Directorate General for Justice & Consumers

JUST/2014/RCIT/PR/RIGH/0155

Final Report

Study to Support the Preparation of an Impact Assessment on EU Policy Initiatives on Residence and Identity Documents to Facilitate the Exercise of the Right of Free Movement

28 August 2017

This study has been commissioned by the European Commission, DG JUSTICE. The information and views set out in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Contents

Executive Summary ...... i 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Resume – Study Objectives and Scope ...... 1 1.2 Methodological Approach and Work Plan ...... 2 1.3 Final Report Structure ...... 4 2 Legal and Administrative Frameworks for ID Cards and Residence Documents ...... 7 2.1 Introduction ...... 7 2.2 Review of Legal Background ...... 8 2.3 Types of ID cards and residence documents in use ...... 13 2.4 Legal framework, eligibility and information requirements ...... 22 2.5 Costs and production systems ...... 44 2.6 Obligations and rights ...... 55 2.7 Security aspects of ID cards and residence documents ...... 66 2.8 Issues relating to , Ireland and the UK ...... 75 2.9 Summary – Current Situation ...... 76 3 Problem Definition & Baseline Scenario ...... 79 3.1 Overview ...... 79 3.2 Problems faced by Citizens ...... 85 3.3 Accessing private sector services ...... 93 3.4 Border control issues ...... 100 3.5 Conclusions – problem definition and baseline scenario ...... 111 4 Policy Objectives & Policy Options ...... 113 4.1 The EU’s Competence to act and justification for EU action ...... 113 4.2 Objectives of EU Intervention ...... 115 4.3 Definition of Policy Options ...... 119 5 Impact Assessment ...... 136 5.1 Framework for the assessment of policy options ...... 136 5.2 Policy Option 1 - Status Quo ...... 139 5.3 Policy Option 2 – Soft Law Measures ...... 142 5.4 Policy Option 3 – Limited harmonisation ...... 150 5.5 Policy Option 4 – Maximum Harmonisation ...... 158 5.6 Preferred Policy Option ...... 164 6 Monitoring & Evaluation ...... 174 6.1 Overall framework ...... 174 6.2 Framework for monitoring preferred policy option ...... 175 7 Overall Conclusions ...... 178

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Contents

Appendices

Appendix A: List of Interviews ...... 180 Appendix B: Analysis of Trends in Fraudulent Documents and EU Policy Responses ...... 187 Appendix C: Summary of National Legislation ...... 193 Appendix D: Photos of ID Cards ...... 212 Appendix E: Country Fiches ...... 213 Appendix F: Analysis of Changes Required to Align with Policy Options ...... 214 Appendix G: Interview Questionnaire ...... 218

Tables Table 1.1: Scope of the Interview Programme ...... 3 Table 1.2: Structure of an impact assessment and corresponding sections of this report ...... 5 Table 2.1: Overview of country fiche structure and key questions ...... 7 Table 2.2: Documents issued by EU Member States ...... 13 Table 2.3: Types of ID cards and residence documentation (Key: grey = document not issued in the country; Y= yes; N= no; 1-6= number of documents issued)...... 16 Table 2.4: Types of ID card and residence documents that are issued to individuals ...... 19 Table 2.5: Number of ID card and residence documents issued in 2015 (unless otherwise indicated) 20 Table 2.6: Mandatory age (if any) to apply for an ID card ...... 23 Table 2.7: Minimum age for application for ID/residence documents ...... 24 Table 2.8: Information required from applicants and stored on for ID card/residence documents .... 26 Table 2.9: Typical timeframe for obtaining ID/residence documents from application to issuance .... 29 Table 2.10: Deadline in law for issuance of ID/residence documents following applicant request ..... 31 Table 2.11: Specific requirements for obtaining replacements (e.g. after loss/theft) ...... 34 Table 2.12: Special procedures for obtaining replacement cards or documents (beyond loss / theft obligations in previous table) compared with initial application ...... 35 Table 2.13: Maximum validity of ID/residence documents ...... 37 Table 2.14: Storage of Information ...... 41 Table 2.15: Cost (EUR) for ID cards ...... 45 Table 2.16: Costs (EUR) for residence documents ...... 47 Table 2.17: Penalty Cost for lost or stolen ID cards or residence documents ...... 50 Table 2.18: Entity producing documents both for ID and Residence Documents ...... 53 Table 2.19: Costs of Issuing ID cards through consular network ...... 54 Table 2.20: Obligations on the ID card’s holder ...... 56 Table 2.21: Obligations on the residence documents’ holder ...... 57 Table 2.22: Right to travel to non-EU countries ...... 59 Table 2.23: Other rights for the residence documents’ holder ...... 60 Table 2.24: Additional Functions of ID Cards/Residence Documents ...... 61 Table 2.25: Additional functions in relation to private sector services ...... 63 Table 2.26: Possibility of opting out from the e-identity features ...... 65

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Contents

Table 2.27: ID card used as a as alternative to a ...... 66 Table 2.28: Used as a travel document ...... 66 Table 2.29: Identity Management in Denmark, Ireland and UK ...... 75 Table 2.30: Summary of current situation ...... 76 Table 3.1: EU/EEA document fraud at UK borders and ports ...... 108 Table 4.1: Overview of policy options ...... 119 Table 5.1: Summary – Policy Option 1 ...... 143 Table 5.2: Summary – Policy Option 2 ...... 151 Table 5.3 Summary – Policy Option 3 ...... 159 Table 5.4: Summary – Policy Option 4 ...... 165 Table 5.5: Preferred option – extent of changes needed by Member States ...... 166 Table 6.1: Overall framework ...... 175 Table 6.2: Key indicators for monitoring the implementation of the preferred option ...... 176 Table 6.3: Key indicators for monitoring results and impacts ...... 177

Figures Figure 3.1: Volume of YEA replied enquiries relating to entry and residence formalities (2011-16) ... 81 Figure 4.1: Intervention logic ...... 117

List of acronyms

Acronym Explanation BAC Basic Access Control CSCA Country Signing Certification Authority DG JUST DG Justice & Consumers EAC Extended Access Control ECAS European Citizen Action Service ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization: sets standards in relation to travel document security. IMI Internal Market Information System MRTD Machine-Readable Travel Document PACE Password Authenticated Connection Establishment SAC Supplemental Access Control SIS Schengen Information System TCN Third Country Nationals YEA Your Advice

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

The ‘Study to Support the Preparation of an Impact Assessment on EU Policy Initiatives on Residence and Identity Documents to Facilitate the Exercise of the Right of Free Movement’ was undertaken in 2016-17 for the European Commission (DG Justice & Consumers) by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES). 1. Resume of Study Aims (EU) citizens’ free movement rights are protected by the European Treaty and in secondary law, in particular by EU Directive 2004/38/EC. In practice, however, EU citizens still experience problems in exercising their free movement rights due to different standards in relation to ID and residence documents. Public authorities and parts of the private sector are also faced with problems due to the variety of different documents in circulation. In this context, the aim of the study was to:  Provide a thorough description of the problems at hand (including problems faced by citizens in their daily life) and the reasons they persist, the (potential) number of persons affected (scale of the problem), and analyse the consequences on the free movement and internal security in the EU;  Establish the rationale and possible legal basis for EU intervention and describe the general, specific and operational objectives pursued;  Collect data and evidence for one or more possible EU policy initiatives aimed at facilitating the effective enjoyment by EU citizens and their family members of their right to free movement as regards identity and residence documents. Furthermore, data and evidence on potential security implications of the diversity of residence and identity documents was to be collected;  Examine impacts of the different policy options on national administrations, including costs resulting from possible changes in the practices and potential savings resulting from rationalisation or economies of scale;  Analyse the impacts on entities from the private sector and to assess the wider context in which both identity documents and residence cards might be used as holders of e-identity features;  Analyse the impacts on citizens of any potential measure(s) being taken at the EU level.

2. Differences regarding ID and residence documents across the EU In Section 2 of the report we provide an assessment of the current situation with regard to common features and differences in the ID cards and residence documentation currently in use across the EU28 Member States, and how this affects free movement. The first part of the assessment focuses on the common features and differences in the ID cards and residence documentation. The assessment is based on the information collected from various sources in EU Member States in 2016 and set out in a set of country fiches that have been provided to DG JUST as a separate deliverable.

i

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Executive Summary

The following summarises the key findings of the assessment with regard to the differences in ID and residence documents across the EU:  Member State practices differ in regard to the types of documents they issue (for example, three Member States1 do not issue ID cards while the others do and 10 countries issue residence cards for EU citizens although there is no obligation to do so under Directive 2004/38/EC).  There are a large number of different versions of ID cards and various types of residence documents in use. With the 26 Member States issuing ID cards (although sometimes called differently2) there are currently 86 different versions in circulation. In most Member States there are between one and five versions in use. In one case, there are 10 versions in use.  The format of ID cards and residence documents varies in terms of security features although there are some common elements (such as the biographical data mentioned on the card).  Legislative provisions governing eligibility, application procedure and use of ID cards and residence documents vary. For example, while in 16 Member States an ID card is required for children aged between 6 and 18, in 7 countries holding an ID card is not required at all.  There are substantial differences between Member States regarding the costs for EU citizens when requesting an ID card or residence document. In regard to the costs to citizens when applying for ID cards, the EU-wide average cost is EUR 19.03. ID cards are slightly more expensive for the citizen than registration certificates (average cost of EUR 11.19) and residence cards for EU citizens (average cost of EUR 14.18). At the same time, the average cost of ID cards is slightly lower than the average cost of permanent residence cards for EU citizens and residence cards for TCN family members (average cost between EUR 20.44 and EUR 23.5). The costs for ID cards range from EUR 0 (e.g. in and ) to EUR 61.50 ().  The majority of Member States (15 in the case of ID cards and 20 in the case of residence documents) impose obligations on ID card and residence documents holders. One of the most common requirements in both cases is to report the theft or loss of these documents.  ID cards issued in 16 Member States have an e-ID function while only 6 countries issue residence documents containing an e-ID function. In 13 Member States, ID cards contain an e-signature while this exists only in 10 Member States for residence documents.  In at least 23 Member States, ID cards include visual protection mechanisms such as printing techniques, special substrates, UV and optically variable devices. The level of visual protection is particularly heterogeneous. There are three Member States that still have versions of ID cards in circulation with particularly weak security features.3 These ID cards are also the ones that are the most often found to be counterfeited or falsified. They are also the ID cards that create the most concerns for their owners when travelling within the EU. The cards issued by the other 23 Member States still have very diverse protection levels.  All Member States that issue ID cards include a photo of the cardholder. In some cases the ID cards includes a contact chip (9 Member States out of 26) containing information stored on the

1 Ireland issues a "passport card", which is treated in the study as similar to identity cards as it allows Irish citizens to travel in the EU. 2 See previous footnote on the card. 3 EL and IT still deliver paper ID cards. In contrast CZ does not issue paper cards anymore but they are still in circulation, since they were issued in the past with unlimited validity.

ii

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Executive Summary

card while in other cases information is stored on a contactless chip (6 Member States). In 4 Member States, ID cards contain a dual interface combining a contact and a contactless chip. In contrast, in 9 Member States no chips are included in ID cards. In 7 Member States (CY, IT4, LT, ES, LT, LV and PT) either one or two fingerprints needs to be included in the cards in addition to the picture which is then also digitally stored. In two other countries (DE5, HU6) providing fingerprints is optional. Only one Member State () includes the iris pattern in the chip.  All Member States that issue ID cards are gradually moving towards the use of a card with a polycarbonate substrate (the plastic substrate), the same format (the "bank card" format) and security features listed in the relevant parts of the ICAO standard 9303. However, this move still leaves a lot of scope for differences in options taken and will not reduce the current diversity of cards. As things stand, 24 Member States issue cards compliant with the machine-readability parts 1-6 of the ICAO standard, and 15 issue cards are also compliant with the biometric parts 9- 12 of the standard.  The same comment on ID cards is also applicable to residence documents. It can be observed that security features are often higher with regard to residence cards for third (TCN) country national family members. In 18 Member States, the permanent residence cards issued to family members are compliant with the machine-readability parts 1-6 of the ICAO standard although this is only the case in 10 countries for the biometric part of the standard. In another 14 Member States, the cards do not include a chip, while in in , Ireland and they do include a contact chip. In a further 6 Member States they include a contactless chip, as in the case of permanent residence cards for EU citizens. is the only Member State to issue a permanent residence document for family members with a dual interface. 3. Nature and Scale of the Problem Section 3 of the report examines to what extent EU citizens, the private sector and public authorities are adversely affected by the existence of differences in ID cards and residence documents, especially when the right to free movement is exercised. Information contained in this section is based on various sources including desk research, feedback from interviews with relevant stakeholders across the EU Member States (such as ministries of interior, border control authorities, private sector companies and NGOs), a number of focus groups and a session with FRONTEX, the EU Citizenship Consultation 2015 and data extracted from the ‘Your Europe Advice’ (YEA) database.7 The analysis indicates that there are a number of problems that citizens, private sector entities and national authorities face due to the existence of many different types of ID cards and residence documentation.

4 Only in the 2016 version. 5 Fingerprints are optional. 6 Fingerprints are included at the request of the applicant. 7 Your Europe Advice is an EU advice service for the public that is currently provided by legal experts from the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) operating under contract with the European Commission. It consists of a team of 65 independent lawyers who cover all EU official languages and are familiar both with EU law and national laws in all EU countries. The starting point is the Your Europe website designed to provide information about citizens‘ rights across Europe. It offers practical advice on issues such as living, studying, working, shopping , travelling – or, as a company, doing business – within the EU. If citzens have a more specific question they can contact "Your Europe Advice“ to obtain a more specific answer to a query.

iii

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Executive Summary

 With regard to residence documents, the problems mainly relate to misperceptions of citizens with regard to the use of these documents, lengthy and unclear application procedures to obtain them, a lack of awareness of national authorities of key features (for example, on the visa exemptions for TCN family members or the type of documents to be issued to EU nationals), and problems in accessing public and private sector services using such documents.  With regard to ID cards, the problems mainly relate to the challenges border control officials face in authenticating a diverse range of ID cards, largely because the optical security features differ and when ID cards have a chip the electronic security features may require the exchange of certificates (for cards with BAC or SAC protection) or secret keys (case of EAC protection) which needs to be organised at the EU level. In addition, citizens face complications when accessing some types of private sector services in other countries because their ID cards are often not accepted. There are also some problems regarding the renewal/issuance of the document when citizens are based in another EU country (e.g. some consulates do not issue ID cards via the consular network). The scale of the problem has been assessed by drawing on data on the number of EU citizens residing in another Member State than their own, and data from the Your Europe Advice (YEA) on entry- and residence-related enquiries. The assessment suggests that some 7.2 million citizens over three years may face difficulties whilst exercising their right to free movement because of the differences that exist across EU Member States in ID cards and residence documents. Apart from the inconvenience to citizens, there are also costs to public authorities and private sector companies across the EU. 4. Case for EU action The EU Treaties, in particular Article 21 of the TFEU, contain the necessary legal basis for an initiative. On this basis the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt provisions with a view to facilitating the exercise of the right to free movement. A legislative initiative would facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement in several ways, namely by:  Simplifying the free movement for EU citizens and TCN family members;  Simplifying daily life for EU citizens once they have crossed the border into another Member State;  Addressing security risks and the abuse of free movement rights, notably related to identity fraud. There is a link between these factors as enhanced security in the EU should contribute to increased acceptance and legitimacy of the principle of free movement. The abolition of internal border controls in the relies on the authorities in Member States following certain minimum standards with regard to document security. In this context, a difference should be noted between: (a) free movement in the case of trips between Schengen and non-Schengen EU Member States (i.e. between BG, CY, HR, IE, RO and the UK on the one hand and any Schengen state on the other) where border control are carried out and EU citizens need to provide proof of their identity which, with the latest amendment to the Schengen Borders Code, is checked against databases; and (b) trips within the Schengen area where there are no systematic but only exceptional border checks. The usual absence of border controls between Schengen states presupposes a level of trust that other states control their external borders diligently and that information is exchanged between law enforcement authorities on a regular basis.

iv

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Executive Summary

Overall, the research indicates that whilst the status quo is regarded as acceptable by some stakeholders, there is a consensus on the need for some EU action in relation to ID cards and residence documents in the interests of promoting free movement and security. 5. Policy options and impacts In Sections 4 and 5 of the report we consider various policy options for ID cards and residence documents ranging from maintaining the status quo (Policy Option 1) to EU legislation to achieve the harmonisation of ID card and residence card features (Policy Options 4 and 5). The different options can be summarised in the following matrix:

Summary of Policy Options

 Policy option 1 (ID Cards and Residence Documents) – status quo scenario, i.e. continuation of the current situation where the diversity of ID cards and residence documents remains unchanged.  Policy option 2 (ID Cards and Residence Documents) – soft law measures to improve the way the existing system of residence documents and ID cards functions. This includes: (i) awareness raising measures; (ii) enhanced cooperation between national authorities; (iii) EU-wide training for practitioners and private sector service providers on matters related to ID cards and residence documents; and (iv) the development of an online register on both ID cards and residence documents allowing the authorities and service providers to check the authenticity of documentation.

 Policy option 3 (ID Cards) – limited  Policy option 3 (Residence harmonisation of features in relation to ID Documentation) – limited harmonisation cards. of aspects relating to residence  Sub-option 3 (a) – Common use of documentation. terminology and letters  Sub-option 3 (a) – Common use of  Sub-option 3 (b) – Common features English language terminology and including information mentioned on card letters and common minimum security features  Sub-option 3 (b) - Online applications compliant with the full ICAO standard and deadlines for issuing documents (parts 1-6 and 9-12).  Sub-option 3 (c) – Phasing out  Sub-option 3 (c) – Phasing out documents not meeting these documents not meeting these requirements in line with a common requirements in line with a common deadline deadline  Policy option 4 – (ID cards) maximum  Policy option 4 (Residence Documents) – harmonisation involving a much wider range of maximum harmonisation involving a much harmonisation of ID card features and wider range of harmonising residence procedures. documentation features and procedures.

 Policy Option 5: EU card with combined ID and residence status features. If all Member States used ID cards as holders of e-identity, electronic residence certifications could simply be uploaded on the ID card. In order to provide a proof of residence, the e-residence certification could simply be read directly from the card with the help of an ID card terminal. As a consequence, the only documents that mobile EU citizens would need to hold would be their ID card. No other documents would need to be issued at all.

v

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Executive Summary

The assessment suggests that a combination of Policy Options 2 and 3(a), (b) and (c) is appropriate both for residence documents and ID cards and that this would best promote the objectives of facilitating free movement and enhancing security at borders and internally in EU Member States. The research found little support among key stakeholders for going beyond this, at least in the near future. In addition to the benefits in relation to free movement, this approach would address document fraud and identity theft. It also allows for much more effective border controls without increasing border crossing times and complications. A combination of Policy Options 2, and 3(a), (b) and (c) would also not be unduly intrusive from the perspective of Member States and would remain far below the level of harmonisation of the uniform European driving licence. We estimate the costs of Policy Option 2 to be in the order of EUR 45.8m over a three-year pilot period for both residence and ID documents. The cost of Policy Option 3, with regard to residence documents, would be quite modest (an estimated EUR 3.4m over the three-year pilot phase). In the case of ID cards, the financial impact on Member States of Policy Option 3(b) would be largely limited to the three countries that currently issue ID cards that are not fully compliant with the ICAO- standard (parts 1-6 and 9-12) and do not (based on feedback obtained for this study) intend to upgrade their ID card design in the near future to become fully compliant and do not envisage issuing cards valid for more than 10 years (FR, SI, SK). The main cost to these Member States is estimated at EUR 53.8m per annum. For the other 23 Member States8 issuing ID cards, Policy Option 3 would essentially involve the normal renewal of cards that would occur in any case. It is therefore not likely to involve significant additional cost to these Member States. The main benefits of the preferred combination of policy options lies in: reducing ‘hassle’ costs to citizens (such as delays at border controls, flights that cannot be taken) and this could benefit an estimated 7.2 million EU citizens p.a. (see Section 3 and Section 5.2 of the report) over a three-year period; increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of border control checks and allowing citizens to more easily access public and private sector services that require an identity check, thereby also reducing costs for citizens, public authorities and private sector companies alike. There would also be significant benefits in terms of improved security and a reduction in fraudulent ID cards and residence documentation. Overall, the preferred option would promote the general objective of enhancing free movement and the exercising of citizens’ rights in the EU through a combination of soft law measures and harmonisation of ID and residence documents to a common minimum standard. This could lay the foundation for a further harmonisation of ID cards and residence documents in the longer term. The preferred option would be externally coherent as it builds on existing measures wherever possible and is efficient in that the costs would be largely one-off whereas the benefits would accrue over many years. We believe the preferred option strikes the right balance between not being too intrusive as regards different national approaches to ID and residence documents, and thereby respecting the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, whilst also giving due consideration to making life easier for EU citizens and tackling security concerns that might otherwise not be addressed.

8 BG, CZ, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, HU, IE, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, RO

vi

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Executive Summary

6. Methodological Note The research took place between February 2016 and May 2017. To summarise, the assignment was carried out in three phases:  Phase 1: Preparatory tasks – a set-up meeting with DG Justice in February 2016 and preliminary interviews with key individuals (a list with interviews conducted is provided in the Appendix A), desk research, finalisation of the research tools (interview checklists, country fiches, etc), preparation of a summary analysis based on available information on each EU Member State’s legislative position and practices, preparation of the inception report and a review meeting (March 2016).  Phase 2: Research and Options Development – research across EU Member States. This included a total of 138 interviews with the Commission and other EU-level organisations (e.g. FRONTEX, Eurosmart), national authorities and agencies, the private sector, and academic and legal experts. As part of the research for the problem definition, we extracted records from the ‘Your Europe Advice’ database of enquiries that have been made by citizens relating to ID cards and residence documents. Three focus groups were held involving participants from six Member States (BE, BG, EE, FR, LU, and NL) to discuss key issues. The first and second interim reports were submitted in July and November 2016 respectively. In addition, a ‘fiche’ was completed for each EU Member State providing details of each type of ID card and residence document issued by the authorities.  Phase 3: Impact Assessment and Final Report – analysis of the feedback from Phase 2, completion of the impact assessment and preparation of the final report (December 2016). The report went through various revisions to incorporate DG Justice’s feedback.

The study was carried out by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES) with the support of the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS).

vii

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to Section facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Introduction 1

1 Introduction This document contains the final report for the assignment for DG Justice & Consumers (DG JUST): ‘Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement’. The study was carried out by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES).

1.1 Resume – Study Objectives and Scope In summary, the purpose of the study was to:  Provide a thorough description of the problems at hand, the (potential) number of persons affected (scale of the problem), analyse its cause and consequences on the free movement (including problems faced by citizens in their daily life) and security, identify the EU dimension and likelihood that the problem will persist;  Describe the general, specific and operational objectives pursued;  Collect data and evidence for one or more possible EU policy initiatives aimed at facilitating the effective enjoyment by EU citizens and their family members of their right to free movement as regards identity and residence documents. Furthermore, data and evidence on potential security implications of the diversity of residence and identity documents shall be collected;  Examine impacts of the different policy options on national administrations, including costs resulting from possible changes in the practices and potential savings resulting from rationalisation or economies of scale;  Analyse the impacts on entities from the private sector and to assess the wider context in which both identity documents and residence cards may be used as holders of e-identity features;  Analyse the impacts on citizens of any potential measure being taken at the EU level.

European Union (EU) citizens’ free movement rights are protected by the European Treaty and in secondary law, in particular by EU Directive 2004/38/EC. In practice, however, EU citizens as well as public authorities still experience problems when free movement rights are exercised. The variety of ID cards, registration certificates and residence documents being used across EU Member States and the differences in their characteristics (appearance, functionality, security standards, etc.) can create problems and an administrative burden for both citizens and public authorities. The fact that not all Member States issue all of the different types of ID cards and residence documents adds to the complexity of the picture. The scope of the study involved research across all EU Member States into the law and the practice relating to ID cards and residence documents issued by national authorities. Key stakeholders include European citizens, national authorities including border control agencies, and the private sector. Originally the assignment was to be carried out over a period of nine months. However, for various reasons an extension of five additional months was granted. This was partly to allow a public consultation exercise to take place (this was delayed but took place in February 2017).

1

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to Section facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Introduction 1

1.2 Methodological Approach and Work Plan To summarise, this assignment was carried out in three phases:  Phase 1: Preparatory tasks – a set-up meeting with DG Justice in early February 2016 and preliminary interviews with key individuals (a list with interviews conducted is provided in the Appendix A), desk research, finalisation of the research tools (interview checklists, country fiches, etc), preparation of a summary analysis based on available information on each EU Member State’s legislative position and practices, preparation of the inception report and a review meeting (March 2016).  Phase 2: Research and Options Development – baseline research across EU Member States involving various research tools leading to the development of the problem definition, policy objectives and first formulation of policy options. Focus groups involving six Member States (BE, BG, EE, FR, LU, and NL) were organised together with interviews in all EU28 Member States (apart from the UK). The first and second interim reports were submitted in July and November 2016 respectively.  Phase 3: Impact Assessment and Final Report – analysis of the feedback from Phase 2, completion of the impact assessment and preparation of the final report.

Phase 1 – Preparatory Tasks During Phase 1 we undertook a number of preparatory tasks:  Set-up meeting with DG Justice (27 January 2016) and preliminary interviews;  Background research/desk research - at this stage we mapped the information and identified information gaps. The more detailed desk research was on-going throughout Phase 2;  Further development of the methodological approach and arrangements for the Phase 2 research, including the various research tools;  Preparation of an inception report (20 February) and feedback from DG Justice on various revisions followed by submission of an amended version (9 June 2017).

The kick-off meeting took place on 27 January 2016. This was followed up with a number of preliminary interviews with key Commission officials to discuss the assignment in more depth. Preliminary interviews took place with officials from DG CNECT, DG HOME, DG GROW and DG MOVE (see Appendix A). The interviews were helpful in identifying other initiatives that have features similar to those being examined in this research as well as other information and contacts that are directly relevant to this research, During Phase 1 we carried out desk research to identify and examine background information and existing studies, as well as to check the initial availability of information and review all information that is available from earlier studies. This included the review of relevant case law, the evaluation of important secondary literature and studies as well as the mapping out of other relevant sources. An overview of the different sources that were reviewed can be found in Appendix E of the inception report. In addition, during Phase 1 we developed the work plan, methodology and various research tools for this study.

2

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to Section facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Introduction 1

Phase 2 – Research and Options Development The Phase 2 research commenced towards the end of March and focused on desk research to complete a set of country fiches containing details of the ID cards and residence documentation being used across the EU28 Member States. Desk research and country fiche The main focus to begin with was the research on the baseline situation in regard to ID and residence documentation. The information gathering exercise started with a pilot country fiche for . Based on the using a ‘country fiche’ consisting of 31 questions covering issues such as the type of information contain in ID cards and residence documents, the number and type in circulation, legal aspects, biometric features, etc. CSES and ECAS country researchers started to gather information from all the EU Member States first via desk research. In a second step we asked Member State authorities to review the information in the fiches. We also interviewed Member State authorities to fill the last gaps of the fiches and to discuss policy options and other issues. It should be noted that not all Member States reviewed the fiches or agreed to be interviewed despite several attempts to approach the authorities. Moreover, in cases where Member States were willing to review the fiches, not all the requested information was provided. This has been in some cases due to the lack of data available and in other cases due to the sensitivity of the information (e.g. mainly in relation to security features or production process). Also more recent requests to the authorities did not change this. Interview Programme As part of the Phase 2 research, we conducted interviews with key stakeholders in all the EU Member States apart from the UK. In respect to national authorities we approached the ministries responsible for ID and residence documents. In many cases this required to interview two different ministries as ID cards are usually administered by ministries of the interior while residence documents are administered by among others ministries of foreign affairs. In respect to academics we contacted stakeholders who are aware of free movement issues from political, legal and economic perspectives. With regard to NGOs the focus of the research was on contacting organisations dedicated to enhancing citizens’ rights in Europe. Ultimately, we also contacted multiple actors from the private sector who work for industries that require a form of identification to provide services to their clients (e.g. airline companies, car rental, financial service sector, insurance companies, etc.). The following table provides a breakdown of the scale and scope of the Phase 2 interview programme for the assignment and the number of interviews conducted. The interviews were undertaken by CSES and ECAS personnel by telephone and in person (see below). A total of 137 interviews were conducted (the target was 133). Table 1.1: Scope of the Interview Programme

Interviewees Number Commission and other EU-level bodies 16 National authorities/agencies 53 Non-governmental (e.g. NGOs, companies producing cards and documents and 69 businesses requiring proof of identity to provide services, academic experts) Total 138

3

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to Section facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Introduction 1

Public Consultation CSES originally planned to launch an online survey. However, it was agreed that we would not proceed with the online survey since it would overlap with a planned public consultation organised by DG JUST. Consultation of the Member States was undertaken in February 2017 and the results have been taken into account in the report. Your Europe Advice database, focus groups and case studies As part of the research for the problem definition, we extracted records from the ‘Your Europe Advice’ database of enquiries that have been made by citizens relating to ID cards and residence documents. In total, some 10,000 records were extracted containing questions posed by individual citizens and the answers provided by ECAS. ECAS also prepared an analysis of this information. In the CSES tender, we said that we would carry out data collection (country fiche, telephone interviews) in all EU28 Member States with focus groups in 5-6 of the countries. Focus groups meetings took place in , , and Belgium (with participants from Belgium, , and France). In each case, the focus groups were attended by representatives of the national authorities responsible for ID cards and residence documents, citizens’ advice groups, border control agencies, and other experts. Each focus group lasted around three hours. A list of the participants of each of these focus groups is provided in Appendix A. A meeting was also held with FRONTEX in Warsaw. A first interim report was submitted in June 2016. This report focused on an initial analysis of the country fiche information, further development of the problem definition, and a first draft of other IA elements (case for EU to act, policy objectives, impact assessment framework, etc). The second interim report, which focused on further developing these aspects, was submitted on 20 November 2016 and was followed by a review meeting with DG JUST. Phase 3 – Impact Assessment and Final Report In the final phase of the assignment we finalised the remaining research, completed the analysis of the research findings and prepared the various aspects of the final report relating to the impact assessment.

1.3 Final Report Structure The final report is structured as follows:  Section 2: Legal and Administrative Features of ID Cards and Residence Documents – an assessment of the key features of ID cards and residence documents currently in use in the Member States.  Section 3: Problem Definition and Baseline Scenario – this section examines the problems that arise for citizens, the private sector and public authorities because of the situation described in Section 2. Section 3 defines the baseline scenario for the impact assessment, i.e. what is likely to happen if there is no EU intervention.  Section 4: Policy Objectives and Options - in this section we examine the EU competence to act, the objectives of any intervention and the policy options to address the problems identified in Section 3.  Section 5: Impact Assessment – this section assesses the different policy options (costs, benefits, etc.) and identifies the preferred option. The assessment is undertaken in accordance with the 2015 Better Regulation guidelines.

