Enlargement of the Schengen area and possible consequences for the visa regime towards Ukrainian citizens. A comparative analysis of the Czech and Polish cases.

The entry of the new EU member states from Central and Eastern Europe into the Schengen area represents a sort of second entry into the European Union. While on one side of the border there will be celebrations of the cancellation of border controls in between the European member states, on the other side of the border Schengen entry is awaited with fear. With respect to the visa regime, which is the main topic of this article, national sovereignty will be limited further through changes in the issuing of so-called tourist visas. When deciding about visas, the thinking of consular staff should undergo a change, as the “national” perspective should shift into a “European” one. The short-term visa will be valid for the whole Schengen area.

Short-term Visas are the Main Issue

The consular staff and the police confirm that a more thorough screening of visa applicants is going to be put in place and that the visa process itself is going to be stricter. Miroslav Smetana from the Foreign Police Directorate in Prague, comments: “The practice today is that we can refuse entry to a foreigner who is unwanted in the Czech Republic, but once we are in the Schengen area, we will have to fulfil the tasks ensuing from our membership in that area. That means that we will have to refuse even someone who is unwanted, for example, in Germany or France.” At the same time he also adds that the holder of the Schengen “tourist” visa will have the advantage of having access to the whole Schengen area.

However, a more thorough assessment of each individual visa applications is not the only change. The overall practice of issuing visas in one Schengen country will be compared to those of the other Schengen countries. Jaroslav Basta, the First Undersecretary of the Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs described the future development as follows: “If the number of visa applications went up, it would mean that we were behaving differently from the other Schengen countries.[1] For example, it might imply that we were less rigorous and more liberal in our visa practice and that the refused applicants were coming to us to apply for a visa, which we would not want to see happen” (for more see the interview with Jaroslav Basta). According to the same logic, Tomas Haisman, the Director of the Asylum and Migration Department at the Czech Ministry of the Interior, considers the current five percent of refused visa applications in Ukraine low when compared with other Schengen countries . We are talking mainly about short-term visas. The entry to the Schengen area as such is not expected to bring restrictions to the issuing of long-term visas. For example, Smetana, from the Foreign Police Department, rules out the possibility that there will be changes in issuing work visas for members of cooperatives or company partners[2]. He thus refutes one of the fears that dominate in the queue in front of the Czech Consulate in Lviv.

Table No. 1 Czech visa applications of Ukrainian citizens from 1st January 2000 to 13th August 2007

Year	I	R	IL	RL	IS	RS
2000	36,248	333	3,775	288	32,473	45
2001	77,643	2,330	10,712	673	66,931	1,657
2002	82,224	4,268	10,514	2,742	71,710	1,526
2003	85,543	7,800	13,362	6,322	72,181	1,478
2004	79,518	9,707	16,309	4,752	63,209	4,955
2005	105,063	9,308	18,143	3,669	86,920	5,639
2006	136,848	7,516	25,292	2,242	111,556	5,274
2007*	78,766	5,151	13,163	465	65,603	4,686

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.

* In 2007 the decision on issuing visas has not been made for all the cases so far.

I = Issued visas, R= Refused visas, IL= Issued long-term visas, RL = Refused long-term visas, IS = Issued short-term visas, RS = Refused short-term visas

 

However, some rules should also apply for long-term visas. If it is found that there is an alert on a certain foreigner in the Schengen Information System (SIS), this person should, in principle, be denied a visa. In the SIS database in the year 2004 there were 785 631 foreigners who were to be banned entry based on article 96 of the Schengen Treaty (Broeders 2007). In addition to the current number of alerts, new ones will be added by the new states entering the Schengen area at the end of 2007. In the case of the Czech Republic, this should amount to about thirty thousand records that are currently in the Database of Undesirable Individuals, Sarka Machotkova, a Schengen expert at the Czech Ministry of the Interior, noted.

