bilateral agreements\non visa waiver between the Union and the countries concerned have\nbeen concluded in order to ensure full\nreciprocity.
\n· \ntransfer the groups of “British\nnationals”\nonto the positive list: statistical data show that\nthe groups of British nationals currently listed in point 3\nof Annex I do not pose a risk in terms of\nirregular migration to the Schengen Area and that most of them live\nin islands of the Caribbean region which have strong links and\nsimilarities with neighbouring countries which are exempt from the\nvisa obligation. These groups of British nationals should therefore\nbe exempt from the visa requirement for stays of no more than three\nmonths in all and references to those groups should be transferred\nto Annex II.
\n· \nupdate the negative list (Annex I) by the inclusion of South Sudan: on 9\nJuly 2011, South Sudan declared its independence from Sudan, which\nis on the negative list. On 14 July 2011, the country was granted\nmembership of the United Nations. Annex I should therefore be\namended so as to include South Sudan.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposed amendment has no implications for the Union\nbudget.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 to\ninclude some small Pacific islands on the positive list under the\nRegulation (Regulation, Annex II, list of nationals exempt from the\nobligation to be in possession of visas\nwhen crossing the external borders of Member States).
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nCONTEXT: Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 lists the third countries whose nationals must be in\npossession of visas when crossing the external borders (the\nso-called negative list) and those whose nationals are exempt from\nthat requirement (the so-called positive list).
\nThe determination of those third countries whose\nnationals are subject to the visa requirement, and those exempt\nfrom it, is governed by a considered, case-by-case assessment of a\nvariety of criteria relating inter alia to illegal\nimmigration, public policy and security, and to the European\nUnion's external relations with third countries or territories.\nConsideration is also given to the implications of regional\ncoherence and reciprocity. In view of the criteria of public order\nand illegal immigration, particular attention should also be paid\nto the security of travel documents issued by the third countries\nor territories concerned.
\nAs the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 539/2001\ncan evolve over time in relation to third countries, the\ncomposition of the negative and positive lists should be reviewed\nat regular intervals.
\nThis review aims in particular to:
\n· \nensure that the composition of the lists of\nthird countries complies with the criteria set out in Recital 5 of\nthe Regulation, in particular the illegal immigration and public\npolicy criteria and the transfer of countries from one annex to\nanother as appropriate;
\n· \nensure that in accordance with Article 77 (2)\n(a) of the TFEU, the Regulation determines exhaustively whether a\nthird-country national is to be subject to, or exempt from, the\nvisa requirement.
\nAs a result, a new amended version of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 is proposed to add a\ncertain number of States to the positive or negative list of the\nRegulation.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment has been\ncarried out.
\nLEGAL BASE: article 77, par.\n2, point a) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: in line with the approach taken within the\nframework of previous amendments to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, it is proposed\nto:
\n· \ntransfer some countries onto the positive\nlist: the\nimposition of the visa requirement on the nationals of Dominica,\nGrenada, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Saint\nLucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands,\nTimor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu and Vanuatu is no\nlonger justified. These countries do not present any risk\nof illegal immigration or a threat to\npublic policy for the Union in accordance with the criteria set out in recital 5 of Regulation (EC)\nN° 539/2001. Consequently, nationals of those countries should be exempt from the visa\nrequirement for stays of no more than three months in all and references to those countries\nshould be transferred to Annex II. Exemption from the visa\nrequirement should not come into force until bilateral agreements\non visa waiver between the Union and the countries concerned have\nbeen concluded in order to ensure full\nreciprocity.
\n· \ntransfer the groups of “British\nnationals”\nonto the positive list: statistical data show that\nthe groups of British nationals currently listed in point 3\nof Annex I do not pose a risk in terms of\nirregular migration to the Schengen Area and that most of them live\nin islands of the Caribbean region which have strong links and\nsimilarities with neighbouring countries which are exempt from the\nvisa obligation. These groups of British nationals should therefore\nbe exempt from the visa requirement for stays of no more than three\nmonths in all and references to those groups should be transferred\nto Annex II.
\n· \nupdate the negative list (Annex I) by the inclusion of South Sudan: on 9\nJuly 2011, South Sudan declared its independence from Sudan, which\nis on the negative list. On 14 July 2011, the country was granted\nmembership of the United Nations. Annex I should therefore be\namended so as to include South Sudan.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposed amendment has no implications for the Union\nbudget.
\n\nPURPOSE: the conclusion of a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the\nother part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and\nthe Republic of Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of the Republic of Armenia in Union programmes.
\n\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\n\nBACKGROUND: As part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, the\ngradual opening-up of certain Union programmes and agencies to the\nparticipation of European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries\nrepresents one of many measures to promote reform, modernisation\nand transition in the European Union's neighbourhood. This policy\naspect is described more extensively in the Commission's\nCommunication \"on the general approach to enable European\nNeighbourhood Policy partner countries to participate in Community\nagencies and Community programmes\". The Council endorsed this\napproach in its conclusions on 5 March 2007.
\nBased upon this\nCommunication and those conclusions, the Council, on 18 June 2007,\nissued directives to the Commission to negotiate Framework\nAgreements with Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan,\nEgypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, the\nPalestinian Authority, Tunisia and Ukraine, on the general\nprinciples for their participation in Community programmes. A\nnumber of protocols were then signed with some of these\ncountries.
\nIn April 2012,\nArmenia expressed its interest to participate in the broad range of\nprogrammes open to partner countries of the European Neighbourhood\nPolicy. The text of the Protocol negotiated with Armenia is the\nsubject of this proposal and is attached in the annex. It is now\nappropriate to conclude this Protocol on behalf of the European\nUnion.
\n\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was undertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192 of the Treaty on\nthe Functioning of the European Union in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) thereof.
\n\nCONTENT: the Commission presents a proposal for a Council Decision\non the conclusion of a Protocol containing a Framework Agreement on\nthe general principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes. It contains standard stipulations that are intended to\nbe applied to all European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries\nwith which such protocols are to be concluded.
\nThe Protocol\nsets down, in particular, the specific terms and conditions\nregarding the participation of Armenia in each particular\nprogramme, in particular the financial contribution payable and\nreporting and evaluation procedures which shall be determined in\nthe context of an agreement between the European Commission, on\nbehalf of the Union, and Armenia.
\nThe\nnegotiated text also envisages that the Parties apply the\nProtocol's provisions provisionally from the date of its\nsignature.
\nAccording to\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nthe European Parliament shall be requested to give its consent to\nthe conclusion of this Protocol. In parallel, the Commission\nsubmits a proposal for a Council Decision on the signature of the\nsaid Protocol.
\nBUDGETARY\nIMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on the EU's budget.\nArmenia shall contribute financially to the Union's\nbudget according to the specific programmes in which it\nparticipates. To finance its participation, Armenia may request\nassistance under the Regulation laying down general provisions\nestablishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument or\nunder any other similar Regulation governing Union external\nassistance in favour of Armenia.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and Armenia, of the other part, on\na Framework Agreement between the European Union and Armenia on the\ngeneral principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance with a Council Decision, a\nnew Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between\nthe European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,\nand Armenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between\nthe European Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes was signed on behalf\nof the Union.
\nThe Protocol should now be approved on behalf of the\nEuropean Union.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 114, 168, 169 and 172, Article\n173(3), and Articles 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this Council proposal, it is\nproposed to approve, on behalf of the European Union, a draft\nProtocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the\nEuropean Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and\nArmenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes.
\nThe specific terms and conditions regarding the\nparticipation of Armenia in each particular programme, in\nparticular the financial contribution payable and reporting and\nevaluation procedures, shall be determined in a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding between the European Commission and the competent\nauthorities of Armenia on the basis of the criteria established by\nthe programmes concerned.
\nFor further details are regards the main provision of\nthis draft Protocol, as well as the EU’s budgetary\nimplication, please refer to the summary of the\nCommission’s initial legislative proposal dated\n19/09/2012.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and Armenia, of the other part, on\na Framework Agreement between the European Union and Armenia on the\ngeneral principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance with a Council Decision, a\nnew Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between\nthe European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,\nand Armenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between\nthe European Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes was signed on behalf\nof the Union.
\nThe Protocol should now be approved on behalf of the\nEuropean Union.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 114, 168, 169 and 172, Article\n173(3), and Articles 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this Council proposal, it is\nproposed to approve, on behalf of the European Union, a draft\nProtocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the\nEuropean Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and\nArmenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes.
\nThe specific terms and conditions regarding the\nparticipation of Armenia in each particular programme, in\nparticular the financial contribution payable and reporting and\nevaluation procedures, shall be determined in a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding between the European Commission and the competent\nauthorities of Armenia on the basis of the criteria established by\nthe programmes concerned.
\nFor further details are regards the main provision of\nthis draft Protocol, as well as the EU’s budgetary\nimplication, please refer to the summary of the\nCommission’s initial legislative proposal dated\n19/09/2012.
\nPURPOSE: the conclusion of a Protocol to the\nPartnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European\nCommunities and their Member States, of the one part, and the\nRepublic of Armenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement\nbetween the European Union and the Republic of Armenia on the\ngeneral principles for the participation of the Republic of Armenia\nin Union programmes.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND:
\nAs part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, the\ngradual opening-up of certain Union programmes and agencies to the\nparticipation of European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries\nrepresents one of many measures to promote reform, modernisation\nand transition in the European Union’s neighbourhood. This\npolicy aspect is described more extensively in the Commission’s\nCommunication “on the general approach to enable European\nNeighbourhood Policy partner countries to participate in Community\nagencies and Community programmes”. The Council endorsed this\napproach in its conclusions on 5 March 2007.
\nBased upon this Communication and those conclusions,\nthe Council, on 18 June 2007, issued directives to the Commission\nto negotiate Framework Agreements with Algeria, Armenia,\nAzerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova,\nMorocco, the Palestinian Authority, Tunisia and Ukraine, on the\ngeneral principles for their participation in Community programmes.\nA number of protocols were then signed with some of these\ncountries.
\nIn April 2012, Armenia expressed its interest to\nparticipate in the broad range of programmes open to partner\ncountries of the European Neighbourhood Policy. The text of the\nProtocol negotiated with Armenia is the subject of this proposal\nand is attached in the annex. It is now appropriate to conclude\nthis Protocol on behalf of the European Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188\nand 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in\nconjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof.
\nCONTENT: the Commission presents a proposal for a\nCouncil Decision on the conclusion of a Protocol containing a\nFramework Agreement on the general principles for the participation\nof Armenia in Union programmes. It contains standard stipulations\nthat are intended to be applied to all European Neighbourhood\nPolicy partner countries with which such protocols are to be\nconcluded.
\nThe Protocol sets down, in particular, the specific\nterms and conditions regarding the participation of Armenia in each\nparticular programme, in particular the financial contribution\npayable and reporting and evaluation procedures which shall be\ndetermined in the context of an agreement between the European\nCommission, on behalf of the Union, and Armenia.
\nThe negotiated text also envisages that the Parties\napply the Protocol’s provisions provisionally from the date of\nits signature.
\nAccording to 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union, the European Parliament shall be\nrequested to give its consent to the conclusion of this Protocol.\nIn parallel, the Commission submits a proposal for a Council\nDecision on the signature of the said Protocol.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on\nthe EU’s budget. Armenia shall contribute financially to\nthe Union’s budget according to the specific programmes in\nwhich it participates. To finance its participation, Armenia may\nrequest assistance under the Regulation laying down general\nprovisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership\nInstrument or under any other similar Regulation governing Union\nexternal assistance in favour of Armenia.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and Armenia, of the other part, on\na Framework Agreement between the European Union and Armenia on the\ngeneral principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance with a Council Decision, a\nnew Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between\nthe European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,\nand Armenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between\nthe European Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes was signed on behalf\nof the Union.
\nThe Protocol should now be approved on behalf of the\nEuropean Union.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 114, 168, 169 and 172, Article\n173(3), and Articles 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this Council proposal, it is\nproposed to approve, on behalf of the European Union, a draft\nProtocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the\nEuropean Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and\nArmenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes.
\nThe specific terms and conditions regarding the\nparticipation of Armenia in each particular programme, in\nparticular the financial contribution payable and reporting and\nevaluation procedures, shall be determined in a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding between the European Commission and the competent\nauthorities of Armenia on the basis of the criteria established by\nthe programmes concerned.
\nFor further details are regards the main provision of\nthis draft Protocol, as well as the EU’s budgetary\nimplication, please refer to the summary of the\nCommission’s initial legislative proposal dated\n19/09/2012.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and Armenia, of the other part, on\na Framework Agreement between the European Union and Armenia on the\ngeneral principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance with a Council Decision, a\nnew Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between\nthe European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,\nand Armenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between\nthe European Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes was signed on behalf\nof the Union.
\nThe Protocol should now be approved on behalf of the\nEuropean Union.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 114, 168, 169 and 172, Article\n173(3), and Articles 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this Council proposal, it is\nproposed to approve, on behalf of the European Union, a draft\nProtocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the\nEuropean Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and\nArmenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes.
\nThe specific terms and conditions regarding the\nparticipation of Armenia in each particular programme, in\nparticular the financial contribution payable and reporting and\nevaluation procedures, shall be determined in a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding between the European Commission and the competent\nauthorities of Armenia on the basis of the criteria established by\nthe programmes concerned.
\nFor further details are regards the main provision of\nthis draft Protocol, as well as the EU’s budgetary\nimplication, please refer to the summary of the\nCommission’s initial legislative proposal dated\n19/09/2012.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and Armenia, of the other part, on\na Framework Agreement between the European Union and Armenia on the\ngeneral principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance with a Council Decision, a\nnew Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between\nthe European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,\nand Armenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between\nthe European Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes was signed on behalf\nof the Union.
\nThe Protocol should now be approved on behalf of the\nEuropean Union.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 114, 168, 169 and 172, Article\n173(3), and Articles 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this Council proposal, it is\nproposed to approve, on behalf of the European Union, a draft\nProtocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the\nEuropean Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and\nArmenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes.
\nThe specific terms and conditions regarding the\nparticipation of Armenia in each particular programme, in\nparticular the financial contribution payable and reporting and\nevaluation procedures, shall be determined in a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding between the European Commission and the competent\nauthorities of Armenia on the basis of the criteria established by\nthe programmes concerned.
\nFor further details are regards the main provision of\nthis draft Protocol, as well as the EU’s budgetary\nimplication, please refer to the summary of the\nCommission’s initial legislative proposal dated\n19/09/2012.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and Armenia, of the other part, on\na Framework Agreement between the European Union and Armenia on the\ngeneral principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance with a Council Decision, a\nnew Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between\nthe European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,\nand Armenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between\nthe European Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes was signed on behalf\nof the Union.
