AP on Visa eng · 2016. 7. 8. · Title: Microsoft Word - AP on Visa eng.docx Author: Atdhe.Hetemi Created Date: 12/19/2013 9:49:13 AM

The views expressed in this document are those of the opinion poll respondents and do not necessarily represent the views of either UNDP or

ACTION PAPER ON

_____________________________________________________________________

Reducing the Schengen Visa Rejection

are those of the opinion poll respondents and do not necessarily represent the views of either UNDP or USAID

ACTION PAPER ON SCHENGEN VISA REFUSAL RATE IN KOSOVO

_____________________________________________________________________

Reducing the Schengen Visa Rejection Rate for Kosovar Citizens

December 2013

are those of the opinion poll respondents and do not necessarily represent the views of either UNDP or

1

IN KOSOVO

_____________________________________________________________________

The views expressed in this document are those of the opinion poll respondents and do not necessarily represent the views of either UNDP or USAID

2

Contents

List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

2. Background .................................................................................................................................................. 6

3. Are the Statistics Real? .............................................................................................................................. 9

4. Findings of the Public Pulse Report ................................................................................................... 11

5. Issues with the Visa Application Process .......................................................................................... 15

6. How to Solve this Problem? .................................................................................................................. 16

7. Recommendations.................................................................................................................................... 18


3

List of Abbreviations

BH Bosnia and Herzegovina

EC European Commission

ESI European Stability Initiative

EU European Union

GAP GAP Institute

JHAC Justice and Home Affairs Council

KCSS Kosovo Centre for Security Studies

KTV Kohavision Television

LTV Limited Territorial Validity Visa

MS EU member states


4

1. Introduction

Kosovo1 remains the only, in the Western Balkans that still has a visa regime with the Schengen area. This visa regime presents not only a serious obstacle to the free movement of the people keeping them the most isolated in the world, but it also hinders prospects for their economic development which Kosovo desperately needs. The European Union (EU) has made a political commitment to liberalize the short-term visa regime with Kosovo during the Thessaloniki Agenda in June 2003.2 Since then, Kosovo government has been presented with a set of preconditions which had to be met before the commencement of the visa liberalization dialogue. These preconditions mostly had to do with the readmission and reintegration processes. In January 2011, the EU gave satisfactory evaluation of the efforts of the Kosovo authorities, particularly those made in the field of readmission and reintegration. Following that, the European Commission (EC) placed Kosovo on the Schengen visa liberalization path by officially opening a visa liberalization dialogue with Kosovo. As a result, Kosovo authorities have been served with a number of criteria to fulfil before Kosovars would be allowed travel visa-free to Schengen countries.

Even though these conditions looked similar to those outlines in the roadmaps of the other Western Balkan countries’ (i.e. measures regarding border security, security of documents, the fight against corruption and organized crime, etc.), they were mostly based on numerical indicators. This means that the methodology used to draft the visa liberalization roadmap for Kosovo differs from the methodology used to draft visa liberalization roadmap for other Western Balkan countries. The Kosovo Centre for Security Studies (KCSS) conducted a comparative assessment of the EU visa liberalization process in the Western Balkans. Their report highlights that “the Kosovo’s visa liberalization roadmap differs in a number of ways compared to that of other Western Balkan countries. It is generally assessed that Kosovo is subjected to more benchmarks, reinforced monitoring mechanisms, a stricter and phased evaluation process and a more complex decision-making procedure. Kosovo is faced with a stricter procedures and a more unfavourable internal and EU stance.” Even though the Kosovo government started taking steps to fulfil the EU’s criteria for visa liberalization, concerns remained regarding the slow implementation of the newly adopted laws. At the same time, the number of unsuccessful Schengen visa applications remained relatively high. However, the situation in that field has improved in recent years with estimates of visa refusal rates varying between 173 and 25 percent4. In return, this increased fears among certain EU institutions and EU member states (MS) that a potential lift of the visa regime could lead to a wave of migrants from Kosovo. The UNDP survey Public Pulse has found that the citizens of Kosovo find visa liberalization to be a very important issue because around 90% of the respondents said that visa liberalization is an important issue for them.