Within the SIS, the practice of inputting data about foreigners with a “refused entry” has not been sufficiently harmonised, thus far. According to Heiner Busch from the Berlin Institute for Rights of Citizens and Public Safety affiliated to the Free University, foreigners are included[3] into this database most often by two states - Italy and Germany, both of which have a disproportionately higher frequency in comparison to other Schengen states. According to Busch, these cases comprise of situations in which the foreigner has exceeded the period of visa validity, rather than cases representing a security threat as such. Therefore, the inclusion of data into the database reveals more about the degree of liberality or restrictiveness of migration policy of an individual Schengen area state, than the dangerousness of a particular person. Consequences for foreigners can be critical, even for those who already have a residence permit in a country joining the Schengen area. Sarka Machotkova confirms that a foreigner could possibly be deprived of an already approved residence if it is found out that s/he has been registered in the SIS in connection with “refused entry” for another Schengen state. A higher level of harmonisation, and at the same time, the broader rights of foreigners to be informed that they have been included into the SIS database, should form part of the so-called second generation Schengen Information System - SIS II.

Security Aspects Win

With preparations for entry into the Schengen area culminating, it is obvious that in visa policy and practice the security perspective overcomes other concerns. “It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that security, European security, will become the priority and our practice will have to gradually adapt to this. Not only the practice of the Czech Republic, but of the Schengen area as a whole”, stresses the First Undersecretary of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Jaroslav Basta. Admittedly, he also mentions other concerns, e.g. interests of travel agencies and companies, but these currently lose importance when compared with security priorities. From the point of view of the Czech Republic, paradoxically, the issuing of short-term visas becomes stricter precisely at the moment when the Czech Ministry of the Interior points out that from the long-term perspective, illegal migration has been falling (see for example the Report 2006). At the same time, within the Schengen area, the priority of national interests withdraws to the background and becomes subordinated to the common interests of all Schengen area states. For many Western European countries, the fight against illegal migration has been an important issue.

The importance of control and security has been taken into account also by other states, for example by Poland, which should also form part of the Schengen area from the end of 2007. Jacek Junosza Kisielewski from the consular department of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs says: “The philosophy of control after the entry into the Schengen area consists of the abolition of internal barriers and enhanced control within almost the whole area”. In the case of Poland, the problem with visa practice harmonisation in the enlarged Schengen area is more evident than in the Czech Republic, as there is an obvious conflict between the support of the entry of Ukraine into the EU and good neighbour relations on the one hand, and EU requirements for illegal migration control on the other hand. Admittedly, Poland has implemented visa obligations for Ukrainian citizens (although just before its entry into the EU). However, this has become more of a pro forma administrative exercise resulting from the necessity to fulfil the rules of the common EU visa policy, rather than a case in which visas are being used in order to control migration. Thus, Polish visas in Ukraine have so far played only a minimal role as a “remote control” (Guiraudon 2001), and have served rather as a foreign policy instrument (Kaźmierkiewicz 2005).

Illegal labour migration on short-term multiple entry visas has until now been more or less tolerated. The continuation of such practices should, however, be a violation of the Schengen rules. The one percent of refused short-term visas cannot be sustained after the new Schengen rules will be applied. Obtaining a tourist visa at the Polish Consulates is now a formality reflecting the priorities of Polish foreign policy for which liberal visa policies for Ukraine is an example. As Miroslaw Gryta, a Polish consul in Lviv, says: “Only very rarely do we actually interview applicants. This was the nature of our agreement with Ukraine, that visas will be available for all, and so we follow this policy. Once Poland enters the Schengen area, this will definitely have to change. We will have to deal with each visa application in a more detailed manner.” And he adds that it is a question of customs officers’ responsibility to decide who they let into the country.