4

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to Section facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Introduction 1

 Section 6: Monitoring and Evaluation – sets out the performance indicators and procedures for assessing the implementation of the preferred policy option.  Section 7: Overall Conclusions - this section summarises the overall conclusions of the study. The report also contains a number of appendices including an overview of interviews conducted (Appendix A); an analysis of trends in fraudulent documents and EU policy responses (Appendix B); an analysis of national legal frameworks (Appendix C) and a collection of pictures of the different ID cards and residence documents (Appendix D); the country fiches (Appendix E); analysis of changes required to align with policy options (Appendix F); and a copy of the interview questionnaire (Appendix G). It should be noted that several appendices are too big to be included in this report and are therefore provided as separate documents. Our approach to conducting the impact assessment follows the methodology set out in the Commission’s ‘Better Regulation Guidelines’ (COM (2015) 215 final, 19.5.2015). In summary:

Table 1.2: Structure of an impact assessment and corresponding sections of this report

Identifying the problem This report 1 Describe the nature and extent of the problem Section 2 and 3 Identify the key players/affected populations. Section 1.1 and 5 Establish the drivers and underlying causes. Section 2 and 3 Is the problem in the Union's remit to act? Does it pass the necessity and Section 4.1 value added test? Develop a clear baseline scenario, including, where necessary, sensitivity Section 3.1-3.7 analysis and risk assessment. 2 Define the objectives Set objectives that correspond to the problem and its root causes. Section 4.1 Establish objectives at a number of levels, going from general to Section 4.2 specific/operational. Ensure that the objectives are coherent with existing EU policies and Section 4.2 strategies, such as the Lisbon and Sustainable Development Strategies, respect for Fundamental Rights as well as the Commission's main priorities and proposals. 3 Develop main policy options Identify policy options, where appropriate distinguishing between options Section 4.3 for content and options for delivery mechanisms (regulatory/non- regulatory approaches). Check the proportionality principle (the EU’s competence to act is also Section 4.1 assessed) Begin to narrow the range through screening for technical and other Section 5.1 constraints, and measuring against criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. Draw-up a shortlist of potentially valid options for further analysis. Section 4.4 and 5.1 4 Analyse the impacts of the options Identify (direct and indirect) economic, social and environmental impacts and how they occur (causality). Section 5 covers Identify who is affected (including those outside the EU) and in what way. these points and Assess the impacts against the baseline in qualitative, quantitative and examines the likely

5

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to Section facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Introduction 1

monetary terms. If quantification is not possible, explain why. costs and benefits in Identify and assess administrative burden/simplification benefits (or relation to each of provide a justification if this is not done). the policy options Consider the risks and uncertainties in the policy choices, including identified in Section obstacles to transposition/compliance. 4. 5 Compare the options Weigh-up the positive and negative impacts for each option on the basis of Section 5.6 provides criteria clearly linked to the objectives. an overall Where feasible, display aggregated and disaggregated results. assessment and Present comparisons between options by categories of impacts or affected identifies the stakeholder. preferred policy Identify, where possible and appropriate, a preferred option. option 6 Outline policy monitoring and evaluation Identify core progress indicators for the key objectives of the possible Section 6 intervention. Provide a broad outline of possible monitoring and evaluation Section 6 arrangements.

6

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

2 Legal and Administrative Frameworks for ID Cards and Residence Documents In this section we provide an assessment of the key features of the ID cards and residence documentation in use across the EU28 Member States. The assessment is based on the information contained in the country fiches and discussions with national authorities.

2.1 Introduction An overview of the country fiche structure (which was adopted as a framework for the analysis in this section) is provided below: Table 2.1: Overview of country fiche structure and key questions

Sections Key issues General questions What type of cards and residence documents are issued by the national authorities; what sort of information is contained in ID cards and residence documents; how many identity cards and different types of residence documents, etc. Legal framework, The different types of laws that regulate the eligibility, application eligibility and procedure, and use of the identity card and different types of information residence documents; the criteria that need to be fulfilled to be requirements eligible to apply for an identity card; data protection issues, etc. Costs and production The costs to (a) national authorities and (b) the individual citizen for systems issuing identity cards and different types of residence documents; whether a private and/or public entity is responsible for producing the documents, etc. Obligations and rights The obligations and rights on ID and residence card holders; what additional functions (if any) ID card/different types of residence documents have in relation to public and private services, etc. Security aspects The kinds of physical security features that are included in the ID card; whether or not the Member State follows the ICAO Docs.9303 standard; which security features (if any) are lacking, etc.

The design of the country fiche was reviewed by DG JUST. Copies of the completed country fiches are provided in Appendix E. During the course of the study they underwent several revisions and in most cases were reviewed by the respective national authorities. In each section we distinguish between information that is relevant to ID cards and, secondly, information relating to the various types of residence documents. A separate ‘fiche’ was completed for each type of card or document giving a total of 144 completed fiches. It should be noted that the information contained in the country fiches relates to the situation as at the end of 2016. In most cases the country fiches were reviewed by national authorities in early 2017. The analysis of the ‘country fiches’ provides a key input to the baseline assessment. It highlights the common features and differences between EU Member States with regard to ID cards and

7

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents residence documentation, an important aspect of the ‘problem definition’ and a starting point to deciding whether EU intervention is needed.

2.2 Review of Legal Background Appendix C provides a detailed elaboration of the current legal framework on free movement. This section provides a summary of the key aspects of Directive 2004/38 and other legislation on ID cards and residence documents. 2.2.1 Background – Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Directive 2004/38/EC Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that “every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect.” Article 21 (2) of the TFEU provides that “If action by the Union should prove necessary to attain this objective and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt provisions with a view to facilitating the exercise of the rights referred to in paragraph 1”. Article 21 (2) should be the legal basis for any action to ensure the instrument applies to all 28 Member States. Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States consolidated the previously separate legal measures on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the EU and EEA member states. While doing so, it covers EU citizens who have moved to or reside in a Member State other than their own9 and their family members (the Directive identifies spouses, registered partners, descendants, dependant ascendants, and other extended family members as family members).10 The Directive provides a general framework for citizens residing in a Member State other than their own and the conditions under which they may make use of their movement rights.11 As recital (7) explains, the purpose of the Directive is amongst other to define “formalities connected with the free movement of Union citizens” within the EU “without prejudice to the provisions applicable to national border controls”. Furthermore, recitals (11) and (14) emphasise that the right to move and reside freely in another Member State stems from the Treaties, and is not dependent upon their having fulfilled administrative procedures as further articulated by Article 25. Furthermore, the supporting documents required to register in a Member State should be “comprehensively specified” in order to “avoid divergent administrative practices or interpretations constituting an undue obstacle to the exercise of the right of residence by Union citizens and their family members”. The Court of Justice has also applied the rules of the Directive by analogy to categories of persons not included

9 Its rules also apply in instances where EU citizens who have returned to their home country after residing in a different Member State. 10 In regard to family members other than those explicitly mentioned in the Directive, Member States are only required to facilitate entry and residence. 11 Recitals 1, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 14.

8

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents in the list of beneficiaries of Article 3, notably returning nationals and TCN family members of a minor European child.12 Furthermore, Article 77 (3) TFEU provides that: “If action by the Union should prove necessary to facilitate the exercise of the right referred to in Article 20(2)(a), and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt provisions concerning , identity cards, residence permits or any other such document. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.” Article 77 (3) TFEU is located in the provisions on border checks, asylum and immigration and not in Title II TFEU related to citizenship of the Union. This explains the reasons for the special legislative procedure applied in this context and the different positions of Denmark, Ireland and UK to opt in. Legislation under Art 77(3) would undermine the uniform nature of the measure as DK, IE and the UK might not participate. However, these are countries where a significant proportion of problems are reported. 2.2.2 ID Cards Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2004/38/EC provide respectively for the right of exit and the right of entry for all EU citizens with a valid identity card or passport. As will be shown in the assessment of the baseline situation, most Member States deliver identity cards and these cards usually allow them to travel. In practice, conditions of delivery of ID cards, their format and their use vary across EU Member States. For instance, identity cards may be delivered only to nationals or to all residents, some may not be used to travel, some contain personal data and may carry electronic data enabling the holder to communicate with the administration or private entities, some contain biometrics features and are highly secured, some are optional while others may be obligatory. The costs of the card also vary and they may even be issued free of charge. Besides the core provisions (Articles 4 and 5) stipulating that a valid ID card shall be accepted to enter and exit an EU Member State, there have been several other initiatives at the EU level aimed at reducing administrative burden in regard to identification documents (listed below). It should be noted that the initiatives mentioned below fall under different legal regimes. These measures show that there is indeed a certain degree of consensus between Member States that EU level measures in regard to ID cards are needed.

Measures with regard to ID cards  The European Council on 4/5 November 2004 adopted the multi-annual programme for the area of freedom, security and justice. (The Hague Programme). In this Programme, the European Council invites "the Council, the Commission and Member States to prepare minimum standards for national identity cards, taking into account ICAO standards.”  The Justice and Home Affairs Council of 13 July 2005 called on Member States to adopt common designs and security features for national identity cards by December 2005. At the Council meeting on 1 and 2 December 2005, all European Union Member States adopted Conclusions of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on common standards on identity cards.  A Resolution on minimum security standards of identity cards13 valid for travel issued by

12 See Cases C-370/90 Singh [insert ECR ref], Case C-291/05 Eind [insert ECR ref], Case C-456/12 O&B [insert ECR ref], C-200/02 Chen [2004] ECR I-9925.

9

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Member States was adopted on 4 December 2006. The aim was to have a common basis on more technical details. To date however, not all Member States have implemented the resolution. On 15 December 2010, the Commission issued a Green Paper on "Less bureaucracy for citizens: promoting free movement of public documents and recognition of the effects of civil status records".14 This Green Paper concerns the administrative formalities required for the circulation of public documents in the Union and the recognition of the effects (content) of the legal information contained in such documents. On 9 May 2013 the Commission adopted its second EU Citizenship Report with twelve main conclusions, one of them on reduction of excessive paperwork and simplification of procedures in the Member States for EU citizens living and travelling in the EU, notably with regards to citizens’ identity and residence documents. More recently, in May 2016, the European Parliament published the study “The Legal and Political Context for Setting up a European Identity Document.” The aim of the study was to: (i) assess the added value of setting up a European ID card; (ii) analyse the legal and political feasibility of and challenges for setting up an operable European ID card given the current legislative and political context; and (iii) put forward recommendations as regards the legal and technical components required for the setting up of an operable European ID card. It should be noted though that the study mainly focused on the previously mentioned three aspects in relation to facilitating the exercise of EU political rights. In other words the study assesses the role a European ID card might play in enhancing the participation of EU citizens in decision-making processes at the EU level. In December 2016, the Commission adopted an Action Plan on document security setting out specific actions to improve the security of travel documents.15 One of the actions relates to fraud and forgery of national identity cards issued by Member States and residence documents for EU nationals residing in another Member State and their family members. Moreover, it was pointed out that there is currently a wide variety of such cards and documents with security levels that vary significantly, which leads to practical difficulties for citizens. The conclusion was that more secure and easily recognisable identity cards and residence documents would make it easier for citizens to exercise their EU citizenship rights and for public authorities, including border authorities, and businesses (such as shops, banks, utilities, etc.) to more easily accept such documents. At the same time, the risk of fraud and forgery would be reduced. These themes and others relating to simplifying the daily life for EU citizens were reiterated in the third EU Citizenship Report that was published at the beginning of 2017.16

2.2.3 Residence documentation In addition to the provisions on ID cards and passports, Article 8 of the Directive provides that

13 Resolution of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council on 4-5 December 2006, on minimum security standards of identity cards valid for travel issued by Member States 14 Green Paper Less bureaucracy for citizens: promoting free movement of public documents and recognition of the effects of civil status records COM/2010/0747 final. 15 Communication COM(2016) 790 final on Action plan to strengthen the European response to travel document fraud (December 2016) 16 EU Citizenship Report 2017: Strengthening Citizens’ Rights in a Union of Democratic Change (DG JUST, January 2017).

10

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Member States may ask citizens from other EU Member States to register with the relevant authorities if they plan to stay in the host Member State longer than three months.17 According to Article 8(5), EU national family members may also be asked to apply for a registration certificates under the same conditions. The situation is slightly different for non-EU national family members who need to apply for a residence card in accordance with Article 10 of the Directive.18 While the title of the card is prescribed by the Directive, the format of this card is in other respects at the discretion of the Member States. However, the Commission in its Communication on guidance for better transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC19 stated that its denomination must not deviate from the wording prescribed by the Directive. The Commission argued that different titles would make it materially impossible for the residence card to be identified in other Member States for purposes of exempting its holder from the visa requirement under Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC. After residing for a period of five years in the host Member State, EU citizens and their family members acquire permanent residence under Article 16.20 Non-EU national family members may apply for permanent residence cards after having resided with their EU relative for five years in a host EU Member State.21 Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 lays down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals. The residence permits are issued to TCNs and to TCN family members who do not exercise their free movement rights. The uniform format did not apply initially to family members of EU citizens exercising their right to free movement and the format of the residence card was not determined by EU law but by individual Member States. However, Regulation (EC) No 380/2008 amended it and introduced a new Article 5a providing for the possibility for Member States to use the uniform format for purposes other than those covered by Regulation No 1030/2002 (implying that MS could use it for third-country national family members of EU citizens). It specifically requires that, where they do so, appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that confusion with the residence permits within the scope of the Regulation is not possible and that the purpose is clearly indicated in the card. Residence cards for TCN family members of EU citizens are therefore more harmonised than any other cards mentioned in this section. The residence cards for family members of EU citizens cannot be used as a travel document, but can be used, when used in combination with a passport, to prove that the holder does not need a visa when travelling around the EU with his/her EU family member.22

17 Article 8 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Although the Directive mentions ‘registration’ as requirement (i.e. registration resulting in the immediate issuance of documentation), many member states interpret this provision as requiring citizens to ‘apply’ for a registration certificate which can take months to be issued. 18 Article 9 and 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC 19 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on guidance for better transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, (COM/2009/0313 final) 20 Article 19 of Directive 2004/38/EC 21 Article 20 of Directive 2004/38/EC 22 McCarthy v C-202/13.

11

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

On 9 May 2013, the Commission adopted its second EU Citizenship Report23. One of the report’s conclusions was the need for a reduction in the excessive paperwork and simplification of procedures in the Member States, notably with regards to residence documents. The Commission announced that it will assess "whether it would be appropriate to establish rules for a common secure format for registration certificates issued to EU citizens by Member States and for residence documents issued to their family members. This initiative would enable EU citizens and their families to use a single document in their daily life and solve problems they encounter in their dealings with private entities in other EU countries, whilst also enhancing document security."(p.12) As noted earlier, the 2016 Action Plan on document security and the third EU Citizenship Report published in early 2017 also emphasise these issues and priorities.

2.2.4 The e-ID function Most Member State’s ID cards include an eID-function. Electronic identification (eID) is a tool to ensure secure access to public and private online services by guaranteeing the unambiguous identification of a person in an online environment and making it possible to get the service delivered to the person who is entitled to it. eID has been praised as “important enabler of data protection and the prevention of online fraud.” 24 It is especially important in areas such as “eGovernment, where citizens and businesses need to trust that their data are treated in full respect of existing data protection legislation.”25 In addition to data security benefits, eID is also an important facilitator in an increasingly digitalised world. This becomes clear in the 2015 Citizenship Consultation where 73% of the respondents mentioned that e-services would facilitate administrative formalities especially when residing in another Member State.26 There have been several initiatives on electronic ID systems (eID) 27 or projects related to eID. In these projects the eID features were not necessarily linked to ID cards, but as shown later several governments have already combined eID features within their ID cards. Relevant projects on eID are: the project STORK 2.0 (Secure idenTity acrOss boRders linKed 2.0) contributes to the realization of a single European electronic identification and authentication area; secondly, in 2014, the Electronic Identification and Trust Services (eIDAS) Regulation was adopted. It creates a new European legal framework for secure electronic interactions across the EU between businesses, citizens and public authorities. The regulation removes existing barriers to the use of eID in the EU; last but not least, other related projects include: epSOS, e-Codex, e-Sens and IDABC. These are projects on e-services such as (e-health, e-justice access and e-government) which potentially need to make use of eID. Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (repealing Directive 1999/93/EC) was adopted in 2014. The regulation (eIDAS Regulation) does not set up an EU-wide eID but stipulates mutual recognition of electronic identification systems. More specifically it consists of two parts:

23 Report From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions COM(2013) 269 final 24 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/e-identification#Article 25 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/e-identification#Article 26 EU Citizenship Consultation 2015, retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/document/files/2015_public_consultation_booklet_en.pdf 27 Electronic identification (eID) refers to tangible or intangible forms of identification containing personal ID data as used for authenticating an online service.

12

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

 Public Services: The first part of the regulation applies to ‘government-recognized electronic identification systems’ and sets up a legal framework allowing all Member States to mutually recognize each other’s identification systems. It is tailored for the public sector and requires Member States to permit citizens from other Member States to use their own electronic IDs to access their online services. The latter applies only if the e-ID feature meets the regulation’s requirements.  Private Services: The second section of the regulation deals with electronic signatures. It clarifies existing rules, but also introduces a new legal framework for electronic signatures and seals. The eIDAS regulation offers incentives to follow European rules, by granting greater legal certainty to services that follow eIDAS’s rules.

The eIDAS regulation entered into force on 17 September 2014. It can be expected that the regulation will have had a positive impact on the mutual recognition of e-ID features included in national ID cards and thus have facilitated administrative procedures for mobile citizens moving to other Member States. In particular, the regulation should have made it easier for citizens moving to another Member State to manage registration procedures and all other administrative obligations online (where this option exists), thereby cutting out paperwork and potentially speeding up procedures. There are also potential benefits to citizens in seeking to access private sector services (e.g. opening a bank account in another country) where again procedures should have been simplified and speeded up.

2.3 Types of ID cards and residence documents in use

This section analyses the country fiche data on a number of basic issues: what type of cards and residence documents are issued by the national authorities; what sort of information is contained in ID cards and residence documents; how many identity cards and different types of residence documents, etc.

2.3.1 What types of ID card and residence documents are issued by the national authorities? The table below provides an overview of the different documents that are issued by the Member States. We have categorised the various identity documents into six types. These are, ID Cards, Registration Certificates, Residence Cards for EU Citizens, Residence Cards for Family Members, Permanent Residence Card for EU Citizens and Permanent Residence Card for Family Members. It is important to note that the terminology for these cards varies considerably at the national level (mostly in the case of registration certificates and residence cards). The terms used here are not restricted or defined by their physiological features (see Section 2.3.3 for an assessment of the make-up of these documents). This is important to bear in mind as many permanent residence cards are actually paper based which has security implications (see Section 2.7). Another relevant and potentially confusing factor is that residence permits that do not enact EU Treaty Rights are not within the scope of this study, though at the national level there are instances where a “residence permit” and “residence card” is the same. In summary:  All EU Member States apart from Denmark, Ireland and the UK issue ID cards to their citizens. It should be noted though that Ireland issues a document called a “passport card” which can be

13

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

considered to be very similar to an ID card. Therefore, in all summary tables references are made to this card and it is treated under the “ID card” category;  21 EU Member States issue registration certificates. The other six countries do not issue registration certificates (IE, EE, FI, FR, MT, NL and SE).  8 Member States (BE, FR, EE, IT HR, MT, NL, SK) issue residence cards for EU citizens while the 19 remaining Member States do not. The situation is different with residence cards for family members which are required by all 28 Member States.  As required by EU law, all Member States issue permanent residence cards for EU citizens and family members. Table 2.2: Documents issued by EU Member States Residence Residence Permanent Permanent Registration Country ID Cards Cards (EU Cards Residence Residence Certificates citizens) (Family) (EU citizens) (Family) Austria X28 X n/a X X X Belgium X X X29 X X X Bulgaria X X30 n/a X X31 X Croatia X X X X X X X X32 n/a X X33 X Czech Rep X X n/a X X X Denmark n/a X n/a X X X Estonia X34 n/a X35 X X X X36 n/a n/a X X X France X n/a X X X X Germany X X n/a X X X X X n/a X X X Hungary X X n/a X X X Ireland X n/a n/a X X X X X X X X X Latvia X X37 n/a X X X X X n/a X X X

28 AT: An ID Card and a Citizenship Card. AT delivers Lichtbildausweis to all foreign resident. If you count this ccard, you have also to include SE who issues the same kind of card to all foreign residents. 29 Belgium issues residence cards (but labelled registration certificate) to EU citizens in the form of a “Carte E / E-kaart” – the paper registration certificate is called “Annexe 8 / Bijlage 8”. This residence card has the same format as national ID cards and residence cards for family members. 30 BG: Instead of the registration certificate, citizens can opt for the permanent registration certificate which is a plastic card. 31 BG: Both a permanent residence card as well as a permanent registration certificate. 32 CY: As well as an additional Permanent Registration Certificate for EU Citizens. 33 CY: Permanent Residence Certificate for EU Citizens and Permanente Residence Certificate for Family Members of EU Nationals are combined in one fiche. 34 EE: Both National and EU ID Cards. 35 EE: Known as ID Card for EU Citizens. 36 FI: Including ID Cards for Foreigners, Nationals, Minors and Temporary ID Cards. 37 Can be issued as a plastic card at the same cost.

14

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Residence Residence Permanent Permanent Registration Country ID Cards Cards (EU Cards Residence Residence Certificates citizens) (Family) (EU citizens) (Family) Luxembourg X X n/a X X X Malta X n/a X X X X Netherlands X n/a X X X X X X n/a X X X X X n/a X X X X X n/a X X X38 X X X X X X X X n/a X X X X X n/a X X X X39 n/a n/a X X X UK n/a X40 n/a X41 X X Total 25 19 8 28 28 28

In some cases the distinction between residence-related documents is not clear. For example, in Germany, “residence card” (‘Aufenthaltskarte’) is the term used for the residence document of TCN family members while “residence card” carries a different German name (‘Aufenthaltsbescheinigung’). For citizens who exercise their free movement who are not acquainted with EU citizenship law this might cause some confusion. In addition, in Estonia ‘e- residency’ is offered to all foreigners residing in the country. However, e-residency is not a required residence document but is a voluntary document that allows citizens access to certain services. In relation to the identity card, a broad definition classifies it as an official document or card proving the identity of its holder and containing at least information such as the name, date of birth and photograph of the holder. Nevertheless, applying such a broad concept of an ID card implies that residence documents containing such information can also logically qualify as ID cards. The broader definition therefore treats identity cards as synonymous with identity documents. A narrower definition of ID cards would be where ID cards are cards or documents issued by national authorities to their nationals proving the identity and nationality of the holder and containing at least information such as name, date of birth and photograph. This definition applies to most ID cards that are issued in the EU and is thus adopted in the study and is in conformity with the PRADO database that considers all documents delivered to non-nationals as residence documents even if they carry the name “identity card”. Examples of the latter situation are found in Finland and Belgium, where a so-called e-ID card is an identity card that is issued not only to Finnish/Belgian nationals but also to other EU nationals residing in the two countries. This kind of document actually corresponds more to residence cards (although not labelled in this way) since it does not entitle the holder to the same rights as an ID card issued to nationals (i.e. right to travel in the EU). Only identity cards provided by national authorities of Member States to their nationals permit travel in the EU.

38 RO: Separate Permanent Residency documents for Family members of either EU Citizens or Swiss Citizens. 39 SE: Both National (issued by Police authority) and Swedish Identity Cards (issued by Tax Agency) 40 UK: Registration for EEA members is optional, Croatian nationals must apply for a registration certificate to be allowed to work in the UK. 41 UK: As well as a derivative residence card.

15

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

2.3.2 How many versions of the ID card or residence document are still in circulation? In addition to the differences between Member States, different versions of ID cards and residence documents exist within countries. The table below presents an overview of the documents that are in circulation in EU Member States at the time when this report was prepared. Table 2.3: Types of ID cards and residence documentation (Key: grey = document not issued in the country; Y= yes; N= no; 1-6= number of documents issued) Residence Permanent Member Registration Residence Permanent ID Cards Card EU Residence State Certificate Card FAM Residence Card FAM Citizens Card EU Nº Nº Nº Nº Nº Nº Austria 3 1 2 1 2 Belgium* 3 1 1 2 1 1 Bulgaria 2 1 2 1 2 Croatia 4 1 1 1 1 1 Cyprus 4 1 2 1 1 Czech Rep 10 1 2 1 1 Denmark 1 1 1 1 Estonia 3 2 1 2 1 Finland** 3 1 1 1 France 2 2 2 2 2 Germany 4 16+ 2 1 2 Greece 1 1 1 1 1 Hungary 4 1 2 1 1 Ireland 2 1 1 1 Italy 6 1 1 1 1 1 Latvia 2 2 2 2 2 Lithuania 3 1 1 1 1 Luxembourg 4 1 1 1 1 Malta 1 1 1 1 1 Netherlands 3 2 4 1 1 Poland 2 1 1 2 2 Portugal 3 2 1 1 2 Romania 5 1 2 2 2 Slovakia 5 1 3 3 3 3 Slovenia 1 1 1 1 1 Spain 3 2 1 2 1 Sweden 1 1 1 1 1 UK 3 2 2 2 Totals 84 40+ 17 46 38 40 Note: * Belgium issues residence cards (but labelled registration certificate) to EU citizens in the form of a “Carte E / E-kaart” – the paper registration certificate is called “Annexe 8 / Bijlage 8”. This residence card has the same format as national ID cards and residence cards for family members. Note: ** Finland issues identity cards to nationals of Finland, temporary identity cards, and identity cards for foreigners (including TCN family members of EU Citizens).

16

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Overall, the number of different versions of ID cards in circulation within the same EU Member States is a factor contributing to complexity at the EU level:  Only four Member States (EL, MT, SE, SI) have one ID card version in circulation;  A further five Member States currently have two versions in circulation (BG, FR, IE, LV, PL);  In over half of all EU Member States there are currently three ID card versions or more in circulation (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FL, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, NL, PO, PT, RO, SK). In Bulgaria and Italy different versions of some documents are still being issued (rather than in circulation). In Bulgaria, two versions of both residence cards and permanent residence cards for family members of EU citizens are issued. One version concerns a card for non-EU family members who entered into marriage/partnership in Bulgaria and the second version refers to cards for non- EU family members who entered into marriage/partnership outside Bulgaria. In Italy, there are two different versions of identity cards being issued depending on whether the local authority where the citizen applied for the card adopted the new plastic card format or still the old paper based format. Compared with the rather varied situation with ID cards there is a more straightforward situation with residence documentation. With regard to residence cards, there is mostly only one version or two versions of residence documents in circulation with the exception of Slovakia which has four. Where there are two versions of residence documents in circulation, this is mainly due to the various residence cards for family members (Austria, Bulgaria, Belgium, Cyprus, , France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Romania, Spain and UK) and the Netherlands and Slovakia currently have four versions. Similarly, there is only one type of permanent residence cards for EU citizens in most of the Member States (Estonia, France, Latvia, Poland Romania, Spain and UK have two versions and Slovakia potentially four) and a similar situation exists for permanent residence cards for family members of EU citizens (here, there are 10 cases where two versions are used – Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and UK). Last but not least, with registration certificates, there is only one version in 16 EU Member States (in Latvia, Portugal and Spain there are two valid versions and in the UK there are three). In Germany, issuance of registration certificates is decentralised and therefore there are 16 versions).

Conclusions – Types of ID cards and residence documents  ID Cards: Overall, we estimate that there are at least 84 different types of ID cards currently in circulation across the EU Member States. In over half of the Member States (18/28) 3 or more ID card versions are in circulation while in most other Member States at least 2 versions are in circulation. Further complexity emerges because in some Member States the different versions are all valid while in other Member States they are not.  Residence Documents: We estimate that there are least 181 different types of residence documents in circulation. Furthermore, in regard to each different residence documents, there are mostly only one or two versions in circulation.

17

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

2.3.3 What sort of ID cards and residence documents are issued to eligible individuals? As shown in the table below, there are different types of ID cards and residence documents in circulation – cards with or without biometric features and paper-based documents. In using the term “biometric feature”, we refer to the biometric identifiers as identified in Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002.42 They are defined as the use of one or more physical characteristics of an individual (fingerprints, facial structure, iris) stored on a medium such as a smart card, bar code or document, to enable the identity of the person presenting a document to be checked. In limited cases, the facial image itself contains biometric identifiers that are machine readable. ID cards

Most Member States (17) issue plastic cards which include biometric features (BE, BG, CY, DE, , EE, ES, HU, IE43, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PT, SK, ES, SE). In most cases (14), a facial image of the holder is stored on the chip, (BE, BG, CY, DE, HU, IE44, IT45, LV, LT, LU, NL, PT, ES, SE). A total of 10 Member States (BE, BG, CY, DE (optional), IT (2016 version), LT, ES, HU (optional), LV and PT) require that fingerprints are provided in order to store them on the chip in the card while in two Member States (DE, HU) fingerprints are optional. EE stores fingerprints but no facial image on a chip which can be checked with the photo stored in the database. Four Member States issue paper-based ID cards (CZ46, EL, IT, FR). In IT, however, plastic ID cards with biometric features are also available. Eight Member States issue plastic cards without biometric features (AT, CZ, FI, HR, MT, PL, RO and SI).

Residence documents

Registration certificate: in most Member States where information is available the registration certificates are paper-based. Exceptions to this rule are in Latvia and Ireland where plastic cards with biometric features are issued47 and in Romania and UK where plastic cards without biometric features are issued.

42 Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals (OJ L 157, 15.6.2002, pp. 1-7) 43 Ireland issues a Passport Card, which is representation of the holder’s passport and not an identity document in its own right. It has similar functions to an ID card, and while not technically an ID Card or Identity document in its own right, it is treated as such due to shared functions and value in this study. 44 Ireland issues a Passport Card, which is representation of the holder’s passport and not an identity document in its own right. It has similar functions to an ID card, and while not technically an ID Card or Identity document in its own right, it is treated as such due to shared functions and value in this study. 45 Facial image is stored for modern ID card (issue in 168 cities) 46 Multiple generations of the CZ ID Card are in circulation. See Country Fiche. 47 The standard practice is for the registration certificate (Annexe 8) to be issued in paper form – it is only if EU citizens ask for a residence card that they will be issued with a biometric residence card (Carte E / E-kaart labelled registration certificate) which has the same format as the national identity card and residence cards for family members (Carte F / F-kaart).

18

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Residence cards for EU citizens: in those Member States where residence cards for EU citizens are issued they are in most cases (8) issued in plastic card format with biometric features (Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, France, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Slovakia); in Italy only, a paper-based document is issued. Permanent Residence cards for EU citizens and residence cards for family members of EU citizens: While 10 Member States issue plastic cards with biometric features, paper documents are used in another 15 Member States. While in most of these countries the permanent residence documents of EU citizens and their family members have similar features, in 7 Member States there are differences (Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Lithuania and Portugal). In these countries, the permanent residence card for EU citizens is only paper-based or without biometric features while the one for family members is a plastic card with biometric features. Table 2.4: Types of ID card and residence documents that are issued to individuals Key: P = Paper Based; PB = Plastic with Biometric Features; PNB = Plastic No Biometric Features; O = Other Type; document not issued = grey shading Permanent Permanent Member Registration Residence Residence ID Card Residence Residence States Certificate Card EU Card FAM Card EU Card FAM Austria PNB P PB P PB Belgium PB P PB48 PB P / PB PB Bulgaria PB49 P PB PB PB Croatia PNB P PB PB PB PB Cyprus PB P P P P PNB (can be P P Czech Rep P (Booklet) P (Booklet) P (Booklet) in some cases) (Booklet) Denmark P PNB P PNB Estonia PB PB PB PB PB Finland PNB P PB P PB France P PB PB PB PB Germany PB P PB P PB Greece P (laminated) P P P P P (in laminate P (laminated P (laminated Hungary PB P* case) case) case) Ireland PB PNB PNB PNB Italy P / PB P P PNB P P Latvia PB P/PB P/PB P/PB PB Lithuania PB P PB P PB Luxembourg PB P P P P Malta PNB PNB PNB PNB PNB Netherlands PB PB PB PB PB Poland PB P PB PB PB

48 Belgium issues residence cards (but labelled registration certificate) to EU citizens in the form of a “Carte E / E-kaart” 49 BG: ID Card: There is still a Plastic Card without Biometric Features in circulation but no longer issued.

19

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Portugal PB / PNB P P P PNB Romania** PNB PNB PNB PNB PNB Slovakia PB P PB PB PB PB Slovenia PNB P P P P Spain PB P PB PNB PB Sweden PB PB PB PB UK PNB PNB PNB PNB Note: *HU- PNB if TCN family member; **RO - in addition to a paper based, Temporary Identity Card/Identity Book.

Conclusions – Basic features  ID Cards: Overall, 18 ID cards issued by Member States include biometric features and are in plastic card format. However, in a number of Member States, ID cards are without biometric features and/or paper based.  Residence Documents: In regard to registration certificates it can be observed that most Member States only issue paper-based documents. With other residence documents, although there is a considerable variety, it can be observed that family members are more often provided with documents with biometric features (in the case of 15 Member States) while EU citizens are generally issued with paper-based or non-biometric plastic documents (in the case of 19 Member States).