1 All references to Kosovo on this document are made in the context of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999)

2 European Commission. “Visa Liberalization with Kosovo* - Roadmap”. http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/kosovo/documents/eu_travel/visa_liberalization_with_kosovo_roadmap.pdf (pg. 1, Brussels, June 2012). 3 GAP Institute and Group for Legal and Political Studies. “The visa business - Report on the cost of visas for Kosovans in the period 2010-2012. Prishtina, 2013. Available at: http://www.institutigap.org/documents/91619_gap_visas_eng.pdf 4 These figures were given orally in an interview with a Schengen country diplomat. Some Embassies in Kosovo have refused to give data on the number of received Schengen visa applications, visa application rejections as well as the statistics on reasons for rejection.


5

The expectations of Kosovars to benefit from visa liberalization have been raised over the past several years, and the public has not positively viewed delays in the process. In light of this situation, we have undertaken research on the current state of the visa liberalization process. Our report produced recommendations that will assist in the resolution of outstanding issues resulting in quick placement of Kosovo on the Schengen White List. A wave of illegal migrants has already caused concern in some EU countries regarding the visa liberalization for Kosovo. The number of illegal migrants from Kosovo’s neighbouring countries has previously raised concerns in the EU to the point of suspending visa liberalization with countries that have already been granted visa liberalization regime. As early as September 2013, the EU debated the possibility of suspension of the visa liberalization regime for countries from which large numbers of illegal migrants to the EU originate. The EU’s Progress Report 2013 for Kosovo highlights the increased number of irregular migrants from Kosovo to certain MS. Therefore, the issues of visa application rejections and illegal migration are intrinsically linked and they should be treated together in consideration of the visa liberalization regime and policies aimed at reducing irregular migration.

Technical issues have only further exacerbated the situation. In recent years, EU statistics regarding the visa refusal rates in Kosovo have raised concerns among Kosovo’s authorities. Since some Schengen countries did not recognize Kosovo as a sovereign state, all Kosovar visa applicants are refused the standard visa, and are, instead, issued visa with territorial limitations (i.e. excluding countries that did not yet recognize Kosovo’s statehood). This has led to confusion about the actual visa refusal rates and has artificially inflated the numbers of visa application refusals appearing in statistics and this is why the EUROStat and DG Home Affairs figures are different from those collected from the embassies of Schengen countries in Kosovo. On the other side, Kosovo citizens complain that the procedures and requirements for obtaining visas are difficult and that they vary from embassy to embassy, despite harmonization of visa application requirements earlier this year.

Both Schengen member states and the Kosovo authorities could help improve the situation and reduce the potential number of rejected visa applications, ensure a faster visa liberalization regime process and reduce the number of irregular migration.

In this context, the Government has put emphasis on prevention of irregular migration, combating criminal groups involved in the facilitation and direct smuggling of migrants and trafficking of human beings. In 2010 and 2011, the Ministry of Internal Affairs conducted an information campaign aimed at demotivating Kosovars from irregular migration. The campaign warned about the risks entailed by such endeavours. However, to intensify and expand the information campaign, in 2012 the Ministry of European Integration regularly conducted media campaigns informing the citizens about the process of visa liberalization, readmission and reintegration to further discourage irregular migration.5 Nevertheless, more concrete and persistent steps are required to reduce the number of irregular migrants and to have any impact on the visa refusal rate. In the long-term, sound policies that will generate jobs and increase social welfare are needed to mitigate or completely eliminate this problem.

5 Several activities already undertaken can be found on the Ministry’s web page: (http://www.visalib.info/en).


6

2. Background

The prospects for short-term visa liberalization with Kosovo came as a part of the European Summit of Thessaloniki in June 2003. These prospects were followed-up with commitments from the MS in December 2007. At that time, the European Council confirmed the pledge of 2003 and asked the EC to further review the possibilities of promoting contacts between the EU and the Western Balkans. One month later, the EC started a dialogue on visa liberalization with the Western Balkans countries. The Council reviewed the issue and planned the preparation of detailed roadmaps for each country that could benefit from short-term visa liberalization. In 2008, following entry into force of visa facilitation and readmission agreements, the visa liberalization dialogue was launched with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH), Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. In December 2009, the Council decided to grant visa-free travel to citizens of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Albania and BH were granted visa-free travel in December 2010. Therefore, Kosovo remained the only in the Western Balkans without a visa-free regime with the EU. The European Stability Initiative (ESI), a think-tank for the South East Europe claimed in a report that the non-recognition of Kosovo by some of the MS is the main reason why Kosovo was left out from visa-free regime6. In 2010, ESI called on the Council to remove all ambiguities and stand firmly behind the position that the visa liberalization decision-making process was status neutral.