\nThe Protocol should now be approved on behalf of the\nEuropean Union.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 114, 168, 169 and 172, Article\n173(3), and Articles 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this Council proposal, it is\nproposed to approve, on behalf of the European Union, a draft\nProtocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the\nEuropean Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and\nArmenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes.
\nThe specific terms and conditions regarding the\nparticipation of Armenia in each particular programme, in\nparticular the financial contribution payable and reporting and\nevaluation procedures, shall be determined in a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding between the European Commission and the competent\nauthorities of Armenia on the basis of the criteria established by\nthe programmes concerned.
\nFor further details are regards the main provision of\nthis draft Protocol, as well as the EU’s budgetary\nimplication, please refer to the summary of the\nCommission’s initial legislative proposal dated\n19/09/2012.
\n\nPURPOSE: the conclusion of a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the\nother part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and\nthe Republic of Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of the Republic of Armenia in Union programmes.
\n\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\n\nBACKGROUND: As part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, the\ngradual opening-up of certain Union programmes and agencies to the\nparticipation of European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries\nrepresents one of many measures to promote reform, modernisation\nand transition in the European Union's neighbourhood. This policy\naspect is described more extensively in the Commission's\nCommunication \"on the general approach to enable European\nNeighbourhood Policy partner countries to participate in Community\nagencies and Community programmes\". The Council endorsed this\napproach in its conclusions on 5 March 2007.
\nBased upon this\nCommunication and those conclusions, the Council, on 18 June 2007,\nissued directives to the Commission to negotiate Framework\nAgreements with Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan,\nEgypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, the\nPalestinian Authority, Tunisia and Ukraine, on the general\nprinciples for their participation in Community programmes. A\nnumber of protocols were then signed with some of these\ncountries.
\nIn April 2012,\nArmenia expressed its interest to participate in the broad range of\nprogrammes open to partner countries of the European Neighbourhood\nPolicy. The text of the Protocol negotiated with Armenia is the\nsubject of this proposal and is attached in the annex. It is now\nappropriate to conclude this Protocol on behalf of the European\nUnion.
\n\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was undertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192 of the Treaty on\nthe Functioning of the European Union in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) thereof.
\n\nCONTENT: the Commission presents a proposal for a Council Decision\non the conclusion of a Protocol containing a Framework Agreement on\nthe general principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes. It contains standard stipulations that are intended to\nbe applied to all European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries\nwith which such protocols are to be concluded.
\nThe Protocol\nsets down, in particular, the specific terms and conditions\nregarding the participation of Armenia in each particular\nprogramme, in particular the financial contribution payable and\nreporting and evaluation procedures which shall be determined in\nthe context of an agreement between the European Commission, on\nbehalf of the Union, and Armenia.
\nThe\nnegotiated text also envisages that the Parties apply the\nProtocol's provisions provisionally from the date of its\nsignature.
\nAccording to\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nthe European Parliament shall be requested to give its consent to\nthe conclusion of this Protocol. In parallel, the Commission\nsubmits a proposal for a Council Decision on the signature of the\nsaid Protocol.
\nBUDGETARY\nIMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on the EU's budget.\nArmenia shall contribute financially to the Union's\nbudget according to the specific programmes in which it\nparticipates. To finance its participation, Armenia may request\nassistance under the Regulation laying down general provisions\nestablishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument or\nunder any other similar Regulation governing Union external\nassistance in favour of Armenia.
\n\nPURPOSE: the conclusion of a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the\nother part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and\nthe Republic of Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of the Republic of Armenia in Union programmes.
\n\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\n\nBACKGROUND: As part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, the\ngradual opening-up of certain Union programmes and agencies to the\nparticipation of European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries\nrepresents one of many measures to promote reform, modernisation\nand transition in the European Union's neighbourhood. This policy\naspect is described more extensively in the Commission's\nCommunication \"on the general approach to enable European\nNeighbourhood Policy partner countries to participate in Community\nagencies and Community programmes\". The Council endorsed this\napproach in its conclusions on 5 March 2007.
\nBased upon this\nCommunication and those conclusions, the Council, on 18 June 2007,\nissued directives to the Commission to negotiate Framework\nAgreements with Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan,\nEgypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, the\nPalestinian Authority, Tunisia and Ukraine, on the general\nprinciples for their participation in Community programmes. A\nnumber of protocols were then signed with some of these\ncountries.
\nIn April 2012,\nArmenia expressed its interest to participate in the broad range of\nprogrammes open to partner countries of the European Neighbourhood\nPolicy. The text of the Protocol negotiated with Armenia is the\nsubject of this proposal and is attached in the annex. It is now\nappropriate to conclude this Protocol on behalf of the European\nUnion.
\n\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was undertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192 of the Treaty on\nthe Functioning of the European Union in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) thereof.
\n\nCONTENT: the Commission presents a proposal for a Council Decision\non the conclusion of a Protocol containing a Framework Agreement on\nthe general principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes. It contains standard stipulations that are intended to\nbe applied to all European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries\nwith which such protocols are to be concluded.
\nThe Protocol\nsets down, in particular, the specific terms and conditions\nregarding the participation of Armenia in each particular\nprogramme, in particular the financial contribution payable and\nreporting and evaluation procedures which shall be determined in\nthe context of an agreement between the European Commission, on\nbehalf of the Union, and Armenia.
\nThe\nnegotiated text also envisages that the Parties apply the\nProtocol's provisions provisionally from the date of its\nsignature.
\nAccording to\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nthe European Parliament shall be requested to give its consent to\nthe conclusion of this Protocol. In parallel, the Commission\nsubmits a proposal for a Council Decision on the signature of the\nsaid Protocol.
\nBUDGETARY\nIMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on the EU's budget.\nArmenia shall contribute financially to the Union's\nbudget according to the specific programmes in which it\nparticipates. To finance its participation, Armenia may request\nassistance under the Regulation laying down general provisions\nestablishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument or\nunder any other similar Regulation governing Union external\nassistance in favour of Armenia.
\n\nPURPOSE: the conclusion of a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the\nother part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and\nthe Republic of Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of the Republic of Armenia in Union programmes.
\n\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\n\nBACKGROUND: As part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, the\ngradual opening-up of certain Union programmes and agencies to the\nparticipation of European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries\nrepresents one of many measures to promote reform, modernisation\nand transition in the European Union's neighbourhood. This policy\naspect is described more extensively in the Commission's\nCommunication \"on the general approach to enable European\nNeighbourhood Policy partner countries to participate in Community\nagencies and Community programmes\". The Council endorsed this\napproach in its conclusions on 5 March 2007.
\nBased upon this\nCommunication and those conclusions, the Council, on 18 June 2007,\nissued directives to the Commission to negotiate Framework\nAgreements with Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan,\nEgypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, the\nPalestinian Authority, Tunisia and Ukraine, on the general\nprinciples for their participation in Community programmes. A\nnumber of protocols were then signed with some of these\ncountries.
\nIn April 2012,\nArmenia expressed its interest to participate in the broad range of\nprogrammes open to partner countries of the European Neighbourhood\nPolicy. The text of the Protocol negotiated with Armenia is the\nsubject of this proposal and is attached in the annex. It is now\nappropriate to conclude this Protocol on behalf of the European\nUnion.
\n\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was undertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192 of the Treaty on\nthe Functioning of the European Union in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) thereof.
\n\nCONTENT: the Commission presents a proposal for a Council Decision\non the conclusion of a Protocol containing a Framework Agreement on\nthe general principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes. It contains standard stipulations that are intended to\nbe applied to all European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries\nwith which such protocols are to be concluded.
\nThe Protocol\nsets down, in particular, the specific terms and conditions\nregarding the participation of Armenia in each particular\nprogramme, in particular the financial contribution payable and\nreporting and evaluation procedures which shall be determined in\nthe context of an agreement between the European Commission, on\nbehalf of the Union, and Armenia.
\nThe\nnegotiated text also envisages that the Parties apply the\nProtocol's provisions provisionally from the date of its\nsignature.
\nAccording to\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,\nthe European Parliament shall be requested to give its consent to\nthe conclusion of this Protocol. In parallel, the Commission\nsubmits a proposal for a Council Decision on the signature of the\nsaid Protocol.
\nBUDGETARY\nIMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on the EU's budget.\nArmenia shall contribute financially to the Union's\nbudget according to the specific programmes in which it\nparticipates. To finance its participation, Armenia may request\nassistance under the Regulation laying down general provisions\nestablishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument or\nunder any other similar Regulation governing Union external\nassistance in favour of Armenia.
\nPURPOSE: the conclusion of a Protocol to the\nPartnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European\nCommunities and their Member States, of the one part, and the\nRepublic of Armenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement\nbetween the European Union and the Republic of Armenia on the\ngeneral principles for the participation of the Republic of Armenia\nin Union programmes.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND:
\nAs part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, the\ngradual opening-up of certain Union programmes and agencies to the\nparticipation of European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries\nrepresents one of many measures to promote reform, modernisation\nand transition in the European Union’s neighbourhood. This\npolicy aspect is described more extensively in the Commission’s\nCommunication “on the general approach to enable European\nNeighbourhood Policy partner countries to participate in Community\nagencies and Community programmes”. The Council endorsed this\napproach in its conclusions on 5 March 2007.
\nBased upon this Communication and those conclusions,\nthe Council, on 18 June 2007, issued directives to the Commission\nto negotiate Framework Agreements with Algeria, Armenia,\nAzerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova,\nMorocco, the Palestinian Authority, Tunisia and Ukraine, on the\ngeneral principles for their participation in Community programmes.\nA number of protocols were then signed with some of these\ncountries.
\nIn April 2012, Armenia expressed its interest to\nparticipate in the broad range of programmes open to partner\ncountries of the European Neighbourhood Policy. The text of the\nProtocol negotiated with Armenia is the subject of this proposal\nand is attached in the annex. It is now appropriate to conclude\nthis Protocol on behalf of the European Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188\nand 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in\nconjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof.
\nCONTENT: the Commission presents a proposal for a\nCouncil Decision on the conclusion of a Protocol containing a\nFramework Agreement on the general principles for the participation\nof Armenia in Union programmes. It contains standard stipulations\nthat are intended to be applied to all European Neighbourhood\nPolicy partner countries with which such protocols are to be\nconcluded.
\nThe Protocol sets down, in particular, the specific\nterms and conditions regarding the participation of Armenia in each\nparticular programme, in particular the financial contribution\npayable and reporting and evaluation procedures which shall be\ndetermined in the context of an agreement between the European\nCommission, on behalf of the Union, and Armenia.
\nThe negotiated text also envisages that the Parties\napply the Protocol’s provisions provisionally from the date of\nits signature.
\nAccording to 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union, the European Parliament shall be\nrequested to give its consent to the conclusion of this Protocol.\nIn parallel, the Commission submits a proposal for a Council\nDecision on the signature of the said Protocol.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no impact on\nthe EU’s budget. Armenia shall contribute financially to\nthe Union’s budget according to the specific programmes in\nwhich it participates. To finance its participation, Armenia may\nrequest assistance under the Regulation laying down general\nprovisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership\nInstrument or under any other similar Regulation governing Union\nexternal assistance in favour of Armenia.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and Armenia, of the other part, on\na Framework Agreement between the European Union and Armenia on the\ngeneral principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance with a Council Decision, a\nnew Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between\nthe European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,\nand Armenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between\nthe European Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes was signed on behalf\nof the Union.
\nThe Protocol should now be approved on behalf of the\nEuropean Union.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 114, 168, 169 and 172, Article\n173(3), and Articles 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this Council proposal, it is\nproposed to approve, on behalf of the European Union, a draft\nProtocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the\nEuropean Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and\nArmenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes.
\nThe specific terms and conditions regarding the\nparticipation of Armenia in each particular programme, in\nparticular the financial contribution payable and reporting and\nevaluation procedures, shall be determined in a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding between the European Commission and the competent\nauthorities of Armenia on the basis of the criteria established by\nthe programmes concerned.
\nFor further details are regards the main provision of\nthis draft Protocol, as well as the EU’s budgetary\nimplication, please refer to the summary of the\nCommission’s initial legislative proposal dated\n19/09/2012.
\nPURPOSE: to conclude a Protocol to the Partnership and\nCooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their\nMember States, of the one part, and Armenia, of the other part, on\na Framework Agreement between the European Union and Armenia on the\ngeneral principles for the participation of Armenia in Union\nprogrammes.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: in accordance with a Council Decision, a\nnew Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between\nthe European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,\nand Armenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between\nthe European Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes was signed on behalf\nof the Union.
\nThe Protocol should now be approved on behalf of the\nEuropean Union.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 114, 168, 169 and 172, Article\n173(3), and Articles 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article\n218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union\n(TFEU).
\nCONTENT: under this Council proposal, it is\nproposed to approve, on behalf of the European Union, a draft\nProtocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the\nEuropean Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and\nArmenia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the\nEuropean Union and Armenia on the general principles for the\nparticipation of Armenia in Union programmes.
\nThe specific terms and conditions regarding the\nparticipation of Armenia in each particular programme, in\nparticular the financial contribution payable and reporting and\nevaluation procedures, shall be determined in a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding between the European Commission and the competent\nauthorities of Armenia on the basis of the criteria established by\nthe programmes concerned.
\nFor further details are regards the main provision of\nthis draft Protocol, as well as the EU’s budgetary\nimplication, please refer to the summary of the\nCommission’s initial legislative proposal dated\n19/09/2012.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nThe Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home\nAffairs adopted, following the special legislative procedure\n(consultation of the European Parliament), the report by Edit Bauer\n(EPP, SK) on the proposal for a Council Directive on consular\nprotection for citizens of the Union abroad.
\nThe committee recommends that Parliament amend the\nCommission proposal as follows:
\nRole of EU delegations: Members feel that where unrepresented citizens need\nprotection in third countries efficient cooperation and\ncoordination is required. In this case, not only the assisting\nMember State but also the Union delegation present in a\nthird country and the Member State of origin of the\ncitizen should cooperate closely and ensure consular\nprotection for unrepresented citizens. New provisions laid out in\nthe text set out the role of EU delegations, particularly in cases\nof crisis. In crisis situations, the Union delegations\nshould ensure the necessary coordination among Member States,\nincluding facilitating assistance to unrepresented\ncitizens.
\nConsular cooperation:\nnoting that local consular cooperation may be more complex for\nunrepresented citizens, as it requires coordination with\nauthorities not represented on the ground, Members feel that a\nstable framework should be ensured. Accordingly, they insert a new\nChapter on the general principles of local consular protection\ncooperation and coordination.