2.3.4 How many identity cards and different types of residence documents were issued in 2015 (or latest year for which statistics are available)? There is a rather incomplete picture available on the number of identity cards and different types of residence documents issued in 2015 and insufficient information to draw clear overall conclusions. While some Member States provided statistics purely for the newly-issued documents in 2015, other Member States provided statistics for all the documents that were in circulation in 2015 (i.e. the sum of the number of previously issued documents and the newly issued documents) because no other statistics on the latter situation were available. Furthermore, some Member States that did not have information available on documents issued in 2015 provided rough estimates only. For the sake of consistency we removed all information referring to the total number of documents in circulation from the table below and only refer to documents issued in 2015 (or any other year if specified). Table 2.5: Number of ID card and residence documents issued in 2015 (unless otherwise indicated) Key: document not issued = grey shading; N/A = not available. Perm. Perm. Registration Residence Residence Member States ID Card Residence Residence Certificate Card EU Card FAM Card EU Card FAM Austria (2012) 726,251 N/A 3,376 3,721 873 Belgium 2,206,735 11,892 4,078 22 (Paper) 6,194

20

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

(Paper), 284 33,715 (electronic (electronic E Card) E Card) Bulgaria 630,000 8,378 106 981 271 Croatia 556,449 1,777 2,932 59 1,055 11 Cyprus 90,242 8,354 1,475 133 133 50 Czech Rep 1,867,464 13,440 2,041 5,123 1,381 Denmark 36,000 4,500 4,500 4,500 Estonia 209,483 503251 60,738 5,032 N/A Finland 125,231 9,881 642 368 107 9,632 7,718 7,576 (including (including (including 711 (including France 4,500,000 4,836 3,797 5,032 662 renewals) renewals) renewals) renewals) 52 Germany N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8,150 Greece 401,000 (120,612 in 1,495 2,424 644 circulation) Hungary 1,003,450 13,766 1,14653 505 841 Ireland 13,37054 N/A N/A N/A N/A Italy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Latvia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Lithuania 285,648 18,515 4,119 4,119 Luxembourg 45,23255 13,306 1,305 8,278 927 205,017 Malta56 (including N/A N/A N/A N/A renewals) Netherlands N/A N/A57 N/A N/A N/A Poland 4,800,167 10,733 331 1084 N/A Portugal N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Romania 2,307,861 11,131 184 435 10

50 1,863,595 without electronic chip and 3,871 with chip 51 Cannot distinguish between temporary and permanent residency documents as both incorporated into issued EU ID Cards. 52 2014 data. 53 151 for family member of EEA citizen and 995 for family members of Hungarian citizens. 54 Figure for 2016 likely much higher, Passport Card only launched in October 2015. 55 22,502 without chip, 22,730 with chip 56 All former variants of ID Card expired on 01 January 2016, thereby increasing the number of e-ID Cards issued. 57 Reportedly very low according to the Ministry of Security and Justice and Immigration and Naturalisation Service.

21

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

(including 108,050 temporary identity cards) 700,000 Slovakia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A approx. Slovenia 182,579 8,82258 8,822 Resident documents issued total. Spain (2006-15) N/A 12,038 80,815 2,316 36,137 109,235 109,235 (540,656 (540,656 Sweden 222,162 N/A N/A since since 2011) 2011) UK 42,63859 N/A 19,74960 N/A Total >20,878,341 >244,021 >124,917 >299,673 >67,705 >56,859

The table above indicates the number of identity documents issued per annum. Where gaps exist because no data is available from the authorities, an extrapolation could in theory be undertaken based on the information that is available. However, we decided against this for several reasons: firstly, as indicated in Section 2.4, the situation varies across Member States as to whether citizens are required to hold the various types of documents or not. Secondly the extent to which issuance is legally required vary. Moreover, in introducing new identity documents, Member States can enact a ‘soft-roll out’ whereby the new document is issued but not mandatory to acquire or renew, and at a later date can impose a ‘hard-rollout’, causing a spike in issuance. The timing of these releases and the imposition of rules can also affect the data. All these factors make an extrapolation based on a group of countries difficult.

2.4 Legal framework, eligibility and information requirements The second section of the country fiche examines the legal framework and rules for ID cards and residence documentation. Key issues include: the different types of laws that regulate the eligibility, application procedure, and use of the identity card and different types of residence documents; the criteria that need to be fulfilled to be eligible to apply for an identity card; and data protection issues. Appendix C contains a summary of the relevant legislation governing the issuance and use of ID cards and residence documents in the EU Member States.

2.4.1 Which law regulates the eligibility, application procedure, and use of identity cards and residence documents? Across the EU Member States, legislative provisions governing eligibility, application procedure and use of ID cards and residence documents are based on a number of different instruments including primary legislation, regulations and in some instances constitutional provisions and

58 In 2015 8,822 residence documents (all) were issued in total. 59 UK data is for 2014 60 UK data is for 2014

22

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents case law. This variation applies within as well as between Member States so that, for example, matters relating to administrative fees for ID cards are governed by the tax code in several countries while matters relating to the application procedure for ID card or residence documents are generally regulated by the civil code. In Annex C an overview of all laws applicable to ID card and residence documents is provided. 2.4.2 Which criteria need to be fulfilled to be eligible to apply for the identity card and different types of residence documents and to obtain these documents? There is a degree of homogeneity in national laws governing eligibility criteria. In relation to ID cards, for example, the common criterion is citizenship of the Member State in question,61 while in many EU jurisdictions the criteria for applying for residence documents is based on the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC and in particular the Article 7 factors for granting Union citizens right of residence in another Member State for a period longer than three months. One area where procedural differences do indeed exist between Member States is where an EU citizen becomes not merely eligible but obliged to obtain an ID card. The table below provides a summary overview of the age at which it is mandatory to apply for an ID card in the different Member States, as well as setting out those countries where possession of a card is optional.62 Table 2.6: Mandatory age (if any) to apply for an ID card Mandatory age (years old) EU Member States 0 (from birth) HU 12 CY, EL, BE 14 ES, MT, NL63, RO, BG 15 CZ, EE, LU, LV, SK 16 LT, DE 18 PL, FI, HR ID card not mandatory at any age AT, FR, IE (passport card) , IT, PT, SE, SI, No ID card system in operation DK, UK Note: Residents of Latvia must have either a valid passport or valid ID card by age 15.

Conclusions – Criteria for eligibility  ID Cards: To be eligible to apply for an ID card it is generally necessary to be a citizen of that Member State. However in some jurisdictions (EE, FI, LV and HU) it is possible to obtain an

61 In some Member States (e.g. EE) ID cards are also available for EU citizens who are non-nationals, while in other MSs a broader range of non-nationals may apply for ID cards (e.g. FI, LV, HU – here immigrants, settled persons, refugees, foreign citizens with protected status are potentially eligible. See HU country fiche, Qn7). 62 In the context of residence documents, it is noted that registration certificates/residence cards for EU citizens are not mandatory in EU law. However, residence cards for family members of EU citizens as well as permanent residence cards for both EU citizens and family members are required under Directive 2004/38/EC. In some Member States (e.g. Ireland) the domestic legislation requires that all types of residence card are obligatory for EU citizens and their family members. 63 Alternative ID documents, including passport or driving license can be used in lieu of the ID Card. Holders must be able to prove their identity from the age of 14.

23

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

ID card as a non-national, but this card can be used as identification only in the issuing Member State. In over half of the Member States there is a requirement to hold an ID card from a certain age (this is separate to the minimum age from which applicants may if they wish apply for a card – see below).  Residence Documents: Eligibility for residence documents in national laws is based on the requirements of Directive 2004/38/EC.

2.4.3 At what age is it possible to apply for the ID card or residence documents? Which rules apply for verifying identity or residence of minors? The table below summarises the extent to which age restrictions apply to ID cards and residence documents. In our baseline assessment (Section 3 of this report) we did not identify any problems in respect to age requirement. Consequently, age requirements are not a feature of the suggested policy options. Nevertheless, below we present the study findings in relation to age for the sake of completeness.  Of 26 Member States which issue some form of ID card, 16 countries have a minimum age requirement which varies from 12 years old in Greece to 18 years old in Finland;  By contrast, only Cyprus, Denmark, France, Malta and Romania impose an age restriction on applicants for residence documents, and only in Malta does the restriction apply across all the different forms of residence document. In terms of the rules for establishing the identity of minors, the required documents are usually the possession of a birth certificate (BG, CY, EE, FR, LT, NL, RO, SK) and/or passport (CY, EE, FI, HU, SK). In other EU Member States (DK, EL, ES, IT, SI) the relevant legislation does not prescribe the official documents which either the minor or his/her legal representative are required to produce to verify matters of identity and residence. Furthermore, there is a general requirement that the relevant parent must establish their identity, residence or legal custody of the minor, as applicable. In three Member States (LU, NL, SE) proof of identity/residence can come from a national data register; in the Netherlands all citizens have a ‘BSN’ (‘Burgerservicenummer’) issued at birth while in Sweden this is referred to as a Personal Identity Number. In Latvia, a registration certificate for a minor must be accompanied by a certified letter of consent signed by both parents or by a legal guardian. Table 2.7: Minimum age for application for ID/residence documents Key: ‘√’ = minimum age requirement, age stated in parenthesis; ‘X’ = no minimum age requirement; ‘-’ = information unknown; ‘NA’ = not applicable Identity Registration Residence Permanent Residence Permanent Card Certificate cards for EU residence cards for residence cards Country citizens cards for EU family for family citizens members members Austria X NA NA X X X Belgium X X NA X X X Bulgaria √ (14) X NA X X X Croatia X X X X X X Cyprus X X NA √ (5) X √ (5) Czech Rep √ (14) X NA X X X Denmark NA √ (18) NA X X X

24

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Identity Registration Residence Permanent Residence Permanent Card Certificate cards for EU residence cards for residence cards Country citizens cards for EU family for family citizens members members Estonia √ (15) NA NA X X X Finland √ (18)64 X NA X X X France X NA √ (21)65 X √ (16) √ (16) Germany √ (16) NA NA X X X Greece √ (12) X NA X X X Hungary X X NA X X X Ireland √ (14) X X X X X Italy X X NA X X X Latvia √ (15) X NA X X X Lithuania √ (16) X NA X X X Luxembourg √ (15) X NA X X X Malta √ (14) NA √ (14) √ (14) √ (14) √ (14) Netherlands X - X X X X Poland √ (18) X NA X X X Portugal X - NA - - - Romania √ (14) √ (18)66 NA √ (14)67 X √ (14)68 Slovakia √ (15) X X X X X Slovenia X69 X NA X X X Spain √ (14) X NA X X - Sweden √ (13) - NA X X X UK NA X X X70 X X71

Conclusions – Age requirements  ID Cards: There is no uniform minimum age requirement to apply for ID cards in EU Member States. However, 16 Member States have instituted a minimum age for ID card applications, with the most common minimum age being 14 years. There is also divergence between countries in relation to the rules for verifying the identity of minors: some jurisdictions are prescriptive as to the official documents (e.g. birth certificates or passports) which minors and/or their legal representatives must produce, while in other Member

64 Identity cards can also be issued to minors (individuals aged under 18), subject to a guardian’s consent. A guardian can give his or her consent to the use of a guardian’s consent form, which must be affixed to the application. 65 Minors under 21 can apply however for a family member residence card. 66 Minors can be registered as family members of the EU/EEA citizens. 67 Minors can be registered as family members of the EU/EEA citizens. 68 Minors can be registered as family members of the EU/EEA citizens. 69 Unless otherwise granted legal capacity to act on their own by the court, persons under 18 years must submit an ID card application via a legal representative. 70 A child under 16 must be accompanied by a parent, guardian or someone over 18 who has legal responsibility for the child 71 Ibid.

25

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

States it is simply stated that information produced by minors for an application must be verified by parents or guardians.  Residence Documents: There is no uniform minimum age requirement to apply for residence documents in EU Member States. There is also divergence between countries in relation to the rules for verifying residence of minors: some jurisdictions are prescriptive as to the official documents (e.g. birth certificates or passports) which minors and/or their legal representatives must produce, while in other Member States it is simply stated that information produced by minors for an application must be verified by parents or guardians.

2.4.4 What information needs to be provided to obtain the identity card/and different types of residence documents In the table below we focus on key personal data which must be provided by applicants and which is then included on the card or document itself, whether on its face or in the microchip (e.g. digital fingerprint, digital signature). Except where otherwise noted, the situation in a given Member State is the same for all residence documents. Supplementary information not included on the card or document can also be required for the application process. This is particularly the case for residence documents, where it may be necessary inter alia for applicants to give details regarding their occupation, civil status and reason for application (work/studying). For residence documents, the passport or ID number of an applicant is also commonly requested. Table 2.8: Information required from applicants and stored on for ID card/residence documents Information requirements included on Identity cards Residence documents ID card/residence document Less than basic: key information RO AT72, EE,73 EL,74 ES,75 HU,76 IT,77 missing LT,78 LU,79

72 Missing info such as height, gender, signature, (...) 73 E-residency card (which is open to EU and non-EU citizens) enables digital signing of documents, but includes little personal information about the cardholder written on the card itself. However, the ID card for EU citizens and the family member residence card have basic information features. 74 EL residence card (temporary and permanent) of a family member of an EU citizen is a paper document which contains only name, surname, citizenship, date of birth, gender and the picture. Identifying information such as height, address, signature, place of birth not required for inclusion on the card. This may also be the case with registration certificate and permanent residence card for EU citizens (picture quality of relevant cards supplied in fiches inadequate) – better qualify photos of the documents have been requested but not yet received. 75 The registration certificate is a paper document with no photo or signature of the applicant, and no information on gender, height, title. 76 The EU residence card in HU is a paper document with no photo or signature of the applicant, and no information on gender, height, title. The residence card for family members is a paper document (no image available). The permanent residence cards (EU citizens and family members) display a photo and signature but lack other identifying information such as height, address, place of birth. 77 Registration certificate, residence certificate (temporary and permanent) for EU citizens, and residence card for family members appear to be paper documents with no photo of applicant. 78 Registration certificate and permanent residence certificate for EU citizens appear to be paper documents with no photo of applicant.

26

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Information requirements included on Identity cards Residence documents ID card/residence document Basic: surname/birth name and name, AT, BE, BG,81 CY,82 CZ, DE, EE, AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK,87 EE, title, birthdate, place of birth, gender, EL, ES,83, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, EL, ES88, FI,89 FR, HR, IE, height, nationality, photograph, LT, LU,84 LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, LV,90MT, NL, PL,91 PT, RO, SE, SI, signature, address, legally authorised SE, SI,85 SK86 SK, UK name80 Additional: digital fingerprint BG92, CY, DE,93, IT94, LT, ES, BG96, DE97, ES98, FI99, HR,100 HU,95, LV, PT LT,101 LV, MT,102 NL,103 UK Additional: digital signature AT,104 BE, BG, CY105, DE,106 EE, EE, IE, LV, MT, SK108 ES, HU107,LT, LU, LV, MT, PT, SK

79 Registration certificate and permanent residence certificate for EU citizens are paper-based documents with no photo or information on gender, height, title etc. 80 ‘Artist/religious name’ in AT. 81 If application is submitted online. 82 Applicant’s occupation also required. 83 No information displayed in a few areas, e.g. applicant’s height, DOB, title. 84 Some info missing (e.g. height, address, title, place of birth). 85 Some info appears missing (height, address, title). 86 Additional data may be included at the holder's request, e.g. academic title, health information for effective first aid, blood group and sub-group. 87 During the desk research it has not been possible to find a photo of the Residence card for family members and the Permanent residence card for family members of EU/EEA citizens who are third-country nationals. A photo of these documents have been requested during the field interviews but not yet received. 88 All residence documents except registration certificate. 89 N.B. To be confirmed regarding the registration certificate and permanent card for EU citizens: these are paper-based documents for which no images are yet available. 90 However, for the registration certificate applicants can choose a paper document over the biometric card. The paper document is missing certain information such as photo, height, address, title, gender, place of birth, nationality. 91 The registration certificate does not include a photo of the applicant. 92 Fingerprints will be required for ID cards in BG from 2017 onwards 93 The provision of fingerprints is optional in Germany – the applicant is not obliged. 94 E-ID Card (2016 Version) 95 At request of card applicant. 96 Family member residence card (temporary and permanent) only. 97 Digital fingerprints for family members’ residence card 98 Residence cards (temporary and permanent) for family members only. 99 Digital fingerprints for family members’ residence card 100 All residence documents except registration certificate. This is a paper doc and no image is yet available. 101 Permanent residence card for family member. 102 This is only obligatory for non-EU nationals wishing to hold a (temporary or permanent) Maltese e- Residence document. 103 Residence cards (temporary and permanent) for family members. Information on other residents documents forthcoming. 104 At request of card applicant. 105 E-signature. Digital Signatures are a form of E-Signature but with more advanced security features. 106 At request of card applicant.

27

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Information requirements included on Identity cards Residence documents ID card/residence document Additional: eye colour BG, DE, IT BG Additional: purpose for requesting - FR109, SK card/document (e.g. type of residence) Additional: tax code of applicant IT, NL - Source: country fiches

Conclusions – ID card and residence document information

 ID cards: Basic information is required for inclusion on ID cards in all Member States. Almost half of EU Member States require applicants to provide fingerprint and signature data for storage on the cards, though in a number of jurisdictions (AT, DE, HU) providing a digital signature is optional for the applicant, and in (DE, HU) it is also optional to provide fingerprints.  Residence Documents: In respect of residence documents, requested information from applicants which is displayed on these documents is less comprehensive. Residence documents are, for example, more likely to be paper-based and in some Member States (EE, EL, ES, HU, IT, LT, LU) no photo is included for one or more kind of residence document. Fingerprint and signature data are less commonly included in residence documents and cards than is the case with ID cards.

2.4.5 What administrative procedure needs to be followed to request / obtain the document? How long (days) does this procedure typically take to complete? Does the law set a deadline for issuing the document after being requested? The administrative procedure to obtain identity cards and residence documents is set out in detail in the country fiches. Below we summarise the key steps:  In relation to ID cards, applicants should, as appropriate, visit: the local police station/services point (BG, EL, FI, HR, SK); a government webpage (IE); the nearest town hall / regional public authority (AT, BE, CY, DE, EE, ES, FR, HU, IT, LT,110 LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI); offices of the interior ministry or relevant government agency (HU, MT, LV); the national tax agency (SE). Applicants not currently living in the territory should go to the applicable Member State’s embassy or consulate. Although as pointed out later this is not possible for all EU nationals.111  In relation to residence documents, applicants should, as appropriate, visit: the local police station/services point (BG, CY,112 EL,113 ES, FI, HR, IT, LT, SK); offices of the interior ministry or

107 At request of card applicant. 108 All except registration certificate. 109 ‘Motif de séjour’ appears on residence card for EU citizens. 110 ID cards can be obtained at an ‘authorised institution’. See LT country fiche. 111 See Section 2.3 112 If the applicant is in Nicosia, s/he should attend the Civil Registry and Migration Department’s head office. 113 It appears applications for residence cards (temporary and permanent) for family members take place at the nearest regional immigration office rather than the police station in EL.

28

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

relevant government agency (LU, LV, NL, SE);114 a government webpage (IE); the nearest town hall / regional public authority (AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, EE, FR, HU, LU, PT, RO, SI, UK). Applicants not currently living in the territory can go to the applicable Member State’s embassy or consulate115. Applicants are then required to fill out an application form and in some cases to pay a fee.116 The payment requirement varies for both ID and residence cards (see Section 2.3 for information about costs). Personal information for both ID and residence cards (see Section 2.2.5) should generally be accompanied by documentary evidence (e.g. passport, birth certificate, evidence of domicile (so- called ‘breeder documents’) either in original or photocopy as required by the relevant authorities. The online application process for ID cards in France can be considered good practice. France also has a central database including birth certificates and linking municipalities, reducing the scope for using fraudulent breeder documents to obtain genuine ID cards. Turning to the timeframe for obtaining ID cards/residence documents and subsequent legal deadline for their issuance, the tables below summarise the information provided by Member States. It should in addition be noted that the period of when a new document has to be requested varies between Member States. For example, in relation to permanent residence cards for family members, an application for a card has to be made three days before the expiry of the previous residence card in BG; some time before the due expiry in EL; and within one month after the expiry of the previous residence card in CY.117 Table 2.9: Typical timeframe for obtaining ID/residence documents from application to issuance Key: NA = not applicable; ASAP = as soon as possible; ‘-’ = information unknown Residence Permanent Residence Permanent Registration cards for residence cards for residence cards Country Identity Card Certificate EU cards for EU family for family citizens citizens members members Austria 5 days NA NA - - - 2 or 3 2 or 3 weeks; 3 NA 3 weeks - weeks; 3 days usually and days (emergency) 48 hrs in Belgium (emergency) and 48 hrs extreme or 48 hours (extreme emergency (extreme emergency) emergency) 8 hrs 24 hrs NA 24 hrs 3 months 1 month (express) 3 (paper) Bulgaria working 1 month days (fast) (card) 30 days

114 For permanent residence cards for EU citizens and family members. 115 For family members of EU citizens 116 For more detail information on costs see Tables 2.13 and 2.14. 117 EU law requires that the application for a permanent residence card shall be submitted before the residence card expires, Failure to comply with the requirement to apply for a permanent residence card may render the person concerned liable to proportionate and non-discriminatory sanctions. See Article 20(2) Directive 2004/38/EC.

29

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Residence Permanent Residence Permanent Registration cards for residence cards for residence cards Country Identity Card Certificate EU cards for EU family for family citizens citizens members members (regular) Croatia - - - 20 days 20 days 20 days 2-5 working 24 hrs NA - - - Cyprus days 10 days Without undue NA 82 days118 170 days119 131 days120 Czech Rep delay NA 1-2 weeks NA - May be over 6 months Denmark 3 weeks Few days/ 1 NA Few Few days/ 1 few days or 1 Estonia week121 days/ 1 week123 week week122 Finland 1 week Immediate NA ASAP - - France Varies NA - - Germany 3 weeks NA NA ASAP - - Greece immediate 24 hrs-few days NA ASAP - - Hungary 8 days Immediate NA - - - 10 working NA NA - 6 months - Ireland days Immediate - NA immediate immediate/f immediate/few Italy (P) / 6 days ew days days (PB) 2 or 10 2 or 10 working NA 2 or 10 2 or 10 2 or 10 working days, depending working working working days, Latvia days, on fee paid days, days, depending on depending depending depending fee paid on fee paid on fee paid on fee paid Lithuania - - NA - - - 3 working Immediate NA - - - days (fast) Luxembourg 10 days (regular) 10 days or several weeks several several several several weeks (fast-track) 3 weeks weeks weeks Malta days or (emergency) 2 hours. 5 working NA 4 days - - - Netherlands days124 (or

118 Average time in 2015 (include appeal procedure). 119 Average time in 2015 (include appeal procedure). 120 Average time in 2015 (include appeal procedure). 121 An accelerated application procedure is also possible. 122 This is a mandatory document for EU citizens referred to as an ID card. An accelerated application procedure is also possible. 123 An accelerated application procedure is also possible.

30

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Residence Permanent Residence Permanent Registration cards for residence cards for residence cards Country Identity Card Certificate EU cards for EU family for family citizens citizens members members immedia te) Poland - Immediate NA Immediate 1 month - Portugal - Immediate NA - - - Romania - Immediate NA - - - Slovakia ------Slovenia - - NA - - - Spain Immediate Immediate NA ASAP Immediate - Sweden 5 days NA NA - 1 week125 1week UK NA - NA - - - Source: country fiches

Table 2.10: Deadline in law for issuance of ID/residence documents following applicant request Key: Y = Yes; N = No; NA = not applicable; ASAP = as soon as possible; ‘-’ = information currently unknown. N.B. Time period of deadline stated in parenthesis where applicable Permanent Residence Permanent Residence cards residence Identity Registration cards for residence Country for family cards for Card Certificate EU cards for EU members family citizens citizens members Austria ------Belgium - Y (5 months) - Y (5 months) Y (6 months) Y (5 months) Bulgaria - Y (24 hours) NA Y (1 month) Y (3 months) Y (1 month) Y (30 days) Y (‘without N N N Y (6 months) Croatia delay’) N Y NA Y (6 - Y (6 months) Cyprus (‘immediately’) months)126 Czech Rep Y (30 days) Y (30 days) NA Y (60 days) Y (60 days) Y (60 days) Denmark NA Y (3 weeks)127 NA Y (6 months) - Y (6 months) Y (30 days) NA Y (30 - Y (30 days) Y (30 days) Estonia days) N Y NA Y (ASAP) Y (6 months) Y (6 months) Finland (‘immediately’) - - Y (4 Y (4 Y (4 Y (4 France months) months)129 months)130 months)131 128

124 Fast-track available for a fee. 125 Usually it takes around 1 week but there is no legal deadline which leads to situations where an applicant has to wait much longer (e.g. 12 months) (see information in country fiche) 126 This deadline is applied in practice but is not a legal requirement. 127 The ‘target’ processing time is under 3 weeks however it is not clear if this is a statutory time limit. 128 If the card has not arrived within this period it is deemed refused by law. 129 If the card has not arrived within this period it is deemed refused by law.

31

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Permanent Residence Permanent Residence cards residence Identity Registration cards for residence Country for family cards for Card Certificate EU cards for EU members family citizens citizens members Germany - NA NA - Y (6 months) Y (6 months) Greece - Y (‘promptly’) NA Y (‘ASAP’) Y (6 months) Y (6 months) Hungary Y (20 days) - NA Y (70 days) Y (70 days) Y (70 days) Ireland ------Y (‘No later than Y (‘No Y (30 days) - - 90 days’) later Italy than 90 days’) Y (2 or 10 Y (2 or 10 NA Y (2 or 10 Y (2 or 10 Y (2 or 10 working working days, working working days, working days, depending on days, depending on days, Latvia depending fee paid)132 depending fee paid) 134 depending on fee on fee on fee paid) paid)133 paid)135 Y (1 NA Y (10 Y (1 month) Y (1 month) Y (1 month) Lithuania month) working days) Y – fast Y NA Y (1 month) Y (6 months) Y (6 months) track only (‘immediately’) Luxembourg (3 working days) Malta N N N N N N Y (4 - - Y (6 months) Y (6 months) Y (6 months) Netherlands weeks) Y (30 days) Y NA Y Y (6 months) Y (6 months) Poland (‘immediately’) (immediate) Portugal - - NA Y (15 days) Y (3 months) Y (3 months) Y (30 Y (24 hrs) NA Y (30 days) Y (90 days) Y (90 days) Romania days)136 Slovakia Y (30 days Y (24 hrs) Y (30 Y (30 days or Y (30 days or 2 Y (30 days or

130 If the card has not arrived within this period it is deemed refused by law. 131 If the card has not arrived within this period it is deemed refused by law. 132 This refers to the plastic card version. The paper version is issued immediately on receipt of the relevant application documents. 133 A decision regarding issuing the document must be adopted within 30 days from the day when all the necessary documents have been received. It is issued, based on a request made by the applicant, within 2 working days or 10 working from the day when a decision to issue residence card was adopted. 134 A decision regarding issuing the document must be adopted within 30 days from the day when all the necessary documents have been received. It is issued, based on a request made by the applicant, within 2 working days or 10 working from the day when a decision to issue residence card was adopted. 135 A decision regarding issuing the document must be adopted within 30 days from the day when all the necessary documents have been received. It is issued, based on a request made by the applicant, within 2 working days or 10 working from the day when a decision to issue residence card was adopted. 136 Can be extended by a further 15 days in certain circumstances. See RO fiche.

32

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Permanent Residence Permanent Residence cards residence Identity Registration cards for residence Country for family cards for Card Certificate EU cards for EU members family citizens citizens members or 2 days days or 2 2 days fast- days fast- 2 days fast- fast-track) days track) track) track) fast- track) Y (15 Y (ASAP & no NA Y (ASAP & Y (ASAP & no Y (ASAP & no Slovenia days)137 later than 1 no later than later than 1 later than 1 month) 1 month) month) month) Y Y NA Y (ASAP) Y ( Y (3 months) Spain (‘immediate (‘immediately’) ‘immediately’) ly’) Sweden - NA NA NA - - NA Y ( NA Y (ASAP) Y (6 months) Y (6 months) UK ‘immediately’)

Conclusions – Procedures for applying for ID cards and residence documents

 ID cards: A quite high degree of variance exists across EU Member States in almost all aspects of applying for and obtaining ID cards, for example with regard to the place where applications must be made, the fees which are then payable, and the point in time when the application should be lodged.  Residence cards: A similar degree of variance between Member States exists in respect of residence cards. In addition, it should be noted that in some cases the competent administrative authorities vary within the same Member State depending on whether the document requested is an ID or residence card. For example, in Cyprus it is necessary for a national of that Member State to make an ID card application at the Migration Department’s district offices or Citizens Advice Centres, whereas EU citizens who are non- nationals, or their family members, would need to make the relevant residence card application at the local police station (or, if the applicant is in Nicosia, to the Migration Department’s head office). In other EU jurisdictions, by contrast, the same administrative authority (e.g. the local commune) would have responsibility for issuing both ID and residence cards.

2.4.6 Are there specific criteria for obtaining replacements (e.g. after loss or multiple losses)? The table below provides a summary overview of particular steps which need to be completed for obtaining a replacement card, principally if the existing document has been lost or stolen. Except where otherwise noted, the requirements in this area are the same for all residence documents.

137 Can be extended in some circumstances. See SI fiche.

33

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Table 2.11: Specific requirements for obtaining replacements (e.g. after loss/theft) Requirement Identity cards Residence documents Mandatory report of loss/theft to AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, AT, CY, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, authorities FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, HR,138 IE, IT, LU, LV, MT, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK SE, SK, UK Court affidavit/certificate issued to CY, IT, LU, MT, NL, PL BE,139 CY, EL, FR,140 LV,141 individual reporting loss/theft MT, PT,142 RO Payment of fine or administrative fee CZ, EL, FR, HU,143 MT,144 SK BG, CZ, MT, SK, UK, FR,145 (e.g. after loss/theft) It can be seen that Member States more frequently require the loss or theft of ID cards to be reported to the police or other authorities than is the case with residence documents. For both ID cards and residence documents a number of EU Member States require that applicants obtain a police certificate or (in the case of CY) an affidavit from the court confirming the loss/theft before they may apply for a replacement card. It is necessary in a minority of jurisdictions to first pay a fine or administrative fee for the lost or stolen card before it is possible to obtain a replacement (see Section 2.3). Conclusions – Obtaining replacement cards and documents  ID Cards: In a majority of Member States, reporting the loss or theft of a previous ID card is a mandatory first step before obtaining a new card. Furthermore, a number of EU countries require applicants to visit the police station to obtain written confirmation of a loss or theft, and they will need this police document or certificate to accompany their application for a replacement document. A fine or administrative fee for the replacement card may be payable where the previous card has been lost or stolen (see section 2.3).  Residence Cards: For residence documents, a number of EU countries require applicants to visit the police station to obtain written confirmation of a loss or theft, and they will

138 The requirement extends to all residence documents with the exception of registration certificates. 139 Police declaration required for registration certificate and permanent residence card for EU citizens. The situation for other residence documents is unknown. See BE country fiches. 140 An affidavit of loss is needed for lost card and a police receipt of theft report is needed for stolen cards. It is only mandatory to report loss/theft of cards in respect of residence cards (including permanent) for family members of EU citizens. 141 For lost/stolen residence documents a statement (based on a template prepared by the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs) is required concerning the loss of the residence card, including the explanations regarding circumstances of theft, loss or destruction of the card. 142 For renewing registration certificates following instances of loss/theft the applicant must present a police declaration along with other relevant documents. 143 There is no fee for obtaining a new ID card where a minor’s card has been stolen. 144 Applications to replace a defaced ID card incur a charge of €16.50. 145 It should be noted it is only mandatory to report loss/theft of cards in respect of residence cards (including permanent) for family members of EU citizens. A payment of fine is also only applicable for family members of EU citizens.

34

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

need this police document or certificate to accompany their application for a replacement document. A fine or administrative fee for the replacement card may be payable where the previous card has been lost or stolen.