At their meeting in December 2009, the Council asked the EC to move forward with a structured approach so that Kosovo could also benefit from the visa liberalization and move closer to the EU. This position was taken despite the fact that five MS have still not officially recognized Kosovo as a sovereign state. In the so-called Kosovo Study (November 2009), the Commission promised to establish the Kosovo Visa Roadmap and subsequently start the dialogue on visa liberalization. However, this was never done in practice. The dialogue and Roadmap were only instigated years later. The EU stressed that prior to starting the visa dialogue with Kosovo further progress was needed in the fields of readmission and reintegration. In December 2011, the Council welcomed the EC decision to start the visa dialogue with Kosovo without prejudice to MS positions on its status. A few days later, the Justice and Home Affairs Council initiated a discussion of Kosovo’s progress on readmission and reintegration. The EC concluded that “Kosovo made satisfactory progress in establishing a functional policy framework for the reintegration of returnees in Kosovo, as it had already done in the case of readmission.”7 The EC pledged to continue monitoring and assessing Kosovo’s progress on enhancement of its readmission framework and effective reintegration of returnees.The process progressed further on 19 January 2012 when the EC launched the visa dialogue with Kosovo. The next step was to present the Visa Liberalization Roadmap to the Kosovo government which was submitted in June 2012 by the EU Commissioner for Internal Affairs, Cecilia Malmström. At that time, Kosovo was requested to adopt or amend a large number of legal acts in line with the Community acquis and to undertake concrete measures to meet these criteria. Under the Roadmap, the EC was obliged to present regular reports to other EU institutions assessing Kosovo’s record of meeting the legislative agenda outlined in the Roadmap. The EC was also

6 European Stability Initiative. “Isolation Confirmed How the EU is undermining its interests in Kosovo, Berlin - Brussels - Prishtina,” November 2010. Available at: http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/esi_document_id_119.pdf 7 European Commission. “Visa Liberalization with Kosovo* - Roadmap”. http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/kosovo/documents/eu_travel/visa_liberalization_with_kosovo_roadmap.pdf (pg. 2, Brussels, June 2012).


7

requested to regularly reassess the expected migratory and security impacts of a visa regime with Kosovo.8

Furthermore, the EC would continue to monitor and report on Kosovo’s progress while taking into account other indicators such as:

• The visa refusal rate for applicants from Kosovo;

• The rate of refused entry into the Schengen area for Kosovo citizens;

• The number of Kosovo citizens found to be illegally staying in the territory of the MS;

• The total number of asylum applications from Kosovo citizens; and

• The number of rejected readmission applications submitted by the MS to Kosovo for Kosovo citizens.9

The Roadmap stated that a substantial decrease in the above performance indicators would be used in the Commission’s assessment of the expected migratory and security impacts of the potential visa liberalization with Kosovo. In April 2013, the Ministry of European Integration presented the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Visa Liberalization Roadmap. The Plan presented a list of actions that different Kosovar authorities need to take in order to meet the EU criteria and recommendations. This Plan foresaw the implementation of the comprehensive legal framework required by the Roadmap and necessary budgetary allocations and capacity building activities.10

This Plan also foresaw the negotiation and, if possible, signing of international agreements on cooperation in the field of readmission, specifically with the Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Ireland, Italy, Macedonia, Turkey and Lichtenstein.

Kosovo’s authorities have invested considerable resources for the implementation of the Action Plan. The budget for this purpose is €19,158,000, excluding other administrative costs.

At the height of Kosovar expectations for visa liberalization, a wave of Kosovo illegal migrants became an issue of serious concern. In an effort to decrease illegal migration, the Minister for European Integration, Vlora Çitaku, told the media that Europe would no longer receive migrants from Kosovo and that the irregular migration presented the biggest impediment for the expected visa liberalization. Opposition parties have blamed the current government for the dire economic situation in the Kosovo, which they claimed forces citizens to leave in search for the better economic conditions and opportunities abroad. Kohavision Television (KTV) reported that the EU could impose additional conditions for visa liberalization on Kosovo because the number of asylum seekers from Kosovo had increased in the previous months.11 In April 2013, MS active in issuing Schengen visas in Kosovo harmonised the list of documentation required for visa applications. Among these were birth certificates. However, in early 2013, the Civil Registry decided to only issue “extracts of birth records” instead of full birth certificates. This problem has increased the number of rejected visa applications.