\nLocal consular cooperation should pay due attention to\nunrepresented citizens, for example by collecting the relevant\ncontact details of the nearest regional embassies and consulates of\nMember States. Amongst other things, local consular cooperation\nshould pay due attention to unrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest\nregional embassies and consulates of Member States. In order to\nfacilitate and improve consular protection for unrepresented\ncitizens, the Commission should establish practical\nguidelines. Members feel that consular protection shall also\nextend to all other situations where the Member State\nrepresented would habitually provide assistance to its own\ncitizens.
\nArrangements and burden sharing: in order to provide unrepresented citizens with\nconsular protection and ensure the effective treatment of\napplications, Member States' representations\nand where relevant,\nthe Union delegation may conclude local\narrangements on burden sharing and the exchange of\ninformation. After notification to local authorities,\nsuch local arrangements shall be reported to\nthe Commission and to the EEAS and published on the\nCommission's website and on the relevant websites of the Member\nStates concerned. Those arrangements shall fully respect the\nprovisions of the Directive.
\nConsular protection in everyday situations and crisis\nsituations: Members stress that\nconsular protection should cover assistance in a certain number of\neveryday situations, and also in crisis situations.\nEveryday cases of consular protection may cover arrest or\ndetention. In this respect, the text provides that special\nsituations should be taken into account, in particular when victims\nof trafficking in human beings are arrested or detained for\ncommitting crimes as a direct consequence of being\ntrafficked.
\nIn all cases, minimum standards of detention\nconditions must be monitored action taken in order to prevent\nill-treatment and ensure that minimum standards of detention\nconditions are granted. Where an unrepresented citizen is the\nvictim of a crime or in danger of being victim of a crime, he must\nbe provided with information on his/her rights and with access to\nproper legal assistance and counselling:
\n\n· \nif the citizen of the Union is unable to produce\na valid passport or identity card, (for example, due to theft) the\nassisting embassy or consulate shall provide unrepresented\ncitizens with the necessary means for verifying their\nidentity;
\n\n· \nin crisis situations, Union delegations shall\nensure coordination amongst Member States and shall coordinate any evacuation or other necessary\nsupport provided for an unrepresented citizen with the citizen's\nMember State of nationality.
\nRole and funding of EEAS: to be able to fulfil the role of coordination,\nMembers propose that the European External Action Service (EEAS)\nshould be provided with the necessary financial means, including\nfor the training of Member States' consular staff. The EEAS should\norganise training for consular staff in order to facilitate\nassistance to citizens, including unrepresented citizens as a part\nof preparation for crisis situations.
\nExtending consular protection for refugees and\nstateless persons: Members consider\nthat the assisting Member State should consider providing\nprotection to recognised refugees and stateless persons and other\npersons who do not hold the nationality of any Member State but who\nreside in one of the Member States and are holders of a travel\ndocument issued by that Member State, taking into account their\nparticular situation.
\nRecourse to an interpreter: for effective coordination and cooperation between\nMember States' consular authorities, it is important to establish\nthe different types of assistance which are delivered in specific\nsituations. Those types of assistance should reflect the common\npractices among Member States, and Members consider that it should\nbe ensured that language barriers are overcome and unrepresented\ncitizens are provided with interpretation or other necessary\nassistance.
\nTraining for consular staff: training courses should be organised for consular\nstaff in order to improve cooperation and increase their knowledge\nof citizens' rights under the Treaties and this\nDirective.
\nTrust funds: Members\nfeel that Member States should consider establishing a \"trust\nfund\" for consular protection, from which the embassy or\nconsulate of the assisting Member State could advance its expenses\nfor assisting an unrepresented citizen and into which the Member\nStates of the assisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the\nfinancial advance. The Commission, acting in cooperation with the\nMember States, should establish clear rules defining the division\nof financial burdens for the proper functioning of such a\nfund.
\nHotline: the committee\nproposes that the Commission should consider establishing a 24/7\nhotline in order to make information easily accessible for\nthose citizens seeking consular protection in cases of\nemergency.
\nInformation on website of Foreign\nMinistries: Member States should\nencourage their own nationals to register themselves on the\nwebsites of their Ministries for Foreign Affairs before visiting\nthird countries in order to facilitate their assistance in cases of\nneed, in particular in crisis situations.
\nMember States shall make available, on the websites of\ntheir Ministries for Foreign Affairs, information on their\ncitizens' right to seek, in a third country in which those Member\nStates are not represented, consular protection, in accordance with\nthis Directive, from the diplomatic or consular authorities of\nanother Member State , and on the conditions of the exercise of\nthat right.
\nDelegated powers: the\nreport states that in order to ensure the swift and efficient\nfunctioning of the Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion should be delegated to the Commission in respect of any\namendment to the Annexes which consist of forms which may\nneed to be updated from time to time. It is of particular\nimportance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations\nduring its preparatory work, including at expert level. The\nCommission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should\nensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of\nrelevant documents to the European Parliament and the\nCouncil.
\nLastly, it should be noted that Members stipulate that\nthe Directive should not impose any obligations on the Member\nStates to provide unrepresented citizens with those types of\nassistance that are not provided to their own\nnationals.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 596 votes to 66\nwith 12 abstentions, in the framework of a special legislative\nprocedure (consultation of Parliament), a legislative resolution on\nthe proposal for a Council Directive on consular protection for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nParliament approved the Commission proposal, stressing\nat the same time the essential role of this legislation for the\nimplementation of the right of citizens of the Union to protection\nin the territory of third countries, as stated in Article 35 of the\nTreaty on European Union. The main aim of the Directive is thus to\nensure that Member States' diplomatic and consular authorities\nshall closely cooperate and coordinate among each other and with\nthe Union to ensure protection of unrepresented citizens under the\nsame conditions as for nationals.
\nThe main amendments may be summarised as\nfollows:
\nRole of EU delegations:\nParliament feels that where\nunrepresented citizens need protection in third countries efficient\ncooperation and coordination is required. In this case, not only\nthe assisting Member State but also the Union delegation\npresent in a third country and the Member State of origin of the\ncitizen should cooperate closely and ensure consular\nprotection for unrepresented citizens. New provisions laid out in\nthe text set out the role of EU delegations, particularly in cases\nof crisis. In crisis situations, the Union delegations\nshould ensure the necessary coordination among Member States,\nincluding facilitating assistance to unrepresented\ncitizens.
\n\nConsular\ncooperation:\nnoting that local consular cooperation may be more complex for\nunrepresented citizens, as it requires coordination with\nauthorities not represented on the ground, Members feel that a\nstable framework should be ensured. Accordingly, they insert a new\nChapter on the general principles of local consular protection\ncooperation and coordination.
\n\nLocal consular cooperation\nshould pay due attention to unrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest regional\nembassies and consulates of Member States. Amongst other\nthings, local consular cooperation should pay due attention to\nunrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest\nregional embassies and consulates of Member States. In order to\nfacilitate and improve consular protection for unrepresented\ncitizens, the Commission should establish practical\nguidelines.
\nThere are also provisions in the text regarding local\ncooperation, stressing the need to organise local cooperation\nmeetings which must include a regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented citizens.
\nIn general, Members feel that consular protection shall\nalso extend to all other situations where the Member State\nrepresented would habitually provide assistance to its own\ncitizens.
\nArrangements and burden\nsharing: in order\nto provide unrepresented citizens with consular protection and\nensure the effective treatment of applications, Member States'\nrepresentations and where relevant, the Union delegation may\nconclude local arrangements on burden sharing and the exchange\nof information. After notification to local authorities, such\nlocal arrangements shall be reported to the Commission and to the\nEEAS and published on the Commission's website and on the relevant\nwebsites of the Member States concerned. Those arrangements shall\nfully respect the provisions of the Directive.
\n\nConsular protection in\neveryday situations and crisis situations: Parliament stresses that\nconsular protection should cover assistance in a certain number of\neveryday situations, and also in crisis situations.\nEveryday cases of consular protection may cover arrest or\ndetention. In this respect, the text provides that special\nsituations should be taken into account, in particular when victims\nof trafficking in human beings are arrested or detained for\ncommitting crimes as a direct consequence of being\ntrafficked.
\n\nIn all cases, action\nmust be taken in order to prevent ill treatment and ensure that\nminimum standards of detention conditions are granted. Where an\nunrepresented citizen is the victim of a crime or in danger of\nbeing victim of a crime, he must be provided with information on\nhis/her rights and with access to proper legal assistance and\ncounselling:
\n· \nif the citizen of the Union\nis unable to produce a valid passport or identity card, (for\nexample, due to theft) the assisting embassy or consulate shall\nprovide unrepresented citizens with the necessary means for\nverifying their identity;
\n· \nin crisis situations,\nUnion delegations (and not the lead State or States in charge of\ncoordination, as provided in the initial proposal) shall ensure\ncoordination amongst Member States and shall coordinate any evacuation or other\nnecessary support provided for an unrepresented citizen with the\ncitizen's Member State of nationality.
\n\nRole and funding of\nEEAS: to be able\nto fulfil the role of coordination, Parliament proposes that the\nEuropean External Action Service (EEAS) should be provided with the\nnecessary financial means, including for the training of Member\nStates' consular staff. The EEAS should organise training for\nconsular staff in order to facilitate assistance to citizens,\nincluding unrepresented citizens as a part of preparation for\ncrisis situations.
\nExtending consular protection for refugees and\nstateless persons: Parliament\nconsiders that the assisting Member State should consider providing\nprotection to recognised refugees and stateless persons and other\npersons who do not hold the nationality of any Member State but who\nreside in one of the Member States and are holders of a travel\ndocument issued by that Member State, taking into account their\nparticular situation.
\nFamily members of unrepresented citizens of the\nEU: family members of unrepresented\ncitizens who themselves are not citizens of the Union are entitled\nto consular protection under the same conditions as the family\nmembers of nationals of the Member State of origin, or to\nconsular protection by a Union delegation.
\n\nRecourse to an\ninterpreter: for\neffective coordination and cooperation between Member States'\nconsular authorities, it is important to establish the different\ntypes of assistance which are delivered in specific situations.\nThose types of assistance should reflect the common practices among\nMember States, and Members consider that it should be ensured that\nlanguage barriers are overcome and unrepresented citizens are\nprovided with interpretation or other necessary\nassistance.
\n\nTraining for consular\nstaff: Parliament\nstates that training courses should be organised for consular staff\nin order to improve cooperation and increase their knowledge of\ncitizens' rights under the Treaties and this Directive.
\nTrust funds: Parliament feels that Member\nStates should consider establishing a \"trust fund\" for consular\nprotection, from which the embassy or consulate of the\nassisting Member State could advance its expenses for assisting an\nunrepresented citizen and into which the Member States of the\nassisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the financial\nadvance. The Commission, acting in cooperation with the Member\nStates, should establish clear rules defining the division of\nfinancial burdens for the proper functioning of such a\nfund.
\n\nHotline: Parliament proposes that the\nCommission should consider establishing a 24/7 hotline in\norder to make information easily accessible for those citizens\nseeking consular protection in cases of emergency.
\n\nInformation on website of\nForeign Ministries: Member States should encourage their own\nnationals to register themselves on the websites of their\nMinistries for Foreign Affairs before visiting third countries in\norder to facilitate their assistance in cases of need, in\nparticular in crisis situations.
\n\nMember States shall make\navailable, on the websites of their Ministries for Foreign Affairs,\ninformation on their citizens' right to seek, in a third country in\nwhich those Member States are not represented, consular protection,\nin accordance with this Directive, from the diplomatic or consular\nauthorities of another Member State, and on the conditions of the\nexercise of that right.
\n\nDelegated\npowers:\nParliament states that in order to ensure the swift and efficient\nfunctioning of the Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion should be delegated to the Commission in respect of\nany amendment to the Annexes which consist of\nforms which may need to be updated from time to time. It is of\nparticular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate\nconsultations during its preparatory work, including at expert\nlevel. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated\nacts, should ensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate\ntransmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and\nthe Council.
\n\nLastly, it should be noted\nthat Parliament stipulates that the Directive should not\nimpose any obligations on the Member States to provide\nunrepresented citizens with those types of assistance that are not\nprovided to their own nationals.
\nThe Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home\nAffairs adopted, following the special legislative procedure\n(consultation of the European Parliament), the report by Edit Bauer\n(EPP, SK) on the proposal for a Council Directive on consular\nprotection for citizens of the Union abroad.
\nThe committee recommends that Parliament amend the\nCommission proposal as follows:
\nRole of EU delegations: Members feel that where unrepresented citizens need\nprotection in third countries efficient cooperation and\ncoordination is required. In this case, not only the assisting\nMember State but also the Union delegation present in a\nthird country and the Member State of origin of the\ncitizen should cooperate closely and ensure consular\nprotection for unrepresented citizens. New provisions laid out in\nthe text set out the role of EU delegations, particularly in cases\nof crisis. In crisis situations, the Union delegations\nshould ensure the necessary coordination among Member States,\nincluding facilitating assistance to unrepresented\ncitizens.
\nConsular cooperation:\nnoting that local consular cooperation may be more complex for\nunrepresented citizens, as it requires coordination with\nauthorities not represented on the ground, Members feel that a\nstable framework should be ensured. Accordingly, they insert a new\nChapter on the general principles of local consular protection\ncooperation and coordination.
\nLocal consular cooperation should pay due attention to\nunrepresented citizens, for example by collecting the relevant\ncontact details of the nearest regional embassies and consulates of\nMember States. Amongst other things, local consular cooperation\nshould pay due attention to unrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest\nregional embassies and consulates of Member States. In order to\nfacilitate and improve consular protection for unrepresented\ncitizens, the Commission should establish practical\nguidelines. Members feel that consular protection shall also\nextend to all other situations where the Member State\nrepresented would habitually provide assistance to its own\ncitizens.
\nArrangements and burden sharing: in order to provide unrepresented citizens with\nconsular protection and ensure the effective treatment of\napplications, Member States' representations\nand where relevant,\nthe Union delegation may conclude local\narrangements on burden sharing and the exchange of\ninformation. After notification to local authorities,\nsuch local arrangements shall be reported to\nthe Commission and to the EEAS and published on the\nCommission's website and on the relevant websites of the Member\nStates concerned. Those arrangements shall fully respect the\nprovisions of the Directive.
\nConsular protection in everyday situations and crisis\nsituations: Members stress that\nconsular protection should cover assistance in a certain number of\neveryday situations, and also in crisis situations.\nEveryday cases of consular protection may cover arrest or\ndetention. In this respect, the text provides that special\nsituations should be taken into account, in particular when victims\nof trafficking in human beings are arrested or detained for\ncommitting crimes as a direct consequence of being\ntrafficked.