2.4.7 What are the procedures for obtaining replacement cards or documents (e.g. after loss or multiple losses) and for renewing them? The administrative prerequisites for obtaining replacement cards or documents in cases of loss or theft (duty to report the incident to the authorities, to obtain a police certificate, to pay a fine etc.) are summarised at Section 2.2.5. Beyond these, the table below confirms that for a majority of Member States no further special procedures apply when it comes to replacing/renewing cards or documents. That is to say, the replacement/renewal procedure comprises making an application which is the same as, or is simpler and requires less supporting information than that relating to the initial application. For ID cards, minor procedural differences between first applications and renewal/replacement applications can reflect that, for the latter, fewer pieces of supporting evidence (e.g. birth certificate) are required (CY). In some cases, however, additional supporting evidence may be needed, depending on the reason for the replacement request. For example, if the purpose of replacing the card is that the person has changed his or her address (ES) or surname (LT) since their initial application, a proof of residence or marriage/divorce certificate is required as appropriate. For residence documents, minor procedural differences include: use of a document extension form instead of the original application form (HU); lodging the form at an office of the ministry for foreign affairs in place of the local commune office (LU); and immediate issuance of the residence card for family members under the renewal procedure rather than the more delayed process under first-time application, where the authorities have up to 30 days to reach a decision on whether to issue a card after all documents have been received (LV). Table 2.12: Special procedures for obtaining replacement cards or documents (beyond loss / theft obligations in previous table) compared with initial application Special procedures for Identity cards Residence documents obtaining replacement cards or documents No special procedures AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, HU, HR, HU, IE, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, HR, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, MT, PT, SE, SI, SK NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK Minor differences in BE146, CY, ES, LT, RO,147 LU, LV, HU procedure Significant differences in NA NA procedure Note 1: Unless otherwise specified, the same procedures apply for the various forms of residence document in Member States.

146 Proof of notification of loss/destruction has to be brought along. 147 If a renewal applicant cannot prove his identity via another official document, verification of the person’s identity is referred to the police.

35

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

In some EU Member States there are statutory time periods in relation to renewing or replacing ID card/residence documents. For example:  Czech Republic: applications for a replacement ID card should be lodged within 15 days of reporting the loss or theft;  Latvia: ID cardholders and residence document holders must apply for a new card/document within 30 days after the existing card/document has been lost, stolen or become expired or otherwise invalidated;  Lithuania: It is only possible to request to renew an ID card where the current card has expired or there is no more than 1 year until its expiry date;  Luxembourg: Renewal requests for permanent residence cards for family members must be made at least 2 months before the expiration date of the current permanent residence card;  Netherlands: For residence cards (temporary and permanent) for family members, a replacement document will not be issued if the residence card will expire within the next 3 months. Instead, it is recommended that an application for an extension of residency, a change in purpose of stay, or permanent residence, as applicable to circumstances, is submitted;  Portugal: ID cards must be renewed up to 6 months before the expiration date.

Conclusions - Procedures for obtaining replacement cards or documents  In the vast majority of EU countries, the procedures for renewing or obtaining replacement ID cards or residence documents are substantively similar to, or administratively more straightforward than, the original card application process.  Nevertheless, the existence of statutory time periods which must be observed in certain Member States, or even minor factors such as the requirement to apply to a different government office than for the original card or document application, has the potential to confuse EU citizens and their family members.

2.4.8 How long are identity cards/different types of documents valid? The maximum validity of identity card and residence documents in the different Member States is captured in the table below. It will be seen that, except for residence cards for family members of EU citizens (where the maximum validity is always 5 years), there is at least a degree of variance for all other cards and documents. ID cards represent the most heterogeneous category. In the majority of Member States (18 of the 25 countries using ID cards) the validity period of the card is contingent on the age of the cardholder. Both the length of the validity period and the relevant age bands are however liable to vary between jurisdictions. Looking at the upper age band, for example, in CZ the maximum validity of ID cards is up to 35 years for nationals over 70 years old, while it is indefinite in RO, BG, HU and ES for persons over 55, 58, 65 and 70 respectively. Table 2.13: Maximum validity of ID/residence documents Key: Numbers: years of validity; “-“: data not available

36

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Permanent Residence Permanent Residence residence Registration cards for residence cards for Country Identity Card cards for Certificate EU cards for EU family family citizens citizens members members 10 (12yrs or older); NA 5 5 5 10 Austria 5 (minors 2-12yrs) 2 (minors 0-2yrs) 10 (adults); 6 5 5 Indefinite 148 5 5 149 Belgium (minors 12-18yrs) 30 (over 75yrs) Indefinite (58yrs 5 NA 10 5 10 Bulgaria plus); 10 (18-57yrs); 4 (14-17yrs) Croatia 5 No law 10 10 5 10 10 (18yrs plus) Indefinite NA Indefinite 5 10 Cyprus 5 (minors) 35 (over 70yrs) Indefinite NA 10 5 10 Czech Rep 10 (adults 15-70yrs) 5 (0-15yrs) Denmark NA Indefinite NA Indefinite 5 Indefinite 5 (or 1 yr card with NA 5 (or 1 yr 5 5 5 with no Estonia no biometric data) biometric data) Finland 5 Indefinite NA Indefinite 5 Indefinite150 15 (adults 18+)151 NA 5 10 5 10 France 10 (minors) 10 (adults 24yrs+) Indefinite NA Indefinite 5 Indefinite Germany 6 (under 24yrs) Greece 15 5 NA Indefinite 5 10 Indefinite (over 65) Indefinite NA Indefinite 5 10 Hungary 6 (18yrs+) 3 (minors) Ireland 5 years - - - - - 10 (18yrs+) Indefinite Indefinit Indefinite152 5 - Italy 5 (minors) e 3 (minors <3yrs) 5 (5yrs+) 5 (for plastic NA 10 5 10 2-5 (0-4yrs) card; valid up to 10 Latvia years for paper certificate) Lithuania 10 (16yrs+) 5 NA Indefinite 5 10

148 Card continues to be valid unless the holder is absent for 2 consecutive years or in case of fraud. 149 Card continues to be valid unless the holder is absent for 2 consecutive years or in case of fraud. 150 Card continues to be valid unless the holder is absent for 2 consecutive years. 151 Cards issued before 02.01.2004 have a max validity of 10 years. 152 Card continues to be valid unless the holder is absent for 2 consecutive years.

37

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Permanent Residence Permanent Residence residence Registration cards for residence cards for Country Identity Card cards for Certificate EU cards for EU family family citizens citizens members members 5 (under 16yrs) 10 (16yrs+) Indefinite NA Indefinite 5 10 Luxembourg 5 (4-15yrs) 2 (0-3yrs) Malta 10 5 5 5 5 5 10 (18yrs+)153 - 1- 5 5 5 5 Netherlands 5 (minors) years 10 (18yrs+) - NA - 5 10 Poland 10 (minors 5yrs+) 5 (minors 0-4yrs) Portugal 5 5 NA 10 5 10 Indefinite (55yrs+) 5 (and not NA 10 (5 for 5154 10 (5 for 10 (25-54yrs) less than <14yrs) <14yrs) Romania 7 (18-24yrs) 1yr) 4 (minors 14-17yrs) 10 (indefinite for indefinite 5 10 5 10 Slovakia those over 60yrs) Indefinite (70yrs+) 5 NA Indefinite 5 Indefinite 10 (18-70yrs) Slovenia 5 (3-17yrs) 3 (0-2yrs) Indefinite (>70yrs) Indefinite NA Indefinite155 5 10 10 (30-69yrs) Spain 5 (5-29yrs) 2 (minors 0-4yrs) Sweden 5 5 NA NA 5 5 UK NA Indefinite NA Indefinite 5 10 As the table above shows, out of 115 residence documents for which information is available, 27 are valid indefinitely, whereas the usual validity duration for the remaining 88 documents is 5 years for the initial residence documents and 10 years for the documents relating to permanent residence. For ID cards, a similar calculation is not possible due to the variation in validity duration depending on the age of the cardholder.

Conclusions – Maximum period of validity  ID Cards: As the table shows national laws governing the maximum validity of ID cards are not uniform across Member States. Nevertheless, some general observations can be made:

153 For cards first issued 09.03.2014. Two previous ID card models are still in circulation. (1) NLD-BO-03001: card first issued 09.10.2011. Valid maximum 5 years, not valid after 08.03.2019. (2) NLD-BO-02001: card first issued 26.08.2006. Not valid after 08.10.2016. 154 But not exceeding the residence period of the EU/EEA/Swiss Confederation citizen of which the applicant is a family member. 155 Card continues to be valid unless the holder is absent for 2 consecutive years.

38

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

the most frequent durations of validity are 5 to 10 years; duration of validity increases the older the holder of the document is; and there is a maximum of four age categories that determine validity.  Residence Documents: The table shows that documents are also valid for a period between 5 and 10 years. However, often residence documents do not expire at all.

2.4.9 Is the information stored in a database? If yes, who administers the database (e.g. the state or company producing the document? The table below gives an overview on the question as to whether data is stored in a database and, if so, which body is responsible for administering this database. It should be noted that this section does not differentiate between who operates and who owns the data. For example, in the UK the data is administered by a private sector entity (Thales) but still owned by the government. The research indicates that in all countries the data is stored in a database. However, in Cyprus, Germany and Sweden biometric data provided for the issuance of ID cards is deleted as soon as it is not needed anymore. Furthermore, in all Member States the database is administered by public authorities. Only in the case of the UK data for residence documents is the data administered by a private company. Responsibilities for administering information vary: With regard to ID cards:  In most Member States the data is stored by the Ministry of Interior/Justice or by the Ministry of Interior in conjunction with the police (Austria156, Cyprus157, Czech Republic158, France159, Italy160, Lithuania161, Portugal162, Poland163, Romania164, Slovakia165, Slovenia and Spain166);

156 The ID card authorities (Passbehörden) save the ID card data (including the ID card number, validity date, and other administrative information) in a central registry (zentrale Evidenz) with the Ministry of Interior. 157 The Director of the Civil Registry and Migration Department has the authority to receive and administer the personal details of the applicants, including their fingerprints of those aged over 12. Fingerprints are only stored only for 48 hours after the NIC is issued. 158 All the information from the beginning of the application for the ID until the time the ID is issued are stored in the agenda information evidence system that is administered by the Ministry of Interior. 159 Biometric data (fingerprints) are stored at the relevant regional administration and in the national database of ID cards. 160 Paper-based personal information are registered and stored by registration offices of municipalities in a local database. E-ID personal information are stored in the archives of municipalities. In the future, the information will be stored in a centralised national database managed by the Ministry of Interior & National Digital Agency (AGID). 161 The data is stored in the central database of the Residents’ Register of the Republic of Lithuania. Electronic signatures created using ID cards issued since January 1, 2016 are supported by digital certificates issued by the Identity Documents Personalisation Centre under the Ministry of Interior. 162 The Instituto dos Registos e Notariado, attached to the Ministry of Justice, is the responsible body for the treatment and protection of personal data. 163 The Polish authorities administer the ID Card Register i.e. the Minister for Internal Affairs and the Municipality administer the ID Card Register.

39

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

 In a few Member States the data is stored by police authorities (Estonia167, Finland168, Greece169, Sweden170);  In some Member States the data is stored by local authorities (Germany 171 , Italy 172 , Netherlands173, Sweden);  In other Member States a specific body in charge of IT or identity management is in charge of storing the data (Bulgaria174, Hungary175, Ireland176, Luxembourg177, Malta178). In Latvia the data is administered by Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs and in Belgium by the Population Registry and National Register. With regard to residence documents, in a few Member States the data is administered by the same authority as ID cards (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Slovakia). However, in most Member States the data is stored by the authority responsible for migration and/or by the police and border

164 The National Registry of Personal Records (R.N.E.P.) is the main component of the National IT System for Personal Records (S.N.I.E.P.), which is administered by the Directorate for Personal Records and Database Administration (D.E.P.A.B.D.). 165 The information is stored in a register administered by the Ministry of Interior and district Police Departments. (Article 15 of the ID Act) 166 The Ministry of the Interior via the National Police is the body responsible for issuing and management of the ID card. The article also provides that the National Police has the responsibility of the custody and stored of the files related to the National Identity Card. 167 The information is stored in a database which is administered by the Police and Border Guard Board. 168 The information is stored in the Data System for Administrative Matters, which is a permanent, computerized personal data file administered by the Supreme Police Command. 169 There is a Database of the Information System of the Greek Police (Police On-Line). The database is administered by the State (Police). 170 The Police Authority stores the information. 171 The ID card authorities (Personalausweisbehörden) save the ID card data (personal information and picture) in a register (Personalausweisregister). If the ID card holder decides to provide fingerprints, this information is deleted immediately after the document is issued. 172 Paper-based personal information are registered and stored by registration offices of municipalities in a local database. E-ID personal information are stored in the archives of municipalities. In the future, the information will be stored in a centralised national database managed by the Ministry of Interior & National Digital Agency (AGID). 173 The Municipal Personal Records Database (Basisregistratie personen, BRP) contains the personal details of everyone who is resident in the Netherlands. All municipalities have a separate, decentralised, database, which holds the application data, including the photograph. 174 The information is stored by a public body, National Automated Information Fund "National Register of Bulgarian Identity Documents" (NAIF "NRBLD") 175 The database is administered by the Central Office for Administrative and Electronic Public Services. 176 A database registering applications and issued documents is retained by the Passport Card Office, Department of Foreign Affairs, and Trade. 177 Data are stored in the communal register, the register of identity cards and the national register. The database is administered by Centre des technologies de l’information de l’Etat (CTIE), the Government’s IT centre. 178 The information is stored in the centralised administration of Identity Malta, (in which Identity Management Office is a constituent part).

40

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents control authorities (Belgium179, Czech Republic180, Finland181, Hungary182, Italy183, Luxembourg184, Romania185, Spain186 and the UK187). Table 2.14: Storage of Information ID Cards Registration Residence Permanent Residence Permanent Certificate cards for EU residence cards for residence Country citizens cards for EU family cards/ family citizens members members Ministry of NA No info Ministry of Interior Austria Interior Population National n/a National Register of natural persons Registry and Register of Belgium National Register natural persons Bulgaria National Register of Bulgarian Identity Documents Croatia Ministry of Internal Affairs

179 The information is inserted in the National Register of natural persons (le Registre national des personnes physiques) which is an administrative database that contains the identity of all Belgians and foreigners legally residing in Belgium. 180 In general, the data of foreign nationals are collected via Aliens Information System (CIS). The CIS is a central database that contains information regarding, among others, visas, and residence permits and necessary information concerning foreign nationals. Primarily, it is the Police who administers the database in cooperation with the Ministry of the Interior – the MOI offices are responsible for recording the foreign nationals´ data into the database. A company is hired to develop and administer the technological (ICT) aspects of this database. 181 Information is stored in the Data System for Administrative Matters, which is a permanent, computerized personal data file administered by Supreme Police Command. The same data can be also stored in the Register of Aliens, the main controller of which is the Finnish Immigration Service. 182 The Central Immigration Register, administered by the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) stores the information. 183 In Italy, all residence documents are administered by local authorities apart from the residence cards for family members which are administered by the National Police (Department of public security). 184 The information is stored in a database called « Fichier des étrangers » (Foreigners Database”), managed by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Direction Immigration) and – for the technical side – by the CTIE, the Government’s IT centre. 185 The General Inspectorate for Immigration managed by the National Surveillance Authority of Processing Personal Data ('ANSPDCP’) manages and stores personal data. The personal data is transmitted to the National Authority for the Surveillance of Personal Data Processing ('ANSPDCP’) that operates the national registry of data controllers which can be accessed online. 186 The data is stored by the officials in a database of the Immigration office, in the Central Register of Foreigners of the Directorate General of the National Police and Civil Guard. 187 Information is stored in the central government database in the UK, Thales manages the software. Biometric information will be stored and will be checked against UK government records. Biometric information is stored on the immigration and asylum biometric information system (IABS) held by the Immigration Fingerprint Bureau (IFB).

41

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

ID Cards Registration Residence Permanent Residence Permanent Certificate cards for EU residence cards for residence Country citizens cards for EU family cards/ family citizens members members Cyprus Ministry of Interior (apart from fingerprints) Ministry of Police and Ministry of Interior Czech Rep Interior Denmark n/a Danish Immigration Service Police and No info No info No info Police and Police and Estonia Border Guard Border Border Board Guard Guard Board Supreme Police Finnish Immigration Service Finland Command Ministry of n/a Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of No info France Interior Interior Interior Interior Local n/a n/a No info Central Central administrations Register of Register of Foreigners Foreigners Germany (administr (administrat ated by ed by BAMF) BAMF) Greek Police Greek Police n/a Greek Police Physical Register Greece the Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reform Central Office for Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) Administrative & Hungary Electronic Public Services Department of n/a n/a No info No info No info Ireland Foreign Affairs and Trade Local authorities; Local Local Local National No info e-card (ministry authorities authorities authorities Police of interior) (Departme Italy nt of public security) Latvia Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs Ministry of Population n/a Population Register and Register of Justice Register and Lithuania Register of Foreign Nationals Foreign Nationals Government’s IT Luxembourg Ministry for Foreign Affairs/ The Government’s IT centre centre Malta Identity Management Office Municipal n/a Personal Personal Personal Personal Personal records records records records Netherlands Records database database database database Database Min for Internal Poland Border Guard Unit Police, Internal Security Agency affairs Portugal Min of Justice No info n/a No info No info No info

42

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

ID Cards Registration Residence Permanent Residence Permanent Certificate cards for EU residence cards for residence Country citizens cards for EU family cards/ family citizens members members Min of Interior Romania Ministry of Internal Affairs – General Inspectorate for Immigration Slovakia Ministry of Interior and district Police Departments Ministry for the Not clear but data can only be used by producer for production Slovenia Interior purposes and needs to delete data afterwards Ministry of the Immigration Immigratio Immigration Immigratio Immigration Spain Interior via the office n office office n office office National Police Local No info The The No info No info Sweden authorities and Migration Migration the Police Agency Agency UK n/a Public (immigration fingerprint bureau) and private (Thales)

Conclusions – Storage of data  All Member States store the data that is used for ID and residence documentation in publicly managed databases (apart from the UK where data is managed by a private sector company).  Three Member States delete biometric information once it is not necessary for issuing the ID cards anymore (Sweden, Germany and Cyprus).  There is a variation across the Member States in terms of which state authority holds the data. Broadly speaking data storage varies across Member States between five different authorities: Ministries of Interior/Ministry of Justice; Police or Border Guard authorities; local authorities; IT or identity management ministries; and migration authorities.

2.4.10 What is the purpose of the storing data and what use is made of it? The use of the data varies from Member States to Member State. With regard to ID cards:  In 18 Member States the data can be used for proceedings in court or for criminal investigations/policing and for security/intelligence purposes (Austria, Belgium188, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden). In contrast to the other Member States, in Cyprus the police only have partial access while in Estonia data can only be used when ID cards are lost or stolen;  With 13 Member States, data can only be used for administrative purposes related to the issuance and administration of the documents and/or their verification (Croatia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia,

188 The database constitutes a central depository of authentic identification data on Belgian citizens (and foreign citizens) through which the different public services in Belgium are able to share information.

43

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Sweden) and furthermore, specifically regarding biometric data, Cyprus, Germany and Sweden delete the biometric data upon issuance of the document. In Portugal and The Netherlands, data can be used for tax/benefit purposes. In Portugal, the data can additionally also be used for health-related services. With regard to residence documentation the purpose of data storage is generally to control the cross-border movement of third-country citizens and to regulate their residence in the Member State (Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovenia). It would seem that in only two Member States data is stored only for the issuance of documentation (Greece and Croatia).

Conclusions – Purpose of data storage There are five main reasons why data is saved/or uses made of the data:  In some Member States storage is mainly for criminal investigations/policing and for security/intelligence purposes;  In other Member States data is only stored for administrative purposes related to the issuance and administration of the documents;  In two Member States, data is stored for tax/benefit/health purposes;  In many Member States data is stored to control the cross-border movement of third- country citizens;  Nearly half of the EU Member States (13 total) store data for the sole purpose of issuing documents.

2.5 Costs and production systems

This section analyses the country fiche information on the costs to (a) national authorities and (b) the individual citizen of identity cards and different types of residence documents. We also examine whether a private and/or public entity is responsible for producing the documents. The required information was only available from some national authorities. Furthermore, while it is clear that in those Member States where documents are issued free of charge, the costs are subsidized, there is almost no information available as to whether Member States subsidize the costs for residence and ID cards and if so to what extent.

2.5.1 What is the cost to national authorities (production and administrative cost) and the individual citizen for issuing identity cards and different types of residence documents? ID Cards The table below provides an overview of the costs related to ID cards, differentiating between administrative costs, production costs and costs for the EU citizens. There is relatively little information available from Member States on administrative and production costs but all Member States provided data on the costs to citizens.

44

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Table 2.15: Cost (EUR) for ID cards Country Administrative Production Cost to the Notes Cost EUR Cost EUR Citizen EUR Austria No info No info 61.50 Belgium 3.30 (½ for 15.40 15-26 Cost to the citizen depends on Commune kids-ID) Bulgaria No info No info 9189 Croatia No info No info 10.63 Cyprus No info No info 30 The cost for the citizen is made up of production and admin cost Czech Rep No info No info 18.50 Costs only occur if chip card is requested, Info on cost is disclosed to Commission only Denmark No ID card Unit price + Population Register Centre fee EUR 13,20+ other administrative costs) is equal to the cost to the individual citizen. Estonia No info190 No info 25 Reduced fees of EUR 7 are payable for persons under the age of 15; persons with moderate, severe or profound disability; Estonian general pensionable age. Finland 13.20 Not info 54191 Unit price + Population Register Centre fee EUR 13.20 + other administrative costs) is equal to the cost to the individual citizen. France No info No info 0 Germany 5.76 23.04 28.80 Prices are for 24 years old or older. Production/Admin Cost not from official sources Greece 1 1 0.23 Production/Admin cost is taken together Individual cost is to cover stamp duty. Hungary No info 14 - 17.8 0 The production costs depends on whether the ID card is issued plain, with chip or with e- signature Ireland No info No info 35 Italy 5.42 16.79 22.21 Data refers to EID card, not to paper based card. The costs can vary depending on municipality Latvia 10 5.73+VAT 14.23 EUR 14,23 issued within 10 working days; EUR 28,46 issued within 2 working days Lithuania No info No info 8.60192

189 Cost varies by age: 14-16 (first ID card): free of charge.16-18: 6.50, 18-56: 9.00, 56-70: 5.50, 70 and above: free of charge, persons with disability (50% or above): EUR 1. 190 In 2016, total budget for production and issuance of ID and residence documents amounted to EUR 11,585,979. 191 EUR 50 if done via the police’s e-service portal 192 Urgent procedure (5 working days) EUR 19.6 and urgent procedure (24hrs) EUR 31.6

45

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Country Administrative Production Cost to the Notes Cost EUR Cost EUR Citizen EUR Luxembourg No info No info 14 Costs vary depending on validity period of card not age of applicant like in most countries. Malta 17 17 0 Production and Admin Costs are taken together amounts to EUR 17 Netherlands No info No info 27.36- Cost to individual varies but maximum set by 50.66 government is 50.66 Poland 11.50 No info 0 n/a Portugal No info No info 15 n/a 193 Romania No info No info 1.5 n/a Slovakia No info 5 4.50 n/a Slovenia No info 9.26 18.77 n/a Spain No info No info 10.60 n/a Sweden 29 12.5 41.5 n/a UK No ID card n/a Average 10.69 12.17 19.03 n/a Key: No info = either information not available or information not disclosed; Costs in EUR. There are several observations to be made: First of all, with regard to the availability of information, it can be observed that in many countries the information about the production costs is treated as confidential and therefore not available (i.e. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland and Luxembourg). Second, with regard to costs for the citizens there are substantial differences between Member States:  Some Member States do not charge their citizens for the issuance of ID cards (France, Hungary, Malta and Poland) suggesting that the national authorities in those countries subsidise the costs. It is interesting to note that in the Czech Republic, citizens have the option to have an ID card without chip at no extra cost to them or an ID card with a chip for EUR 18.50. This difference appears to deter citizens from switching to the chip card;194  Some Member States charge a standard rate for all citizens;  Other Member States charge a price depending on the length of validity of the card, i.e. the longer an ID card is valid, the higher are the costs (Luxembourg, Slovenia). Some Member States charge depending on the age of the applicant (i.e. Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia and Germany). As shown above, administrative costs are generally higher than the production costs (i.e. approximately EUR 16 versus EUR 11). The average cost to the citizens is approximately EUR 18 suggesting that in general terms, the costs to citizens are lower than the combined cost of

193 Temporary ID Cards, EUR 0.22 194 2015: 1 863 593 ID cards issued without a chip, 3 871 issued with a chip

46

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents production and administration. Although we have not been able to get any specific data, this suggests that Member States subsidise ID card costs. However, these average numbers need to be treated cautiously since data for several Member States is missing and the picture for the remaining countries might vary substantially. Residence Documents As with the situation in regard to ID cards, there are substantial differences between Member States in terms of the costs of different types of residence documents. First of all it needs to be mentioned that based on desk research and interviews the administrative and production costs were only available for a limited number of Member States (Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Latvia and Slovenia). Therefore, all numbers quoted in the table below refer to the costs charged to the citizen unless otherwise specified in the ‘notes column’). Table 2.16: Costs (EUR) for residence documents Key: n/a = document not issued in country; costs in EUR. Country Registration Residence Permanent Residence Permanent Notes Certificate cards for EU residence cards for residence citizens cards for EU family cards for citizens members family members Austria n/a n/a 15 56 56 Belgium 26 n/a 26 26 26 Production costs in all cases: EUR 15.40 Other costs for emergency processing Bulgaria 3.5 n/a 9 9 9 Persons under 16 and over 70 - free Croatia 0 32.09 32.09 32.09 32.09 EUR 2.67 is the administrative cost for the document Cyprus 20 n/a 20 20 20 Czech Rep 0 n/a 0 0 0 Production cost of registration certificate: EUR 0.60 Production cost of permanent card for EU citizen and TCN: EUR 6.3; Production cost permanent TCN: EUR 5.63. Denmark 0 n/a 0 0 0 No info on admin costs but in total: 40 full- time employees each year on administering the system Estonia n/a195 25 25 31 31

195 In 2016, the total budget for production and issuance of ID and residence documents amounted to EUR 11,585,979.

47

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Country Registration Residence Permanent Residence Permanent Notes Certificate cards for EU residence cards for residence citizens cards for EU family cards for citizens members family members Finland 54 n/a 54 54 54 See http://www.migri.fi/ou r_services/processing_ fees France n/a 0 0 0 0 Germany 5196 n/a 8 22.80197 22.80198 Greece 0 n/a 0 0 0 Production costs of residence docs for EU citizens: EUR 0.01 and for TCN: EUR 0.5 Hungary 3.2 n/a 4.8 4.8199 4.8 Production cost of residence certificate: EUR 0.3; production cost of permanent residence cards: EUR 1.7 Ireland n/a n/a 0 0 0 Italy 0 16 16 16 16 Latvia 14.23 n/a 14.23 14.23 14.23 Note that registration certificate can also be for free (if paper based) price based on issuance within 10 days – EUR 28,46 if within 2 working days Lithuania 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 Luxembourg 0 n/a 0 0 0 Malta 0 0 0 0 0 Netherlands n/a 50 50 233 156 Poland 0 n/a 0 0 0 Portugal 15 n/a 15 15 15 Romania 0.45 n/a 3.6 3.6 3.6 Slovakia 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Slovenia 11.76 n/a 11.76 11.76 11.76 Administrative cost: EUR 9.06; Cost of card: EUR 2.25; Admin fee

196 For every additional person cost is EUR 2.50 197 For persons over 24 years 198 For persons over 24 years 199 EUR 4.8 for TCN family member of EEA citizen; 32,1 EUR for TCN family member of a Hungarian citizen

48

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Country Registration Residence Permanent Residence Permanent Notes Certificate cards for EU residence cards for residence citizens cards for EU family cards for citizens members family members for application: EUR 0.45 Spain 10.6 n/a 10.6 10.6 10.6 Sweden n/a200 0201 159 0202 0 UK 85 n/a 85 85 85 Average 11.19 14.18 20.44 23.5 20.75

As can be seen, the cost to the citizen for the various types of residence documents varies depending on the type of residence documents. Registration certificates are the cheapest documents with an average cost of around EUR 11 and in many countries they are also for free (implying that the national authorities subsidise the costs). The documents for TCN family members tend to be the more expensive with an average cost of EUR 23.5. While this appears more costly than the residence card issued to EU Citizens, several Member States do not issue residence cards for EU citizens which influences the average. The costs for a permanent residence card for EU citizens and family members are both on average EUR 20.

Conclusions – production and administrative costs and costs to citizens

The administrative and production costs are often not available in relation to ID cards and residence documents. In some Member States this is because the cost of producing residence documents is treated as confidential. In other cases, the information simply does not exist.

In relation to costs to the citizens there are substantial differences between Member States regarding the costs of ID cards for EU citizens. While some Member States do not charge citizens at all or very small fees, other Member States charge between EUR 10 to EUR 85. In regard to residence documentation it is evident that costs to TCN family members are higher than to EU citizens.

2.5.2 Are there any costs or is there any difference in costs if the document is re-issued after being stolen or lost? The table below summarises the situation in relation to re-issuance of ID cards and residence documents after being lost or stolen. In summary:

200 There is no obligation to register in Sweden as an EU citizens (no country fiche on certificate of registration). 201 https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/EU-citizens-and-long-term-residents/After- five-years-in-Sweden/Permanent-right-of-residence.html 202 https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/EU-citizens-and-long-term-residents/Work- study-or-live-in-Sweden-for-EU-citizens/Residence-cards-for-family-who-are-non-EU-citizens.html

49

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

 In 10 Member States penalty fees are applied when the ID card has been lost or stolen (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia);  In 14 countries the same fee as for the normal application procedure applies (Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Romania, Spain and Sweden);  The penalty fees range from as low as EUR 3.70 in the Czech Republic to EUR 60 in Germany. It is interesting to note that different Member States have different requirements regarding the reporting of stolen or lost ID cards. In Bulgaria, the loss or theft of an ID card needs to be reported to the police who can impose a penalty. In most other cases a penalty has to be paid when the card is issued by the local authorities. In several Member States penalty fees are applied when residence documents have been lost or stolen. While in only few countries the penalty applies to registration certificates and residence cards for EU citizens, more countries apply penalty charges when TCN family members' documentation is concerned (Czech Republic, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, and Slovenia). In some countries there are different rules depending on the type of residence document (i.e. Germany, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Italy). For example, in Germany a penalty only needs to be paid if negligence leads to the loss/non-functioning of (permanent) residence cards for family members. Two different charges apply in Malta (i.e. EUR20 if lost, destroyed or stolen, and EUR15 if the card is defaced) and Slovakia (where the charge increases when the same claim of loss/destruction is made twice within two years). Table 2.17: Penalty Cost for lost or stolen ID cards or residence documents Key: Penalty charge applies= 0; No fee at all=1, same cost as first issuance= 2; n/a means that the document is not issued in this country. Permanent Residence Permanent Residence residence ID Registration cards for residence cards for Country cards for Notes Cards Certificate EU cards for family family citizens EU citizens members members Austria 2 n/a 2 2 2 2 Belgium 0 2 n/a 2 2 2 ID card : 31 instead of 26 Bulgaria 0 0 n/a 0 2 0 ID card: fine only if lost Croatia 2 1 2 2 2 2 Cyprus 2 2 n/a 2 2 2 Czech 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 In relation to all Rep documents: damaged, lost or stolen, one pays an additional EUR 3.70 on top of the usual price Denmark n/a 1 n/a 1 1 1 Estonia 2 n/a 2 2 2 2

50

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Permanent Residence Permanent Residence residence ID Registration cards for residence cards for Country cards for Notes Cards Certificate EU cards for family family citizens EU citizens members members Finland 2 n/a n/a 2 2 2 France 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 Penalty for all docs if lost/stolen: EUR 25 Germany 2 no info n/a 2 0 0 Article 45c AufenthV on TCN cards states that if negligence leads to the loss or non-functioning of the document, the new issuance costs EUR 60. If however, the holder of the permanent residence card for family members is not responsible for the loss or non-functioning of the card, the same amount as first issuance has to be paid. Greece 0 1 n/a 1 1 1 ID Card: When the ID card is re-issued EUR 9 except for cases attributed to «force majeur» Hungary 1 2 n/a 2 2 2 Ireland 2 n/a n/a 1 2 2 Italy 0 2 2 0 2 2 Penalty for ID card: EUR 10.77; Penalty for theft of residence doc for EU citizen: 16 EUR Latvia 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 Penalty for all documents when lost: 70 EUR Lithuania 2 2 n/a 2 2 2 Luxembo 2 2 n/a 2 2 2 urg Malta 0 0 0 0 0 ID cards (penalty for stolen or destroyed is €22; if it is defaced €16); others (Charges of €20 if lost, destroyed or stolen, and €15 if the card is defaced)

51

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Permanent Residence Permanent Residence residence ID Registration cards for residence cards for Country cards for Notes Cards Certificate EU cards for family family citizens EU citizens members members Netherla 2 n/a 2 2 0 0 €259 instead of 233 nds for TCN family members Poland 1 1 n/a 1 1 1 Portugal 2 0 n/a 0 0 0 For all but ID card: Replacing a lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed: €25 - Replacing due to data change: €15 Romania 2 2 2 2 2 2 Slovakia 0 1 0 0 0 0 If document loss or stolen: 16.50 EUR Slovenia 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 A higher fee is necessary for loss/displacement and it amounts to twice the administrative fee for first loss and four times for second loss Spain 2 2 n/a 2 2 2 n/a Sweden 2 2 2 2 2 2 n/a UK No ID 2 n/a 2 2 2 n/a card Totals Penalty 10 5 3 9 9 10 n/a (0) No 2 6 1 4 3 3 n/a charge (1) Same 14 10 6 15 16 12 n/a charge (2)

Conclusions – Additional costs to replace stolen or lost cards  The rules on whether additional costs incur after a document is lost or stolen differ substantially across the EU Member States in relation to all documents.  In most Member States the costs are the same as the first time the document was requested. In contrast, some Member States only charge a small surcharge to cover administrative costs. Some other Member States charge a higher penalty fee. In addition, in some cases the police are involved in registering the loss/theft while in other cases the re- issuance is organised only by the civil authorities.