8 Ibid, pg. 3. 9 Ibid, pg. 15. 10 Ministry of European Integration. “Action Plan for Implementation of Visa Liberalization Roadmap.” Available at: http://www.mei-ks.net/repository/docs/VLAP_2013_Eng.pdf (Prishtina, April 2013). 11 Kohavision KTV News report, 15 July 2013. “Asylum Damages Visa Liberalization.”


8

In July 2013, Kosovo Assembly adopted a package of eight laws required by the EU within the framework of the Visa Liberalization Roadmap. Most opposition parties criticised this process, but have, ultimately, supported the passing of these laws which presented an important step towards visa liberalization. Civil society has also complained that this group of laws was passed without public consultation which is required by the law. Also in July 2013, the media reported government authorities had to undertake some remaining 70 actions in order to be granted visa liberalization.12 That same month, the Ministries of Internal Affairs ministries of Kosovo and Hungary signed a cooperation agreement to fight cross-border crime, including trafficking of human beings.

Then, in August 2013, the EU Representative in Kosovo announced that Kosovars would learn the timeline for visa liberalization in September.

In mid-September, the European Parliament adopted amendments to the EU visa regulation, including a new visa waiver suspension mechanism, to ensure that visa-free travel does not lead to irregularities or abuse. Although visa liberalization has been a regular topic of discussion throughout 2013 and since the liberalization of visas with neighbouring countries, when it became clear that visa liberalization with the EU was not going to be an easy task, the government started to avoid speaking about it in public. Instead, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement has become a topic of regular discussion for both the government and the media.

12 RTV21 News Edition. “Tasks for Visa Liberalization.” (Prishtina, 6 July).


9

3. Are the Statistics Real?

In order for a country to be included in the Schengen White List, it is believed that the visa rejection rate should not be high. Today, the statistics of Schengen Visa rejections in Kosovo are unclear and unreliable. As noted above, the EU, embassies of the Schengen and EU countries and statistics from the civil society reports vary on the same issue. The key problem lies in the fact that not all MS have recognised Kosovo as a sovereign country. Practically, this means that when Kosovo citizens apply for a visa, they do not receive a C Schengen Visa, but are issued with a so called Limited Territorial Validity Visa (LTV) instead. A LTV usually excludes travelling into the countries that have not yet recognized Kosovo and this is why these visas are known as “the minus visas” in Kosovo. In the same time, such a situation led to some institutions reporting that all C visas are refused, while a majority of LTV visas are reported as granted. This is the origin of the differentiated reporting.

A review of the Commission report13 to the European Parliament and Council on the progress of Kosovo in fulfilling the requirements of the Visa Liberalization Roadmap gives a clear indication of this problem.

Visa refusal statistics in Kosovo for short-term Schengen visas during 2010 and 2011, provided by the EC’s DG for Home Affairs, show a huge discrepancy when compared to the figures provided by the MS embassies in Kosovo. When the data on visa refusal rates were compared with those of the Eurostat, it was found that the Eurostat statistics do not represent the real visa refusal rates in Kosovo. According to the Eurostat analysis, C type visas were all categorized as denied. Simultaneously, the LTVs were reported as granted without being subtracted from the total number of rejected visa applications. For example, Eurostat reports show that Finland rejected 99.2% of Schengen Visas A and C. However, it appears from the analysis of statistics provided by the Finnish Embassy in Kosovo that in that year, the Embassy received 916 visa applications from which 776 A, C and LTV visas were ultimately granted. This means that the actual visa refusal rate of the Finnish embassy was 15.3%, not 99.2%.

Similarly, the data obtained from the Italian Embassy shows that this embassy received 9.942 visa applications in the first half of 2013 from which 7.843 visas were granted which, in turn, represents a visa refusal rate of 21.11%. During the same period of the previous year, the Embassy received 8.473 applications and issued 6.518 visas which represents a refusal rate of 23.07%. The comparison of data shows a reduction in rejected visa applications.

The situation with German Embassy data is similar. According to Eurostat’s data, it appears that Germany has rejected 79.24% of visa applications, but these figures do not reflect the real situation, either. According to the data provided by the German Embassy, the refusal rate for C visa applications was only 18% percent.