“Yes, for about a year and half controls at the borders have been stricter,” a Ukrainian minibus driver confirms the increased activity of Polish customs officers at the Polish-Ukrainian border. A young man of about thirty who wanted to go with him to Warsaw had to get off at the border and undergo an interview, because the customs officer found out that with his last multiple-entry visa he stayed in Poland for three months uninterrupted. He is suspected of working illegally in Poland. However, until now the possibilities of obtaining a legal work visa have been limited. In 2003, for example, only less than 3,000 Ukrainians worked legally in Poland. It is estimated that there are 50 - 300,000 Ukrainians, depending on the season, who live illegally in Poland (Frelak in Bieniecki 2007). Mikolaj Pawlak, a doctoral student at the Graduate School of Social Sciences, comments: “However, according to some migration experts, for example Marek Okólski, it is a fiction to say that these Ukrainians live here illegally. For nobody really cares.” While to obtain a long-term work visa is, despite the pressure of Polish employers, not going to be easier now, a special short-term work visa program was put into practice this July. However, it has currently been exposed to considerable criticisms.

Iryna, who is in charge of Schengen and non-Schengen visas for municipal officers and politicians at a Western Ukrainian municipality, points out: “We hope that the visas won’t be normal Schengen ones, that it will not be possible to enter into the other European countries with them, only into Poland. They will be called Schengen visas. However, they will be valid only within the Polish territory. This is the idea people in Ukraine have.” The possibility that with a short-term visa, you would be allowed to enter and move only in Poland, and not in the other EU countries, has been anticipated. However, it should apply only to those Ukrainians who live within a strictly delimited 30-kilometre border area. And their movement on Polish territory will also be limited to a border area of the same width. The Schengen Treaty makes a reference to a short-term visa with a limited territorial validity; however, it should be issued only exceptionally. According to Machotkova from the Czech Ministry of the Interior, it may be applicable for humanitarian reasons or cases when another Schengen country does not accept a travel document.

Although the Schengen tourist visa, which allows for movement limited to a particular state, should rather be an exception, the possibilities of a partially specific national approach will be retained. According to Anita Szymborska from the Polish Stefan Batory Foundation, the visa practice of current Schengen states turns out to be non-uniform. There are differences in the waiting period, the number of required documents or the amount of refused applications (for more see Batory 2006). “States entering into the Schengen area will also have the possibility to implement their own practices. We hope they will be as friendly towards our neighbours as possible”, Szymborska adds.

When Consulates are Overloaded

The Czech and Polish Consulates have had difficulties dealing with the number of visa applications already before entry into the Schengen area. Last year the Czech Consulate in Lviv issued 63,000 visas; this year it expects up to 80,000 applications (see table No. 2 below). Its employees call it a “visa factory”. However, this attribute would better suit the Polish Consulate, which issues around 300,000 visas a year (see table No. 3). The Polish Consulate is a “non-profit-making” factory, because the majority of the issued visas are short-term ones, which are free of charge. At the Czech Consulate, around 40 % of visas are long-term work visas. Considering that one long-term visa costs 2,500 Czech crowns, this would entail gains of around 61 million Czech crowns in 2006.

When the consulates cannot “manage”, the prices for various services by intermediaries increase. In July 2007, a Ukrainian journalist from the Vysokyi zamok daily bought a Polish multiple entry short-term visa for 130 US dollars from an intermediary. This occurred when the Lviv Polish Consulate suspended online visa application registration due to high demand. Although the corruption of Polish visa officers was not proven, the consular services at this consulate were expanded and the problem of visa application overload was pointed out. It was also made public that the online registration for visa applications collapsed. A double shift was introduced, the office hours were extended, and the online registration was slowly put back to service.

No. 1 – One of the trailers offering to facilitate visa applications in front of the Polish Consulate in Lviv

Table No. 2. Visa applications lodged at the Czech General Consulate in Lviv

Year	Total		Visas to 90 days		Visa over 90 days
	No. of apps.	Issued visa	No. of apps.	Issued visas	No. of apps.	Issued visas
2004	23,215	17,567	12,552	9,594	10,663	7,973
2005	37,847	32,504	23,886	20,957	13,961	11,547
2006	61,421	55,056	39,472	36,692	21,949	18,364
2007 >15.8*	42,604	32,900	25,258	22,847	17,346	10,053

Source: General Consulate of the Czech Republic in Lviv.

 * In 2007 the decision on issuing visas has not been made in all cases so far.