52

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

2.5.3 Is a private or public entity responsible for producing the documents? Is there a specific law regulating the relationship between the producer and the state? In the majority of Member States, ID cards and residence documents are produced by a publicly- owned company. For instance, in Germany, the Bundesdruckerei is responsible for printing all governmental documents as well as banknotes. Interestingly, in Italy local administrations are responsible for printing ID cards and residence documents. In a minority of Member States the documents are produced by private companies. For instance, in Slovenia ID cards and residence documents are produced, stored and personalized by a private service provider that is selected through public procurement procedures. In a few other Member States, ID cards and residence documents are produced through a combination of private and public bodies (e.g. Latvia, Slovakia, Sweden). In Latvia a non-personalised ID card is produced by a third party contractor (currently the company Oberthur Technologies Latvia LLC). Subsequently the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs personalises the document as soon as an applicant requests it. Similarly in Slovakia, a private entity selected through public procurement produces the ID card and residence documents while the National Personalization Centre of the Ministry of Interior personalises the ID cards. Table 2.18: Entity producing documents both for ID and Residence Documents

Producer Member States Public AT, HR, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FR, DE, EL, HR, HU, IT, LV, LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, ES, UK Private BE, BG, FI, LI, NL, SK, SI, SE

2.5.4 Is there any difference in the costs if the document is issued or requested via the consular network? From the outset it should be noted that no country specifically prohibits their citizens living abroad to hold an ID card. In some countries, ID cards can be issued via the consular network (residence documents can only be issued by the authorities in the home country). The table below provides an overview on the cost difference if the ID card is issued via the consular network in the EU and/or the rest of the world. There are three different ways Member States regulate this issue:  6 Member States do not charge the citizen a higher amount when the document is requested via the consular network (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Italy, Poland);  13 Member States charge more if the document is issued in another country but costs do not differ depending on whether this is a non-European or European country (Austria, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia);  In some of these Member States the additional charge reflects the shipping costs. For instance, the Greek ID card costs EUR 0.23 and by requesting it abroad a EUR 5 shipping charge is added. In other countries, the increase goes beyond shipping costs. A total of 7 Member States issue national ID cards and residence documentation only within the country and do not allow this to be done via the consular network abroad (Croatia, Czech

53

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Republic, Finland, Hungary, Malta, Romania, Spain). It is interesting to note that Greek legislation allows for ID cards being issued in Germany and Cyprus but not in any other EU or non-EU country. Table 2.19: Costs of Issuing ID cards through consular network Country Cost Difference Cost Difference Not possible to Notes in EU and rest in rest of World issue ID card of world elsewhere Austria 125% 125% Increase refers to adult price Belgium 0% 0% Costs vary by country but the costs are never more than the original Bulgaria 0% 0% n/a Croatia x n/a Cyprus 0% 0% n/a Czech Rep x n/a Denmark No ID card n/a Estonia 50% 50% n/a Finland x n/a France 0% 0% When card lost or stolen EUR 25 Germany 135% 135% Greece 2174% - ID cards can only be issued in DE, CY with add. EUR 5 shipping charge. The percentage increase reflects a cost change from EUR 0.23 to EUR 5. Hungary x n/a Ireland 14% 14% EUR 5 more expensive Italy 0% 0% n/a Latvia 427% 427% n/a Lithuania 1062% 1062% n/a Luxembourg 43% 43% n/a Malta x Residence docs seem to be possible to request via consular network but needs to be picked up in person Netherlands 129% 129% Based on maximum price a municipality can charge. Poland 0% 0% n/a Portugal 33% 33% Extra EUR 5 for shipping Romania x Diplomatic missions and consular offices do not issue ID cards. Interested persons may request authentication by the Consular Section abroad to a special proxy to empower someone in Romania for

54

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Country Cost Difference Cost Difference Not possible to Notes in EU and rest in rest of World issue ID card of world elsewhere submitting all documents required to release the Identity card. Slovakia 633% 633% n/a Slovenia 273% 273% n/a Spain x n/a Sweden 38.6% 38.6% n/a UK No ID cards issued n/a

Conclusions – Obtaining replacement ID cards via consulates  ID Cards: This section exclusively applies to ID cards since no residence cards can be issued via the consular network.  A number of EU Member States do not allow the issuance of ID cards via the consular network. Furthermore, in some Member States the citizens are charged the same price via consulates than the one within the country. Other countries impose a charge for issuing documents via a consular network and this can vary considerably (i.e. in some countries it is only a small fee for shipping costs while in other countries the fee is considerably higher).

2.6 Obligations and rights In this section we analyse the country fiche data on the obligations and rights on ID and residence card holders; and what additional functions (if any) ID card/different types of residence documents have in relation to public and private services.

2.6.1 Do the identity card and different types of residence documents impose any obligation(s) on the holder? If yes, what are the obligation(s) (e.g. requirement to carry it whilst in public, good wear and care, etc.)? ID Cards

The possession of identity cards issued by a Member State’s competent authorities usually imposes a number of obligation(s) on the holder – carrying it at all times, looking after the card, reporting a lost or stolen card, etc. The following table provides a first overview of the obligations of EU citizens:

55

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Table 2.20: Obligations on the ID card’s holder Renew it if Show it if Take good Safe-keeping Report Carry it at damaged, data required by Member State care of the and avoid loss/theft all times changes or competent card misuse expired authorities Austria x Belgium x203 x Bulgaria x x Croatia x x x x Cyprus x x Czech Rep x x x x x Denmark No ID card Estonia x x x Finland No obligations France x x Germany x x x Greece x x Hungary x x x Ireland x x x Italy x x Latvia x x x Lithuania No obligations Luxembourg x Malta x x x Netherlands x x Poland x x Portugal x x x Romania x x x x x Slovakia x X x Slovenia x x x x Spain x x x Sweden x UK No ID card

As can be seen, most EU countries impose obligations on the holder (the research reveals that only Finland and Lithuania do not impose any obligation) although exactly what this entails varies substantially.  Among the obligations, the most common is to report the competent authorities of the loss or theft of the document as it is a requirement in 17 of the 23 countries that impose some sort of obligation;

203 From the age of 15.

56

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

 Other common obligations are: renewal if the ID card is damaged or if any of the personal data has changed (in countries such as Cyprus, failure to do so can result in a fine of up to €5,000 and/or prison sentence of up to 3 years); safekeeping and/or avoid document misuse; taking care of the document and showing it if required by the authorities;  By contrast, only six Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Greece and Hungary) oblige their EU citizens who hold an ID card to carry it all the time. In the case of Bulgaria this document is considered to be property of the state. The Member State where the law specifies the largest number of obligations on the ID card holder is the Czech Republic. Czech citizens are obliged to comply with all the above-mentioned obligations with the exception of the obligation to carry the ID card all the time. There are also other obligations not listed above in Germany where citizens have to notify the authorities if a foreign citizenship is acquired or if the person decides to join the army or similar organisation of another country. Residence documents In addition to meeting the requirements for obtaining the different residence documents (e.g. residence in the country for a certain number of years in the case of permanent residence cards) possession of these documents also brings a number of obligations to their holders. The following table shows those set out in the laws of the respective countries. There are no substantial differences between the obligations depending on the type of residence document so they have been grouped together. Table 2.21: Obligations on the residence documents’ holder204

Renew it if damaged, Show it to Country Report loss/ Carry it all Take good Safe-keeping/ change of data has competent theft the time care of it avoid misuse expired authorities Austria x x Belgium x205 x Bulgaria x x Croatia x x Cyprus x Czech Rep x x x x Denmark x Estonia x x x Finland none France x x Germany x x Greece206 x x x Hungary x x x Ireland x x

204 Table refers to all residence documents 205 From the age of 15.

57

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Renew it if damaged, Show it to Country Report loss/ Carry it all Take good Safe-keeping/ change of data has competent theft the time care of it avoid misuse expired authorities Italy Latvia x x x x Lithuania none Luxembourg x x Malta x x Netherlands x Poland none Portugal x Romania x x x Slovakia x x Slovenia x x x Spain x Sweden none UK x In the case of residence documents, only four Member States do not specify any particular obligations (Finland, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden). On the contrary, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia are the countries where a largest number of obligations exist. The obligation to show the document to the competent authorities if required and the need to inform the authorities in case of loss or theft of these documents are the most common requirements across EU Member States. The less common obligations are to carry the documents all the time (in Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany) or to take care of them (Croatia, Czech Republic and Estonia).

Conclusions - Obligations  Overall, the majority of Member States impose obligations on ID card and residence documents holders.  While there is heterogeneity in relation to the obligations related to the possession of the various documents, the analysis shows that one of the most common requirements in both cases (ID cards and residence documents) is to report the theft or loss of these documents. On the other hand, regardless of the type of document concerned, the obligation to carry it all the time it is one of the less common requirements imposed by Member States on the documents’ holders.

2.6.2 Does the ID card or residence document give the holder specific rights?

ID Cards Apart from a set of obligations, the possession of an ID card also confers a number of rights to its holder. EU citizens holding an ID card have the right to travel within the EU and the right to reside in other EU Member States.

58

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

EU national ID cards sometimes also give the holder the right to travel outside the EU as an alternative to a passport. The table below list the countries where EU citizens holding an ID card can travel without the need of a passport. Table 2.22: Right to travel to non-EU countries Country Non EU countries Europe (except Belarus, Kosovo, Moldova, , Russia, , and Austria Ukraine); French overseas territories, Georgia and to Jordan a and Tunisia a Europe (except Belarus, Russia and Ukraine); French overseas territories, Egypt, Belgium Gambia, Georgia, Turkey and to Jordan Europe (except Belarus, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine); Danish and French overseas Bulgaria territories, Georgia and Jordan Europe (except Belarus, Kosovo, Russia, Ukraine and Turkey Georgia), French overseas Croatia territories and Morocco Cyprus EEA, and Serbia, Czech Rep Europe (except Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Turkey); and Georgia Denmark No ID card Estonia Europe (except Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Turkey); and Georgia Europe (except Belarus, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine); French overseas territories, Finland Georgia and Jordan Europe (except Belarus, Kosovo, Russia and Ukraine) French overseas territories, Egypt, France Turkey, Georgia, Dominica, Montserrat, Saint, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and to Jordan a and Tunisia a Europe (except Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) Egypt, Georgia, Turkey, Morocco a and Germany Tunisia a Greece Europe (except Belarus, Kosovo, Russia and Ukraine) Georgia, Turkey, Jordan a Europe (except Belarus, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine) Georgia and French overseas Hungary territories Ireland EU/EEA () and Switzerland. Europe (except Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) Egypt, Georgia, Turkey, Jordan a and Italy Tunisia a Europe (except Belarus, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine Georgia and French overseas Latvia territories Europe (except Belarus, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine) French overseas territories, the Lithuania Faroe Islands, Greenland, Georgia and Jordan a Europe (except Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) Georgia, Greenland, Turkey, Jordan a and Luxembourg Tunisia a Europe (except Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) French overseas territories, Faroe Islands, Malta Georgia, Greenland, Turkey and Jordan Netherlands Europe (except Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) Georgia, Turkey, Jordan a and Tunisia EEA and Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Poland Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, and Georgia Portugal EEA and Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City Europe (except Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) Faroe Islands, French Overseas territories, Romania Georgia, Green and Jordan a Slovakia Europe (except Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Turkey); and Georgia Slovenia Europe (except Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Turkey); and Georgia

59

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Country Non EU countries Spain Europe (except Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) Georgia, Turkey and Tunisia a Europe (except Belarus, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine). Dominica, French overseas Sweden territories, Georgia, Montserrat and Jordan a and Tunisia a UK No ID card a Travel on organized tours. Some EU Member States also specify other rights in their legislation linked to the possession of an ID card such as the right of data protection (Ireland, Malta) or the prohibition of retention of the ID card by any public or private entity (Portugal). Residence documents The right to travel within the EU without a visa requirement (in conjunction with a valid travel document, i.e. passport or ID card), the right of residence in the country for the period specified therein, the right to work and the right of equal treatment (with certain limitations) as national citizens are rights also conferred on the holders of residence documents issued by the EU Member States. Apart from these rights, a number of Member States also specify additional rights for residence documents’ holders in their respective national legislations. Table 2.23: Other rights for the residence documents’ holder

Rights Country Benefit from public services BE, BG, CY, EE, HR, DK, FI, IT, LT, MT, NL, RO, ES, SE, UK Proof of identity/nationality/legal status EE, FI, FR, LV, RO, SI It is noteworthy that 15 Member States (BE, BG, CY, EE, HR, DK, FI, IT, LT, MT, NL, RO, ES, SE, UK) grant residence documents’ holders the ability to access certain public services (obtaining these documents entitles the citizen to receive a personal identity code giving access to public services). In six EU Member States' legislation it is also specified that these documents are considered a proof of identity, nationality or proof of the legal status of the holder. This is the case in Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia, Romania and Slovenia. In the rest of the Member States it appears that the law does not specify any additional right for the holders of such documents.

Conclusions – Rights  ID Cards: The possession of ID cards confers a number of rights in all EU Member States (only 5 appear not to confer any right to the documents’ holders).  Residence Documents: Residence documents primarily reflect the rights acquired by citizens to reside in the Member State for the period specified therein depending on the type of document, and only in a small number of countries does the possession of these documents provide additional rights.

2.6.3 What additional functions (if any) do the identity card and residence documents have in relation to public services? Both ID cards and residence documents may have additional functions in relation to accessing public services. There are three main functions:

60

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

 e-identity function - electronic verification of the holder identity when accessing certain public services (e.g. participation in local/regional referenda, etc.);  Signature function - digital signature of documents which are legally binding;  Biometric function - verification of the holder's identity by the information stored in the chip within the document (e.g. facial image, fingerprints). The following table lists additional features of both types of documents in the EU Member States. As there are no significant differences regarding the functions of the different types of residence documents they have been grouped for easy reading. The table shows how ID cards in many EU Member States offer their holders the three additional functions in relation to public services. Few countries issue residence documents containing additional features and only five countries (Belgium, Malta) provide all three mentioned functionalities. ID cards and residence document issued in Czech Republic, Greece and Slovenia do not have additional functions. Both the ID cards and residence documents of a few Member States provide other functions apart from the three mentioned above. For instance, the Portuguese ID card also integrates the tax card, the health service card and the social security identification. Furthermore, the Estonian ID card includes an electronic signature and can be used for establishing one's identity in an electronic environment. Furthermore, it can be used for electronic voting. Table 2.24: Additional Functions of ID Cards/Residence Documents

E-Identity Signature Biometric Other ID Country Residenc Residence Residence Residenc ID card ID card ID card car e doc doc doc e doc d Austria x x x 207 x 208 Belgium x x x X x209 x x210 Bulgaria x x x211 x x212 Croatia x x x213 x214 Cyprus x x215 Czech Rep x Denmark x216 Estonia x x x x x x Finland x

207 Residence card and Permanent residence card for Family Members 208 Residence card and Permanent residence card for Family Members 209 Includes biometric facial photographs 210 BE has a digital signature in addition to an e-identity feature 211 All residence documents except the registration certificate 212 All residence documents except the registration certificate 213 Residence card for EU citizens and Permanent residence cards for EU citizens and Family Members. 214 The residence card for Family Members gives the right to health insurance and pension insurance if employed. 215 The alien registration number (ARN) included on the residence cards is required by public services for administrative purposes. 216 See footnote 161.

61

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

E-Identity Signature Biometric Other ID Country Residenc Residence Residence Residenc ID card ID card ID card car e doc doc doc e doc d France x Germany x x217 x x x218 Greece none Hungary x x x x219 Ireland x x Italy x x220 Latvia x x x x x x Lithuania x x x x a221 Luxembourg x x x Malta x x x x x x222 x223 Netherlands x x x224 x x225 Poland x Portugal x x x x226 Romania none x227 x228 Slovakia x x x x x Slovenia none Spain x x x Sweden x x x x UK x229

217 Residence card for Family Members and Permanent residence card for Family Members 218 Residence card for Family Members and Permanent residence card for Family Members 219 Residence card for Family Members 220 E-ID card also gives information about tax codes and in the future will be integrated with public health and social services database. 221 Residence card for FM and Permanent residence card for FM 222 Access to online health services, online education, e-learning. 223 See footnote 167. 224 Residence card EU citizen and Permanent residence card for EU citizen 225 Residence card EU citizen and Permanent residence card for EU citizen 226 The ID card is also a multiple identification document as it integrates into a single document the identity card, the tax card, the health service card and the social security identification card. 227The identity number, called CNP, included on the document individualizes a person in relation to tax, health and social security. 228The identity number, called CNP, included on the document individualizes a person in relation to tax, health and social security. 229 Access NHS and housing programmes

62

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Conclusions – Additional features (public sector services) Most ID cards issued by Member States have additional functions when accessing public services (e-identity, signature and biometric functions). However, a few countries issue residence documents containing additional features.

2.6.4 What additional functions (if any) do the identity card and residence documents have in relation to private sector services? Apart from the additional functions in relation to public services, ID cards and residence documents may also provide additional functions in relation to private sector services (besides being evidence of the identity of the holder or evidence of lawful residence). The table below shows how the additional functions in relation to private sector services vary not only between Member States but also in terms of ID cards and residence documents. There is no difference between the additional functions that the different types of residence documents confer, so they have been grouped. As can be seen, ID documents in 14 countries have no additional functions in relation to private sector services and only serve as a proof of the identity of the holder when dealing with the private sector services. Table 2.25: Additional functions in relation to private sector services Key: n/a= not available; in grey=document do not issued; none=no additional functions

Country ID Card Residence documents Austria none none Belgium E-identity and signature functions E-identity functions Bulgaria none Signature functions Croatia E-identity functions none Cyprus none none Czech Rep E-identity none Denmark E-identity and signature functions230

Estonia E-identity and signature functions E-identity and signature functions Secured access to services of Finland none insurance providers France none none E-identity functions (only if the Germany providers are certified by the state none authorities)231

230 Although the documents do not have additional functions they allow the citizen to obtain a civil registration number (CPR number) which will in turn allow him/her to sign up for ‘NemID’ the common, secure internet login system used in Denmark. It gives free access to a host of digital services, for instance allowing the citizen to do online banking, dealing with public authorities or engaging with the many private sector businesses that use ‘NemID’. 231 Before offering any services, the online providers need to show that data security and data minimisation principles apply.

63

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Country ID Card Residence documents

Greece none none Hungary none232 none Ireland none none Italy none none Latvia E-identity and signature functions E-identity and signature functions Lithuania none none Luxembourg E-identity functions none Malta E-identity functions E-identity functions Netherlands none none Poland none none Portugal E-identity functions none The Personal Numerical code of the Romania none documents is needed to access private or public services Slovakia E-identity functions E-identity functions Slovenia none none The Personal Numerical code of the Spain E-identity and signature functions documents is needed to access private or public services233 Sweden none none Proof of the right to work and required by UK banks to open a bank account Regarding the type of functions of those Member States which include additional functions, 11 Member States have ID cards with e-identity functions (Belgium, Croatia, Estonia Germany, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, Latvia and Spain). These last two Member States also issue ID cards with signature functions that can be used to help access private sector services. The functionality of residence documents issued by Member States regarding access to private sector services is more limited. Residence documents from 17 countries do not have a functionality in this regard. Of the 9 countries that do provide these features, 6 have e-identity and / or signature functions (Belgium, Bulgaria Estonia, Latvia, Malta and Slovakia).

Conclusions – Additional features (private sector services) While the vast majority of EU Member States issue ID cards with additional functions in relation to private sector services, only few produce residence documents with additional functionalities. The e-identity function is the main additional feature that both ID cards and residence documents contain for accessing private sector services.

232 Our research indicates the electronic signature function will provide additional capabilities with relevance to the private sector in the future, though functions at present could be identified. 233 The document contains the NIE (the foreign identification number) which is need to access public and private sector services.

64

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

2.6.5 Can the holder of the identity card and residence document opt out from the e-identity features? The analysis below on the possibility of opting out of the e-identity features refers only to countries which provide this functionality, i.e.: AT, BE, CZ, CY, DE, EE, ES, FL, HU, LV, LU, MT, PT, SK, SE, and the UK. With this in mind, the following table indicates the countries whose citizens may opt out from the e-identity features. No conditions need to be met for being able to opt out of these features. Regarding the ID cards, only 6 of the 17 Member States for which information is available that have e-features (CY, EE, LT, FI, MT and SE) do not allow their citizens to opt out from this functionality. There is a mixed picture regarding residence documents since the number of countries which allow opting out from these features (BE, LV and SK) is similar to the number of countries that do not allow this (MT, UK). Table 2.26: Possibility of opting out from the e-identity features Document Yes No AT, BE, CZ, DE, ES, HU, IT,234 ID card LV, LU, MT, NL, PT, SK, CY, EE, FlN, LT, SE Registration certificate BE, LV UK Residence card for EU citizens SK MT Residence card for FM BE, LV, SK HU, MT, UK Permanent residence card for EU citizens BE, LV, SK MT, UK Permanent residence card for FM BE, LV, SK MT, UK

Conclusions – Opting out of e-identity features Most of the Member States issuing ID cards with e-identity features allow their holders to opt out from this functionality. Few Member States issue residence documents with e-identity features, and only a few of these countries that offer the possibility to opt out from the e- identity features for residence documents.

2.6.6 Can the ID card and residence documents be used as alternative to a passport as a travel document? ID Cards All the EU Member States allow their citizens to use their ID card as an alternative to a passport as a travel document within the EEA and Switzerland. However, while some of them restrict this possibility to these countries, others extend this right to other countries. A total of 23 EU Member States allow their citizens to also travel to other countries outside the EU/EEA and Switzerland with their ID card based on particular agreements. In addition to the summary relating to the EU/EEA below, a full overview of the free movement rights to third countries enabled by ID cards has been provided above in Section 2.6.2 (Table 2.22).

234 Right to opt out but may no longer be possible to do by 2017/2018.

65

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Table 2.27: ID card used as a travel document as alternative to a passport Features Country Yes, within the EEA and Switzerland All EU Member States Yes, within EEA, Switzerland and other countries235 All EU Member States except Ireland

Residence documents As concerns the residence documents, they are not valid travel documents for EU citizens and only valid for family members (residence card for family members and Permanent residence card for family members) in conjunction with a passport236. Table 2.28 Used as a travel document

RESIDENCE DOCUMENT Yes No Registration certificate All MS Residence card for EU citizens All MS Permanent residence card for EU citizens All MS

Residence card for FM All MS in conjunction with passport All MS in conjunction with Permanent residence card for FM passport

Conclusions – Use of ID card and residence cards as a travel document All EU Member States are required to allow ID cards to be used as an alternative to a passport. It is noteworthy that residence cards and permanent residence cards for TCN family members are of equivalent value to a visa and may be used to enter the EU in conjunction with the passport.

2.7 Security aspects of ID cards and residence documents

In order to prevent fraud and ensuing identity theft (ID theft), national authorities issuing ID and residence cards can include a range of security features making it harder to counterfeit them. These features include:  Printing techniques;  Biographical data such as name, date and place of birth, and signature (that can be authenticated by anyone by asking the cardholder to provide a signature and then comparing it to the one on the document);  OVD (optically variable device) or OVI (optically variable ink);  UV features;

235 Countries specified in table 2.19. 236 In the case of UK this is only possible since last year (6th April 2015).

66

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

 Substrate (i.e. the layering of composite synthetic materials affecting the make-up or texture of the card);  Biometrics such as facial images, fingerprints, iris scans;  Additional features such as security labels or stickers, barcodes, transparent windows, watermarks, etc. Both physical and electronic security features are in place to allow authorities to authenticate a document without accessing a database. In the first instance, they serve to establish the document holder is the rightful holder matching the genuine document. For the latter, a photo on the document was used in the past. In many Member States, this has now been complemented by biometric features, including a digital facial image and sometimes fingerprints and iris scans, as explained further below. The material used to make the document contributes to determining how safe it is in terms of preventing fraud. Unlike paper-based documents, plastic ones allow for the integration of a chip and other security features. While paper-based ID and residence cards also include certain physical security features, they are hence generally easier to counterfeit than plastic-based ones, but on the other hand also easier to authenticate by authorities lacking equipment to check more sophisticated security features of plastic-based cards. Many ID (and some residence) cards include an electronic chip digitally storing biometric and other information about the cardholder (more details on the type of chips used on ID cards are provided further below). This information can be checked by authorities against databases to facilitate authentication of the document and to ensure the person presenting the document is indeed the rightful card holder (identity verification). Electronic identity documents (eIDs) including a chip have been gradually introduced in many Member States, and globally, for a range of reasons:  To increase security of documents against fraud by combining optical with electronic security features. This means that potential counterfeiters need both the skills to fake optical features as well as the software skills to hack the information on a chip;  Where biometric data (facial image, fingerprints, iris), as further detailed below, is included on a document chip, this allows authorised personnel to authenticate both the document and its holder;  The increased use of online services both in the public and private domain is greatly facilitated by electronic identification. As an example of the way electronic chips may enhance document security, the Belgian authorities highlight the usefulness of a chip on ID cards containing a digital signature of the cardholder (in addition to a regular signature displayed on the document), making it easier to identify fraudulent documents since this signature can easily be checked against databases the authorities have access to. Generally speaking, more security features being present on a document enhances its protection against fraud, provided the right equipment is in place in relevant places such as border control points to access more advanced security features. Thus, a paper-based document can more easily be counterfeited than a plastic document containing an electronic chip, for example.

67

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Data protection considerations and document security Technological advances with regard to document security are sometimes also controversial. In France, an attempt to link biometric features in a secure electronic national ID card to a national database of all citizens and their biometrics raised data protection concerns.237 This provides an indication of the difficulties authorities face when trying to reconcile security concerns with the right to privacy and data protection.

Various security mechanisms have been developed over the past 10 years for authenticating the chip on a card and accessing the information linked to it. As mentioned in the text below, these at times presuppose the presence of certain equipment (e.g. readers) at border control points and elsewhere in order to work. Other factors such as the chip interface position may also affect whether or not a card can actually be read in a specific location. FRONTEX has confirmed that for biometric features as prescribed by the ICAO standard (parts 9-12, see below), the equipment needed is in place at most border control points in the Schengen Area as this is needed to authenticate passports. The evolution of security mechanisms is as follows:

Evolution of electronic security mechanisms238  BAC - Basic Access Control: The first generation of security mechanisms used on travel documents in the EU (and internationally as per ICAO recommendation). Initially, BAC was introduced to prevent skimming and eavesdropping and to ensure that the data (biographic and facial image) sorted in the document chip is read in a secure way. This mechanism allows to access data (birth date, issuing date, name, and the facial image, etc.) on the document chip. Since 2006, all passports in Europe use this mechanism. BAC makes it possible to authenticate the chip contents and to check certificates that are publicly accessible. BAC is easy to implement.  EAC - Extended Access Control: The second generation of security mechanisms used on travel documents in the EU. EAC was introduced to protect the sensitive data and therefore the digital biometric data (e.g. fingerprints and iris) on travel documents and restricts access to authorised parties. EAC adds functionality to verify the authenticity of the chip (chip authentication) and the reading device (terminal authentication). EAC uses stronger encryption than BAC. EAC was introduced on European passports by 2009/10. EAC allows checking the chip contents, avoiding cloning of the chip and eavesdropping. But it requires secret keys to be exchanged between document issuer and document reader. EAC is difficult to implement due to the controlled distribution over a large territory that it requires.  PACE - Password Authenticated Connection Establishment: A mechanism used by SAC (see

237 On 27 March 2012, the Constitutional Court prohibited the creation of a database for collecting information from such future identity cards. While a solution could be found in 2016 to overcome the decision of the Constitutional Court, no decision to deploy a new biometric national identity card has been taken so far. 238 http://www.securitydocumentworld.com/creo_files/upload/client_files/moving_to_the_third_generation_of _electronic_passports_october_20111.pdf

68

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

below) to authenticate a reading device which was introduced in 2013. This enforces authorised access to the chip contents and establishes secure messaging between a chip and an inspection system. The advantage of PACE is that the security level of the travel document using it is independent of the strength of the password used to authenticate the terminal and generate the keys for secure messaging.  SAC - Supplemental Access Control: A combination of BAC and PACE, this represents the third generation of security mechanisms used on travel documents in the EU. The EU is enforcing this standard for all travel documents as of 2014. Asymmetric cryptography and a Card Access Number enhance document security compared to standards previously used. Whilst SAC has a higher security level than BAC or EAC, it also requires a software adaptation to authenticate the document, which in turn means its actual contribution to enhanced security is contingent on the right equipment being installed at border control points and elsewhere.