It is impossible to do an independent assessment of the visa rejection rates in other embassies that issue Schengen visas in Kosovo without the raw data. On the other hand, it has proved impossible for the authors of this report to obtain raw data directly from other EU embassies in Kosovo. However, it is believed that the same miscalculations (as was the case with the Finnish, Italian and German embassies) are prevalent with other Schengen Visa issuers in Kosovo.

13 European Commission. “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress by Kosovo* in fulfilling the requirements of the visa liberalization roadmap.” Brussels, 8 February 2013.


10

These disharmonized visa application statistics cause confusion for both decision makers and stakeholders in the EU about the visa liberalization process with Kosovo. As diplomats from the Schengen area claim that the number of rejected visa applications should fall, it is worth reiterating that the above analyses of data from the German, Finnish and Italian Embassies showed that the visa refusal rates in each of these embassies was under 20-25%. Additionally, civil society research in Kosovo has found that, over the past three years, 217.862 Kosovars applied for Schengen visas: 82.450 in 2010, 67.901 in 2011 and 67.556 in 2012. Their data indicates that only 17% of visa applications were rejected by the Schengen states.14

It was planned that this report would also include a comprehensive analysis of the reasons for visa rejection rates as reported by embassies. Such an analysis would have made it easy to prescribe recommendations about the future placement of focus to generate policies that will reduce the visa rejection rates. In turn, such policies would reduce the number of irregular migrants to the EU which was another criterion for visa liberalization.

The abovementioned representatives of Schengen countries have noted that the key reasons for rejection of visa applications are:

• incomplete applications,

• insufficient resources (either of the applicant or of the inviting party), and

• applications from the risk group (18-24 of age) if unemployed, single or not enrolled in an educational institution.

Other reported reasons include:

• negative entries about applicants in the Schengen Information System or individual countries’ Foreigners Register (mostly people who had previously been deported to Kosovo), and

• cases of fake marriages.

Although this feedback was important, a comprehensive analysis was not possible without complete raw data from all Schengen area embassies. It is important that the embassies, in close cooperation with the EC and Kosovo government conduct such regular analyses, at least annually, and use the findings to improve policies aimed at reaching requirements from the Roadmap.

14 GAP Institute and Group for Legal and Political Studies.“The visa business - Report on the cost of visas for Kosovans in the period 2010-2012.” Prishtina, 2013. Available at: http://www.institutigap.org/documents/91619_gap_visas_eng.pdf.


11

4. Findings of the Public Pulse Report

Similarly to the results of the Public Pulse survey from November 2010, the latest results of the survey from April 2013 show that the visa liberalization issue continues to have a lot of importance for an overwhelming majority of Kosovans (90%). However, disaggregation of data on ethnic basis shows a sharp differentiation in opinions. While 81% of Kosovar Albanians considered Schengen Visa liberalization highly important, only 28% of Kosovo Serbs found the issue important. Additionally, 10% of Kosovo Serbs considered the issue completely unimportant. However, it was assumed that the visa liberalization for Kosovo would consequently be less important for the Kosovo Serbs because they have access to Serbian passports (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Opinions on importance of visa liberalization for Kosovo citizens

The survey data also brought out the reasons why people find visa liberalization important. Despite the extremely difficult economic situation in Kosovo, it is encouraging that the majority of Kosovars responded that they will use the visa-free travel regime for touristic visits (35% of respondents as compared to 20% in November 2010), family visits (26%), educational opportunities and other reasons. However, quite large number of respondents had misconceptions about visa liberalization stating that they would use this opportunity to seek employment or permanent residence in the EU (16%) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: In case of visa liberalization, what will be the main purpose of your travel to European countries

12.5%

3.4%

25.9%

19.9%

14.4%

4.7%

.6%

.5%

1.5%

.8%

.5%

15.2%

12.6%

3.1%

21.8%

34.8%

14.0%

1.6%

0.3%

0.4%

1.9%

0.5%

1.0%

7.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Education

Health

Family visit

Turistic visit

Employment

Bussiness

Sport

Culture

Permanent residence

Official visit (conference, …

Other

NA

Apr-13

Nov-10

88.0%

7.1% 4.9%

89.6%

7.7%2.7%

A lot and enough A little and not at all DK/NA

Nov-10 Apr-13


12

In order to determine what demographic factors influenced respondents’ readiness to utilize visa liberalization as an opportunity to seek employment or permanent residence in the EU, a statistical analysis was conducted between the use of visa liberalization as an opportunity to seek employment or permanent residence in EU and the following variables: region, gender, education, income, employment and place of residence. Findings show that a large number of citizens in Gjakova/ðakovica (28%), Gjilan/Gnjilane (25%), Prishtinë/Priština (20%) and Prizren (20%) would use the visa liberalization to seek employment or permanent residence in the EU. Lower percentages of citizens who declared that they would use the visa liberalization for the same purposes were found in in other regions.