\nIn all cases, minimum standards of detention\nconditions must be monitored action taken in order to prevent\nill-treatment and ensure that minimum standards of detention\nconditions are granted. Where an unrepresented citizen is the\nvictim of a crime or in danger of being victim of a crime, he must\nbe provided with information on his/her rights and with access to\nproper legal assistance and counselling:
\n\n· \nif the citizen of the Union is unable to produce\na valid passport or identity card, (for example, due to theft) the\nassisting embassy or consulate shall provide unrepresented\ncitizens with the necessary means for verifying their\nidentity;
\n\n· \nin crisis situations, Union delegations shall\nensure coordination amongst Member States and shall coordinate any evacuation or other necessary\nsupport provided for an unrepresented citizen with the citizen's\nMember State of nationality.
\nRole and funding of EEAS: to be able to fulfil the role of coordination,\nMembers propose that the European External Action Service (EEAS)\nshould be provided with the necessary financial means, including\nfor the training of Member States' consular staff. The EEAS should\norganise training for consular staff in order to facilitate\nassistance to citizens, including unrepresented citizens as a part\nof preparation for crisis situations.
\nExtending consular protection for refugees and\nstateless persons: Members consider\nthat the assisting Member State should consider providing\nprotection to recognised refugees and stateless persons and other\npersons who do not hold the nationality of any Member State but who\nreside in one of the Member States and are holders of a travel\ndocument issued by that Member State, taking into account their\nparticular situation.
\nRecourse to an interpreter: for effective coordination and cooperation between\nMember States' consular authorities, it is important to establish\nthe different types of assistance which are delivered in specific\nsituations. Those types of assistance should reflect the common\npractices among Member States, and Members consider that it should\nbe ensured that language barriers are overcome and unrepresented\ncitizens are provided with interpretation or other necessary\nassistance.
\nTraining for consular staff: training courses should be organised for consular\nstaff in order to improve cooperation and increase their knowledge\nof citizens' rights under the Treaties and this\nDirective.
\nTrust funds: Members\nfeel that Member States should consider establishing a \"trust\nfund\" for consular protection, from which the embassy or\nconsulate of the assisting Member State could advance its expenses\nfor assisting an unrepresented citizen and into which the Member\nStates of the assisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the\nfinancial advance. The Commission, acting in cooperation with the\nMember States, should establish clear rules defining the division\nof financial burdens for the proper functioning of such a\nfund.
\nHotline: the committee\nproposes that the Commission should consider establishing a 24/7\nhotline in order to make information easily accessible for\nthose citizens seeking consular protection in cases of\nemergency.
\nInformation on website of Foreign\nMinistries: Member States should\nencourage their own nationals to register themselves on the\nwebsites of their Ministries for Foreign Affairs before visiting\nthird countries in order to facilitate their assistance in cases of\nneed, in particular in crisis situations.
\nMember States shall make available, on the websites of\ntheir Ministries for Foreign Affairs, information on their\ncitizens' right to seek, in a third country in which those Member\nStates are not represented, consular protection, in accordance with\nthis Directive, from the diplomatic or consular authorities of\nanother Member State , and on the conditions of the exercise of\nthat right.
\nDelegated powers: the\nreport states that in order to ensure the swift and efficient\nfunctioning of the Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion should be delegated to the Commission in respect of any\namendment to the Annexes which consist of forms which may\nneed to be updated from time to time. It is of particular\nimportance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations\nduring its preparatory work, including at expert level. The\nCommission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should\nensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of\nrelevant documents to the European Parliament and the\nCouncil.
\nLastly, it should be noted that Members stipulate that\nthe Directive should not impose any obligations on the Member\nStates to provide unrepresented citizens with those types of\nassistance that are not provided to their own\nnationals.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 596 votes to 66\nwith 12 abstentions, in the framework of a special legislative\nprocedure (consultation of Parliament), a legislative resolution on\nthe proposal for a Council Directive on consular protection for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nParliament approved the Commission proposal, stressing\nat the same time the essential role of this legislation for the\nimplementation of the right of citizens of the Union to protection\nin the territory of third countries, as stated in Article 35 of the\nTreaty on European Union. The main aim of the Directive is thus to\nensure that Member States' diplomatic and consular authorities\nshall closely cooperate and coordinate among each other and with\nthe Union to ensure protection of unrepresented citizens under the\nsame conditions as for nationals.
\nThe main amendments may be summarised as\nfollows:
\nRole of EU delegations:\nParliament feels that where\nunrepresented citizens need protection in third countries efficient\ncooperation and coordination is required. In this case, not only\nthe assisting Member State but also the Union delegation\npresent in a third country and the Member State of origin of the\ncitizen should cooperate closely and ensure consular\nprotection for unrepresented citizens. New provisions laid out in\nthe text set out the role of EU delegations, particularly in cases\nof crisis. In crisis situations, the Union delegations\nshould ensure the necessary coordination among Member States,\nincluding facilitating assistance to unrepresented\ncitizens.
\n\nConsular\ncooperation:\nnoting that local consular cooperation may be more complex for\nunrepresented citizens, as it requires coordination with\nauthorities not represented on the ground, Members feel that a\nstable framework should be ensured. Accordingly, they insert a new\nChapter on the general principles of local consular protection\ncooperation and coordination.
\n\nLocal consular cooperation\nshould pay due attention to unrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest regional\nembassies and consulates of Member States. Amongst other\nthings, local consular cooperation should pay due attention to\nunrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest\nregional embassies and consulates of Member States. In order to\nfacilitate and improve consular protection for unrepresented\ncitizens, the Commission should establish practical\nguidelines.
\nThere are also provisions in the text regarding local\ncooperation, stressing the need to organise local cooperation\nmeetings which must include a regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented citizens.
\nIn general, Members feel that consular protection shall\nalso extend to all other situations where the Member State\nrepresented would habitually provide assistance to its own\ncitizens.
\nArrangements and burden\nsharing: in order\nto provide unrepresented citizens with consular protection and\nensure the effective treatment of applications, Member States'\nrepresentations and where relevant, the Union delegation may\nconclude local arrangements on burden sharing and the exchange\nof information. After notification to local authorities, such\nlocal arrangements shall be reported to the Commission and to the\nEEAS and published on the Commission's website and on the relevant\nwebsites of the Member States concerned. Those arrangements shall\nfully respect the provisions of the Directive.
\n\nConsular protection in\neveryday situations and crisis situations: Parliament stresses that\nconsular protection should cover assistance in a certain number of\neveryday situations, and also in crisis situations.\nEveryday cases of consular protection may cover arrest or\ndetention. In this respect, the text provides that special\nsituations should be taken into account, in particular when victims\nof trafficking in human beings are arrested or detained for\ncommitting crimes as a direct consequence of being\ntrafficked.
\n\nIn all cases, action\nmust be taken in order to prevent ill treatment and ensure that\nminimum standards of detention conditions are granted. Where an\nunrepresented citizen is the victim of a crime or in danger of\nbeing victim of a crime, he must be provided with information on\nhis/her rights and with access to proper legal assistance and\ncounselling:
\n· \nif the citizen of the Union\nis unable to produce a valid passport or identity card, (for\nexample, due to theft) the assisting embassy or consulate shall\nprovide unrepresented citizens with the necessary means for\nverifying their identity;
\n· \nin crisis situations,\nUnion delegations (and not the lead State or States in charge of\ncoordination, as provided in the initial proposal) shall ensure\ncoordination amongst Member States and shall coordinate any evacuation or other\nnecessary support provided for an unrepresented citizen with the\ncitizen's Member State of nationality.
\n\nRole and funding of\nEEAS: to be able\nto fulfil the role of coordination, Parliament proposes that the\nEuropean External Action Service (EEAS) should be provided with the\nnecessary financial means, including for the training of Member\nStates' consular staff. The EEAS should organise training for\nconsular staff in order to facilitate assistance to citizens,\nincluding unrepresented citizens as a part of preparation for\ncrisis situations.
\nExtending consular protection for refugees and\nstateless persons: Parliament\nconsiders that the assisting Member State should consider providing\nprotection to recognised refugees and stateless persons and other\npersons who do not hold the nationality of any Member State but who\nreside in one of the Member States and are holders of a travel\ndocument issued by that Member State, taking into account their\nparticular situation.
\nFamily members of unrepresented citizens of the\nEU: family members of unrepresented\ncitizens who themselves are not citizens of the Union are entitled\nto consular protection under the same conditions as the family\nmembers of nationals of the Member State of origin, or to\nconsular protection by a Union delegation.
\n\nRecourse to an\ninterpreter: for\neffective coordination and cooperation between Member States'\nconsular authorities, it is important to establish the different\ntypes of assistance which are delivered in specific situations.\nThose types of assistance should reflect the common practices among\nMember States, and Members consider that it should be ensured that\nlanguage barriers are overcome and unrepresented citizens are\nprovided with interpretation or other necessary\nassistance.
\n\nTraining for consular\nstaff: Parliament\nstates that training courses should be organised for consular staff\nin order to improve cooperation and increase their knowledge of\ncitizens' rights under the Treaties and this Directive.
\nTrust funds: Parliament feels that Member\nStates should consider establishing a \"trust fund\" for consular\nprotection, from which the embassy or consulate of the\nassisting Member State could advance its expenses for assisting an\nunrepresented citizen and into which the Member States of the\nassisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the financial\nadvance. The Commission, acting in cooperation with the Member\nStates, should establish clear rules defining the division of\nfinancial burdens for the proper functioning of such a\nfund.
\n\nHotline: Parliament proposes that the\nCommission should consider establishing a 24/7 hotline in\norder to make information easily accessible for those citizens\nseeking consular protection in cases of emergency.
\n\nInformation on website of\nForeign Ministries: Member States should encourage their own\nnationals to register themselves on the websites of their\nMinistries for Foreign Affairs before visiting third countries in\norder to facilitate their assistance in cases of need, in\nparticular in crisis situations.
\n\nMember States shall make\navailable, on the websites of their Ministries for Foreign Affairs,\ninformation on their citizens' right to seek, in a third country in\nwhich those Member States are not represented, consular protection,\nin accordance with this Directive, from the diplomatic or consular\nauthorities of another Member State, and on the conditions of the\nexercise of that right.
\n\nDelegated\npowers:\nParliament states that in order to ensure the swift and efficient\nfunctioning of the Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion should be delegated to the Commission in respect of\nany amendment to the Annexes which consist of\nforms which may need to be updated from time to time. It is of\nparticular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate\nconsultations during its preparatory work, including at expert\nlevel. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated\nacts, should ensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate\ntransmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and\nthe Council.
\n\nLastly, it should be noted\nthat Parliament stipulates that the Directive should not\nimpose any obligations on the Member States to provide\nunrepresented citizens with those types of assistance that are not\nprovided to their own nationals.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nThe Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home\nAffairs adopted, following the special legislative procedure\n(consultation of the European Parliament), the report by Edit Bauer\n(EPP, SK) on the proposal for a Council Directive on consular\nprotection for citizens of the Union abroad.
\nThe committee recommends that Parliament amend the\nCommission proposal as follows:
\nRole of EU delegations: Members feel that where unrepresented citizens need\nprotection in third countries efficient cooperation and\ncoordination is required. In this case, not only the assisting\nMember State but also the Union delegation present in a\nthird country and the Member State of origin of the\ncitizen should cooperate closely and ensure consular\nprotection for unrepresented citizens. New provisions laid out in\nthe text set out the role of EU delegations, particularly in cases\nof crisis. In crisis situations, the Union delegations\nshould ensure the necessary coordination among Member States,\nincluding facilitating assistance to unrepresented\ncitizens.
\nConsular cooperation:\nnoting that local consular cooperation may be more complex for\nunrepresented citizens, as it requires coordination with\nauthorities not represented on the ground, Members feel that a\nstable framework should be ensured. Accordingly, they insert a new\nChapter on the general principles of local consular protection\ncooperation and coordination.
\nLocal consular cooperation should pay due attention to\nunrepresented citizens, for example by collecting the relevant\ncontact details of the nearest regional embassies and consulates of\nMember States. Amongst other things, local consular cooperation\nshould pay due attention to unrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest\nregional embassies and consulates of Member States. In order to\nfacilitate and improve consular protection for unrepresented\ncitizens, the Commission should establish practical\nguidelines. Members feel that consular protection shall also\nextend to all other situations where the Member State\nrepresented would habitually provide assistance to its own\ncitizens.
\nArrangements and burden sharing: in order to provide unrepresented citizens with\nconsular protection and ensure the effective treatment of\napplications, Member States' representations\nand where relevant,\nthe Union delegation may conclude local\narrangements on burden sharing and the exchange of\ninformation. After notification to local authorities,\nsuch local arrangements shall be reported to\nthe Commission and to the EEAS and published on the\nCommission's website and on the relevant websites of the Member\nStates concerned. Those arrangements shall fully respect the\nprovisions of the Directive.
\nConsular protection in everyday situations and crisis\nsituations: Members stress that\nconsular protection should cover assistance in a certain number of\neveryday situations, and also in crisis situations.\nEveryday cases of consular protection may cover arrest or\ndetention. In this respect, the text provides that special\nsituations should be taken into account, in particular when victims\nof trafficking in human beings are arrested or detained for\ncommitting crimes as a direct consequence of being\ntrafficked.
\nIn all cases, minimum standards of detention\nconditions must be monitored action taken in order to prevent\nill-treatment and ensure that minimum standards of detention\nconditions are granted. Where an unrepresented citizen is the\nvictim of a crime or in danger of being victim of a crime, he must\nbe provided with information on his/her rights and with access to\nproper legal assistance and counselling:
\n\n· \nif the citizen of the Union is unable to produce\na valid passport or identity card, (for example, due to theft) the\nassisting embassy or consulate shall provide unrepresented\ncitizens with the necessary means for verifying their\nidentity;
\n\n· \nin crisis situations, Union delegations shall\nensure coordination amongst Member States and shall coordinate any evacuation or other necessary\nsupport provided for an unrepresented citizen with the citizen's\nMember State of nationality.
\nRole and funding of EEAS: to be able to fulfil the role of coordination,\nMembers propose that the European External Action Service (EEAS)\nshould be provided with the necessary financial means, including\nfor the training of Member States' consular staff. The EEAS should\norganise training for consular staff in order to facilitate\nassistance to citizens, including unrepresented citizens as a part\nof preparation for crisis situations.
\nExtending consular protection for refugees and\nstateless persons: Members consider\nthat the assisting Member State should consider providing\nprotection to recognised refugees and stateless persons and other\npersons who do not hold the nationality of any Member State but who\nreside in one of the Member States and are holders of a travel\ndocument issued by that Member State, taking into account their\nparticular situation.