Two international standards have improved the security of identity documents in Europe in recent years by making it more difficult to counterfeit them: the ISO standard 7810 defining physical dimensions, resistance to blending, flaming, etc. at an international level for identification cards (not only ID cards)239; and the ICAO standard 9303 providing specifications for machine- readable travel documents.240 The latter standard consists of several components, of which the ones relevant for this study are241:  Parts 1-6 setting conditions for machine readable documents covering specifications for the security of the design, manufacture and issuance of MRTDs – documents in compliance with these parts can be considered to be partially compliant with the ICAO standard;  Parts 9-12 governing biometric features (which presuppose a contactless chip on the card) - covering deployment of biometric identification and electronic storage of data in eIDs, the logical data structure for storage of biometrics and other data on contactless chips, and related security mechanisms and public key infrastructure). The only biometric feature essential to complying with the biometric part of the standard is a facial image. If, however, countries chose to include additional biometric features on their ID card, these also need to be included on the contactless chip for the card to be classified as fully compliant with the ICAO standard-. ID cards Of the 26 Member States issuing a form of national ID card, most Member States (18)242 issue plastic cards with biometric features, although CZ, EL, FR and IT243 issue paper-based ID cards and 6 Member States issue plastic cards without biometric features244. With regard to the physical security features of ID cards there is large variation across EU Members States:  A wide range of printing techniques are used as security features;

239 http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=31432 240 http://www.icao.int/Security/mrtd/pages/Document9303.aspx 241 http://www.icao.int/publications/pages/publication.aspx?docnum=9303 242 BE, BU, CY, DE, FR, EE, ES, HR, HU, IE242, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PT, SK, ES, SE 243 In addition to a Plastic card with biometric features. 244 AT, CZ, MT, PL, RO, SI

69

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

 In at least 23 Member States245 specific security features to protect biographical data are applied with regard to the ID documents;  24 Member States246 include an OVD technique on their ID cards, although the specific technique differs between countries;  A total of 25 Member States include UV features on their ID card.247 Printing techniques - these vary from rainbow colouring, guilloches and fine-line patterns, and microprint to security printing, anti-copy patterns and relief embossing. For example, in Germany the printing technique includes fine line patterns, rainbow colouring, OVI (optically variable ink) and microprint (only on back of card). In contrast, in Italy the technique includes intaglio printing, rainbow colouring and colour shift. France also includes a watermark, and Austrian ID cards feature an anti-scan/anti-copy pattern. Generally, fine line patterns and OVIs seem quite common whereas other features such as microprint and watermarks have not been reported for as many ID cards. Biographical data is protected using different methods (tactile laser engraving, self-adhesive protective laminate applied after personalisation) and generally includes information such as date of birth, place of birth, birth name, and gender. For example, in Germany, Austria, Belgium, and Bulgaria, biographical data is engraved with a specific laser technique. In other countries, biographical data is printed on the document using inkjet, dye sublimation or a thermal transfer (e.g. in Estonia, Italy, Poland, Spain). OVD (Optically variable devices i.e. laser generated hologram images and electron beam generated images used in most countries show different information, depending on the viewing and/or lighting conditions. These may include identigrams, personalised holograms, variable laser images, and screen printing. UV features include fluorescent ink, fluorescent fibres, or multi-coloured fluorescent fibres. For example, while Austria and Bulgaria use fluorescent overprint, Germany uses fluorescent ink. In other countries, the UV feature type is not specified (e.g. Czech Republic and Luxembourg). Substrates are the specific materials used for the production of ID cards, constituting a barrier to counterfeits. Differences between Member States exist, with some using synthetic substrates (e.g. polymers such as polycarbonate) and others using natural substrates (paper). Furthermore, Member States use different amounts of optical brighteners. Biometric features, i.e. facial images, fingerprints and iris scans, allow the verification of the cardholder and link that person to the identity represented on an ID documents. This way, authorities and others can verify that the holder is indeed the rightful owner of the document. In principle, biometric features can both be displayed on the physical document, or stored digitally on the chip on a document.  For the purposes of ID cards, facial image, fingerprints and iris scans can be used for 1-to-1 identity verification. Croatia is the only country that issues ID cards with an iris print.

245 no information available for Slovenia 246 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK 247 Only RO could not be verified to use UV features.

70

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

 While Member States require that facial images are included in their ID cards, we can only confirm for 9 Member States that the image complies with the EU’s specifications for biometric images (although 18 Member States are considered to issue biometric ID cards, see earlier). Generally, there are some differences in regard to the layout of pictures (e.g. some pictures being black and white and others in colour). In addition, fingerprints are stored on ID cards in 9 countries.248  Digital signatures are featured on ID cards in Belgium, Luxembourg, and Malta. Various types of biometric data are provided by citizens when applying for an ID card. Most biometric identifiers are stored within a chip (which can be contactless or not) on the ID card which is protected by an encryption mechanism. It should be noted that the machine-readable zone is a representation of only the biographical data (not the biometrics). Its main benefit is that when swiped in a card reader the data is read automatically. Additional features were identified in some Member States, ranging from security labels/stickers, 2D barcodes, tactile elements, braille characters, transparent windows, watermarks (found on paper-based ID cards), serial numbers, and multi-layered images to special laminates and relief embossing. For ID cards which can be used as travel documents an important issue is whether or not these are compliant with the ICAO Docs.9303 standard. Overall:

 23 Member States issue or will soon issue ID cards that are compliant with the machine readability parts 1-6 of the ICAO standard while EL, FR and IT249 appear not to;250  15 Member States issue cards that are also compliant with the biometric parts 9-12 of the standard;251  There are also some cards which do include biometric features, but are not ICAO-compliant, such as the former Belgian252 and Portuguese ID documents. Where travel documents lack a machine-readable zone, this may create problems primarily for border guards, potentially causing delays.  As regards the way security features are stored on ID cards, a distinction needs to be made between contact chips and contactless chips. In case of the former, a machine reader is needed to access the data on the chip, whereas in case of the latter, data can be accessed via a radio frequency interface.253 Contact chips are used on ID cards in nine Member States254 with this being an optional feature in case of the Czech Republic, contactless chips are used in six255

248 CY, DE (optional), IT (2016 version), LT, ES, HU (at request of the applicant), LT, LV and PT 249 Paper format version of IT ID card is not ICAO compliant. The E-ID version that is still being rolled out is fully compliant with ICAO standards. 250 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FL, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK. 251 BG, CY, DE, EE, ES, HU, IE, IT (e-ID Card only), LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, SE national ID. IT paper-based ID and SE Swedish ID card non-compliant; no information available for CZ, HR, RO, SI, SK 252 BE changed rules on 16 January 2017 to use ICAO complaint photographs for ID cards 253 http://www.smartcardalliance.org/smart-cards-faq/#contactless 254 BE, CZ, EE, FI, HR, MT, PT, SE, SK 255 In BE only for non-EU residents, otherwise contact chip, CY, DE, HU, LU, NL

71

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

and there is a dual interface combining a contact and a contactless chip in three Member States (ES, LT, LV). No chip is included in the cards in 7 Member States256. Regarding the protection of the data on a document’s chip and the practical steps to be undertaken to read the information on a chip, Member States have again adopted different approaches. In the case of 11 Member States257, we have identified a combination of the security mechanisms BAC, EAC258, SAC, and PACE that are used to protect the information contained on the chip on the ID cards issued. As mentioned above, SAC, in combination with PACE, is considered the most advanced of these mechanisms. In the case of 10 Member States259, our research suggests that citizens need to provide access to the data on the chip in principle. In the case of Estonia, Luxembourg, Germany and Portugal this is done by means of a pin-code. Authorities and or private operators in other Member States that can access alphanumeric data have been identified in nine Member States (BE, DE; LT; LU; LV; MT; NL; PT, SE), the facial image can be accessed in eight Member States (BE, DE; LT; LU; LV; MT; NL; SE), in some cases in Lithuania260, Latvia261 , Malta and Sweden262 authorities can access fingerprints. In Portugal, only judicial and law enforcement authorities can copy and manipulate the facial image and fingerprint data stored on the chip. Other authorities can check other encrypted personal data stored in the chip such as the medical or financial information of the citizen. Residence documents This sub-section focuses on residence documents issues to EU citizens and third country family members but excludes residence permits which for TCNs have already been harmonised by EC Regulation 380/2008. The security features for residence cards issued by the EU Member States include: various printing techniques, biographical data, the usage of OVD (Optically variable devices), UV features, the usage of different types of substrates (materials that make counterfeiting more difficult), biometrical features, and any other features. There is a great deal of variation across the EU Members States as to the types of residence documents issued and the features used to combat fraud. However, within individual Member States there are often similarities between the various residence documents or cards. Moreover, there seems to be a trend to modernise residence cards in some countries. For instance, in Bulgaria, a working group has been set up including experts from the Bulgarian Identity Documents Directorate for the purpose of devising a new format for residence permits, based on an analysis of

256 AT, BG, EL, FI, FR, IE PL, RO, SI 257 BE, EE, ES, LT, LU, LV, NL, MT, PT, SE, SK, no information available for CY, DK, IT 258 EAC means that data can only be read by a reader that accesses the secret keys distributed by the document issuer. So accessing EAC protected data is much more complicated to organize in practice. For example, EE seems to protect the complete chip with EAC. If another MS has no exchanges with EE of the secret keys (which regularly change), than the EE ID card chip cannot be read by that other Member State. 259 DE, EE, ES, FI, LT, LU, LV, MT, PT, SK 260 In LT, the fingerprints may be read by the State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Lithuania. 261 In LV, fingerprints can be accessed only with authorized terminals using Terminal Authentication and same infrastructure as for EU e-passports based on the Common Certificate Policy. 262 Only if authorities have access to the SWE certificates and a reader that can do TA/CA.

72

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents fraudulent residence documents detected. Some countries, such as the Czech Republic, have chosen to voluntarily adopt the format prescribed under Regulation 380/2008 for residence permits also for residence cards for TCNs. Below we highlight the main findings for permanent residence cards for EU citizens, and permanent residence cards for family members. Cyprus and Hungary issue the same card for EU citizens and family members. These cards have been taken into account in both instances below. As regards permanent residence cards for EU citizens:  Printing techniques enhancing the document’s security are confirmed for 18 countries263 but the methods of inserting it vary. The Belgian residence card uses fine line patterns, microprint and OVI to protect the biographical data printed on the document. Croatia on the other hand uses multiple laser imaging and Iris Print, beyond its OVI and tactile elements.  OVD (Optically variable devices i.e. laser generated hologram images and electron beam generated images) are used in at least 13 countries.264 The most commonly used OVD is Kinegram.  UV features are used in 14 countries265.  Biometric features are also common in 10 countries266. The most common features are facial images and fingerprints (usually of the two index fingers). The Croatian permanent residence card is the only one to include an iris print. As mentioned above in the section covering ID cards, when it comes to the issue of compliance with the ICAO Doc.9303 standard, it is important to distinguish between the parts 1-6 covering MRTD, i.e. referring to the non-electronic Machine Readable Travel Documents, and parts 9-12 covering biometric features. This is less relevant for residence documents than for ID cards, since residence documents typically cannot be used as a travel document on their own. Nevertheless, our research suggests that at least in 11 countries267, permanent residence documents for EU citizens comply with the machine-readability part of the standard. Only in six countries do the documents also comply with the biometric aspects of the standard (FR, HR, LV, MT, NL, SK). Permanent residence cards for EU citizens also vary considerably as regards the presence of a chip. In 17 countries268, such documents do not include a chip, whereas in five countries (BE, EE, IE, HR, MT) they do include a contact chip, and in another five (FR, NL, PL SE, SK) a contactless chip. Latvia is the only country to adopt a dual interface for its document. Regarding the protection of the data on a document’s chip and the practical steps to be undertaken to read the information on a chip, the standards most commonly used are BAC, SAC, and EAC (for biometric information). Five countries (BE, FR, HR, LV, NL) make the information on the chip on their permanent residence cards for EU citizens available to authorities in other Member States. With the exception of Belgium, all of

263 AT, BE, BG, HR, EE, FR, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, RO, SK, SI, ES, SE, UK No information available for CY, DE, IE, IT, PT 264 EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, LV, LT, NL, PL, SK, SI, SE, UK 265 AT, BE, CZ, ES, EE, FR, HR, LV, NL, PL, SI, SE S, No information is available for CY, DE, IT, PT 266 No information available for CY, IT, PT 267 BE, BG, FR, HR, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK 268 AT, BG, CY, CZ, DK, DE, EL, ES, FI, HU, IT, LT, LU, PT, RO, SI, UK

73

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents these countries also make it possible for other Member States to verify the authenticity of the chip and check whether or not it has been cloned. As regards permanent residence cards for family members, we can make the following observations:  Specific printing techniques have been confirmed for at least 19 countries269. In Lithuania, the permanent resident card has guilloches fine line patterns and rainbow colouring, however in Greece, the paper based permanent resident certificate has a stamp and seal and lacks particular printing techniques used a security features.  The type of biographical data is generally similar across countries although the methods of inserting vary, as outlined above in regard to documents issued to EU citizens.  OVD (Optically variable devices are used in at least 14 countries270. Many of the Member States that have a card rather than a document include OVDs. For instance, Spain’s permanent resident card used optically variable ink as does Slovenia.  UV features are used in at least 15 countries.271  Biometric features are also common in 11 countries272. The ones most commonly used are facial image, and fingerprints. Signature and iris prints are also used by a few Member States. In at least 18 Member States, the permanent residence cards issued to family members are compliant with the machine-readability parts 1-6 of the ICAO standard, whereas this is only the case in 10 countries for the biometric parts 9-12 of the standard. In another 13 Member States273, the cards do not include a chip, while in in Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland and Malta they do include a contact chip. In a further nine Member States274 they include a contactless chip, and as in the case of permanent residence cards for EU citizens Latvia is the only country to issue a card with a dual interface. In those countries where cards do include a chip, a combination of BAC, SAC, PACE, and EAC are used to access the information on the chip. Unlike residence cards, residence certificates – both for EU citizens and for TCNs – are generally a lot less sophisticated when it comes to security features and are typically paper-based.

Conclusions – security aspects of ID and residence documents The nature of the security features (printing techniques, substrates, biometric features, etc) vary considerably between ID and residence cards, and between countries. Generally, ID cards have more sophisticated security features than most residence cards. Permanent residence cards have more sophisticated security features than non-permanent ones and certificates.

269 AT, BE, BG, EE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, SE, UK No information available for: CY, DE, IT 270 BE, HR, EE, ES, FR, IT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SK, SI, SE, UK No information available for CY, DE, IT 271 AT, BE, CZ, EE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SI, SE 272 No information available for CY, IT 273 BG, CY, CZ, DK, EL, ES, IT, HU, LU, PT, RO, SI, UK 274 DE, EE, FI, HR, LT, NL, PL, SE, SK

74

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

2.8 Issues relating to Denmark, Ireland and the UK This section summarises how a person’s identity is established: (i) within DK, IE and the UK in relation to their own citizens; (ii) when a citizen of DK, IE or the UK travels to another Member State. Below we provide an overview: Table 2.29: Identity Management in Denmark, Ireland and UK Member State Proof of Identity within Member State Proof of Identity in EU Denmark  Passport  Passport  Driving License Ireland  Passport Card (generic identification)  Passport Card in EU  The Public Services Card  Passport (non-EU)  Proof of Age Cards (just age confirmation) UK  Driving licence  Passport  Passport  Proof of residence (e.g. an electricity bill)

As shown in the table above, in the three countries, identity can be established in different ways. In Denmark, a driving license or the passport can be used as valid identification. To prove identity when Danish citizens exercise their free movement rights a passport is needed. In Ireland, there are various ways to verify identity. First, proof of age card is often requested by young citizens and a driving license can be used to establish identity. Second, in 2015 the Irish government introduced the ‘passport card’ which serves both as a travel document within the EU and to verify identity in Ireland. The passport card is available to all Irish citizens who are over 18 years old and who hold a valid Irish passport. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade275 the reason for introducing the Passport Card is its more convenient credit card sized format. Furthermore, the card will also be a benefit to frequent travellers as it will allow them to travel, if and when their passport are held in embassies while visas are being processed. While these reasons indicate that the passport card was mainly introduced to facilitate free movement within the EU the ministry mentions also two other reasons: (i) in addition to the passport card being useful for age verification, its format helps to reduce the number of lost passports; and (ii) the passport card can be regularly used for non-travel purposes. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade does however not specify what these non-travel purposes are. In the United Kingdom, there are three ways of identification. Firstly, the driving licence and the passport can be used to verify identity. As in Denmark this has the drawback that not everyone has a driving license and it thus obliges citizens to apply for a passport (even if the citizen does not travel). Thus, there is also a third way to proof identity in the UK, namely through a proof of residence. Usually documentation such as electricity/gas bills or bank statements are accepted as valid proof of residence. Recently this has become more difficult as many people opt for e-bills and e-banking.

Conclusions

275 https://www.dfa.ie/passports-citizenship/top-passport-questions/new-passport-card/

75

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

In the three countries the identity can be established in different ways.  Within Denmark, a driving license or passport can be used as valid identification. To prove identity when Danish citizens exercise their free movement rights a passport is needed.  In Ireland, there are four ways to verify identity within Ireland: proof of age card, the Public Service Card, driving licenses, the ‘passport card’ which serves both as travel document within the EU and to verify identity in Ireland.  In the United Kingdom, there are three ways of proving identity: a driving licence, passport and proof of residence.

2.9 Summary – Current Situation The following table summarises the differences between EU28 Member States with regard to different features of ID cards and residence documents. Table 2.30: Summary of current situation Key Issues Summary Which  Overall, it can be observed that Member State practices differ in regard to the documents are types of documents they issue. Almost all Member States issue ID cards issued by the (26/28) but the position with residence documentation is more varied: the national majority of Member States issue registration certificates (23/28); while a authorities? minority of Member States issues residence cards for EU citizens (9/28) all And what are Member States issue residence cards for family members of EU citizens; and their with regard to permanent residence cards, all Member States issues those characteristics? cards to both EU citizens and their family Members.  There are a large number of different versions of ID cards and various types of residence documents in use. With regard to ID cards, over half of the Member States (18/28) 3 or more versions are in circulation while in most other Member States at least two versions are in circulation. With regard to residence documentation, in almost all EU Member States there are only one or two versions in use. In some Member States the different versions are all valid while in other Member States they are not. Overall, we estimate that there are around 269 different types of ID cards and residence documents in circulation across the EU Member States.  The format of ID cards and residence documents varies although there are some common features. Most ID cards include a biometric picture and are in plastic card format. However, in a number of Member States ID cards do not include a picture with biometric features and/or paper based. With regard to the registration certificate most Member States only issue paper-based documents. Although there is a great variety, TCN family members are usually provided with documents with biometric features while EU citizens are generally issued with paper-based or non-biometric plastic documents. What is the  Legislative provisions governing eligibility, application procedure and use of Legal ID cards and residence documents come from a range of sources, including framework, primary legislation, regulation and in some instances constitutional provisions eligibility and and case law. information Laws also differ in respect to multiple aspects:

76

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Key Issues Summary requirements  To be eligible to apply for an ID card it is generally necessary to be a citizen of in regard to ID that Member State. However, in some jurisdictions it is possible to obtain an cards and ID card as a non-national. Eligibility for residence documents in national laws residence is based on the requirements of Directive 2004/38/EC. documents?  There is no uniform minimum age requirement to apply for ID cards or residence documents in EU Member States. However, a significant minority of Member States have instituted a minimum age for ID card applications with the most common minimum age being 14 years.  Basic information is required for inclusion on ID and Residence cards in all Member States. Almost all EU Member States require applicants to provide a signature for storage on the cards and some also require the provision of fingerprints (9 Member States). In some jurisdictions, the provision of fingerprints is optional.  A reasonably high degree of variation exists across EU Member States in almost all aspects of applying for and obtain ID cards and residence documents  In the vast majority of EU countries, the procedures for renewing or obtaining replacement ID cards or residence documents are substantively similar to, or administratively more straightforward than, the original card application process.  All Member States store the data that is used for ID and residence documentation in publicly held databases (apart from the UK where data is managed by a private sector company). What are the  The administrative and production costs are often not available in relation to costs in regard ID cards and not available at all for residence documents. In some Member to production States this is because the cost of producing residence documents is treated as of the confidential. In other cases, the information is available but the national documents? authorities requested that the Commission will ask for the information And in regard directly. to  In relation to ID cards, there are substantial differences between Member administering States regarding the costs for EU citizens. While some Member States do not the charge citizens at all or very small fees other Member States charge rates documents? between EUR 10 to EUR 94.  The rules on whether additional costs incur if a document is lost or stolen differ substantially across the EU Member States in relation to all documents. In most Member States the costs are the same as the first time the document was requested. In contrast, some Member States only charge a small surcharge to cover administrative costs. Some other Member States charge a higher penalty fee. What  The majority of Member States impose obligations on ID card and residence obligations and documents holders. One of the most common requirements in both cases is rights are to report the theft or loss of these documents. Similarly, regardless of the linked to the type of document concerned, the obligation to carry it all the time it is one of documents? the less common requirements imposed by Member States.  Most ID cards issued by Member States have additional functions such as

77

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Legal & Administrative Features of ID 2 Cards & Residence Documents

Key Issues Summary facilitating the access to public services (e-identity, signature and biometric functions). However, few countries issue residence documents containing additional features. While the vast majority of EU Member States issue ID cards with additional functions in relation to private sector services only few of them produce residence documents with additional functionalities. The e- identity function is the main additional features that both, ID cards and residence documents, contain when dealing with private sector services. Which security  Member States use a mix of security features, including printing techniques, features are special substrates, UV and optically variable devices, and others to protect the included in the cards they issue against fraud. documents  Twenty-one Member States issue plastic ID cards including an electronic chip storing digital information (including biometric details) about the cardholder that can be checked by authorities against databases.  Permanent residence cards have more sophisticated security features than others and certificates.

78

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

3 Problem Definition & Baseline Scenario The purpose of this section is to examine to what extent EU citizens as well as the private sector and public authorities are adversely affected by the existence of differences in ID cards and residence documents when the right to free movement is exercised. The assessment in this section is based on various sources including desk research, feedback from the interviews across the EU Member States, the focus groups and session with FRONTEX, the Citizenship Consultation of 2015 and the ‘Your Europe Advice’ (YEA) database. The problem definition forms the basis of the baseline scenario (or ‘status quo’ policy option in Section 4).

3.1 Overview Directive 2004/38 consolidates many existing pieces of legislation by establishing the conditions for the right of free movement and residence (both temporary and permanent) for EU citizens and their family members; setting out the limits to those rights on grounds of public policy, public security or public health; and clarifying the status of people who are employed, self-employed, students or not working for payment but who have sufficient resources. In other words, the Directive lays down that in conjunction with a valid ID card or passport, EU citizens and their family members may enter and live in another Member State (subject to exceptional restrictions) and may register for residence documentation. As shown in Section 2, there are a large number of different types of ID cards and residence-related documents that are issued by different Member States. This creates a number of problems:  The differences between ID cards and residence documentation across EU Member States cause a number of problems for EU citizens seeking to exercise their right to free movement. For example, citizens can be denied boarding of an aircraft due to airline employees’ lack of awareness of valid travel documents. Furthermore, citizens often face long queues at passport control, especially when traveling to non-Schengen countries;  There can also be complications for citizens once they have arrived in another EU Member State and want to obtain access services from the public authorities and private sector organisations such as banks.  National authorities and the private sector are also negatively affected by the diversity of ID cards because of the costs and complications of dealing with the diversity of ID cards and residence documents.  There are also significant security issues because of differences in the features of ID cards in particular with some being easier to forge than others and biometric data varying.

To recap, there are at least an estimated 144 different versions of ID cards, registration certificates, residence cards for EU citizens and their third-country family members and permanent residence cards for EU citizens and their TCN family members currently (2017) in use in the EU. In addition there are also numerous older documents still in circulation across the EU28 Member States. The key features of ID cards and residence documents vary from one country to another. While in most countries plastic cards are issued, in a few countries documents are still paper-based. Most Member States include basic biographical data (name, address, signature, etc.) and other key data

79

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

(e.g. expiration date, card number) on the card but beyond this the situation varies considerably with respect to whether biometric features are included in the documents or not. There is also diversity in regard to the functionality of the documents with some being holders of e-ID while others are not. In order to estimate the magnitude of problems, it is useful to start by looking at the number of EU citizens travelling from one EU Member State to another or residing in another Member State than their own. This provides an indication of the potential scale of the problem, by looking at the maximum number of citizens whose rights to free movement could potentially be impaired in the context of obtaining and using ID and residence documents. The available data suggests that a significant number of EU citizens make use of their right to free movement either by undertaking leisure/business trips in other EU countries or by residing temporarily or permanently in other EU Member States for work/studying or other reasons. Data from FRONTEX shows that in 2013, there were 548,556,638 arrivals on intra-EU/Schengen flights (both EU and non-EU citizens). While this figure may include many individuals who travelled more than once on intra-EU/Schengen flights, it nevertheless underlines the fact that a considerable number of citizens travel at least once per year to another EU Member State (see next paragraph). According to another Eurostat source276, 46% of intra-EU inbound travellers in 2014 arrived by air, demonstrating the relative importance of airports in managing passenger flows. According to the EU citizenship consultation carried out in 2015, of 2,107 individual citizens responding to the consultation, 47% travelled to another Member State between one and five times per year. While statistically not representative of the EU population as a whole, this nevertheless provides an indication of EU citizens’ use of their right to free movement. Applied to the EU’s total population, this corresponds to roughly 240 million people who travelled to another Member State at least once in the past year. Other Eurostat statistics277 show that in 2014, approximately 222.4 million trips (both for personal and professional purposes) were made by citizens resident in the EU to another Member State (18.8% of a total of 1,183 million trips). Another finding of the EU Citizenship consultation is that 60% of the respondents were living or had at some point lived in an EU Member State other than their own for at least three months. Moreover, in 2013, 7 million EU citizens worked in another Member State than their own. Importantly, 36% of those respondents to the consultation who had moved to another Member States mentioned difficulties in their day-to-day life after having moved. According to Eurostat data for 2016, 15.3 million persons lived in one EU Member State with the citizenship of another EU Member State. According to Eurostat278 in 2015, 9% or 19.9 million workers (out of a total EU28 workforce of 220.7 million) commute cross-border on a regular basis. Working in one Member State and being resident in another can create situations where issues relating to ID and residence documents arise. The issues faced by citizens are explained in the remainder of section 3. The above estimates mask considerable differences between Member States in terms of exposure of their citizens to such problems. In some cases, the share of EU citizens who are non-

276 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics_-_intra-EU_tourism_flows 277 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics_-_top_destinations 278 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Statistics_on_commuting_patterns_at_regional_level

80

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario nationals is higher than 5% of the total population, namely in Sweden (5.1%), Austria (6.5%), Germany (6.6%), and Belgium (7%), and in Ireland (12.1%), Cyprus (12.7%), and Luxembourg (31.4%), it is even substantially higher. While there is obviously no correlation between a higher rate of non-national EU citizens living in a particular Member State and the intensity/likelihood of problems in relation to free movement, in countries with a large number of non-nationals, the authorities (i.e. municipalities and border control authorities) are more likely to have to inspect ID cards and residence documents from other EU Member States.279 Your Europe Advice (YEA) enquiries provide another indication of the problems faced by citizens in seeking to exercise their right to free movement.280

Your Europe Advice Enquiries  The number of Your Europe Advice (YEA) enquiries relating to entry and residence formalities has grown on a year over year basis from 2,187 residence-related enquiries in 2011 to 4,034 in 2015, and from 1,360 entry-related enquiries in 2011 to 4,404 in 2015.  Combined, there were 8,438 residence - and entry-related enquiries made in 2015, which gives an idea of the number of citizens who face issues with their residence status or face administrative hurdles when trying to enter a Member State that are serious enough for them to contact the YEA.  Compared to the total number of enquiries received by YEA, the percentage relating to entry and residence has increased from 29% in 2011 to 34% in 2015.

The following graph provides an overview of the proportion of enquiries relating to entry and residence formalities during this period. Figure 3.1: Volume of YEA replied enquiries relating to entry and residence formalities (2011-16)

40,00% 35,00% 30,00% 25,00% 20,00% 15,00% 10,00% 5,00% 0,00% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 est.

Residence Entry Entry and residence combined

Source: YEA database

279 Eurostat. People in the EU: who are we and how do we live? 2015 edition, page 90 ff. 280 Your Europe Advice is an EU advice service for the public, currently provided by legal experts from the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) operating under contract with the European Commission. Amongst other things, the YEA provides advice on citizens’ rights when travelling, living, working, retiring or studying in another EU country.

81

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

The largest number of replied enquiries relating to entry and residence formalities in 2015 concerned the UK (29%), followed by Italy (8%), Germany (6%), Romania (6%), Spain (5%), France (4%), Netherlands (4%), Poland (4%), Portugal (4%), Bulgaria (3%), Ireland (3%) and Belgium (3%). Before discussing the specific situations in which citizens may face problems relating to ID and residence documents, it is important to note that the figures above indicating the magnitude of the problem and need to be interpreted with caution. In many of the situations (e.g. when it is required to identify oneself vis-à-vis the authorities or private sector entities in another Member State), citizens may also use alternative means of identification such as their passport. Hence, the data on the number of affected citizens can only provide a proxy to the actual size of the problem. To summarise, an assessment of the regulatory framework on ID cards in the EU Member States suggests that mobile citizens could be faced with three major issues when exercising their free movement rights:  Problems related to confusion over different types of documentation and their recognition in another Member State than their own;  Problems when trying to access private sector services in another Member State than their own;  Problems when the citizen identifies him or herself to public authorities and related border control issues including document fraud and authentication, in the following situations: (i) each time an EU and/or Schengen external border is crossed; and (ii) occasionally when crossing Schengen internal borders (e.g. in case of on-the-spot checks). The table below summarises the figures presented above and shows how these link to the different aspects of the problems forming the basis of this study. These figures should be viewed as proxies which taken together give a broad indication of the magnitude of different aspects of the problem. For certain aspects of the problem, such as issues with regard to accessing private sector services and banking, there are no proxies available but only qualitative evidence presented earlier in this section. For the magnitude of problems associated with external border crossings, more data is available on irregular than on regular border crossings. The data presented in this table includes EU citizens travelling between the Schengen Area and non-Schengen EU Member States. Estimates of magnitude Problem aspect Recognition of documents  60% of respondents to the EU citizenship consultation 2015 were in other Member State for living or had lived at some point in another EU Member State residents that are  36% of these mentioned difficulties in their day-to-day life after nationals of another having moved Member State  In 2013, 7 million EU citizens worked in another Member State than their own  4,034 residence-related enquiries were submitted to Your Europe Advice in 2015 Problems when trying to  548,556,638 arrivals in 2013 on intra-EU/Schengen flights (both EU access private sector and non-EU citizens) – relevant for those airlines that do require services in another proof of identity even on Schengen-internal flights; also illustrates Member State than their that many citizens travel to other EU countries own  46% of intra-EU inbound travelers in 2014 arrived by air – relevant

82

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

Estimates of magnitude Problem aspect for those airlines that do require proof of identity even on Schengen-internal flights  In 2015, 47% out of 2,107 respondents to the EU citizenship consultation travelled to another Member State between one and five times per year – extrapolated to total EU population, this amounts to 240 million citizens  222.4 million trips made to another Member State by citizens resident in the EU in 2014  In 2015, 19.9 million workers commuted cross-border on a regular basis Problems when crossing  In 2016, 15.3 million persons lived in another EU Member State EU/Schengen external than their own borders  In 2015, 47% out of 2,107 respondents to the EU citizenship consultation travelled to another Member State between one and five times per year – extrapolated to total EU population, this amounts to 240 million citizens  222.4 million trips made to another Member State by citizens resident in the EU in 2014  In 2015, 19.9 million workers commuted cross-border on a regular basis  4,404 entry-related enquiries were submitted to Your Europe Advice in 2015 Problems when crossing  In 2015, 47% out of 2,107 respondents to the EU citizenship Schengen internal borders consultation travelled to another Member State between one and five times per year – extrapolated to total EU population, this amounts to 240 million citizens  222.4 million trips made to another Member State by citizens resident in the EU in 2014  In 2015, 19.9 million workers commuted cross-border on a regular basis  4,404 entry-related enquiries were submitted to Your Europe Advice in 2015 For the purpose of assessing the impact of a potential EU intervention addressing these problems, it is necessary to arrive at a single estimate of the magnitude of the problem in terms of number of citizens potentially affected. The estimate chosen focuses on the number of EU citizens resident in another Member State than their own. This is preferable to adding up the different estimates (e.g. of citizens commuting cross-border and citizens resident in another Member State) which can lead to double-counting and may inflate the overall estimate of the number of citizens affected by problems. Moreover, the evidence collected for this study suggests that problems for resident are particularly pressing, whereas EU citizens travelling to other Member States generally face fewer hassle costs. The steps taken to estimate the number of citizens affected by problems are outlined in the box below:

83

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

Estimating the number of citizens potentially affected by complications in exercising the right to free movement  According to Eurostat data for 2016, 15.3 million persons lived in one EU Member State with the citizenship of another EU Member State.281 This figure has increased by 12.5% from 13.6 million in 2012282 and the trend can be expected to continue in the foreseeable future due to economic discrepancies in Europe, increased mobility of young citizens and knowledge of foreign languages.  It can reasonably be assumed that a share of the ‘stock’ of 15.3 million persons is replaced each year as some citizens may move back to their home countries whilst others take up residence in another Member State than the one they are citizens of for the first time. Hence, the actual number of citizens residing in another Member State over a period of 3 years, the period used for the cost benefit analysis in Section 5, is likely to be considerably higher than 15.3 million. In the absence of data on the number of EU citizens moving to another EU Member State each year, we have made an assumption that 10% of the 15.3 million persons (or 1.53 million persons) are ‘replaced’ each year by others.  This means that over a period of three years, any problems associated with residence affect a total of 19.9 million citizens (15.3 million plus 3 times 1.53 million citizens). Given that, as shown above, the overall number of citizens residing in another Member State increases over time, 19.9 million citizens residing in another Member State than their own over a three-year-period can be considered a conservative estimate.  Overall, taking the estimated 19.9 million citizens residing in another Member State and the 36% of respondents to the EU citizenship consultation who stated difficulties after having moved as a rough estimate, this suggest that approximately 7.2 million EU citizens may be affected by problems related to residence in another Member State over a period of three years. While these figures provide an indication of the overall number of citizens potentially affected by residence- and identity-related problems, ‘Your Europe Advice’ (YEA) service provides a useful indication of the problems actually faced by citizens, or at least by those who know about the service and report their difficulties.283

281 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics 282 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/EU_citizenship_-_statistics_on_cross- border_activities 283 The YEA is an EU advice service for the public, currently provided by the legal experts from the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) operating under contract with the European Commission (DG GROW). The YEA service allows citizens to obtain personalised information about their rights under EU law and practical advice on how to resolve problems they may encounter when exercising their rights under EU law. The volume of YEA enquiries has consistently grown over time. In the period 2006-2016, enquiries to YEA have more than tripled with YEA replying to over 22,000 enquiries in 2015 and a similar number projected for 2016. YEA uses a classification system that groups together issues under broad topics. The two main relevant topics relate to entry procedures (including travel documents) and residence formalities (including residence documentation).