Figure 3; Use of visa liberalization for employment and permit residence purposes – regional cross-tabulation

Moreover, our analysis showed that the majority of those who would use visa liberalization to seek employment and permanent residence in the EU are unemployed (looking for work) (31%), those with uncompleted secondary education (23%), males (20%), those that did not earn at all (19%) and those living in urban areas (19%).

Figure 4; Use of visa liberalization for Employment and permit residence purposes – employment, gender, income, education and residence crosstabulations

Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the reason that Kosovo remains the only in the region without a visa-free regime The findings show that many of them (28%) thought that it was “because the Kosovo government and other Kosovo institutions did not fulfil required criteria from the visa liberalization roadmap,” 15% stated that it was because of “the problems Kosovo has

22.9%

10.0%

20.0%

10.0%

13.9%

28.0%

25.2%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

Prishtina/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Prizren

Peja/Pec

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Gjakova/Djakovica

Gjilan/Gnjilan

Employment or change of

residence

31.8%

20.2%

19.3%

22.7%

19.4%

.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

Unemployed (looking for work)

Male

I did not earn at all

Secondary education inclomplete

Urban


13

with Serbia,” and 14% declared that it was because of the “five EU countries that do not recognize Kosovo” (see fig 5).

Figure 5: Why do you think Kosovo is left out of the visa dialogue?

The Kosovars were also asked whether they had applied for a visa during the last six months to which 6% of them responded affirmatively. The majority of those that had applied (3.9 %) had received visas, while 2.2% did not. This shows that the negative response rate to visa applications is higher than the assumed refusal rates in the embassies.

Figure 1. If yes, did you get it?

K-Albanian K-Serb K - others Total

Yes (one-entry purposes)

2.1% 3.9% 4.1% 2.2%

Yes (multi-entry purposes)

1.5% 3.9% 4.1% 1.7%

No 2.3% 2.0% 2.2%

Still waiting for an answer

0.2% 2.0% 2.0% 0.3%

NA 94.0% 88.2% 89.8% 93.6%

Additionally, Kosovars were asked whether they knew that, if they immigrate illegally, they will be sent back to Kosovo and whether they were informed that Kosovo has signed readmission agreements with most of the MS? Sixty nine percent of the respondents declared to be aware that they will be sent back to Kosovo if they immigrate illegally, while 18% said they did not know that. Out of those who did not know that they would be sent back, 26% were Kosovo Serbs, 18% Kosovo Albanians and 10% members of the other Kosovo communities. On the other hand, more

1.5%

3.0%

6.9%

9.0%

9.9%

11.4%

14.4%

15.4%

28.4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Other

NA

Don't know

Because of the bad image that Kosovo citizens have in Europe

Because of the political situation

Because of the economical situation

Because of the 5 EU countries not recognizing Kosovo

Because of problems that it has with Serbia

Because Kosovo government and other Kosovo institutions didn’t

fulfill required criteria’s from the visa liberalization roadmap


14

than 52% of all respondents were informed that Kosovo has signed readmission agreements with most of the MS. However, 34% of Kosovo Serbs, some 61% members of the other Kosovo communities and 30% of Kosovo Albanians were not informed about that.

In addition, more than half of the respondents were aware that, if they migrate illegally, they will not be able to enter the Schengen Area for a period between three to five years, while about 28 percent were not aware of this consequence. This number is quite high and it calls for awareness campaigns or other measures that will inform citizens in the hope of ensuring that less people attempt to illegally resettle in the Schengen Area. Out of the respondents who were interested in obtaining a visa, 5% of them claim to have been offered illegal ways of obtaining visas. Eight percent of those who had been offered an illegal way of obtaining a visa claimed that they had received offers from embassy staff, while 1% of the applicants declared that they had received such offers from people who do not have a steady job.