Table No. 3. Visa applications submitted at the General Consulate of Poland in Lviv and in Ukraine (year 2006)

	Total number of applications at the GC in Lviv	Short-term visas	Long-term visas	Refused	Total number of applications at Polish Consulates in Ukraine
2006	306, 240	276, 100	29, 200	2,500	635, 000

Source: General Consulate of Poland in Lviv.

Note: the data has been rounded off.

Although there have been serious problems with online registration recently, people in Lviv tend to have good experiences with it. As long as they are able to plan their trip in advance, they know which day to come to apply for a visa. Queuing in front of the Czech Consulate, Mykola comments: “In comparison with the Czech Consulate, which is a mess, the Polish Consulate is more civilised.” Compared to the Polish Consulate, there is no registration system at the Czech one and everybody knows that there are self-appointed “queue organisers” who sell slots in the queue. Yuriy, who agrees with the negative aspects of the queue and the long waiting period for visa issuing, he is also aware of the advantage of being able to come anytime. He also partially blames the Ukrainians themselves for the situation when he says: “Anyhow, this is the fault of our mentality, that we jump the queues.” Travel agencies see the practices at both the Czech as and Polish Consulates in Lviv as problematic. At present, the Czech Consulate sets weekly limits for every registered travel agency, while the Polish Consulate uses the online registration system, which is disadvantageous for travel agencies (for more see the interview with Iryna Mala).

 

Picture No. 2 – Ukrainian applicants for Czech visas at the Consulate in Lviv who have not been able to submit their applications that day are trying in vain to make a waiting list for the following day. 

According to Nina an Ivan, two artists from Lviv who go to Prague every summer, the situation got worse this year, in comparison to last year: “Last year someone was trying to offer us a slot in the queue for 20 US dollars, this year it was 150. Of course, we refused it.” They obtained their tourist visa in thirty days, which is the maximum according to the statute of limitations. Some long-term visa applicants must wait several days in Lviv before they are even able to hand their visa application to a visa officer. Sergey regrets that the Consul General is on holidays: “He would give an order to the security guard to collect the passports. Since he is not here, one woman has been waiting here since Monday. The queue does not change. Somebody always pushes their people ahead.” The Czech Consulate in Kiev faced similar problems with the onslaught of applications, queue jumping, or with “virtual” queues. Karel Stindl, the former Czech Ambassador in Kiev, explains how they tried to solve the situation two years ago: “We had two choices. Either serve all applicants in the queue and limit ourselves to a cursory procedure or go ahead with a more proper control of all applicants. We decided to go ahead with the first option and to make rigorous checking once we were actually handling the applications in the office. That means that we accept all applications that come in a single day, which is the practice until today.” According to the Czech Consul General in Lviv, even there it was possible to collect applications in a day: “It happened at a great cost to all the people working at the Consulate till the first half of March this year. The current overload is, however, enormous.” According to information from a visa-applicant in Kiev, even there some visa applicants must come now more than once before they can actually hand in their applications. According to Czech non-governmental organizations, such long queues in front of the Czech Consulates also occur in other countries such as Moldova, Mongolia and elsewhere.

Even if it were feasible to collect the visa applications in a single day, it would not solve the problems caused by the self-appointed queue organisers, the activities of the middlemen and the situation in front of the Consulates. This problem does not pertain to the Czech or Polish Consulates in Lviv only. The European Union Embassies and the Ukrainian authorities do not want to deal with the problem in front of the Consulates and they toss it between themselves like a hot potato. From the point of view of the European Consulates, it is the territory of a foreign state over which they do not have sovereignty and for them it is therefore a “Ukrainian pavement”. They point out that their Consulates have only limited powers to change the situation in their surroundings. On the other hand, the Ukrainian authorities blame the Consulates for this situation. On top of that, they do not always see the services offered at the Consulates as illegal. In general the Ukrainian side affirms interest in the question of issuing visas and the situation in and around the consulates. Such interest, however, seems to remain rather declaratory.