84

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

3.2 Problems faced by Citizens Below we first examine issues that are relevant to the problem definition with regard to the use by citizens of ID cards and then (Section 3.2.2) residence documentation. 3.2.1 ID Cards Citizens can face a number of problems arising from the diversity of ID cards in the EU and the lack of familiarity of public authorities with the differing features and the time taken to verify identities. Confusion over valid travel documentation While there is now an obligation that documents of all citizens are checked upon entry to the Schengen area, there can be confusion amongst citizens themselves regarding the use of ID cards and other documents for travel purposes. For example, the YEA often receives enquiries relating to the use of documents other than identity cards and passports valid for travel. One repeated category of enquiry concerns the validity for travel of driving licences issued under Directive 2006/126.284 This suggests that EU citizens wrongly believe that a driving licence issued in the uniform EU format is valid as a means of identification for travel simply because it bears their name and photograph and because it may be accepted as an alternative form of identification in their home country. This misperception causes problems in practice such as denied boarding and associated financial loss. In those countries (i.e. Denmark, Ireland, UK) where no identity cards are issued, the citizen is required to apply for a passport. Such a procedure is not only time consuming but also costly as most Member States charge higher fees for this service than for the issue of a national identity card. Some other enquiries concern the ability to travel to another EU Member State using an expired identity card.285 Exactly how this situation will change (if at all) as far as the UK is concerned after is not clear. Divergence of security features and consequences for citizens Differences with regard to the security features of ID cards can cause problems for citizens at borders. As pointed out in Sections 2.1 and 2.5 of the report, the appearance and physical security features included in ID cards vary widely across the EU Members States. Furthermore, not all ID cards conform to both the physical and biometric parts of the ICAO standard (parts 1-6 and 9-12). For example, ID cards may conform to the physical component because they have all the security printing and include a machine-readable zone, but may not be compliant in the electronic component (access to the chip data). Although ID cards should be accepted as valid travel document by all Member States, these differences can lead to longer waiting times for EU citizens when their identity is verified at the border. As it stands, e-gates can be only used by EU/EEA/CH citizens who own a . Furthermore, eligibility to use e-gates also requires an age of at least 18 (there is a recent tendency to lower this threshold age) and/or a certain size limit. For intra-EU travel and even for travel to/from specific non-EU countries, ID cards are a valid travel document. However, citizens are not able to use e-gates with an ID card and instead have to pass the manual lanes. Since ID cards are

284 Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (Recast) [2006] OJ L 403/18. This request relates make up 8.6% of the YEA requests (i.e. out of 547 enquiries on travel documents for EU Nationals 47 related to driving licenses) 285 YEA Database. Such enquiries tend to be reported under the ‘Entry procedures’ (subtopic ‘EU travel documents’).

85

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario not standardised, an e-gate does either not accept them at all or only of the country where the e- gate is installed (e.g. in Germany e-gates accept German ID cards but no ID cards from other citizens).

Problems using ID cards at airport e-gates  The German authorities recently introduced e-gates at airports. However, the e-gates can only be used by German nationals while other EU citizens and TCNs are required to go through manual checks. 286  While in many airports e-gates can now be used with biometric passports, they can only be used in the major airport hubs (e.g. Heathrow, Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt) with biometric ID cards. In Paris and Madrid, the airport e-gates even allow for the verification of fingerprints but only in case of the respective national ID cards.287 In principle, e-gates could be used in conjunction with other electronic travel documents, but this may require an adaption in the e-gate software.  As long as some Member States issue e-IDs while others do not, citizens will not have the same access to these e-gates, which reduce waiting time at border crossing points and potentially reduce the number of border guard personnel needed at airports.

Several Member States have installed e-gates in international airports (for example DE, ES, FR, NL, PT and UK). There is a trend to further expand the use of e-gates both in those countries where they are already in place (i.e. using them in more airports and/or at land borders) and in addition other countries where they are currently not in place are currently considering establishing e-gates. There are two sets of problems arising from the fact that e-gates do not generally operate with national ID cards. First, this means that EU citizens not holding a passport issued by an EU Member State (which is only necessary for travelling outside the EU) cannot benefit from the time efficiency gains of e-gates. A passport cost on average much more than ID cards and expires after 5 to 10 years whereas an ID card is cheaper and renewable every 10 years (for adults), so often lasts longer than a passport. Second, a manual border gate requires one border guard per lane while an e-gate requires on average two border guards per five lanes (one supervisor, one for intervention). Currently only 15-20% of eligible travellers use e-gates while actually up to 68% of travellers may be expected to use them, as data from countries with well-established e-gate systems show.288 The UK has even set a target of 80% of e-gate usage by eligible travellers. As things currently stand, only around 50% of EU citizens travelling from the rest of the EU to the UK or Ireland, and vice-versa, who could have used an e-gate actually did make use of this option, meaning that the others effectively lengthened the time it takes them to cross the border.289 If e-gates would be accessible for all EU citizens holding ID cards, saving would apply to 40-50% of EU travellers. In 2014, there were 34.9 million EEA (including Swiss nationals) entering the UK. So

286 http://www.spiegel.de/reise/deutschland/easypass-system-an-deutschen-flughaefen-ist-nun-offiziell-a- 975663.html 287 Based on feedback from Eurosmart 288 Data based on findings from ABC working group at Frontex. 289 Frontex meeting. Draft meeting minutes. 17th Meeting of the Working Group on ABC Guidelines and Best Practices. Munich, Germany, 11-12 May 2016.

86

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario the estimate is that about savings in relation to efficiency (e.g. less staff to be employed for manual lane) could have applied to around 15.7 million citizens. Lack of familiarity of border control officials with documents The fact that border control officials are not always familiar with the different identity documents in circulation can create problems, or, at the least, delays and can cause inconvenience for citizens due to lengthy document checks. For instance, Italian citizens reported being advised by UK border officials to apply for a passport if they want to enter the UK the next time as the Italian ID card was “just a piece of paper”.290 Furthermore, in some EU Member States a number of different versions of valid identity cards exist (for example in the Czech Republic there are 10 valid versions) which makes it difficult for border guards to assess their validity. Another example is France where the authorities have declared that the validity period of ID cards was automatically extended for 5 years. The problem is how this is recognized by other EU countries. Most EU/EEA countries have not yet recognized the extension of validity, which obliges affected French nationals to use a passport. Even though Member States are obliged to exchange information among themselves about all of their valid ID cards versions, in many cases older, but still valid, identity cards are not accepted as valid travel documents. As a result, national identity cards are sometimes refused as a valid form of travel.291 These problems exist despite the existence of the Public Register of Authentic travel and identity Documents Online (PRADO) which provides border control officials (as well as national authorities and private sector service providers) with details concerning the layout and features of ID cards and other travel documents (visas, etc.) in the EU including information on different document versions and their security features for each country. PRADO is a website hosted by the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and contains technical descriptions, including information on some of the most important security features of identity and travel documents of countries within the European Union, all Schengen Area countries, other neighbouring countries as well as of many third countries worldwide. Problems in relation to the renewal of ID cards Problems can also arise for citizens of some Member States with the renewal or issuance of ID cards when they reside in another Member State. As explained in Section 2.3.5, some Member States either do not issue ID cards via the consular network or charge a considerably higher fee. The following countries do not issue ID cards in other Member States: Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Malta, Romania and Spain. As a consequence, EU citizens need to travel back to their home country in order to request ID cards resulting in considerably higher costs. Eurostat data can be used to calculate the number of affected citizens. Summing up the number of expatriates of those seven countries suggests that approximately 4.6 million people are affected. In reality this

290 Experience of Italian national travelling to Heathrow airport. 291 YEA Database: YEA enquiries relating to non-acceptance of identity cards for travel tend to be reported under the topic ‘Entry procedures’ (subtopics ‘Travel documents for EU nationals’ and ‘Wrong entry rules applied’).

87

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario number might be higher since not all expatriates will have registered with the authorities in the host Member State.292 It is also worth pointing out that some Member States also charge either shipping costs or a considerably higher fee when documents are requested via the consular network. Only in 6 countries no extra fees are charged (BE, BG, CY, FR, IT, PL). Based on Eurostat data it can be calculated that 4.7 million citizens are affected by marginal or considerably higher fees.293 Problems in relation to accessing public services In some circumstances identity documents are not accepted by public authorities and this can prevent citizens from accessing public services. Apart from difficulties this can lead to with regard to registering with social security institutions or job centres,294 ignorance of the EU rules regarding ID cards can also, for example, lead to complications for students who are not passport holders from enrolling in schools and universities in different Member States. In some cases the excessive delays in the issuing of a registration certificate has led to a refusal to register the applicant’s children in schools.295 The lack of knowledge of acceptable forms of identification by local authorities in some cases has resulted in the refusal of a right to vote in both European and local elections.296

3.2.2 Residence Documents As noted earlier, 36% of persons responding to the 2015 citizenship consultation who moved to another Member State faced some problems after having moved. Most of the problems related to unclear and lengthy administrative procedures (69%), followed by a lack of information/unawareness about rights as non-nationals (51%). In addition, 41% said they had experienced difficulties obtaining access to private services (e.g. banking or utilities) which corresponds to 8.2 million citizens using the total figure of 19.9 million citizens residing in another Member State than their own cited further above. 297 This is despite the fact the EU citizenship consultation 2015 established that almost all persons (96%) who decided to move to another Member State had familiarised themselves with the administrative requirements and procedures beforehand. Most had looked for information on residence documents, including on how to

292 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics (Numbers used for the calculation is based on Figure 6) 293 ibid. 294 YEA database: YEA enquiries relating to non-acceptance of identity cards for social security registration or access to benefits tend to be reported under the topic ‘Social security’ (subtopics ‘country or insurance and general management’ and ‘unemployment’). 295 YEA database: YEA enquiries tend to be reported under the topic ‘Studying and training’ (subtopic ‘Other’). 296 YEA Database: YEA enquiries relating to non-acceptance of identity cards for voting tend to be reported under ‘Political rights of EU citizens’. 297 When asked what would make it easier for EU citizens to move to another EU Member State, three suggestions were mentioned: firstly, 82% thought it would be helpful to have more information available (i.e. on how to register as a resident, etc.); 73% mentioned that e-services would facilitate coping with administrative formalities in the country of destination; and, thirdly, 56% thought that it would be helpful if the authorities of their country of origin could directly cooperate with the authorities of the Member State to which they were planning to move, to reduce the administrative formalities in the country of destination.

88

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario register in the municipality (69%) as well as information on employment and working conditions (45%), social security and welfare (41%) as well as access to healthcare. Problems due to lack of awareness of residence card uses There are awareness related problems such as the misperception that residence cards can be used as valid travel documents.298 There are many cases of residents who have attempted to use their registration certificate and residence cards as a valid travel document and were refused travel. Citizens are therefore obliged to abandon their journey and often incur financial loss. The result of this misconception may lead to refusal to board by transport companies and associated financial loss. Such enquiries tend to be reported under the ‘Entry procedures’ (subtopic ‘EU travel documents’ and ‘Other’ when it concerns non-EU citizens). Please note, that further down in this section we also explain that unawareness is also a concern among national authorities. Delay in obtaining residence documentation The typical timeframe for obtaining registration certificates varies between Member States and delays and onerous formalities can be encountered by citizens. While Directive 2004/38 does not provide a specific time limit, it requires that registration certificates should be issued ‘immediately’. It can thus be assumed that registration certificates should be issued as soon as it is requested. In relation to the other types of residence documents, the average period between the request and the issuance of the document ranges from one week to a month.299 Where there are administrative delays, these may lead to practical difficulties preventing EU citizens from enjoying their right of free movement. The research suggests that, in line with Article 8(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC,300 a number of EU countries (CY, ES, HU, LU, PL, and PT) usually issue registration certificates quickly following a successful application by the relevant individual. But EU citizens can face delays and excessive formalities when applying for a Residence Certificate in other countries. The research found examples of this in Belgium301, France302, the UK303, Spain304, Sweden305, Germany306 and Ireland.307 Delays were also reported in issuing permanent residence documents308. Delays exist in a significant minority of Member States despite the requirement in the Directive that the registration certificate be provided ‘immediately’. Registration certificates are not

298 Anecdotal evidence as revealed by requests directed to YEA. 299 Average based on country fiche data. 300 Article 8(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC provides: “The deadline for registration may not be less than three months from the date of arrival. A registration certificate shall be issued immediately, stating the name and address of the person registering and the date of the registration. Failure to comply with the registration requirement may render the person concerned liable to proportionate and non-discriminatory sanctions.” 301 Quarterly Feedback report October-December 2014, page 26; Quarterly Feedback report July-September 2015, page 25. 302 Quarterly Feedback report October-December 2014, page 26. 303 Quarterly Feedback report October-December 2014, page 26; Quarterly Feedback report January-April 2016, page 27. 304 Quarterly Feedback report October-December 2014, page 27. 305 Quarterly Feedback report October-December 2014, page 27. 306 Quarterly Feedback report July-September 2015, page 32. 307 Quarterly Feedback report October-December 2015, page 27. 308 Quarterly Feedback report July-October 2016, page 32.

89

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario required in all EU jurisdictions309 but in 23 Member States they are mandatory for persons residing longer than a certain amount of time. This may put applicants at a significant inconvenience if they are obliged to wait weeks or even months to obtain the certificate. An example from the YEA database concerns a Bulgarian national who moved to Belgium. The YEA report notes that: “(the Bulgarian national) was told that this procedure (to obtain the registration certificate) may last 2 months . . . Moreover, his bank is asking him (for) this registration certificate to enable him to operate with his bank account where he is paid, and his boss also requires him this document.” The field research has also revealed delays in issuing registration certificates in Italy. Where EU citizens who are not economically active have to prove they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members in order to not to become a burden on Italy’s social assistance system. The individual must allow the relevant authorities to carry out financial checks on their bank accounts. This procedure is lengthy, and researchers have noted that it overloads public administrations.310 Refusal to issue residence documentation Another issue, this time for EU citizens with jobs, concerns the requirement to demonstrate evidence of employment such as a contract or payslip. Individuals hired through a “job voucher” scheme, which refers to a specific type of job contract for fixed-term employment, have particular difficulties, as the Italian authorities do not recognise the job voucher contract as a viable and long- term status of employment. As a consequence, they may refuse to issue the registration certificate. Finally, an Italian immigration lawyer reported that failing to obtain the registration certificate means that EU citizens are considered “illegal” in that Member State. Such a sanction, if indeed applied in practice in Italy, would violate Article 8(2) of the Directive, which provides that any penalty for failure to comply with the registration requirement in those Member States where it exists must be “proportionate and non-discriminatory”. Costs of obtaining residence documentation Another problem encountered by EU citizens relates to the costs of obtaining residence documentation. To take a case involving a Belgian national highlighted in the Citizenship Consultation: “We moved from Belgium to the Netherlands. For each application (requesting an ID, registering my bicycle, registering to vote, registering my car, insurance, bank etc.) I needed to request a proof of residency from the municipality. Each time this costs EUR 12.50 as the proof is only valid for three months it becomes an expensive joke. Problems with ID: My home country wants an ID picture with a white background, while my country of residence wants one with a grey background. Whenever they differ, my ID is not valid.”311 Problems in relation to finding a job using residence documentation It can be difficult for EU citizens to undertake employment because some Member States refuse to grant this permission unless they provide a residence card or a proof of holding a National Identification Number. There are examples of such cases in Spain312, Sweden313, the UK and

309 See Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC. 310 CSES interviewed the Italian researchers for the Citizens Without Borders project. For further information of this EU Commission funded project, see http://www.meltingpot.org/+-CitizensWithoutBorders-+.html. 311 Situation of Belgian Respondent expressed in Citizenship Consultation Report, p. 33. 312 Quarterly Feedback report April-June 2015, page 41.

90

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

Belgium.314 During the last quarter of 2015, several “catch 22” situations were reported where EU citizens were required to provide a national identification number in order to access employment in Denmark or Sweden. However, the number would not be issued without a residence card or a work contract making it impossible for these citizens to work315. Moreover, national authorities appear to be under a mistaken impression that only an employment relationship grants a right of residence of an EU citizen for a period exceeding three months.316

Acceptance of ID Cards at Employment Office  In Spain the director of an employment office stressed that they have no major difficulties when verifying the identity of persons requesting to access their services. They accept all national ID cards as proof of identity and only in certain cases where the information is illegible for them (for example, Greek or Bulgarian ID cards) is the passport also required.  However, it was pointed out that there is a recurrent problem of EU citizens trying to access their services who must also provide the registration certificate for that purpose. It is a paper- based document and it easily deteriorates making it impossible to read the NIE (which is the tax identification number or the foreign identification number needed to access public and private services in Spain). In these cases the citizens are asked to renew the document.  An additional problem occurs when EU citizens show expired documents because they cannot renew them. Some countries require their citizens to renew their ID cards in their country of origin and some citizens cannot afford the travel and they try to get access to an employment or social aid with the expired document. The director also mentioned that the fees for renewing the ID cards are very high in some countries, making it very difficult for some citizens to renew them and, therefore, access these services.

Problems due to lack of awareness of national authorities of residence document features

There are also examples of where national authorities do not know the difference between the categories of identity and residence documents which can lead to excessive personal checks at borders. This is supported by evidence from the YEA database of enquiries:

Confusion over Appropriate Residence Documentation (YEA database)  Several Greek ID card holders complained that the concept of residence cards is not clear to UK authorities;317  For several years some EU citizens have been living in Bulgaria with the wrong residence document. When they arrived in the country they were issued a one year residence card instead of an EU citizen residence certificate; 318

313 Quarterly Feedback report April-June 2015, page 41. 314 Quarterly Feedback report January-April 2016, page 46. 315 Quarterly Feedback report October-December 2015, page 23. 316 Quarterly Feedback report April-June 2016, page 25. 317 Quarterly Feedback report April-June 2015, page 19. 318 Quarterly Feedback report January-April 2016, page 26.

91

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

 An EU citizen residing for nine years in France and who was applying for family benefits was required to have a residence card to continue receiving family benefits, whereas he should not be obliged to obtain a residence card as such cards are not required for EU citizens in France319. EU citizens applying for a permanent resident card in France complained also that national authorities (“Préfectures”) were requiring a residence card or a registration certificate. Even though neither of which are required by EU law. As a result, the French national authorities simply refuse to issue the permanent resident card. Similar cases are reported in Italy320, and UK321.  In Sweden for the last past years, EU citizens are facing a very serious issue to receive a Registration certificate if the EU citizen does not show an S1 form. Such practice leads to a “Catch 22” situation: they cannot obtain a registration certificate with pin number without proving that they are covered by public health insurance, but they cannot register with the public health insurance company without a valid registration certificate. The situation is not only frustrating for EU citizens, as they cannot register and secure their right to residence, but also makes all other administrative steps impossible, such as opening a bank account, accessing internet or telephone services, taking courses in Swedish (required for registering in an employment agency) and searching for work322.  In Belgium, residence right was refused because the citizen was working in another EU country.

Another problem continues to be the lack of awareness of public authorities concerning the extent of the visa exemption contained in Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38. This exemption means that possession of a valid residence card by a family member of an EU citizen should exempt such family members from visa requirements for short stays. This exemption requires that the residence card must have been delivered to a family member of a migrant EU citizen i.e. it excludes residence cards delivered to family members of EU citizens living in their home country. For the visa exemption to apply, the family member would have to travel with the EU citizen or join him/her in another Member State. However, Ireland, for example, does not accept these conditions and requires the family members to have a valid visa. Problems continue to be reported in the UK, particularly as regards family members of British citizens seeking to travel to the UK after residing in another Member State under the CJEU’s Surinder Singh ruling. This means that situations persist where family members of EU citizens cannot travel freely within the EU without a visa, even after many years of residence, because the visa exemption is not being recognised. Problems in relation to TCN family members A further additional significant problem concerns non-EU family members of EU citizens living in their EU home Member State, and who had not exercised their free movement, who are issued the same residence cards as the family members of mobile EU citizens (i.e. those who have exercised their right to free movement). This is a problem in countries such as Belgium and France which have made use of Article 37 of Directive 2004/38 to confer the same rights of residence to

319 Quarterly Feedback report January-April 2016, page 41. 320 Quarterly Feedback report April-June 2016, page 30. 321 Quarterly Feedback report April-June 2016, page 30. 322 Quarterly Feedback report January-April 2016, page 22.

92

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario the family members of their nationals. The result is that family members are denied entry because they do not hold a visa in breach of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/38 and can lead to significant financial loss. In some cases, family members have been deported outside the EU.323 Another problem for TCN family members of EU citizens’ concerns administrative hurdles to obtain residence documents. For example, in Spain the procedure to obtain a residence document requires three separate visits to the immigration office before family members can obtain the card. On the first visit, family members make a request for an appointment. On the second visit (i.e. once the applicant receives a letter with an appointment), s/he must provide fingerprints, signature, photo and pay the fee. On the third visit, applicants must collect the card (this could be done by another person authorised by the applicant). An NGO 324 representative told us that the abovementioned process can be expensive for applicants. This is especially the case if they do not live in a regional capital and need to travel an hour or more to visit the immigration office, which also entails a potential cost in terms of lost working days. 3.3 Accessing private sector services Citizens can also experience problems when trying to access public and private sector services/products in other EU countries because of the diversity and different features in the card (see Section 2). Our research suggests that mainly airlines and banks were affected by problems while other stakeholders (such as insurance companies, car rental agencies, etc.) seem to not encounter noteworthy problems in providing their services. In the private sector, companies often do not have the equipment and/or the right (for data protection reasons) to access fingerprints on a chip, for example. It should be acknowledged though that simple visual checks would improve the situation without requiring an access to the more sophisticated features such as checking fingerprints. In summary, document security is contingent on the experience and equipment of those checking them but the diversity of ID and residence documents increases this problem's magnitude. Airlines sometimes refuse to accept national identity cards and require citizens to provide passports. This issue affects, in particular, many Italian citizens. French citizens can also encounter difficulties in using their ID card when travelling in the EU. France prolonged the validity of expired ID cards by five years but carriers and authorities of other Member States are often not aware of the prolonged validity and therefore frequently refuse to accept them.325 The notion of valid travel documents is misunderstood and private transport company staff appears to be unaware of the visa exemptions. As a consequence, family members of EU citizens and with them, EU citizens are refused boarding even though they have a valid Residence card or a permanent residence card.326

323 YEA Database: Such problems tend all to be reported under the ‘Entry procedures’ (subtopic ‘visa exemption’). 324 Centro de Investigaciones en Derechos Humanos (CIDH) PRO IGUAL. 325 YEA database: YEA enquiries relating to non-acceptance of identity cards for travel by transport companies tend to be reported under the topic ‘Entry procedures’ (subtopic ‘Travel documents for EU nationals’) and ‘Other consumer issues’ (subtopic ‘Package travel and passenger rights’) where there is a valid claim for breach of the Air Passengers Rights Regulation 326 Quarterly Feedback report October-December 2015, page 20 and 21; Quarterly Feedback report January- April 2016, page 20 and 65.

93

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

There seems to be a lack of knowledge among airlines concerning the visa exemption rules contained in Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38 and the consequences of the CJEU’s ruling in Case C- 212/13 McCarthy. The problem is compounded by the absence of correct information about the visa exemption on the TIMATIC website administered by the International Air Transport Association which most airlines use to verify the validity of travel documents. Problems have been reported not only in the UK, but also Croatia, the Netherlands and airlines operating flights originating from outside the EU with a destination inside the EU. The result is that family members of EU citizens are denied boarding because they do not hold a visa and this can lead to significant financial loss.327 Airlines also routinely check ID cards to establish that the holder is the same person whose name is on the boarding card. Difficulties establishing this arose in the past since some old ID cards did not include the name in the . This in turn can lead to the denial of the right to travel which, if subsequently determined as a wrong decision, can lead to substantial claims for compensation. The fact that ID cards cannot be used at e-gates in airports (see Section 3.2.1) can also lead to delays for travellers which can also affect airlines. Although some information was obtained from IATA and Airlines for Europe, this was not sufficient to reliably estimate the costs of dealing with the diversity of ID cards and potential costs savings if their features were harmonised. Instead (and as with the earlier cases involving border controls), we have developed the following illustrative case which is based on a number of assumptions derived from the limited information obtained through the research. The case study below refers to the cost that airlines need to bear when pre-boarding checks are carried out on nationals and non-national EU citizens. The case study aims to show the potential cost savings for airlines: if documents of national and non-national EU citizens were harmonised, procedures would be more efficient and thus savings can be expected. It has to be noted that in addition to those private sector costs, costs do likewise apply to border control agencies at external Schengen borders or at Member States’ borders when they are not members of Schengen. This leads effectively to a dual burden: once at the border crossing point and once when boarding an aircraft. A case study on the costs of border control is provided later in this section when discussing border control issues.

Illustrative Case: Quantification of Airlines’ Costs and Potential Cost Savings – Pre-Boarding Checks for Nationals and Non Nationals (a) We started by making an assumption regarding the average time needed to check the ID document of an EU Member State national seeking to board an aircraft (15 seconds) and non-national EU citizens (30 seconds) because of the differing formats of ID documents and the need to verify information in the case of non-nationals. (b) The second stage in the estimation was to use data on how many citizens have taken flights within the EU in 2015 (918 million)328 and the proportion of these passengers who are likely to have had their ID documentation checked by airline officials (assumed to be 25%, therefore 229.5m).

327 YEA Database: Such problems tend all to be reported under the topics ‘Entry procedures’ (subtopic ‘visa exemption’) and ‘Other consumer issues’ (subtopic ‘Package travel and passenger rights’) where there is a valid claim for breach of the Air Passengers Rights Regulation. 328 Eurostat, Air Transport Statistics, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Air_transport_statistics, inclusive of arrivals from third countries.

94

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

(c) The cost of the time needed by an airline official to check ID cards has been estimated by working out the salary costs of an airline official and, based on this, the cost per ID check lasting 15 seconds or 30 seconds. We have used a figure of EUR 26,970329 as being the salary cost. To keep the calculation as simple as possible, we have taken an average for the EU Member States. (d) To arrive at an estimate of the costs to the airlines, we have then multiplied (a) x (b) x (c). Cost - nationals  229.5m x 0.25 (minute) = 57.375m minutes 57.375m minutes = 956,250 hours 956,250 / 2080 = 459.735576923 man-power years  459.735576923 man-power years x EUR 26,970 = EUR 12,399,069 Cost – non-national EU citizens  229.5m x 0.5 (minute) = 114.75m minutes 114.75m minutes = 1,912,500hrs 1,912,500hrs / 2080 = 919.471153846 man-power years  919.471153846 man-power years x EUR 26,970 = EUR 24,798,137

Cost savings if procedures of national and non-EU nationals were the same: EUR 12,399,068

The approach adopted in the above and other illustrative cases in this section follows the Standard Cost Model (SCM) that is used to help assess the impact of new EU legislation.330 The main aim of the SCM is to assess the net cost of information obligations imposed by EU legislation (i.e. costs introduced by a proposal if adopted, minus the costs it would eliminate at EU and/or national level). The SCM distinguishes between recurring administrative costs and one-off administrative costs. In our illustrative cases we have assumed that one-off costs would be minimal and focused on the recurring administrative costs. In the illustrative cases, there is in fact a cost-saving to private sector entities. The administrative costs consist of two different cost components: the ‘business-as-usual costs’ (costs resulting from collecting and processing information which would be done by an entity even in the absence of the legislation) and ‘administrative burdens’ (the part of the process which is done solely because of a legal obligation). Our calculations comply with this approach and lead to an estimation of the cost savings from a reduced administrative burden to private sector entities brought about EU intervention to harmonise features of ID cards and residence documents. Banks sometimes refuse to provide services to EU citizens holding ID cards from another Member State. For example, some banks in Spain require their customers to present passports in order to open a bank account.331 In Germany, residence certificates are required in addition to ID cards when opening a bank account.

329 Steer Davies Gleave, Study on employment and working conditions in air transport and airports, for DG MOVE, European Commission, Cabin Crew salary, p. 120, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/air/studies/doc/2015-10-employment-and- working-conditions-in-air-transport-and-airports.pdf 330 A full description of the SCM can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/smart- regulation/guidelines/tool_53_en.htm 331 Interviews conducted with bank officials.

95

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

In the UK, ID cards are often not accepted as valid identification proof to open a bank account332 and there is evidence from the YEA of this also occurring in Sweden333, Romania334, Malta335 and Germany336. Instead of an ID card, banks very often ask for a passport issued by the authorities of the nationality of the person seeking to open a bank account. One Spanish banker mentioned that banks feel more comfortable asking for a passport because it is a valid international document and does not generate as many questions as could generate a national document of another Member State. In Italy, if an EU citizen wants to open a bank account his / her national ID card will be accepted, whereas in Spain they also ask for the registration certificate. Approaches can be different even within the same country, e.g. Spain and Germany.

Problems using ID cards to open bank account  The Portuguese banking association pointed out that there are ID cards from some Member States (Romania, Bulgaria and other Eastern EU countries) that are not accepted as a proof of identity because they lack a signature, a photo, a date of expiration or because the quality is not acceptable. There are also problems with the Romanian ID cards because they are unsigned.  Similarly, Finnish banks have identified different shortcomings in security features of non- national ID cards (for instance, Italian and Romanian ID cards) and therefore face difficulties to accept them as a proof of identity. Likewise, in France, Romanian ID cards are not recognised because the document lacks the cardholder’s signature. In these cases, citizens are required to provide the passport.

Apart from the inconvenience to citizens, there can also be considerable costs to banks involved in training staff to deal with different types of ID cards (in case of banks also residence documents). Especially in recent years ‘know your customer’ regulations applying to banks have become stricter requiring them to carry out thorough checks before services can be provided. Staff need to be trained in determining the validity of ID cards and residence documents. Procedures can also take longer with non-nationals in verifying their identity. According to an Italian bank, the procedure for verifying an EU citizen’s identity takes more time (roughly half a day in the case we examined) than for nationals (five minutes). The reason for a more lengthy procedure is that if an EU citizen wants to open an account the bank has to ask for assistance from their legal and foreign affairs officers which is not necessary for nationals. There can also be legal problems (and costs linked to this) due to wrong verification of customers.

332 See for example: http://www.kosmopolito.org/2008/10/15/my-word-is-my-bond-but-not-for-eu-citizens- in-the-uk/ See also: YEA database: such YEA enquiries tend to be reported under topics ‘Financial Services’ (subtopics ‘bank accounts’), 333 Quarterly Feedback report July-September 2015, page 65, Quarterly Feedback report April-June 2016, page 67. 334 Quarterly Feedback report January-March 2015, page 65. 335 Quarterly Feedback report January-March 2015, page 65. 336 Quarterly feedback report January-April 2016, page 66.