15

5. Issues with the Visa Application Process

Kosovo did not sign a Visa Facilitation Agreement prior to the initiation of the visa liberalization process which could have eased the procedures for visa application. However, research done in the countries from the region (such as Macedonia, Albania, Serbia etc.) has shown that the visa facilitation did not provide substantive support to applicants. As a matter of fact, in some cases, the opposite was true. Visa applicants complained that the procedures for obtaining visas present a hardship and that the visa application procedures and requirements vary from embassy to embassy.

As previously noted, since April 2013, the visa-issuing countries have undertaken steps to harmonize the list of required documents. This development has led people to be more informed about what documents they need to submit along their visa applications. Nevertheless, several instances have occurred where artists or journalists have publicly complained that, although they have been granted numerous Schengen visas in the past, they have recently only been given visa extensions for the duration of particular events in the Schengen Area. They requested to be given longer period on multiple entry visas in order to avoid visa application procedures in the future. To improve such situations, the German Embassy has recently undertaken an initiative to ease the visa application process for those that have been granted a Schengen Visa in the last 24 months and those who have evidence that they have exercised their rights and privileges responsibly.

Citizens who apply for a Schengen visa often complain that the list of required documents to be submitted with the visa application is large and that the local administrative procedures make it difficult for them to present all the required documentation in time or painlessly. Furthermore, they complain that a number of required documents are, in fact, needless. Respondents also complained about having to submit visa applications in person. Applicants are regularly forced to spend extended periods of time waiting in front of embassies/consulates. This is particularly difficult in the wintertime when the largest number of visa applications are submitted.

Additionally, citizens also complained about the visa application fee which, again, varies from embassy to embassy. They believe that such a fee should be waived for citizens because the Kosovo has already entered the EU integration and visa liberalization processes. The GAP Institute has conducted an analysis of the visa application fees Kosovar citizens pay to the Schengen countries embassies/consulates. The GAP concluded that between 2010 and 2012, Kosovo citizens spent approximately 15 million Euros on visa applications. Nine million were spent on direct payment of visa application fees and at least 5.8 million was paid in expenditures to obtain various supporting documents needed to complete visa applications.15 Considering the economic situation in Kosovo, this amount is quite significant.

15 GAP Institute and Group for Legal and Political Studies. “The visa business - Report on the cost of visas for Kosovans in the period 2010-2012.” Prishtina, 2013. Available at: http://www.institutigap.org/documents/91619_gap_visas_eng.pdf.


16

6. How to Solve this Problem?

The public believes that the lack of implementation of the Roadmap criteria by the Kosovo authorities presents the key impediment to visa liberalization. The Public Pulse survey found that the largest share, 42% of respondents, blamed this on the government’s general lack of capacity, while the rest listed other factors such as the economic situation and the poor image of Kosovo in the MS.

Authorities need to address these issues by fulfilling the requirements of the Action Plan, as well as by increasing the outflow of information to the public once the benchmarks are reached. The Action Plan for the Implementation of the Visa Liberalization Roadmap foresaw a stepping-up of operational cooperation on the law enforcement issues with interested neighbouring countries and the MS. Nevertheless, in spite of the recent wave of irregular migrants from Kosovo passing through Serbia and going into Hungary and other MS, no such cooperation has been established with Serbia to-date. As noted above, in June 2013, Kosovo signed a cooperation agreement with Hungary. Setting-up cooperation agreements between the security structures of Kosovo, Serbia and Hungary could help prevent illegal migration. In addition, readmission agreements, information campaigns and other law enforcement activities against trafficking of human beings should be considered as tools for reducing irregular migration.

However, it is extremely important to not forget that long-term solutions addressing unemployment and economic situation of Kosovars need to be formulated. This could be largely facilitated by establishing seasonal work agreements between Kosovo and Schengen members or the MS, as well as through putting more investments in vocational education and training, improving the educational system in Kosovo, attracting more foreign investments, and undertaking other measures that would have significant mid- to long-term impacts. It should be noted that several countries in the region already have standing agreements for seasonal worker exchanges with a number of MS. Additionally, further engagement of the Kosovo authorities with their citizens is needed to ensure that the citizens become aware that it is no longer possible for the Kosovo citizens to obtain asylum and that there are legal consequences of illegal migration. Some 28% of the respondents are unaware that illegal migrants are banned from entering the Schengen area for a period between three to five years.