Offering various services to facilitate visa applications is partially related with the difficulty to prepare the visa application. The Czech Consulate could offer extended services if they really wanted to decrease the role of middlemen. According to Jandera, however, we again come back to the limited capacity of the Consulate: “Of course we consider the “middlemen” as a negative phenomenon, but given our current visa application overload we do not have any capacity to extend our services or to deal with each visa applicant on an individual basis.” Sometimes, however, a little help would be enough. For example, there is no list of practical information, nor is there a sample of how to fill in a visa application form anywhere on the boards of the Czech Consulate in Lviv. To fill in the visa application form in a Latin alphabet is one of the most searched for paid services. At the same time, the Ukrainian authorities are very lax, even when there are illegal acts taking place in front of the Consulates. The Czech Consulate in Lviv is now trying to have state police permanently stationed in front of the building, noted Jandera. The experience from the Polish Consulate is somewhat confusing, however. The police there seem to limit themselves to the prohibition of photographing the queues rather than anything else.

Given the visa application overload and the long waiting period for a Czech visa in Lviv it is not surprising that some people from Western Ukraine prefer to go to the Czech Embassy in Poland, Hungary or Slovakia. They cannot, however, apply at another Czech Consulate in Ukraine. As several people mentioned, according to an informal rule, it is not possible to apply for visa at a different Consulate than where the applicant has his/her place of residence in Ukraine. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs denies such a practice, claiming that no Czech consular officer would actually tell this to an applicant. Sofia confirmed that she indeed had not been told this by a Czech officer but by the security guard in the front of the Consulate. She was not even admitted to the consular officer. Miroslava from Ivano-Frankivsk in Western Ukraine experienced the following: “I came to get my Polish visa in Kiev, so I thought that I could also apply for my Czech visa. But I was told that I should apply in Lviv. But there the situation is terrible and it takes too long to get the visa. Here in Warsaw it’s very easy. But first you have to apply for a Polish visa and then wait for your Czech one.” According to the Czech Embassy in Warsaw,  between the years 2003 and 2006, 75% of all visa applicants were Ukrainians, while in 2007, the number of applicants from Ukraine reached 95%.

 

Picture No. 3 – Queues of Ukrainian visa applicants in front of the Czech Consulate in Lviv

The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs is aware of the “dramatic increase” in the number of visas and the insufficient number of consular officers. However, since the establishment of the Czech Consulate in Lviv this spring, there has been only one more consul appointed there. Therefore, the establishment of a Consulate in Lviv should not be understood as an expansion in the number of Czech consular officers in Ukraine since most of them were transferred there from the Consulate in Kiev. Yet, entry into the Schengen area represents a new impetus for increasing the number of consular officers. Several officers will be transferred from other Czech Consulates to Lviv. The Polish Consulate in Lviv is planning a radical change only after the completion of a new building for its Consulate in 2009. Fifteen new “windows” for visa applicants should be put in place instead of the currently existing five. During its evaluation of consular practice before entry into the Schengen area, the Evaluation Committee criticised the negative situation regarding the high number of visa applications per one visa officer. However, despite their visit to the Czech Consulate in Kiev, the quality of the Consulate’s decision- making powers was not put in doubt.

Is Outsourcing the Solution?

A basic framework of the visa regime towards Ukraine will be provided by a new EU-Ukraine agreement on visa facilitation, which according to estimates, should come into force at the end of this year. It stipulates a so-called “reduced fee” for a short-term visa, amounting to 35 EUR (the common fee is 60 EUR). Paradoxically, though, this agreement will aggravate the situation of Ukrainian citizens when compared with the current Czech and Polish practice: tourist visas are free of charge for them now, and certain groups, such as students, entrepreneurs, etc. do already have a privileged position when applying for a visa. According to Jacek Junosz Kisielewski, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs will now go through individual articles of the agreement with its Ukrainian partner and will compare them with the EU-Ukraine agreement on visa facilitation. If an article of the Polish-Ukrainian agreement does not contradict the EU-Ukraine agreement, it will be preserved.