\nRecourse to an interpreter: for effective coordination and cooperation between\nMember States' consular authorities, it is important to establish\nthe different types of assistance which are delivered in specific\nsituations. Those types of assistance should reflect the common\npractices among Member States, and Members consider that it should\nbe ensured that language barriers are overcome and unrepresented\ncitizens are provided with interpretation or other necessary\nassistance.
\nTraining for consular staff: training courses should be organised for consular\nstaff in order to improve cooperation and increase their knowledge\nof citizens' rights under the Treaties and this\nDirective.
\nTrust funds: Members\nfeel that Member States should consider establishing a \"trust\nfund\" for consular protection, from which the embassy or\nconsulate of the assisting Member State could advance its expenses\nfor assisting an unrepresented citizen and into which the Member\nStates of the assisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the\nfinancial advance. The Commission, acting in cooperation with the\nMember States, should establish clear rules defining the division\nof financial burdens for the proper functioning of such a\nfund.
\nHotline: the committee\nproposes that the Commission should consider establishing a 24/7\nhotline in order to make information easily accessible for\nthose citizens seeking consular protection in cases of\nemergency.
\nInformation on website of Foreign\nMinistries: Member States should\nencourage their own nationals to register themselves on the\nwebsites of their Ministries for Foreign Affairs before visiting\nthird countries in order to facilitate their assistance in cases of\nneed, in particular in crisis situations.
\nMember States shall make available, on the websites of\ntheir Ministries for Foreign Affairs, information on their\ncitizens' right to seek, in a third country in which those Member\nStates are not represented, consular protection, in accordance with\nthis Directive, from the diplomatic or consular authorities of\nanother Member State , and on the conditions of the exercise of\nthat right.
\nDelegated powers: the\nreport states that in order to ensure the swift and efficient\nfunctioning of the Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion should be delegated to the Commission in respect of any\namendment to the Annexes which consist of forms which may\nneed to be updated from time to time. It is of particular\nimportance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations\nduring its preparatory work, including at expert level. The\nCommission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should\nensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of\nrelevant documents to the European Parliament and the\nCouncil.
\nLastly, it should be noted that Members stipulate that\nthe Directive should not impose any obligations on the Member\nStates to provide unrepresented citizens with those types of\nassistance that are not provided to their own\nnationals.
\nThe Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home\nAffairs adopted, following the special legislative procedure\n(consultation of the European Parliament), the report by Edit Bauer\n(EPP, SK) on the proposal for a Council Directive on consular\nprotection for citizens of the Union abroad.
\nThe committee recommends that Parliament amend the\nCommission proposal as follows:
\nRole of EU delegations: Members feel that where unrepresented citizens need\nprotection in third countries efficient cooperation and\ncoordination is required. In this case, not only the assisting\nMember State but also the Union delegation present in a\nthird country and the Member State of origin of the\ncitizen should cooperate closely and ensure consular\nprotection for unrepresented citizens. New provisions laid out in\nthe text set out the role of EU delegations, particularly in cases\nof crisis. In crisis situations, the Union delegations\nshould ensure the necessary coordination among Member States,\nincluding facilitating assistance to unrepresented\ncitizens.
\nConsular cooperation:\nnoting that local consular cooperation may be more complex for\nunrepresented citizens, as it requires coordination with\nauthorities not represented on the ground, Members feel that a\nstable framework should be ensured. Accordingly, they insert a new\nChapter on the general principles of local consular protection\ncooperation and coordination.
\nLocal consular cooperation should pay due attention to\nunrepresented citizens, for example by collecting the relevant\ncontact details of the nearest regional embassies and consulates of\nMember States. Amongst other things, local consular cooperation\nshould pay due attention to unrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest\nregional embassies and consulates of Member States. In order to\nfacilitate and improve consular protection for unrepresented\ncitizens, the Commission should establish practical\nguidelines. Members feel that consular protection shall also\nextend to all other situations where the Member State\nrepresented would habitually provide assistance to its own\ncitizens.
\nArrangements and burden sharing: in order to provide unrepresented citizens with\nconsular protection and ensure the effective treatment of\napplications, Member States' representations\nand where relevant,\nthe Union delegation may conclude local\narrangements on burden sharing and the exchange of\ninformation. After notification to local authorities,\nsuch local arrangements shall be reported to\nthe Commission and to the EEAS and published on the\nCommission's website and on the relevant websites of the Member\nStates concerned. Those arrangements shall fully respect the\nprovisions of the Directive.
\nConsular protection in everyday situations and crisis\nsituations: Members stress that\nconsular protection should cover assistance in a certain number of\neveryday situations, and also in crisis situations.\nEveryday cases of consular protection may cover arrest or\ndetention. In this respect, the text provides that special\nsituations should be taken into account, in particular when victims\nof trafficking in human beings are arrested or detained for\ncommitting crimes as a direct consequence of being\ntrafficked.
\nIn all cases, minimum standards of detention\nconditions must be monitored action taken in order to prevent\nill-treatment and ensure that minimum standards of detention\nconditions are granted. Where an unrepresented citizen is the\nvictim of a crime or in danger of being victim of a crime, he must\nbe provided with information on his/her rights and with access to\nproper legal assistance and counselling:
\n\n· \nif the citizen of the Union is unable to produce\na valid passport or identity card, (for example, due to theft) the\nassisting embassy or consulate shall provide unrepresented\ncitizens with the necessary means for verifying their\nidentity;
\n\n· \nin crisis situations, Union delegations shall\nensure coordination amongst Member States and shall coordinate any evacuation or other necessary\nsupport provided for an unrepresented citizen with the citizen's\nMember State of nationality.
\nRole and funding of EEAS: to be able to fulfil the role of coordination,\nMembers propose that the European External Action Service (EEAS)\nshould be provided with the necessary financial means, including\nfor the training of Member States' consular staff. The EEAS should\norganise training for consular staff in order to facilitate\nassistance to citizens, including unrepresented citizens as a part\nof preparation for crisis situations.
\nExtending consular protection for refugees and\nstateless persons: Members consider\nthat the assisting Member State should consider providing\nprotection to recognised refugees and stateless persons and other\npersons who do not hold the nationality of any Member State but who\nreside in one of the Member States and are holders of a travel\ndocument issued by that Member State, taking into account their\nparticular situation.
\nRecourse to an interpreter: for effective coordination and cooperation between\nMember States' consular authorities, it is important to establish\nthe different types of assistance which are delivered in specific\nsituations. Those types of assistance should reflect the common\npractices among Member States, and Members consider that it should\nbe ensured that language barriers are overcome and unrepresented\ncitizens are provided with interpretation or other necessary\nassistance.
\nTraining for consular staff: training courses should be organised for consular\nstaff in order to improve cooperation and increase their knowledge\nof citizens' rights under the Treaties and this\nDirective.
\nTrust funds: Members\nfeel that Member States should consider establishing a \"trust\nfund\" for consular protection, from which the embassy or\nconsulate of the assisting Member State could advance its expenses\nfor assisting an unrepresented citizen and into which the Member\nStates of the assisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the\nfinancial advance. The Commission, acting in cooperation with the\nMember States, should establish clear rules defining the division\nof financial burdens for the proper functioning of such a\nfund.
\nHotline: the committee\nproposes that the Commission should consider establishing a 24/7\nhotline in order to make information easily accessible for\nthose citizens seeking consular protection in cases of\nemergency.
\nInformation on website of Foreign\nMinistries: Member States should\nencourage their own nationals to register themselves on the\nwebsites of their Ministries for Foreign Affairs before visiting\nthird countries in order to facilitate their assistance in cases of\nneed, in particular in crisis situations.
\nMember States shall make available, on the websites of\ntheir Ministries for Foreign Affairs, information on their\ncitizens' right to seek, in a third country in which those Member\nStates are not represented, consular protection, in accordance with\nthis Directive, from the diplomatic or consular authorities of\nanother Member State , and on the conditions of the exercise of\nthat right.
\nDelegated powers: the\nreport states that in order to ensure the swift and efficient\nfunctioning of the Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion should be delegated to the Commission in respect of any\namendment to the Annexes which consist of forms which may\nneed to be updated from time to time. It is of particular\nimportance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations\nduring its preparatory work, including at expert level. The\nCommission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should\nensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of\nrelevant documents to the European Parliament and the\nCouncil.
\nLastly, it should be noted that Members stipulate that\nthe Directive should not impose any obligations on the Member\nStates to provide unrepresented citizens with those types of\nassistance that are not provided to their own\nnationals.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to establish a consular protection system for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Directive.
\nBACKGROUND: the Treaty right to consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens under the same conditions as for nationals, enshrined\nin Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of\nthe European Union (TFEU) and in Article 46 of the EU\nFundamental Rights Charter, is one of the specific rights granted\nby EU Citizenship. It is an expression of EU solidarity and of the\nidentity of the Union in third countries, as well as of the\npractical benefits of being an EU citizen.
\nConsular protection is an integral part of the Union's\npolicy on citizens' rights. The European Council, in the Stockholm\nProgramme, invited the Commission to \"consider appropriate measures\nestablishing coordination and cooperation necessary to facilitate\nconsular protection in accordance with Article 23 TFEU\". In its\nResolution of 25 November\n2009 the European Parliament advocated to strengthen the\ncoordination and cooperation of consular protection, thereby\nfollowing up its Resolution of 11 December\n2007 which suggested common concepts and binding guidelines and\ncalled for amending Decision 95/553/EC once the Lisbon Treaty is in\nplace.
\nIn the \"EU Citizenship Report 2010 - Dismantling the\nobstacles to EU citizens’ rights\" the\nCommission announced it would increase the effectiveness of the\nright of EU citizens to be assisted in third countries, including\nin times of crisis, by the diplomatic and consular authorities of\nall Member States, by proposing legislative measures in 2011. The\nCommission reiterated this commitment in its Communication on consular\nprotection.
\nUnder the previous legal regime Member States were to\nestablish the necessary rules among themselves. The Lisbon Treaty\nconfers on the Commission the right to propose directives\nestablishing the cooperation and coordination measures necessary to\nfacilitate the right to equal consular protection for unrepresented\nEU citizens as for own nationals. The current EU instrument, Decision 95/553/EC, foresees\na review following five years after its entry into force in\n2002.
\nCurrently, there is scope for further improvement\nregarding consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens. There\nis no clear consensus on the content of Article 23 TFEU and about\nthe responsibilities which this right entails. To be effective as a\nright with concrete meaning, the succint wording of the Treaty\narticle does not suffice. National consular laws and practices\ndiverge as do views about the underlying concepts of consular\nprotection for unrepresented EU citizens.
\nIn particular in four areas further clarifications\nappear necessary. This is the purpose of this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: three policy options were\nexamined:
\nFollowing a comparison of the policy options, in view\nof their costs and effectiveness in attaining the objectives set,\npolicy option 2 (EU Directive on cooperation and\ncoordination measures) is identified as the best placed variant and\ntherefore constitutes the preferred option.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 23 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the main objective of this proposal is\nto:
\nTo this effect, the proposal addresses the following\nissues:
\n(1) Personal scope: the\nproposal clarifies that an EU citizen is to be considered as\nunrepresented in particular when an embassy or consulate of his/her\nown Member State is not \"accessible\". An embassy or consulate is\nnot \"accessible\", if the EU citizen cannot reach it and return\nto his/her place of departure (via means of transport commonly\nused in the third country) at least the same day. An exception is\nprovided for in case the urgency of the matter necessitates even\nswifter assistance.
\nThe proposal further specifies that also third\ncountry family members of EU citizens are included in consular\nprotection for EU citizens. Article 23 TFEU provides for\nnon-discriminatory treatment, and in line with Articles 7 and 24 of\nthe Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the\ncase-law of the European Court of Justice the principal benefits of\nEU citizens' rights are also extended to their family members to\nensure the full effectiveness of those rights. Accordingly, the\nproposal provides that protection must be given to third country\nfamily members of EU citizens to the same extent as Member States\nprovide it to the third country family members of their own\nnationals.
\n(2) Access to consular protection and\ncooperation/coordination: the\nproposal stresses that EU citizens can turn to \"any\" other Member\nState's embassy or consulate; though specific arrangements by\nMember States are possible as long as transparency (through\nnotification and subsequent publication on the Commission's\nwebsite) and effective treatment of applications are ensured. \nThe proposal further specifies which assistance Member States\ntypically provide in the most frequent events (i.e. arrest or\ndetention, victim of crime, serious accident or serious illness,\ndeath, relief and repatriation in case of distress, need of\nemergency travel documents), on the basis of common practices of\nMember States on consular protection28, and the applicable\nprocedures for cooperation and coordination between the consular\nauthorities in these events.
\nTo comply with the citizens' right of\nself-determination, the proposal provides for enquiries regarding\nthe wishes of citizens which should be respected, including as to\nwhether family members or other related persons should be informed\n(e.g. about the arrest). Similarly, in the event of death, the\nwishes of the next-of-kin must be duly taken into account as to how\nto proceed with the corpse of the deceased citizen.
\n(3) Local coordination/EU added value: the\nproposal specifies that local cooperation meetings on consular\nprotection should include regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented EU citizens and that the Chair of these meetings\nshould collect the contact details of relevance for assistance to\nunrepresented EU citizens (e.g. regionally responsible embassy or\nconsulate of unrepresented Member States). It provides that Union\ndelegations can under specific conditions chair - or otherwise\nsupport - these meetings.
\n(4) Assistance in crisis situations/financial\nreimbursement: regarding crises situations the proposal entails\nthe following improvements. It provides that local contingency\nplans must systematically include unrepresented EU citizens. The\nproposal underlines the importance of the Lead State(s) for\nprotecting unrepresented EU citizens and defines its role in this\nrespect, i.e. that the Lead State is in charge of coordinating and\nleading assistance of unrepresented EU citizens.
\nThe proposal specifies that a Lead State can seek\nadditional support from the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the\ncrisis management structures of the EEAS. The proposal also\nprovides for additional support and full use of synergies by\nproviding for the inclusion of national consular experts, notably\nfrom unrepresented Member States, in existing intervention teams at\nUnion level.
\nRegarding financial burden-sharing a\nfacilitated reimbursement procedure, adjusted to crisis situations\nis introduced. This entails simplifying the procedural exchange\ninvolving consular authorities and citizens, adding standard\nformats for requests and introducing an easier system for tracking\nthe reimbursement costs (on a pro-rata basis, fixed rates - in case\ncosts cannot be calculated). This improved reimbursement procedure\ncomplements the support available from the EU Civil Protection\nMechanism and the EEAS crisis management structures.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: this proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 596 votes to 66\nwith 12 abstentions, in the framework of a special legislative\nprocedure (consultation of Parliament), a legislative resolution on\nthe proposal for a Council Directive on consular protection for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nParliament approved the Commission proposal, stressing\nat the same time the essential role of this legislation for the\nimplementation of the right of citizens of the Union to protection\nin the territory of third countries, as stated in Article 35 of the\nTreaty on European Union. The main aim of the Directive is thus to\nensure that Member States' diplomatic and consular authorities\nshall closely cooperate and coordinate among each other and with\nthe Union to ensure protection of unrepresented citizens under the\nsame conditions as for nationals.