As the Public Pulse found that only 69% of their respondents are aware that illegal migrants will be sent back to Kosovo, this certainly calls for more awareness campaigns to ensure that the general public becomes aware that illegal migration is not an option. The relevant authorities need to identify areas where migrants are coming from and engage, together with municipalities, in grassroots campaigns to ensure dissemination of such information. Although the Public Pulse found that less than 2% of Kosovo Albanians and about 4 % of members of other Kosovo communities would use the visa liberalization for resettlement in Western Europe for economic reasons, the media has reported that the reasons given by the illegal migrants for their attempts to resettle in Western Europe are mostly economic.

Given the recent figures about illegal migration, the EU member states and European Commission have a reason to be worried about this trend. It is therefore important to give special attention to addressing the reduction of illegal migration which will, in turn, decrease the number of rejected visa applications. Authorities would need to implement measures, such as seasonal work exchanges, to reduce the economic pressure on the economically disadvantaged sections of the society. Several


17

countries of the region have already standing agreements on exchange of seasonal workers with a number of EU member states.

As the package of legislation required by the Roadmap has been drafted and approved by the Assembly, the focus should now be put on the actual implementation of those laws. Kosovo’s institutions should become more creative and comprehensive in addressing readmission issues and making them sustainable. This, of course, requires job generation, start-ups, and social, educational and economic integration of returnees. The mandate of the current EC ends in mid-2014. Both Kosovo and the EU should focus on speeding up efforts and agreeing on a timeframe to realize Kosovo’s addition to the Schengen White List before completion of the mandate of the current Commission. If this is not achieved under the mandate of the current Commission, due to elections within the EU, the liberalization process will be delayed even further.


18

7. Recommendations

The following recommendations aim at addressing some of the key issues raised above and at suggesting options for quick remedies, albeit in some cases temporary ones, before visa liberalization becomes a reality for Kosovo.

To the Government of Kosovo

1. Establish a Visa Advisory Unit within the institutions of Kosovo to advise visa applicants on how best to submit successful Schengen visa application. Such a unit would also screen out people who do not meet the application criteria. Alternatively, embassies and the Kosovo government could fund a professional service or a civil society organisation to support applicants for this purpose until the visa liberalization.

2. Improve communication on visa liberalization with the public. Step up the public and outreach campaigns to inform citizens about the consequences of illegal migration. A thorough analysis of the illegal migrants profile should be done to ensure targeted campaigns can be organized in specific vulnerable areas. Such an analysis should consider all dimensions: age, gender, region, and ethnicity.

3. Step up engagement with Schengen countries to reach agreements on the exchange of seasonal workers to ease the social and economic pressure on vulnerable groups in Kosovo.

4. Insist on an agreement for police cooperation with Serbia to ensure effective fighting of cross-border human trafficking.

To the Schengen Visa-Issuing Countries

1. Implement interim measures. These should include: awarding of long-period visas to bona fide applicants who were in possession of the Schengen visa in the past and relax the verification procedures for previous visa holders (see the German example).

2. Harmonise the list of required documents for visa application across all Schengen countries and ensure implementation of the Schengen Visa Code by all Schengen country consulates.

3. Improve the practical visa application process to enable applicants to pass through the visa application process faster and to eliminate unnecessary queues by implementing inexpensive system of appointments.

4. Assess and share reasons for visa refusals with the Kosovo government, civil society and the public providing accurate figures of rejections of visa applications. Ideally, this will reduce the number of irregular migrants. Additionally, the workload of embassy and HQ staff would reduce because of the subsequent reductions in verifications.

5. Instigate seasonal work agreements with Kosovo institutions as this would allow for improvements in the economic situation of the needy and would thus reduce the perceived need for irregular migration.

To Visa Applicants

1. Apply for visa at least one month before travel.

2. Ensure that you properly prepared all documents before applying for a visa.

3. Do not migrate irregularly because you will most likely be repatriated which will be recorded in a database and will deny you entry into the Schengen Area for several years.


19

To Media and Civil Society Organizations

1. Be informed about the visa liberalization process. Review the EU and Kosovo government documentation to ensure proper reporting and to enable yourself to make relevant recommendations on the issue.

2. Cover the visa liberalization dialogue more closely. Do not just cover events, but investigate and assess how much is truly being achieved and where the deficiencies lie.

Documents

AP on Visa eng · 2016. 7. 8. · Title: Microsoft Word - AP on Visa eng.docx Author: Atdhe.Hetemi Created Date: 12/19/2013 9:49:13 AM