Jaroslav Basta, the future Czech ambassador in Ukraine, is aware of the fact that with the entry into the Schengen area, the situation for Ukrainian citizens applying for tourist visas will become worse, mainly because visas will not be free of charge anymore. However, at the Czech consulates in Ukraine, there is a danger of a further increase in fees for services associated with the outsourcing of primary visa application processing. Bašta criticises the present solution for the problem of increasing numbers of visa applications (for more about the general growth of the number of Czech visa applications see table No.4 in the appendix) when consular officers are transferred to more exposed consulates. He believes that to hire an external company could be a step in the right direction. Thus, the Czech Republic would draw inspiration from French, Belgian, German or Dutch consulates. They use the services of  VFS Global in Kiev, which, however, translates into an increase in fees for visa applications.

In the visa procedure, outsourcing is regarded as positive both for consulates and their clients. The visa application submission procedure should be easier, the processing of visas should be faster and the queues in front of consulates should disappear. However, from several perspectives, outsourcing seems problematic.
Firstly, as the price of VFS services is around 25 EUR for a visa, the visa fee could increase up to 60 EUR. If it is further increased above the mentioned sum of 35 EUR, little would be left of one of the fundamental articles of the EU-Ukraine agreement. The European Commission spokesman Ferran Tarradellas Espuny confirmed that the EC has been dealing with the issue of outsourcing in connection with visas. According to the proposal which the European Commission submitted to the European Parliament and the Council, the 35 EUR sum should be final: “When outsourcing services are used, the total sum required from a visa applicant should not be higher than stipulated in Annex 12 of the Common consular instruction or in agreements on visa relations. This means that no further fee should be required from an applicant (more in the Statement of European Commission Spokesman Ferran Tarradellas Espuny). However, some EU members do not share this opinion. For example, the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the use of outsourcing is voluntary and Ukrainians have an opportunity either to submit their visa applications directly at the consulates or at the VFS. Thus, according to this stance, outsourcing should not be subjected to the stipulations of the agreement on visa facilitation (Sushko 2007).

Secondly, VFS lacks a sufficient base in Ukraine. It does not have offices in individual regions, which could lead to a situation similar to what happened in Russia last year. According to an agreement between British Embassy and VFS, the company should have opened regional offices. However, it hired the Moscow travel agency Star Travel instead. This led to criticisms by other travel agencies, which pointed out the monopolisation of the market of tourist travel to Britain.
Thirdly, there have been criticisms of the insufficient security and protection of the personal data of visa applicants. In May 2007, British media drew attention to a security problem concerning British online visa forms. Any user could have access to the data inputted by the applicants before him/her. As a result, British embassies in Russia, India and Nigeria made the online forms inactive. In general, this case also drew attention to the problem of controlling an outsourcing company (Report 2007).

Conclusions

The harmonisation of visa practice within the enlarged Schengen area turns out to be problematic. This is obvious in the case of Poland, where the implementation of visas for Ukrainians meant putting together priority relations with Ukraine with a liberal visa practice. When issuing short-term visas, the Schengen area countries will have reduced opportunities for national practice. The EU-Ukraine agreement on visa facilitation, which should come into being this year, does not represent a sufficient compensation for making the visa procedure more restrictive.

Czech consulates are planning to implement a more thorough review of applications, too, especially for short-term visas. However, as in the case of Polish consulates, it will be necessary to wait to understand the real consequences of these changes. One of the problems, which has clearly been demonstrated by the situation at the Czech Consulate in Lviv, is a lack of information about the changes which will accompany Schengen enlargement. Instead, information is replaced by rumours about the Schengen area which further escalate pressure put on consulates.

While Polish consulates in Ukraine have not registered an increase in the number of visa applications, Czech consulates have been reporting its growth every year. However, the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has been reducing the number of officers year by year, is not prepared for such a situation. On the one hand, thus, the increasing number of visa applications is a result of growing labour migration, tourism and fears that the visa regime will become stricter after the Czech Republic enters into the Schengen area. On the other hand, the situation is caused by the capacities of consulates, which have been insufficient in the long-term. One of the possible proposals for solving the situation is outsourcing to an external company which would help with the processing of Czech visa applications. However, these solutions are problematic, not only because they imply a further increase in the price of a visa, which is currently free of charge.

