метр 345
RECEIVED IN REGISTE
INDER
18 AUG 1993
OFFICES
BJ
16/3
345/3
KIM. Gall Miss S Brooks legal advisers.
1) der W, 16/8
We avivis to fornoks' respuse.
GIST
Lion Tax.
From:
D I Lewty
Migration and Visa Department
для
Date:
13 August 1993
CC:
Mr Alston
Ms D Brookes, Legal Advisers
Mr Cary, ECD (I) Mr Ricketts, HKD
COMMON VISA LIST: ARTICLE 100C
1.
As you will know, there is a lobbying exercise under way to try to get Hong Kong taken off the Schengen Common Visa List (SCVL). This has made us look again at the wider position after Maastricht enters into force, and not only with reference to Hong Kong.
2. The EC Common Visa List (CVL) has no formal status at present, but there is an understanding that member-states will not make changes to it without consulting partners. We have hitherto assumed that:
a) when the CVL passes into Community competence under Article 100c, it will be a minimum list: all member-states would have to maintain a visa requirement on nationals of countries on it, but would retain the right to do so on those of other countries too. (At present the CVL amounts to some 74 countries, but the UK has a visa requirement on a further 8 countries; others have many more, with the French list extending to more that 150.); and
b) we could therefore veto additions to the CVL until 1 January 1996, when it will become subject to QMV.
However, after looking again at Article 100c, I am less sure, and would welcome your view on the following points:
3.
a) in paragraph 1 of the Article, does "the determination of the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States" provide only for a minimum list, which individual Member States could add to? Or should it be interpreted as setting a single standard, ie both a minimum and a maximum, without the ability to make individual variations? (The unsigned EFC certainly admits the possibility that not all member-states will have visa requirements on particular countries, but that was drafted before Maastricht. In any case, if Germany is able to ratify the latter this year, the EFC would presumably have to be amended to make the two consistent?)