\nThe main amendments may be summarised as\nfollows:
\nRole of EU delegations:\nParliament feels that where\nunrepresented citizens need protection in third countries efficient\ncooperation and coordination is required. In this case, not only\nthe assisting Member State but also the Union delegation\npresent in a third country and the Member State of origin of the\ncitizen should cooperate closely and ensure consular\nprotection for unrepresented citizens. New provisions laid out in\nthe text set out the role of EU delegations, particularly in cases\nof crisis. In crisis situations, the Union delegations\nshould ensure the necessary coordination among Member States,\nincluding facilitating assistance to unrepresented\ncitizens.
\n\nConsular\ncooperation:\nnoting that local consular cooperation may be more complex for\nunrepresented citizens, as it requires coordination with\nauthorities not represented on the ground, Members feel that a\nstable framework should be ensured. Accordingly, they insert a new\nChapter on the general principles of local consular protection\ncooperation and coordination.
\n\nLocal consular cooperation\nshould pay due attention to unrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest regional\nembassies and consulates of Member States. Amongst other\nthings, local consular cooperation should pay due attention to\nunrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest\nregional embassies and consulates of Member States. In order to\nfacilitate and improve consular protection for unrepresented\ncitizens, the Commission should establish practical\nguidelines.
\nThere are also provisions in the text regarding local\ncooperation, stressing the need to organise local cooperation\nmeetings which must include a regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented citizens.
\nIn general, Members feel that consular protection shall\nalso extend to all other situations where the Member State\nrepresented would habitually provide assistance to its own\ncitizens.
\nArrangements and burden\nsharing: in order\nto provide unrepresented citizens with consular protection and\nensure the effective treatment of applications, Member States'\nrepresentations and where relevant, the Union delegation may\nconclude local arrangements on burden sharing and the exchange\nof information. After notification to local authorities, such\nlocal arrangements shall be reported to the Commission and to the\nEEAS and published on the Commission's website and on the relevant\nwebsites of the Member States concerned. Those arrangements shall\nfully respect the provisions of the Directive.
\n\nConsular protection in\neveryday situations and crisis situations: Parliament stresses that\nconsular protection should cover assistance in a certain number of\neveryday situations, and also in crisis situations.\nEveryday cases of consular protection may cover arrest or\ndetention. In this respect, the text provides that special\nsituations should be taken into account, in particular when victims\nof trafficking in human beings are arrested or detained for\ncommitting crimes as a direct consequence of being\ntrafficked.
\n\nIn all cases, action\nmust be taken in order to prevent ill treatment and ensure that\nminimum standards of detention conditions are granted. Where an\nunrepresented citizen is the victim of a crime or in danger of\nbeing victim of a crime, he must be provided with information on\nhis/her rights and with access to proper legal assistance and\ncounselling:
\n· \nif the citizen of the Union\nis unable to produce a valid passport or identity card, (for\nexample, due to theft) the assisting embassy or consulate shall\nprovide unrepresented citizens with the necessary means for\nverifying their identity;
\n· \nin crisis situations,\nUnion delegations (and not the lead State or States in charge of\ncoordination, as provided in the initial proposal) shall ensure\ncoordination amongst Member States and shall coordinate any evacuation or other\nnecessary support provided for an unrepresented citizen with the\ncitizen's Member State of nationality.
\n\nRole and funding of\nEEAS: to be able\nto fulfil the role of coordination, Parliament proposes that the\nEuropean External Action Service (EEAS) should be provided with the\nnecessary financial means, including for the training of Member\nStates' consular staff. The EEAS should organise training for\nconsular staff in order to facilitate assistance to citizens,\nincluding unrepresented citizens as a part of preparation for\ncrisis situations.
\nExtending consular protection for refugees and\nstateless persons: Parliament\nconsiders that the assisting Member State should consider providing\nprotection to recognised refugees and stateless persons and other\npersons who do not hold the nationality of any Member State but who\nreside in one of the Member States and are holders of a travel\ndocument issued by that Member State, taking into account their\nparticular situation.
\nFamily members of unrepresented citizens of the\nEU: family members of unrepresented\ncitizens who themselves are not citizens of the Union are entitled\nto consular protection under the same conditions as the family\nmembers of nationals of the Member State of origin, or to\nconsular protection by a Union delegation.
\n\nRecourse to an\ninterpreter: for\neffective coordination and cooperation between Member States'\nconsular authorities, it is important to establish the different\ntypes of assistance which are delivered in specific situations.\nThose types of assistance should reflect the common practices among\nMember States, and Members consider that it should be ensured that\nlanguage barriers are overcome and unrepresented citizens are\nprovided with interpretation or other necessary\nassistance.
\n\nTraining for consular\nstaff: Parliament\nstates that training courses should be organised for consular staff\nin order to improve cooperation and increase their knowledge of\ncitizens' rights under the Treaties and this Directive.
\nTrust funds: Parliament feels that Member\nStates should consider establishing a \"trust fund\" for consular\nprotection, from which the embassy or consulate of the\nassisting Member State could advance its expenses for assisting an\nunrepresented citizen and into which the Member States of the\nassisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the financial\nadvance. The Commission, acting in cooperation with the Member\nStates, should establish clear rules defining the division of\nfinancial burdens for the proper functioning of such a\nfund.
\n\nHotline: Parliament proposes that the\nCommission should consider establishing a 24/7 hotline in\norder to make information easily accessible for those citizens\nseeking consular protection in cases of emergency.
\n\nInformation on website of\nForeign Ministries: Member States should encourage their own\nnationals to register themselves on the websites of their\nMinistries for Foreign Affairs before visiting third countries in\norder to facilitate their assistance in cases of need, in\nparticular in crisis situations.
\n\nMember States shall make\navailable, on the websites of their Ministries for Foreign Affairs,\ninformation on their citizens' right to seek, in a third country in\nwhich those Member States are not represented, consular protection,\nin accordance with this Directive, from the diplomatic or consular\nauthorities of another Member State, and on the conditions of the\nexercise of that right.
\n\nDelegated\npowers:\nParliament states that in order to ensure the swift and efficient\nfunctioning of the Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion should be delegated to the Commission in respect of\nany amendment to the Annexes which consist of\nforms which may need to be updated from time to time. It is of\nparticular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate\nconsultations during its preparatory work, including at expert\nlevel. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated\nacts, should ensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate\ntransmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and\nthe Council.
\n\nLastly, it should be noted\nthat Parliament stipulates that the Directive should not\nimpose any obligations on the Member States to provide\nunrepresented citizens with those types of assistance that are not\nprovided to their own nationals.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 596 votes to 66\nwith 12 abstentions, in the framework of a special legislative\nprocedure (consultation of Parliament), a legislative resolution on\nthe proposal for a Council Directive on consular protection for\ncitizens of the Union abroad.
\nParliament approved the Commission proposal, stressing\nat the same time the essential role of this legislation for the\nimplementation of the right of citizens of the Union to protection\nin the territory of third countries, as stated in Article 35 of the\nTreaty on European Union. The main aim of the Directive is thus to\nensure that Member States' diplomatic and consular authorities\nshall closely cooperate and coordinate among each other and with\nthe Union to ensure protection of unrepresented citizens under the\nsame conditions as for nationals.
\nThe main amendments may be summarised as\nfollows:
\nRole of EU delegations:\nParliament feels that where\nunrepresented citizens need protection in third countries efficient\ncooperation and coordination is required. In this case, not only\nthe assisting Member State but also the Union delegation\npresent in a third country and the Member State of origin of the\ncitizen should cooperate closely and ensure consular\nprotection for unrepresented citizens. New provisions laid out in\nthe text set out the role of EU delegations, particularly in cases\nof crisis. In crisis situations, the Union delegations\nshould ensure the necessary coordination among Member States,\nincluding facilitating assistance to unrepresented\ncitizens.
\n\nConsular\ncooperation:\nnoting that local consular cooperation may be more complex for\nunrepresented citizens, as it requires coordination with\nauthorities not represented on the ground, Members feel that a\nstable framework should be ensured. Accordingly, they insert a new\nChapter on the general principles of local consular protection\ncooperation and coordination.
\n\nLocal consular cooperation\nshould pay due attention to unrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest regional\nembassies and consulates of Member States. Amongst other\nthings, local consular cooperation should pay due attention to\nunrepresented citizens, for example by\ncollecting the relevant contact details of the nearest\nregional embassies and consulates of Member States. In order to\nfacilitate and improve consular protection for unrepresented\ncitizens, the Commission should establish practical\nguidelines.
\nThere are also provisions in the text regarding local\ncooperation, stressing the need to organise local cooperation\nmeetings which must include a regular exchange of information on\nunrepresented citizens.
\nIn general, Members feel that consular protection shall\nalso extend to all other situations where the Member State\nrepresented would habitually provide assistance to its own\ncitizens.
\nArrangements and burden\nsharing: in order\nto provide unrepresented citizens with consular protection and\nensure the effective treatment of applications, Member States'\nrepresentations and where relevant, the Union delegation may\nconclude local arrangements on burden sharing and the exchange\nof information. After notification to local authorities, such\nlocal arrangements shall be reported to the Commission and to the\nEEAS and published on the Commission's website and on the relevant\nwebsites of the Member States concerned. Those arrangements shall\nfully respect the provisions of the Directive.
\n\nConsular protection in\neveryday situations and crisis situations: Parliament stresses that\nconsular protection should cover assistance in a certain number of\neveryday situations, and also in crisis situations.\nEveryday cases of consular protection may cover arrest or\ndetention. In this respect, the text provides that special\nsituations should be taken into account, in particular when victims\nof trafficking in human beings are arrested or detained for\ncommitting crimes as a direct consequence of being\ntrafficked.
\n\nIn all cases, action\nmust be taken in order to prevent ill treatment and ensure that\nminimum standards of detention conditions are granted. Where an\nunrepresented citizen is the victim of a crime or in danger of\nbeing victim of a crime, he must be provided with information on\nhis/her rights and with access to proper legal assistance and\ncounselling:
\n· \nif the citizen of the Union\nis unable to produce a valid passport or identity card, (for\nexample, due to theft) the assisting embassy or consulate shall\nprovide unrepresented citizens with the necessary means for\nverifying their identity;
\n· \nin crisis situations,\nUnion delegations (and not the lead State or States in charge of\ncoordination, as provided in the initial proposal) shall ensure\ncoordination amongst Member States and shall coordinate any evacuation or other\nnecessary support provided for an unrepresented citizen with the\ncitizen's Member State of nationality.
\n\nRole and funding of\nEEAS: to be able\nto fulfil the role of coordination, Parliament proposes that the\nEuropean External Action Service (EEAS) should be provided with the\nnecessary financial means, including for the training of Member\nStates' consular staff. The EEAS should organise training for\nconsular staff in order to facilitate assistance to citizens,\nincluding unrepresented citizens as a part of preparation for\ncrisis situations.
\nExtending consular protection for refugees and\nstateless persons: Parliament\nconsiders that the assisting Member State should consider providing\nprotection to recognised refugees and stateless persons and other\npersons who do not hold the nationality of any Member State but who\nreside in one of the Member States and are holders of a travel\ndocument issued by that Member State, taking into account their\nparticular situation.
\nFamily members of unrepresented citizens of the\nEU: family members of unrepresented\ncitizens who themselves are not citizens of the Union are entitled\nto consular protection under the same conditions as the family\nmembers of nationals of the Member State of origin, or to\nconsular protection by a Union delegation.
\n\nRecourse to an\ninterpreter: for\neffective coordination and cooperation between Member States'\nconsular authorities, it is important to establish the different\ntypes of assistance which are delivered in specific situations.\nThose types of assistance should reflect the common practices among\nMember States, and Members consider that it should be ensured that\nlanguage barriers are overcome and unrepresented citizens are\nprovided with interpretation or other necessary\nassistance.
\n\nTraining for consular\nstaff: Parliament\nstates that training courses should be organised for consular staff\nin order to improve cooperation and increase their knowledge of\ncitizens' rights under the Treaties and this Directive.
\nTrust funds: Parliament feels that Member\nStates should consider establishing a \"trust fund\" for consular\nprotection, from which the embassy or consulate of the\nassisting Member State could advance its expenses for assisting an\nunrepresented citizen and into which the Member States of the\nassisted unrepresented citizen should reimburse the financial\nadvance. The Commission, acting in cooperation with the Member\nStates, should establish clear rules defining the division of\nfinancial burdens for the proper functioning of such a\nfund.
\n\nHotline: Parliament proposes that the\nCommission should consider establishing a 24/7 hotline in\norder to make information easily accessible for those citizens\nseeking consular protection in cases of emergency.
\n\nInformation on website of\nForeign Ministries: Member States should encourage their own\nnationals to register themselves on the websites of their\nMinistries for Foreign Affairs before visiting third countries in\norder to facilitate their assistance in cases of need, in\nparticular in crisis situations.
\n\nMember States shall make\navailable, on the websites of their Ministries for Foreign Affairs,\ninformation on their citizens' right to seek, in a third country in\nwhich those Member States are not represented, consular protection,\nin accordance with this Directive, from the diplomatic or consular\nauthorities of another Member State, and on the conditions of the\nexercise of that right.
\n\nDelegated\npowers:\nParliament states that in order to ensure the swift and efficient\nfunctioning of the Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance\nwith Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion should be delegated to the Commission in respect of\nany amendment to the Annexes which consist of\nforms which may need to be updated from time to time. It is of\nparticular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate\nconsultations during its preparatory work, including at expert\nlevel. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated\nacts, should ensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate\ntransmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and\nthe Council.
\n\nLastly, it should be noted\nthat Parliament stipulates that the Directive should not\nimpose any obligations on the Member States to provide\nunrepresented citizens with those types of assistance that are not\nprovided to their own nationals.
\nPURPOSE: to establish, as part of the Internal\nSecurity Fund, the instrument for financial support for police\ncooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis\nmanagement. This Fund takes over from the Specific\nProgramme 'Prevention of and Fight against\nCrime' which it repeals.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: BACKGROUND: the policies related to the\nArea of Freedom, Security and Justice have been steadily growing in\nimportance over the last years. These policies are at the heart of\nthe European project to create an area without internal borders\nwhere Union citizens and third-country nationals may enter,\ncirculate, live and work.