I would like to thank Myroslava Keryk who also contributed to this article and to the European Union Transition Facility Programme which provided financial support for our research within the Prague based Counselling Centre for Citizenship / Civil and Human Rights’ project on the Anti-discrimination – legal consulting service for victims.

 
Appendix:

Table No. 4. Complete statistic data on the Czech visas issued from 2000 to 2007

	I	R	IL	RL	IS	RS
Year	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.
2000	247826	3727	14541	1488	233285	2239
2001	439688	8024	25074	1963	414614	6061
2002	428630	10113	25262	4453	403368	5660
2003	487217	17491	28859	9789	458358	7702
2004	467557	19308	29969	7743	437588	11565
2005	536106	18952	32499	6803	503607	12149
2006	634929	20901	45703	8266	589226	12635
2007*	382238	12916	24664	2111	357574	10805

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic

Explanatory notes: I – issued visas, R – refused visas, IL – issued long-term visas, RL – refused long-term visas, IS – issued short-term visas, RS – refused short-term visas.

* In 2007 the decision on issuing visas has not been made in all cases so far.

 
Bibliography:

Bieniecki, M. 2007. “Ukrainian Labour Migration to Poland”, pp. 16-20. In Jelinkova M. a I. Cook, eds. Visegrad Moves. On Migration in Central Europe. Praha: Multikulturni centrum Praha.

Boratyński et al. 2006. Visa Policies of European Union Member States. Monitoring Report. Warsaw: Stefan Batory Foundation. Accessible at: http://www.batory.org.pl/english/intl/pub.htm.

Broeders, D. 2007. “The New Digital Borders of Europe: EU Databases and the Surveillance of Irregular Migrants.” International Sociology, 22 (1): 71-92.

Guild, E. 2001. Moving the Borders of Europe. The inaugural lecture delivered during the official ceremony on the occasion of the assumption of the professorship of the CPO Wisselleerstoel at the University of Nijmegen. Accessible at: http://www.refugeelawreader.org/389/Reaching_into_the_European_State
Border_Pressures_and_International_Asylum_Obligations.pdf

Guiraudon, V. 2001. “De-nationalizing control. Analyzing state responses to constraints on migration control”, str. 31-64. In Guiraudon, V. and C. Joppke, Controlling a New Migration World. London and New York: Routledge.

Kaźmierkiewicz, P., ed. 2005. The Visegrad States Between Schengen and Neighbourhood. Institute of Public Affairs: Warsaw.

Report of the Independent Investigation: breach of data security in the VFS online UK visa application facility, operated through VFS websites in India, Nigeria and Russia. L M Costelloe Baker. 16 July 2007. Accessible at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/IndependentInvestigation26July2007.pdf

Sushko, O. “Профанація «спрощення»? Ситуація з шенгенськими візами для громадян України погіршується” [Profanation of “facilitation”? The situation with Schengen visas is getting worse for Ukrainian citizens]. Zerkalo nedeli, 11 (640), 24 – 30 March 2007. Accessible at: http://www.dt.ua/1000/1600/56219/

Report on the migration situation in the Czech Republic for 2005. 2006. The Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. Accessible at: http://www.mvcr.cz/dokument/2006/migrace05.pdf

[1]According to the data from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Czech Consulates in Ukraine refuse around 5 % of visa applications (for more see table No. 1). The Stefan Batory Foundation report cites the following percentages of denied visa applications from the total number of applications registered in other Consulates in Ukraine: French 38.9 %, German 18.2 % and Finnish 6.9 % (Batory 2006).

[2]In the Czech context this has been a common way to bypass the stricter regime of issuing work permits. It is connected to the functioning of the so-called client system.

[3]A refused entry under Article 96 of the Schengen Convention.