Policy Focus

Wrong side of the tracks

Despite finalising negotiations and signing the agreement onthe readmission of persons and on the facilitation of the issuance of visas(which came into force on 1 January this year), Ukrainian citizens have beenexperiencing a significant deterioration in the way they’re treated by EUmember states when it comes to visa policy.

In anticipation of the Schengen area enlargement, Ukrainefell victim to new member states’ overzealous approach to border and customschecks at the EU’s new eastern border. Their prejudiced attitude takes the formof restrictions on the number of permissions for Ukrainian lorry drivers andtraffic restrictions for vehicles on holiday. Almost all Ukrainian cars undergoextensive checks, including fuel quantity and speedometer data checks in caseof exceeding consumption allowances, which bring sanctions. Ukrainians arerefused at border crossings due to the slightest defect in a vehicle – a minorscratch in a windscreen, the lack of windscreen washing liquid in the watercontainer, even mud on a car. Such practices, as well as the slow and irregularoperation of member states’ border and customs services, result in huge queuesand several blockages at the EU-Ukraine border. According to statistics, thevolume of human traffic has declined by 60 per cent across Ukraine’s border with Poland,by 26 per cent with Slovakiaand by 17 per cent with Hungarysince the extension of the Schengen area.

But problems with border crossings are not the only negativeconsequences of the Schengen enlargement for Ukraine. There are also numerousdifficulties with obtaining Schengen visas. And the EU’s perennial response toUkrainian concerns about inadequate visa practices has been the proposed entryinto force of the visa facilitation agreement. Although the agreement is now inforce, lots of problems still remain, and most of them contradict the spiritand the letter of the agreement. Consulates in Belgium,Spain, Italy, the Netherlands,France and Germanymaintain the practice of using intermediary agencies to process visaapplications. Extra payments for outsourced services often double the €35 pricelimit set by the agreement. Some consulate posts neglect time limits forprocessing visa applications and request additional supporting documents regardingthe purpose of the journey. And Ukrainians also face difficulties in obtainingmultiple-entry five-year visas. There are also problems with the total orpartial lack of respectful treatment of visa applicants by consular officers,the motivation for visa refusals, the possibility for appeal in case ofrefusal, and transparent and harmonised information on procedures. Theseelements are not directly covered by the visa facilitation agreement but areaddressed through unilateral community declarations, which are an inalienablepart of the EU-Ukraine visa facilitation agreement. Though the EU pledged toresolve these issues by offering a legislative proposal on a community code onvisas, EU member states seem to have shelved its adoption.

Aside from the effect on mobility and cross-border exchangefor individual Ukrainians, this discrimination also creates a sort of ‘ironwall’ for Ukrainian businesses – particularly international road carriers.Schengen visa refusals have become a tool for unfair competition on the side ofEU enterprises. Another important matter in this context is the conclusion ofagreements on local traffic between Ukraine and bordering EU members.The agreement would add substantially to the facilitation of cross-bordertraffic and trade while ensuring the necessary standards of public security andmigration management. However, only the agreement with Hungaryoperates for the moment. The finalised agreements with Poland and the SlovakRepublicare still under the remit of the European commission, which hampers their entryinto force.

Member states explain these restrictions by defending an EUmigration policy that aims to protect the borderless Schengen area. But theUkrainian authorities keep drawing the EU’s attention to the lack of substantialprogress in creating a reliable infrastructure on Ukraine’s borders, which is vitalto stop illegal migration into the EU. The amount of EU financial assistance tothis end is not sufficient, though Ukraine takes over all the problemsof illegal migration coming to the EU from the east, according to thereadmission agreement with the EU. In this context it is important to mentionthat Polandabolished carrying out joint border and customs checks in Ukrainian territory.As a result, agreed arrangements between Polandand Ukraineon building new border-crossing points at common borders are frozen for anindefinite period of time. It will be scarcely possible to organise theEuropean football championship in 2012 in Ukraineand Polandif these problems are not promptly settled. Their resolution would contributeconsiderably to people-to-people contact, cross-border trade and overallcooperation between EU and Ukraine.The EU attitude provokes disappointment and mistrust in Ukrainian society.Moreover, the government of Ukrainehas nothing to say to explain the reluctance and indifference of the EUinstitutions in addressing issues which are of mutual interest to bothsides.