\nIn the field of Internal Security, key documents such\nas the Commission's Communication on the Internal\nSecurity Strategy have provided clear guidance on\nthe direction of activities in the years to come.
\nInternal security is an area where the Union will be\nfacing important challenges. Terrorism and organised crime, drug\ntrafficking, corruption, cyber crime, trafficking in human beings\nand arms will continue to pose serious threats. Aggregate levels of\ncrime are anticipated to remain stable but the nature of crime is\nexpected to change with criminals using new technologies to commit\ncrimes. Cross-border and organised crime can be expected to\nincrease and become more sophisticated and international in nature.\nTo tackle all these future challenges, enhanced actions at Union\nlevel are essential to succeed in protecting the citizens from\nincreasingly trans-national threats and support the operational\nwork carried out by Member States' competent authorities, including\nthrough adequate Union funding.
\nAgainst this background, the Commission in its\nproposal on the next multi-annual financial framework for the\nperiod 2014-2020, suggested to set up an Internal\nSecurity Fund, as part of a simplified two-Fund structure\nfor future expenditure in the home affairs area which also includes\nan Asylum and Migration\nFund.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: in accordance with the greater\nemphasis placed on evaluation as a tool to inform policy making,\nthis proposal is informed by evaluation results, stakeholder\nconsultation and impact assessment.
\nWork on the preparation of the future financial\ninstruments for home affairs started in 2010 and continued into\n2011. It was completed in July 2011 and brought together available\nevaluation results for the existing financial instruments and\ninformed the problems, objectives and policy options, including\ntheir likely impact, examined in the impact assessment.
\nOn the basis of this study, the Commission drafted\nan impact assessment report. The main conclusion may be\nsummarised as follows:
\nIn the area of internal security, stakeholders\nconsidered that the broad thematic priorities have already been\nfixed by the 2009 Stockholm Programme and the 2010 Internal\nSecurity Strategy. A future funding mechanism should\ntherefore be defined comprehensively, comprising law enforcement,\nborder guards and customs communities. The need to make greater use\nof relevant Union agencies, such as Europol and Frontex was also\nconsidered important. There was broad support to reduce the number\nof financial instruments to a two-Fund structure on the\ncondition that this leads to simplification. Stakeholders also\nagreed on the need for a flexible emergency response\nmechanism.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 82(1), 84 and 87(2) of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
\nThe creation of the Internal Security Fund requires\nthe adoption of two legislative instruments which jointly\nconstitute the Fund. This overall structure was chosen in light\nof the Treaty obligations. It is not legally possible to draw up\none single comprehensive legislative proposal for an Internal\nSecurity Fund, despite the coherence of the policy objectives to be\naddressed.
\nThe Internal Security Fund is therefore created as a\ncomprehensive financial framework which is composed of two\nseparate acts, setting up the different components of the Fund\nand laying down the objectives, the eligible actions and the\nenvelopes of each component:
\n-\nThis Regulation setting up, as part of the Fund, the component for\npolice co-operation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis\nmanagement;
\n-\nA Regulation setting up, as\npart of the Fund, the border management and common visa policy\ncomponent.
\nCONTENT: under this proposal, the Commission proposes\nto establish the instrument for financial support for police\ncooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis\nmanagement.
\nJointly with the Regulation establishing, as part of\nthe Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external\nborders and visa, this Regulation establishes for\nthe period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020 the Internal\nSecurity Fund.
\nGeneral objective: the\ngeneral objective of the Instrument shall be to contribute to\nensuring a high level of security in the European Union. Within the\ngeneral objective, the Instrument shall contribute to the following\nspecific objectives:
\nTo achieve these objectives, the Instrument shall\ncontribute to the following operational objectives by\npromoting and developing:
\nThese strategic priorities, which are laid down in\nmore detail in the annex to this Regulation, have to be taken into\naccount by Member States when drafting their multi-annual\nnational programmes. They can be amended at any time in a\nsimplified procedure through delegated act in the event of newly\nemerging risks or threats. Moreover, to provide additional\nincentives, the EU co-financing rate for national measures\nimplementing any of these Union strategic priorities can be\nincreased up to 90%, in accordance with the Horizontal\nRegulation,
\ninstead of 75%.
\nFor each of these objectives, key indicators are\ndefined.
\nEligible actions:\nMember States operational capacities, such as\njoint cross-border operations, exchange of best practices, testing\nand validating of new methodologies and technologies (to close the\ngap to Union funded security research), the acquisition of\ntechnical equipment and infrastructures, training and exchange of\nstaff, analytical activities such as risk and threat assessments as\nwell as networking.
\nEmergency assistance and actions in or in relation to\nthird-countries: specific provisions are introduced in this\nregulation and in the Horizontal Regulation to enable the Union to\ntake rapid and effective actions in the event of any\nsecurity-related incident or newly emerging threat which has or may\nhave a significant adverse impact on the security of people in one\nor more Member States (emergency situation). Such emergency\nassistance is always decided upon by the Commission but can also be\nproposed by Member States, Union Agencies, International\nOrganisations or the Article 71 committee (COSI) represented by the\nMember State holding the Presidency of the Council. Emergency\nassistance is not limited to the Union and may also include\nmeasures in or in relation to third countries. Generally the list\nof actions in or in relation to third-countries eligible under this\nRegulation focuses on short-term operational actions having a\ndirect impact on the Union's internal security, such as:
\nActions in third-countries are primarily implemented\nby the Commission through direct or indirect management in\naccordance with the Financial Regulation. Such actions shall not be\ndirectly development oriented and shall complement, as appropriate,\nthe financial assistance provided through the Union's external aid\ninstruments, which remain the main source of funding to help\nthird-countries build their relevant capacities. In implementing\nsuch actions, full coherence will be sought with the principles and\ngeneral objectives of the Union's external action and foreign\npolicy related to the country or region in question.\nComplementarity will be ensured through enhanced coordination with\nthe European External Action Service and relevant Commission\nservices.
\nImplementation and use of relevant EU\nagencies: to use more effectively the\ncompetence and expertise of relevant Union agencies in the home\naffairs field, the Commission also envisages to make use of the\npossibility offered by the Financial Regulation7 to entrust, within\nthe resources available under this regulation, the implementation\nof specific tasks to such agencies in the framework of their\nmissions and in complementary with their work programmes. For the\ntasks covered by this Instrument this concerns in particular the\nEuropean Police Office (Europol), e.g. for the organisation of\njoint investigation teams or a Prüm helpdesk function, and the\nEuropean Training College (Cepol), e.g. for the development and\nimplementation of European Training schemes, common thematic\ncurricula and modules including for staff from law enforcement\nauthorities fromappropriate third-countries.
\nDistribution of available resources: the total amount for this\nInstrument for the period 2014-2020 consists of two\nparts:
\nthe Union budget (EUR 1 128 million in current\nprices);
\nthe – not yet known – contributions by the\ncountries associated with the implementation, application and\ndevelopment of the Schengen acquis (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland,\nLiechtenstein), which shall participate in this Instrument. From\nthe Member States, Denmark will not participate in this Regulation\nand Ireland and the UK may opt-in to it, in accordance with their\nrespective Protocols.
\nThe total amount of EUR 1 128 million is evenly\ndivided (50/50 ratio): Member States will obtain an indicative\namount of EUR 564 million (in current prices) for their national\nprogrammes (shared management) and for Union actions, emergency\nassistance and technical assistance, the Commission will implement\nthe same indicative amount under direct and indirect\nmanagement.
\nThe criteria chosen for the allocation of available\nfunds to Member States relate to the main goods that Member States\nhave to protect: their population, their territory, persons and\ncargo processed through their air and seaports and European\ncritical infrastructure designated in accordance with Union law.\nAs, in this context, account has also been taken of Member States'\ndifferent financial capacities, their Gross Domestic Product (in\ninverse proportion) has been added as a fifth allocation\ncriteria.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the Commission's proposal for\nthe next multi-annual framework\nincludes a proposal of EUR 4 648 million (in current prices)\nfor the Internal Security Fund for the period 2014-2020. Within\nthis global envelope, the resources indicatively available for the\nimplementation of this Specific Regulation amount to EUR 1 128\nmillion. Indicatively, 50% of this amount (EUR 564 million)\nshould be used for national programmes of Member States while the\nother 50% (EUR 564 million) should be centrally managed to fund\nUnion actions, emergency actions and technical\nassistance.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: in order to supplement or amend\nprovisions in this Instrument regarding the definition of\nstrategic Union priorities, the power to adopt acts in\naccordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union should be delegated to the Commission which should\ncarry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work,\nincluding at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and\ndrawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and\nappropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European\nParliament and Council.
\nThe Council held a first exchange of views on\nthe Commission proposals in the justice and home affairs area in\nthe context of the multiannual financial framework\n(2014-2020):
\nOn the justice side, the Council discussed the two\nproposals for regulations establishing the Justice programme and the\nRights and Citizenship\nprogramme.
\nPURPOSE: to establish, as part of the Internal\nSecurity Fund, the instrument for financial support for police\ncooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis\nmanagement. This Fund takes over from the Specific\nProgramme 'Prevention of and Fight against\nCrime' which it repeals.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: BACKGROUND: the policies related to the\nArea of Freedom, Security and Justice have been steadily growing in\nimportance over the last years. These policies are at the heart of\nthe European project to create an area without internal borders\nwhere Union citizens and third-country nationals may enter,\ncirculate, live and work.
\nIn the field of Internal Security, key documents such\nas the Commission's Communication on the Internal\nSecurity Strategy have provided clear guidance on\nthe direction of activities in the years to come.
\nInternal security is an area where the Union will be\nfacing important challenges. Terrorism and organised crime, drug\ntrafficking, corruption, cyber crime, trafficking in human beings\nand arms will continue to pose serious threats. Aggregate levels of\ncrime are anticipated to remain stable but the nature of crime is\nexpected to change with criminals using new technologies to commit\ncrimes. Cross-border and organised crime can be expected to\nincrease and become more sophisticated and international in nature.\nTo tackle all these future challenges, enhanced actions at Union\nlevel are essential to succeed in protecting the citizens from\nincreasingly trans-national threats and support the operational\nwork carried out by Member States' competent authorities, including\nthrough adequate Union funding.
\nAgainst this background, the Commission in its\nproposal on the next multi-annual financial framework for the\nperiod 2014-2020, suggested to set up an Internal\nSecurity Fund, as part of a simplified two-Fund structure\nfor future expenditure in the home affairs area which also includes\nan Asylum and Migration\nFund.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: in accordance with the greater\nemphasis placed on evaluation as a tool to inform policy making,\nthis proposal is informed by evaluation results, stakeholder\nconsultation and impact assessment.
\nWork on the preparation of the future financial\ninstruments for home affairs started in 2010 and continued into\n2011. It was completed in July 2011 and brought together available\nevaluation results for the existing financial instruments and\ninformed the problems, objectives and policy options, including\ntheir likely impact, examined in the impact assessment.
\nOn the basis of this study, the Commission drafted\nan impact assessment report. The main conclusion may be\nsummarised as follows:
\nIn the area of internal security, stakeholders\nconsidered that the broad thematic priorities have already been\nfixed by the 2009 Stockholm Programme and the 2010 Internal\nSecurity Strategy. A future funding mechanism should\ntherefore be defined comprehensively, comprising law enforcement,\nborder guards and customs communities. The need to make greater use\nof relevant Union agencies, such as Europol and Frontex was also\nconsidered important. There was broad support to reduce the number\nof financial instruments to a two-Fund structure on the\ncondition that this leads to simplification. Stakeholders also\nagreed on the need for a flexible emergency response\nmechanism.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 82(1), 84 and 87(2) of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
\nThe creation of the Internal Security Fund requires\nthe adoption of two legislative instruments which jointly\nconstitute the Fund. This overall structure was chosen in light\nof the Treaty obligations. It is not legally possible to draw up\none single comprehensive legislative proposal for an Internal\nSecurity Fund, despite the coherence of the policy objectives to be\naddressed.
\nThe Internal Security Fund is therefore created as a\ncomprehensive financial framework which is composed of two\nseparate acts, setting up the different components of the Fund\nand laying down the objectives, the eligible actions and the\nenvelopes of each component:
\n-\nThis Regulation setting up, as part of the Fund, the component for\npolice co-operation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis\nmanagement;
\n-\nA Regulation setting up, as\npart of the Fund, the border management and common visa policy\ncomponent.
\nCONTENT: under this proposal, the Commission proposes\nto establish the instrument for financial support for police\ncooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis\nmanagement.
\nJointly with the Regulation establishing, as part of\nthe Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external\nborders and visa, this Regulation establishes for\nthe period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020 the Internal\nSecurity Fund.
\nGeneral objective: the\ngeneral objective of the Instrument shall be to contribute to\nensuring a high level of security in the European Union. Within the\ngeneral objective, the Instrument shall contribute to the following\nspecific objectives:
\nTo achieve these objectives, the Instrument shall\ncontribute to the following operational objectives by\npromoting and developing:
\nThese strategic priorities, which are laid down in\nmore detail in the annex to this Regulation, have to be taken into\naccount by Member States when drafting their multi-annual\nnational programmes. They can be amended at any time in a\nsimplified procedure through delegated act in the event of newly\nemerging risks or threats. Moreover, to provide additional\nincentives, the EU co-financing rate for national measures\nimplementing any of these Union strategic priorities can be\nincreased up to 90%, in accordance with the Horizontal\nRegulation,
\ninstead of 75%.
\nFor each of these objectives, key indicators are\ndefined.
\nEligible actions:\nMember States operational capacities, such as\njoint cross-border operations, exchange of best practices, testing\nand validating of new methodologies and technologies (to close the\ngap to Union funded security research), the acquisition of\ntechnical equipment and infrastructures, training and exchange of\nstaff, analytical activities such as risk and threat assessments as\nwell as networking.
\nEmergency assistance and actions in or in relation to\nthird-countries: specific provisions are introduced in this\nregulation and in the Horizontal Regulation to enable the Union to\ntake rapid and effective actions in the event of any\nsecurity-related incident or newly emerging threat which has or may\nhave a significant adverse impact on the security of people in one\nor more Member States (emergency situation). Such emergency\nassistance is always decided upon by the Commission but can also be\nproposed by Member States, Union Agencies, International\nOrganisations or the Article 71 committee (COSI) represented by the\nMember State holding the Presidency of the Council. Emergency\nassistance is not limited to the Union and may also include\nmeasures in or in relation to third countries. Generally the list\nof actions in or in relation to third-countries eligible under this\nRegulation focuses on short-term operational actions having a\ndirect impact on the Union's internal security, such as:
\nActions in third-countries are primarily implemented\nby the Commission through direct or indirect management in\naccordance with the Financial Regulation. Such actions shall not be\ndirectly development oriented and shall complement, as appropriate,\nthe financial assistance provided through the Union's external aid\ninstruments, which remain the main source of funding to help\nthird-countries build their relevant capacities. In implementing\nsuch actions, full coherence will be sought with the principles and\ngeneral objectives of the Union's external action and foreign\npolicy related to the country or region in question.\nComplementarity will be ensured through enhanced coordination with\nthe European External Action Service and relevant Commission\nservices.
\nImplementation and use of relevant EU\nagencies: to use more effectively the\ncompetence and expertise of relevant Union agencies in the home\naffairs field, the Commission also envisages to make use of the\npossibility offered by the Financial Regulation7 to entrust, within\nthe resources available under this regulation, the implementation\nof specific tasks to such agencies in the framework of their\nmissions and in complementary with their work programmes. For the\ntasks covered by this Instrument this concerns in particular the\nEuropean Police Office (Europol), e.g. for the organisation of\njoint investigation teams or a Prüm helpdesk function, and the\nEuropean Training College (Cepol), e.g. for the development and\nimplementation of European Training schemes, common thematic\ncurricula and modules including for staff from law enforcement\nauthorities fromappropriate third-countries.
\nDistribution of available resources: the total amount for this\nInstrument for the period 2014-2020 consists of two\nparts:
\nthe Union budget (EUR 1 128 million in current\nprices);
\nthe – not yet known – contributions by the\ncountries associated with the implementation, application and\ndevelopment of the Schengen acquis (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland,\nLiechtenstein), which shall participate in this Instrument. From\nthe Member States, Denmark will not participate in this Regulation\nand Ireland and the UK may opt-in to it, in accordance with their\nrespective Protocols.
\nThe total amount of EUR 1 128 million is evenly\ndivided (50/50 ratio): Member States will obtain an indicative\namount of EUR 564 million (in current prices) for their national\nprogrammes (shared management) and for Union actions, emergency\nassistance and technical assistance, the Commission will implement\nthe same indicative amount under direct and indirect\nmanagement.
\nThe criteria chosen for the allocation of available\nfunds to Member States relate to the main goods that Member States\nhave to protect: their population, their territory, persons and\ncargo processed through their air and seaports and European\ncritical infrastructure designated in accordance with Union law.\nAs, in this context, account has also been taken of Member States'\ndifferent financial capacities, their Gross Domestic Product (in\ninverse proportion) has been added as a fifth allocation\ncriteria.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the Commission's proposal for\nthe next multi-annual framework\nincludes a proposal of EUR 4 648 million (in current prices)\nfor the Internal Security Fund for the period 2014-2020. Within\nthis global envelope, the resources indicatively available for the\nimplementation of this Specific Regulation amount to EUR 1 128\nmillion. Indicatively, 50% of this amount (EUR 564 million)\nshould be used for national programmes of Member States while the\nother 50% (EUR 564 million) should be centrally managed to fund\nUnion actions, emergency actions and technical\nassistance.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: in order to supplement or amend\nprovisions in this Instrument regarding the definition of\nstrategic Union priorities, the power to adopt acts in\naccordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union should be delegated to the Commission which should\ncarry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work,\nincluding at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and\ndrawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and\nappropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European\nParliament and Council.
\nPURPOSE: to establish, as part of the Internal\nSecurity Fund, the instrument for financial support for police\ncooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis\nmanagement. This Fund takes over from the Specific\nProgramme 'Prevention of and Fight against\nCrime' which it repeals.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: BACKGROUND: the policies related to the\nArea of Freedom, Security and Justice have been steadily growing in\nimportance over the last years. These policies are at the heart of\nthe European project to create an area without internal borders\nwhere Union citizens and third-country nationals may enter,\ncirculate, live and work.
\nIn the field of Internal Security, key documents such\nas the Commission's Communication on the Internal\nSecurity Strategy have provided clear guidance on\nthe direction of activities in the years to come.
\nInternal security is an area where the Union will be\nfacing important challenges. Terrorism and organised crime, drug\ntrafficking, corruption, cyber crime, trafficking in human beings\nand arms will continue to pose serious threats. Aggregate levels of\ncrime are anticipated to remain stable but the nature of crime is\nexpected to change with criminals using new technologies to commit\ncrimes. Cross-border and organised crime can be expected to\nincrease and become more sophisticated and international in nature.\nTo tackle all these future challenges, enhanced actions at Union\nlevel are essential to succeed in protecting the citizens from\nincreasingly trans-national threats and support the operational\nwork carried out by Member States' competent authorities, including\nthrough adequate Union funding.
\nAgainst this background, the Commission in its\nproposal on the next multi-annual financial framework for the\nperiod 2014-2020, suggested to set up an Internal\nSecurity Fund, as part of a simplified two-Fund structure\nfor future expenditure in the home affairs area which also includes\nan Asylum and Migration\nFund.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: in accordance with the greater\nemphasis placed on evaluation as a tool to inform policy making,\nthis proposal is informed by evaluation results, stakeholder\nconsultation and impact assessment.
\nWork on the preparation of the future financial\ninstruments for home affairs started in 2010 and continued into\n2011. It was completed in July 2011 and brought together available\nevaluation results for the existing financial instruments and\ninformed the problems, objectives and policy options, including\ntheir likely impact, examined in the impact assessment.
\nOn the basis of this study, the Commission drafted\nan impact assessment report. The main conclusion may be\nsummarised as follows:
\nIn the area of internal security, stakeholders\nconsidered that the broad thematic priorities have already been\nfixed by the 2009 Stockholm Programme and the 2010 Internal\nSecurity Strategy. A future funding mechanism should\ntherefore be defined comprehensively, comprising law enforcement,\nborder guards and customs communities. The need to make greater use\nof relevant Union agencies, such as Europol and Frontex was also\nconsidered important. There was broad support to reduce the number\nof financial instruments to a two-Fund structure on the\ncondition that this leads to simplification. Stakeholders also\nagreed on the need for a flexible emergency response\nmechanism.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 82(1), 84 and 87(2) of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
\nThe creation of the Internal Security Fund requires\nthe adoption of two legislative instruments which jointly\nconstitute the Fund. This overall structure was chosen in light\nof the Treaty obligations. It is not legally possible to draw up\none single comprehensive legislative proposal for an Internal\nSecurity Fund, despite the coherence of the policy objectives to be\naddressed.
\nThe Internal Security Fund is therefore created as a\ncomprehensive financial framework which is composed of two\nseparate acts, setting up the different components of the Fund\nand laying down the objectives, the eligible actions and the\nenvelopes of each component:
\n-\nThis Regulation setting up, as part of the Fund, the component for\npolice co-operation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis\nmanagement;
\n-\nA Regulation setting up, as\npart of the Fund, the border management and common visa policy\ncomponent.
\nCONTENT: under this proposal, the Commission proposes\nto establish the instrument for financial support for police\ncooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis\nmanagement.
\nJointly with the Regulation establishing, as part of\nthe Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external\nborders and visa, this Regulation establishes for\nthe period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020 the Internal\nSecurity Fund.
\nGeneral objective: the\ngeneral objective of the Instrument shall be to contribute to\nensuring a high level of security in the European Union. Within the\ngeneral objective, the Instrument shall contribute to the following\nspecific objectives:
\nTo achieve these objectives, the Instrument shall\ncontribute to the following operational objectives by\npromoting and developing:
\nThese strategic priorities, which are laid down in\nmore detail in the annex to this Regulation, have to be taken into\naccount by Member States when drafting their multi-annual\nnational programmes. They can be amended at any time in a\nsimplified procedure through delegated act in the event of newly\nemerging risks or threats. Moreover, to provide additional\nincentives, the EU co-financing rate for national measures\nimplementing any of these Union strategic priorities can be\nincreased up to 90%, in accordance with the Horizontal\nRegulation,
\ninstead of 75%.
\nFor each of these objectives, key indicators are\ndefined.
\nEligible actions:\nMember States operational capacities, such as\njoint cross-border operations, exchange of best practices, testing\nand validating of new methodologies and technologies (to close the\ngap to Union funded security research), the acquisition of\ntechnical equipment and infrastructures, training and exchange of\nstaff, analytical activities such as risk and threat assessments as\nwell as networking.
\nEmergency assistance and actions in or in relation to\nthird-countries: specific provisions are introduced in this\nregulation and in the Horizontal Regulation to enable the Union to\ntake rapid and effective actions in the event of any\nsecurity-related incident or newly emerging threat which has or may\nhave a significant adverse impact on the security of people in one\nor more Member States (emergency situation). Such emergency\nassistance is always decided upon by the Commission but can also be\nproposed by Member States, Union Agencies, International\nOrganisations or the Article 71 committee (COSI) represented by the\nMember State holding the Presidency of the Council. Emergency\nassistance is not limited to the Union and may also include\nmeasures in or in relation to third countries. Generally the list\nof actions in or in relation to third-countries eligible under this\nRegulation focuses on short-term operational actions having a\ndirect impact on the Union's internal security, such as:
\nActions in third-countries are primarily implemented\nby the Commission through direct or indirect management in\naccordance with the Financial Regulation. Such actions shall not be\ndirectly development oriented and shall complement, as appropriate,\nthe financial assistance provided through the Union's external aid\ninstruments, which remain the main source of funding to help\nthird-countries build their relevant capacities. In implementing\nsuch actions, full coherence will be sought with the principles and\ngeneral objectives of the Union's external action and foreign\npolicy related to the country or region in question.\nComplementarity will be ensured through enhanced coordination with\nthe European External Action Service and relevant Commission\nservices.
\nImplementation and use of relevant EU\nagencies: to use more effectively the\ncompetence and expertise of relevant Union agencies in the home\naffairs field, the Commission also envisages to make use of the\npossibility offered by the Financial Regulation7 to entrust, within\nthe resources available under this regulation, the implementation\nof specific tasks to such agencies in the framework of their\nmissions and in complementary with their work programmes. For the\ntasks covered by this Instrument this concerns in particular the\nEuropean Police Office (Europol), e.g. for the organisation of\njoint investigation teams or a Prüm helpdesk function, and the\nEuropean Training College (Cepol), e.g. for the development and\nimplementation of European Training schemes, common thematic\ncurricula and modules including for staff from law enforcement\nauthorities fromappropriate third-countries.
\nDistribution of available resources: the total amount for this\nInstrument for the period 2014-2020 consists of two\nparts:
\nthe Union budget (EUR 1 128 million in current\nprices);
\nthe – not yet known – contributions by the\ncountries associated with the implementation, application and\ndevelopment of the Schengen acquis (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland,\nLiechtenstein), which shall participate in this Instrument. From\nthe Member States, Denmark will not participate in this Regulation\nand Ireland and the UK may opt-in to it, in accordance with their\nrespective Protocols.
\nThe total amount of EUR 1 128 million is evenly\ndivided (50/50 ratio): Member States will obtain an indicative\namount of EUR 564 million (in current prices) for their national\nprogrammes (shared management) and for Union actions, emergency\nassistance and technical assistance, the Commission will implement\nthe same indicative amount under direct and indirect\nmanagement.
\nThe criteria chosen for the allocation of available\nfunds to Member States relate to the main goods that Member States\nhave to protect: their population, their territory, persons and\ncargo processed through their air and seaports and European\ncritical infrastructure designated in accordance with Union law.\nAs, in this context, account has also been taken of Member States'\ndifferent financial capacities, their Gross Domestic Product (in\ninverse proportion) has been added as a fifth allocation\ncriteria.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the Commission's proposal for\nthe next multi-annual framework\nincludes a proposal of EUR 4 648 million (in current prices)\nfor the Internal Security Fund for the period 2014-2020. Within\nthis global envelope, the resources indicatively available for the\nimplementation of this Specific Regulation amount to EUR 1 128\nmillion. Indicatively, 50% of this amount (EUR 564 million)\nshould be used for national programmes of Member States while the\nother 50% (EUR 564 million) should be centrally managed to fund\nUnion actions, emergency actions and technical\nassistance.
\nDELEGATED ACTS: in order to supplement or amend\nprovisions in this Instrument regarding the definition of\nstrategic Union priorities, the power to adopt acts in\naccordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union should be delegated to the Commission which should\ncarry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work,\nincluding at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and\ndrawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and\nappropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European\nParliament and Council.
\nThe Council held a first exchange of views on\nthe Commission proposals in the justice and home affairs area in\nthe context of the multiannual financial framework\n(2014-2020):
\nOn the justice side, the Council discussed the two\nproposals for regulations establishing the Justice programme and the\nRights and Citizenship\nprogramme.
\nThe Council held a first exchange of views on\nthe Commission proposals in the justice and home affairs area in\nthe context of the multiannual financial framework\n(2014-2020):
\nOn the justice side, the Council discussed the two\nproposals for regulations establishing the Justice programme and the\nRights and Citizenship\nprogramme.
\nPURPOSE: to establish, as part of the Internal\nSecurity Fund, the instrument for financial support for police\ncooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis\nmanagement. This Fund takes over from the Specific\nProgramme 'Prevention of and Fight against\nCrime' which it repeals.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: BACKGROUND: the policies related to the\nArea of Freedom, Security and Justice have been steadily growing in\nimportance over the last years. These policies are at the heart of\nthe European project to create an area without internal borders\nwhere Union citizens and third-country nationals may enter,\ncirculate, live and work.
\nIn the field of Internal Security, key documents such\nas the Commission's Communication on the Internal\nSecurity Strategy have provided clear guidance on\nthe direction of activities in the years to come.
\nInternal security is an area where the Union will be\nfacing important challenges. Terrorism and organised crime, drug\ntrafficking, corruption, cyber crime, trafficking in human beings\nand arms will continue to pose serious threats. Aggregate levels of\ncrime are anticipated to remain stable but the nature of crime is\nexpected to change with criminals using new technologies to commit\ncrimes. Cross-border and organised crime can be expected to\nincrease and become more sophisticated and international in nature.\nTo tackle all these future challenges, enhanced actions at Union\nlevel are essential to succeed in protecting the citizens from\nincreasingly trans-national threats and support the operational\nwork carried out by Member States' competent authorities, including\nthrough adequate Union funding.
\nAgainst this background, the Commission in its\nproposal on the next multi-annual financial framework for the\nperiod 2014-2020, suggested to set up an Internal\nSecurity Fund, as part of a simplified two-Fund structure\nfor future expenditure in the home affairs area which also includes\nan Asylum and Migration\nFund.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: in accordance with the greater\nemphasis pla