96

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

Procedure to verify identity when opening a bank account  The Portuguese banking association provided an estimation of the time to verify the identity when an individual wants to open a bank account: If the client is a Portuguese citizen and all documents are provided and are valid, it could take a maximum of 1 hour to open the account. If the individual is an EU citizen and if there are doubts about his/her identity and it has to be verified with the bank central services (Banco do Portugal) or the EU citizen has just arrived and he/she has not an address and banks need to check the residence, it could take 2 hours or even more than a day.  In Spain, a bank pointed out that the procedure involved in opening a bank account is quick (5-10 minutes) and it does not differ whether the individual is a national or from other EU Member State. In addition, the interviewee stressed that the time taken to open a bank account does not depend on the nationality but on the experience and knowledge of the employee of the bank who deals with the procedure. There are some bank branches that have many EU citizens from other countries as clients and others that are not used to dealing with non-nationals.

Although some information was obtained from a number of financial institutions, this was not sufficient to reliably estimate the costs of dealing with the diversity of ID cards and potential costs savings if their features were harmonised. Instead (and as with the earlier cases involving border controls and airlines), we have developed the following illustrative case which is based on a number of assumptions derived from the limited information obtained through the research. The case study compares procedures when nationals and non-national EU citizens open a bank account. It is shown that the administrative burden for non-nationals is higher due to differences in ID cards. It can thus be concluded that if ID cards would be harmonised, procedures for non-nationals would be similar to those of nationals and savings can be expected.

Illustrative Case: Quantification of Banks’ Costs and Potential Cost Savings – Opening a Bank Account for Nationals and Non Nationals (a) We started by making an assumption regarding the average time needed to open a bank account for nationals (30 minutes) and non-national EU citizens (1 hour) because of the differing formats of ID documents and the need to verify information in the case of non-nationals. (b) The second stage in the estimation was to use data on how many citizens have moved to another EU Member States in the last year for which statistics are available (1.3 million people in 2014337) and assumed that 50% (0.65m)338 of these individuals will have opened a bank account in the country

337 Eurostat, Migration Statistics : http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics 338 Note: a different way to calculate the number of how many EU citizens open a bank account in another EU Member State could be to use the number of people who start working in another Member State because these citzens will almost certainly need to open a bank account. While the “2016 Annual Report on intra-EU Labour Mobility“ provides interesting statistics on cross-border labour mobility it does not provide an annual estimate of the numebr of persons taking on work in another Member State (it only provides numbers of the

97

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

concerned. (c) The cost of the time needed by a bank official to check ID cards was then estimated by working out the salary costs of a bank official and, based on this, the cost per ID check lasting 30 minutes or 1 hour. We have used a figure of EUR 25,000339 as being the EU-28 average salary cost. To keep the calculation as simple as possible, we have assumed an average for the EU Member States. (d) To arrive at an estimate of the costs to bank, we have then multiplied (a) x (b) x (c). It is estimated that there are 200,000340 bank branches in the EU28 Member States. Cost - Nationals  650,000 x 30 (minutes) = 325,000 hours  325,000 hours / 2080 = 156.25 man-power years  156.25 man-power years x EUR 25,000 = EUR 3,906,250

Cost - Non-National EU citizens  650,000 x 60 (minutes) = 650,000 hours  650,000 hours / 2080 = 312.5 man-power years  312.5 man-power years x EUR 25,000 = EUR 7,812,500

Estimated cost savings if procedures of national and non-national EU citizens were the same: EUR 3,906,250

Other private sector service providers also sometimes refuse to provide services or products to EU citizens holding ID cards from another Member State. Thus, telephone and internet companies in some Member States also do not accept ID cards issued by another Member State as valid documentation for taking out a telephone or internet subscription (or even residence cards issued by the host Member State). 341 In the UK, cases were reported to the YEA of supermarkets not being willing to sell alcohol to anyone with an ID card from another Member State and instead only accepting UK driving licences and foreign passports. This practice is often the subject of prior agreement by the local trading standards authority.342 There have also been situations where businesses have refused to employ citizens holding an ID card of a different Member State. For example, according to the YEA, EU citizens in Spain are required to obtain Spanish ID cards in order to register with the Spanish social security system, a

total stock of workers from other Member State). Therefore, the calculation above uses an estimate which is extrapolated from the number of persons who relocated to another Member State. 339 Average Banking Official Salary in France, as cited in Robert Walters Salary Survey 2016, https://www.robertwalters.co.uk/content/dam/salary-survey-2016.pdf p. 85, rounded the figure of EUR 23,000 to 25,000 due to scaling. 340 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr140711.en.html 341 Quarterly Feedback report January-April 2016, page 61. 342 YEA database: Such YEA enquiries tend to be reported under ‘Goods (other than motor vehicles)’ (subtopic ‘Goods subject to excise duties’) and ‘Other consumer issues’ (subtopic ‘Other’).

98

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario prerequisite for being able to legally work in the country. National identity cards of the EU Member States of origin are not accepted, although passports are. The same situation arises in Sweden.343

Problems using a Romanian ID card in France leading to legislative reform  GISTI,344 the migrant information and support group, told us that in recent years Romanian nationals moving to France have encountered difficulties using their ID cards. In essence, Romanian ID cards were frequently not accepted as proof of the cardholder’s identity by French banks and other institutions on the basis that these cards did not show the holder’s signature. The result according to GISTI has been considerable inconvenience to these EU citizens and a practical constraint on their free movement rights.  Responding to complaints by NGOs and affected individuals, in February 2013 the Défenseur des droits (an independent institution of the French state established in 2011 with a remit to uphold the rights of individuals)345 confirmed inter alia that Romanian nationals should not be prevented from opening bank accounts in France because their ID cards do not show a signature.346 Following this Decision, the relevant regulations were amended by the Finance Ministry so that the list of acceptable supporting documents for opening a bank account no longer contains any requirement that the necessary identity document, if otherwise valid and issued by a public administration, must show the holder's signature.347  In a further Decision of May 2015,348 the Défenseur requested that the French Banking Federation and the French Association of Financial Companies circulate information about the revised rules among their respective networks within two months.349 It should be noted, however, that the representative from GISTI expressed some reservation as to whether, in practice, the revised regulations in France have led to banks accepting Romanian ID cards as valid documents for establishing the identity of the cardholder.

Public authorities face the difficulty of combining measures to promote free movement with the security of European citizens.350 Moreover, there are risks associated with new technologies that have implications for ID cards and residence documentation such as ID theft where public authorities have a key role to play in combating misuse.

343 YEA database: YEA enquiries relating to such problems tend to be reported under topic ‘Work’ (subtopic: ‘Access to employment’). 344 Groupe d'information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI). 345 http://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/fr/institution/presentation 346 Décision du Défenseur des droits numéro MLD-2013-10, 28 February 2013. 347 See L'arrêté du 31 juillet 2015 fixant la liste des pièces justificatives pour l'exercice du droit au compte auprès de la Banque de France (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000030981153). 348 Décision du Défenseur des droits numéro MLD-2015-098, 28 May 2015. 349 See paragraph 25 of the Decision. 350 Internal security is a major concern for European citizens, according to a Eurobarometer survey carried out in 2015. A majority of respondents think that citizens’ rights and freedoms have been restricted for reasons related to fighting terrorism and crime, a strong increase since 2011. This demonstrates public awareness of potential conflicts between the goal of facilitating free movement on the one hand, and maintaining internal security on the other.

99

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

3.4 Border control issues Specific problems arise in the context of border controls. Verification of the authenticity of travel documents is a key element of border checks and pre-requisite for effective border control. Whereas residence documents cannot be used as a travel document, on their own, ID cards can be used to enter and exit the Schengen Area and the EU from certain third countries with which individual Member States have bilateral agreements in place, such as between Italy and Egypt, for example. A security risk stems from the fact that, once a person has entered the Schengen Area using a fraudulent document, they can travel on to other Schengen Member States without usually facing another inspection of their documents.351 Document fraud, and the checks that are needed to detect it, poses a potential if not actual constraint on free movement. As ID cards and residence documents become increasingly sophisticated in terms of their physical, optical, and electronic security features, they represent significant challenges for border control officers who need to increasingly rely on electronic and automated document inspection systems such as scanners to ensure that border controls do not cause disproportionate delays for travellers whilst maintaining security. 352 The challenges include identity verification, travel document authentication which in turn requires an exchange of the relevant certificates between border control officials, risk management and travel facilitation at the EU’s external borders. Specifically in relation to ID cards, FRONTEX in a study recognises the strain on border control staff, noting that: “Lack of reference knowledge, as well as non-standard or unsuitable design and production […] significantly affect the effectiveness of both technical and human capacities [at border crossing points]”.353 This has been confirmed by some Member States. For instance, in the view of Bulgarian officials, the main problems in relation to border control stem from older versions of ID cards from countries such as France, Germany, Greece, and Italy, which are still legitimate travel documents. These require manual checks which is more time-consuming. The Estonian border control authorities maintain that some travel documents issued in the EU28 are not registered in central databases (i.e. PRADO) which creates problems for border control officials trying to establish their authenticity, causing delays at the border.

An additional complication is that Member States have different technology and equipment in place at the border to scan and process ID cards. This contrasts with the situation with passports, where all Member States use the same technology because all EU Member State passports (except UK and IE) comply with the same security features354. One consequence is that border guards can

351 The exception are random checks conducted on intra-Schengen flights 352 Frontex. 2014. The Document Challenge II. Testing human and machine performance in detecting and classifying genuine and false travel documents. Short Summary – Public Release page 3. 353 Frontex. The Document Challenge II. p. 4 354 Passports issued by EU Member States, except UK and IE, comply with Council Regulation 2252/2004 and its implementing measures. By this Regulation, passports are not identical but remain specific to each Member State, but they all comply with ICAO standard 9303 and have common security features, both optical and electronic. The Regulation took the option of including the images of two index fingers in the chip's passport in addition to the facial image that is mandatory according to the applied standard. The chip protection is defined in implementing measures, like e.g. C(2013)6181 that defines Supplemental Access Control to protect the biographical data and the facial image on the chip.

100

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario often only check the authenticity of their own national ID cards and residence documents properly and cannot take advantage of the latest security features in authenticating other countries’ documents. Problems can be related to the readability of the data on the chip within the card or to the physical security features. However, more advanced security features also included on biometric passports should be possible to read at most border control points since these need to be able to check the authenticity of passports for which security features have already been harmonised. This was confirmed by FRONTEX and informs the cost estimate of the preferred policy option (see sections 5.4 and 5.6).

 The Bulgarian authorities pointed out that they found national counterfeited documents using kinegram (a frequently used OVD) forged so skilfully that special high magnification devices were needed to detect these falsified elements. As a result, Bulgaria will change this security feature.  Generally, it appears that access to increasingly advanced technology has perfected the production of falsified documents and that counterfeiting becomes more sophisticated as demand for documents increases.  Where the production of falsified ID cards or residence documents becomes too difficult, the alternative route used by abusers is to falsify breeder documents to obtain genuine ID and residence documents, as outlined further above.

Currently, some border control points in Europe may lack even relatively rudimentary tools such as electronic readers, magnifiers or UV lights, or where they do have these, lack the know-how to use them, making respective security features useless in such cases. At the same time, wherever border control points are equipped to access the advanced features of biometric passports, they will also be in a position to do so for ID cards with similar features. In addition to machine readers, border guards need to have access to the latest software, databases and certificates in order to effectively verify a document’s authenticity. It is technically challenging to have inspection systems in place across the EU28 that can deal with the great diversity of security mechanisms used in ID and residence documents, a problem which is compounded by the diversity of incompatible chip technologies currently in use. Although some information was obtained from national authorities, this was not sufficient to reliably estimate the costs incurred by border control officials of dealing with the diversity of ID cards and potential costs savings if their features were harmonised. Instead, we have developed the following illustrative case which is based on a number of assumptions derived from the limited information obtained through the research. The case studies analyses the different time period it takes when either nationals or non-national EU citizens cross the border. It is shown that if ID cards were harmonised, border checks could be speedier leading to cost savings.

101

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

Illustrative Case: Quantification of Border Control Costs and Potential Cost Savings – Identity Checks for Nationals and Non-National EU Citizens (a) To estimate the costs to border control authorities of the current system, we made an assumption that it takes approximately 15 seconds to check the ID card of a national and approximately 45 seconds in the case of a non-national EU citizen because of the differing formats of these documents.355 (b) We then estimated the number of all nationals and non-national EU citizen who could have their documents checked when crossing a border within the EU during a one-year period. Here the key distinction is between travellers within the Schengen zone and non-Schengen zone. Within the Schengen area, there are an estimated 1.25 billion journeys per annum and considerably fewer checks on identity documents.356 For the non-Schengen zone we only had intra-EU data for arrivals at airports. We have assumed that 10% (125m) of travellers within the Schengen area are subject to border checks (whether in land, sea or air) at airports. Please note that this assumption is based on the fact that usually no checks are carried out but that in some cases spot-checks do still take place within the Schengen zone and we estimate that this amounts to no more than 10%. There is no available data on the nature and frequency of these checks. In the case of non-Schengen zone travel, 100% of border crossings are subject to checks. Given the limits of the EU flight data, we make a hypothetical comparison where all travellers are either EU nationals or non-nationals. (c) The cost of the time needed by border control authorities to check ID cards was estimated by working out the salary costs of border officials and, based on this, the cost per ID check lasting 10 seconds to a minute. We used a figure of EUR 24,000357 as being the average EU-28 salary costs of a border guard. To keep the calculation as simple as possible, we took an average for the EU28 Member States, (d) To arrive at an estimate of the costs to border control authorities, we then multiplied (a) x (b) x (c). The difference in cost between nationals and non-nationals to the border authorities is a potential saving and should be seen as an upper limit. (1) Cost to EU-Schengen authorities (all border crossings) Nationals:  125m x 0.25 (minutes) = 520,833.33 hours  520,833.33 hours / 2080358 = 250.400641026 man-power years  250.400641026 man-power years x EUR 24,000 (average salary) = EUR 6,009,615.38

355 Based on interviews and research carried out by CSES at the country level. No common data is available. 356 European Commission, Europe Without Borders: The Schengen Area, Brochure, p.3, http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e- library/docs/schengen_brochure/schengen_brochure_dr3111126_en.pdf 357 Average income Transport Sector, as cited in Steer Davies Gleave, Study on employment and working conditions in air transport and airports, for DG MOVE, European Commission, p. 119, Figure 6.23, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/air/studies/doc/2015-10-employment-and- working-conditions-in-air-transport-and-airports.pdf 358 Assuming 40 hour work week, 52 weeks a year = 2080 hours

102

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

Non-National EU citizens:  125m x 0.75 (minutes) = 1,562,500 hours  1,562,500 hours / 2080 = 751.201923077 man-power years  751.201923077 man-power years x EUR 24,000 (average salary) = EUR 18,028,846.15 Cost saving if time period of non-nationals was the same as for nationals: EUR 12,019,231 (2) Cost to EU-Schengen authorities (airport arrivals only)359 National  442,242,231 (total Schengen intra-EU arrivals)360 x 0.25 (minutes) = 3,685,351.9 hours  3,685,351.9 hours / 2080 = 1771.8038101 man-power years  1771.8038101 man-power years x EUR 24,000 = EUR 42,523,291.44 Non-national EU citizen  442,242,231 (total Schengen intra-EU arrivals)361 x 0.75 (minutes) = 5,528,027.9 hours  5,528,027.9 hours / 2080 = 2657.70571514 man-power years  2657.70571514 man-power years x EUR 24,000 = EUR 63,784,937.16 Cost differential: EUR 21,261,645.72 (3) Cost to EU non-Schengen authorities (airport arrivals only)362 National  106,314,407 (total non-Schengen intra-EU arrivals)363 x 0.25 (minutes) = 885,953.4 hours  885,953.4 hours / 2080 = 425.939130609 man-power years  425.939130609 man-power years x EUR 24,000 (average salary) = EUR 10,222,539.1346 Non-national EU citizen  106,314,407 (total non-Schengen intra-EU arrivals)364 x 0.75 (minutes) = 1,328,930.1 hours  1,328,930.1 / 2080 = 638.908695913 man-power years  638.908695913 man-power years x EUR 24,000 = EUR 15,333,808.7019 Cost Differential: EUR 5,111,270 (4) Cost Differential to EU Schengen and non-Schengen authorities Potential cost saving if time period of non-national EU citizen was the same as for nationals: EUR 21,261,645.72 + EUR 5,111,270 = EUR 26,372,916

3.4.1 Problem of forged ID cards and residence documents Both ID and residence cards are susceptible to fraud, especially where these lack key security features or where, as Section 2 highlighted, some Member States do not ensure that digital data

359 Eurostat (2013) from Frontex, Risk Analysis 2015, Table 2, p. 13 “Arrivals at EU airports 2009-2013”, http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/Annual_Risk_Analysis_2015.pdf 360 Excludes third country arrivals. 361 Id. 362 Eurostat (2013) from Frontex, Risk Analysis 2015, Table 2, p. 13 “Arrivals at EU airports 2009-2013”, http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/Annual_Risk_Analysis_2015.pdf 363 Excludes third country arrivals. 364 Id.

103

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario contained on chips is sufficiently encrypted. The fact that there is such a diversity of ID cards and residence documents, and the security features vary in sophistication, makes fraud based on the ‘weakest link’ approach easier. Documents may be falsified for a variety of reasons, such as:

Use of forged ID Cards  To register as residents in a Member State using a document suggesting EU citizenship;  To assume someone else’s ID to engage in criminal activities or terrorist acts, or to obtain services one would otherwise not have access to including social benefits;  To avoid fees and costs;  To access services the abuser may not otherwise have access to, such as renting a car or opening a bank account;  To escape prosecution (e.g. after committing a crime) an individual may want to use another person’s valid identity document to conceal their true identity and to leave the country undetected or simply use (several) fraudulent documents to cover their tracks.

The use of forged cards and preventing and detecting such fraud involves a cost to private and public sector entities. The cost of fraud is difficult to estimate. Costs to citizens who are victims of ID theft can be considerable, especially when their ID is used to make purchases or carry out monetary transactions Experts from FRONTEX believe that abuse to cross borders plays a minor role compared to other types of abuse within countries, given that ID and residence documents are primarily intended to allow the holder to identify themselves vis-à-vis authorities and private sector organisations within a country rather than to enter or leave a country. Private sector entities such as banks, airlines, insurance companies and car rental companies all face complications arising from the risk of fraudulent ID documents. Document fraud is an actual if not potential constraint on free movement. The diversity of ID cards being issued by EU Member States is a particular problem for border control agencies because the authorities need to provide training to officials to deal with the variety of different documents to ensure they are able to detect fraudulent documents. The checking of documents also takes time. Because national authorities have been issuing new documents over the years, training has to be provided every time new documents are issued. This is necessary to ensure authorities can detect falsified documents, such as counterfeited ones, personalised ones using stolen blanks, or even genuine documents obtained illegally. Current cooperation efforts on dealing with ID cards and residence documents focuses on FRONTEX training for border guards and the setting up of the PRADO database. Furthermore, to access data that is stored on ID cards/residence documents, keys need to be exchanged among Member States on a bilateral basis. However, the keys to access data change over time and they are not always communicated immediately to other authorities. In regard to residence documents there is currently the so-called FREEMO working group which is a biannual meeting of all EU28 national experts on free movement matters. Due to the broad mandate of the group it does not exclusively focus on residence documentation but on a wide range of issues.365

365 Apart from these mechanisms we are not aware of any other EU-wide cooperation mechanism in regard to ID and residence documentation. However, mechanisms exist in case of passports that could serve as a

104

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

Public authorities also need to ensure ID cards and residence documents are protected against fraud. As pointed out in Section 2, the appearance and security features of these documents vary. For example, some Member States include biometric data in the card and others not. Furthermore, the physical security features also differ such as: printing techniques, OVDs and UV features. Since the authenticity of documents needs to be checked carefully, border checks can take longer when new documents are unknown to the officer or when the document is not machine readable or equipment to verify its authenticity is lacking.

 The Belgian authorities interviewed for this study mentioned that black and white images personalised using laser engraving can complicate the document verification process or make it more time-consuming. However, this was not further substantiated by the authorities and it is common practice to inspect such images, e.g. on passports with a polycarbonate data page and on residence permits.  In the opinion of the Belgian authorities, ID cards should ideally be equipped with a radio- frequency identification (RFID) chip making it possible to compare the face of the person using the document (the ‘life image’) with the image contained in the document. Although this again increases the time necessary for the border control process, at the same time it would facilitate automated border control (and possibly the use of e-gates) since RFID chips make it possible to verify the life image with the image encrypted on the chips, although this also requires properly trained border guards.

Certain security features can significantly reduce the risk of fraudulent document remaining undetected, as also indicated in Section 2.7. Provided border control officials and other authorities inspecting these documents are adequately equipped to access and verify these security features, their inclusion in identity documents can also reduce the cost of inspection and the scope for human error. This is particularly the case for identity documents that can be used to travel cross- border, in which case the ICAO standard already specifies certain security features. Among the features that if harmonised could increase document security are:

Residence and ID documents:  Name spelled in English to facilitate checking against databases  Compliance with the ICAO standard is less of an issue in case of residence documents since these can generally not be used as travel documents.

ID cards only:  Document title and number  Validity indication  Signature/authorisation/date  National emblem of Member State

model for administrative cooperation in case of ID and residence documents as well: the Schengen Master List allows for exchanging CSCA certificates of passports. This mechanism could, in principle, be applied to electronic ID and residence documents. The European Commission also currently pilots a project on the exchange of CVCA (Country Verification Certificate Authority) keys for EAC-protected documents (see discussion of security mechanisms in Section 2.5).

105

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

 Photograph  Common biographical data: name, date and place of birth, nationality, sex, address of holder  Compliance with the full ICAO standard (parts 1-6 and 9-12), including a biometric facial image and a contact chip.

Conversely, the absence of some or all of the above features facilitates counterfeiting and thus diminishes document security and consequently internal security in the EU when this is abused. The diversity of documents and the lack of some of the above-mentioned key features on some documents pose a security risk in that it makes it more difficult to detect every type of falsification. Adding to the complexity, in some Member States a number of different valid versions of one document type exist. For example, in the Czech Republic there are 10 valid versions of an ID card. Even though Member States are obliged to exchange information among themselves about all of their valid ID cards versions, in many cases this does not take place. As a consequence, border control officials are uncertain whether older but still valid ID cards should be accepted as travel documents or not. In the end, wrong judgements can be made, be it refusing a document 366 or accepting a non-valid document. In the latter case, security issues could arise. Cooperation between Member States can remedy these problems to some degree. In Bulgaria, for example, the Ministry of Interior quite often receives enquiries from foreign tax agencies, e.g. from Sweden, with regard to forged versions of older Bulgarian identity cards used by TCNs. No incidents of forging the current ID card design have been detected. However, we could not obtain evidence of such cooperation taking place systematically and involving all EU Member States. Besides the threat to internal security in the Schengen Area, the verification of ID and residence documents can also create administrative costs. This is because documents with sophisticated security features are costlier to produce than those lacking them, and because the authorities have to devote considerable resources to checking the authenticity and validity of all documents (more and less sophisticated documents) both at border controls and in other circumstances. For example, a representative of Brussels Airport confirmed that the continuous increase in the variety of card design each year results in considerable training expenses for their border control officials. Fraudulent ID and residence documents have a number of social and financial costs for EU Member States. It may result in fraudulent social security claims and use of public services by persons who are not genuinely entitled to use them. It also serves to undermine the national immigration systems by providing a route for persons who wish to circumvent legitimate immigration control to fraudulently claim a right of residence. Finally, fraudulent residence document holders may carry out both low-level and serious criminal activities in the affected Member State.

Security issues with ID and residence documents – the Belgian case  In Belgium, the authorities highlighted difficulties with authenticating Romanian ID cards when Romanian citizens want to register as Belgian residents. This is due to the fact that in

366 YEA Database: YEA enquiries relating to non-acceptance of identity cards for travel tend to be reported under the topic ‘Entry procedures’ (subtopics ‘Travel documents for EU nationals’ and ‘Wrong entry rules applied’).

106

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

Romania, individuals can register under a different name on their ID card than the one they are registered under in Belgium. The databases the Belgian authorities use for authentication do not capture these differences. Authenticating Italian ID documents can also pose a major challenge. An example of abuse mentioned were individuals using fraudulent ID documents to obtain social benefits.  The Belgian authorities also point out that there are legal objections against sharing data between Member States and that this complicates the process of authentication of ID cards. This statement only referred to ID cards and not residence documents.  Another issue highlighted by the Belgian authorities is that officials working in the municipalities at times fail to detect false or falsified European ID cards which are used to obtain authentic Belgian residence permits. As a consequence, the permit-holders could potentially commit crimes under the cover of a false and fictional identity.  Finally, the Belgian authorities observe an increase in the use of ID cards in the context of terrorism-related activities. A problem is that (potential) terrorists travel to high risk countries avoiding to present their passport but rather presenting their ID card which does not show any travel history (visa/immigration stamps) meaning there is no trail that authorities could detect. This constitutes a major problem for Member States that have neither an advance passenger information (API) system nor passenger name records systems (PNR) system available, which includes Belgium.

If ID cards are forged this creates costs to national authorities both in the country in which the ID card is forged (i.e. potentially issuing new identity cards containing higher security standards) and potentially in other EU Member States where individuals relocate based on forged identity cards. One associated risk is that templates or blanks of ID documents are stolen by counterfeiters who use them to create forged documents. Bulgaria provides a solution whereby certain information relating to ID or residence documents that have been recorded as stolen will be entered into databases including the number and specific information related to the respective document. Generally, EU border guards are also expected to enter such information into the Schengen Information System and an Interpol database. This should allow border police officers and other officials to detect falsified documents based on these templates. In addition, we have an example of problems with fraudulent EU identity documents in the UK. We did not come across this type of detailed estimate of the scale of document fraud elsewhere.

UK Government research on the scale of EU document fraud  In 2014, the House of Commons Europe Committee asked the UK Government to make available information regarding the scale and form of the most prevalent types of abuse and fraud of EU free movement rules in the UK. 367 The Government’s responding submission to the Committee included research material on EU document fraud. This is summarized below.  Having examined the submission, the Committee commented that the (UK) Government

367 House of Commons Europe Committee, Documents considered by the Committee on 22 January 2014, No. 2: The Free Movement of EU Citizens, paragraph 2.4. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeuleg/83-xxviii/8305.htm_

107

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

relied primarily on ‘qualitative evidence’ demonstrating types of abusive behaviour, rather than ‘quantitative data’ demonstrating the scale and prevalence of abuse and fraud.368 Generally, across all EU Member States there appears a lack of numerical data in the area of residence document fraud. According to the UK estimates, every year over 1,000 non-EU nationals arrive at the UK Border and try to gain entry by fraudulently using European Union documentation and pretending to be a Union citizen with a right of free movement.369 In addition, the UK Home Office states that many thousands more fraudulent documents are detected en route to the UK by carriers and by UK staff based at airports around the world.  Of the fraudulent identity documents encountered by the UK authorities at borders and ports, a consistently large majority are fraudulent EU (and EEA) documentation.370 In 2011, Italian and Greek identity cards were the most commonly abused documents by non-EU nationals, and accounted for more than one in five false documents identified at the UK Border in 2011.371 In total, five of the top ten abused documents encountered at the UK border in 2011 were EU identity cards.372 The following table shows the proportion of detected document fraud at UK borders and ports.373 Table 3.1 EU/EEA document fraud at UK borders and ports Year Total number of fraudulent Total number of EU/EEA fraudulent EU/EEA documents detected documents detected % 2009 1,770 1,285 73 2010 1,589 1,172 74 2011 1,857 1,511 81 2012 1,652 1,372 83 Source: UK Government  A non-EU citizen presenting a fraudulent document relies on free movement rights to which they are not entitled. The table shows that both the total number of EU/EEA fraudulent documents detected at UK borders and ports and the relative number as a proportion of all fraudulent documents increased between 2009 and 2012.  The available data refers to fraudulent travel and identity documentation. However, it seems very likely that similar attempts are made to produce counterfeit residence documents, not least because of the incentive to access social and public services in the

368 Ibid., paragraph 2.12. 369 UK Home Office, Free Movement Rights — Initial Information for the European Commission (Provided to the Commission on 3 December 2013), section 4.2 Abuse of European Union documentation. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeuleg/83-xxviii/8306.htm 370 Evidence of Fraud and Abuse of Free Movement in the UK (Submitted by UK Government to the Commission on 16 September 2013), Ibid, Section 5 – Fraudulent documents. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeuleg/83-xxviii/8306.htm) 371 UK Home Office, Free Movement Rights — Initial Information for the European Commission (Provided to the Commission on 3 December 2013), section 4.2 Abuse of European Union documentation. 372 Ibid. 373 Evidence of Fraud and Abuse of Free Movement in the UK (Submitted by UK Government to the Commission on 16 September 2013), Ibid, Section 5 – Fraudulent documents. The documents referred to are documents presented as evidence of EU/EEA identity which are either forged, counterfeit or presented by an 'impostor'.

108

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

Member State. Conclusion - scale of EU residence document fraud in UK  No quantification has yet been made regarding the total cost to the UK exchequer of the abuse and fraud of free movement rights by non-EU citizens. It is, however, evident from the material presented by the UK Government that the problem of fraudulent EU documentation exists in this Member State, with over a thousand detected attempts to gain entry to the UK every year by means of fraudulent EU travel and identity documentation.  In addition, it appears from the table above that the problem is increasing in both absolute terms and relative to fraudulent documentation relating to non-EU/EEA countries. It is considered very probable that equivalent problems exist in relation to residence documentation in the UK and other EU Member States.

More generally, the number of persons using fraudulent documents arriving from third countries (not to be confused with the number of fraudulent documents which may well be higher due to one person carrying several fraudulent documents) increased from 5,255 in 2011 to 9,420 in 2014, an increase of 79%.374 It then decreased by 11% to 8,373 in 2015375 but this does not necessarily imply a decreasing problem since this change could also be due to border guards being overwhelmed with the influx of irregular migrants and thus incapable of carrying out document checks systematically. The total number of persons detected with fraudulent documents either entering or exiting the EU, or in transit, increased from 13,381 in January-August 2013 to 15,483 over the same period in 2015, before going down to 13,222 (-15% compared to 2015) in 2016. The trend specifically for ID cards is similar to fraudulent documents overall, with an increase in detections until 2015 and then a decrease in 2016. FRONTEX believes this is largely due to the EU- Turkey migration deal in place since early 2016 and lower number of Syrians travelling with fraudulent documents. In case of ID cards, 95% of the ones detected are EU ID cards, whereas 5% are made up by ID cards from third countries.

Key trends – fraudulent ID cards  Most detection of fraudulent ID cards was reported on air routes: 64% of the total in 2015, followed by land (32%) and sea (4%), with the rest being unspecified.376  The number of document fraud incidents on intra-EU Schengen movements increased dramatically in 2015 and was, for the second year in a row, higher than the number of such documents detected on extra-EU arrivals. One example is that of Albanian nationals misusing Italian and Greek ID cards to enter the UK, another one Ukrainian nationals abusing authentic Polish ID cards to get to the UK. Another incidence is an increase in 20% of detection of fraudulent documents on air routes from Greece to Germany.377

374 Frontex. 2016. Annual Risk Analysis. Based on EU28, Decisions not available for France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden. For 2014, data from Austria are not available. Data for France are not available for 2011 and 2012. 375 Frontex. 2016. Annual Risk Analysis. p. 14 376 Frontex. 2016. Annual Risk Analysis. p. 69 377 Frontex. 2016. Annual Risk Analysis. p. 25

109

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

 As regards the final destination of travellers caught with fraudulent ID cards, the UK tops the list (e.g. 1,522 persons in January to August 2016 out of a total of 4,394), followed by Ireland, Germany, and Italy.378  Fraudulent ID cards are mainly detected at gate checks at airports and on ferries. Detections mainly occur through random gate checks on intra-Schengen travellers and through routine border checks at the extra-Schengen border. Random checks are decided on the basis of a risk profiling analysis.  The number of fraudulent documents detected (both entries from third countries and from other EU or Schengen countries) can also be analysed in terms of the type of document. The number of detected fraudulent ID cards has increased from 6,500 in 2013 to 9,226 in 2015, and the number of detected fraudulent residence documents has decreased from 3,073 in 2013 to 2,320 in 2015.

Combining the figures for ID and residence documents shows there is an increase in the detection of fraudulent documents from 9,573 in 2013 to 11,546 in 2015. The problem related to ID cards seems to be particularly serious.

The fraudulent ID cards most commonly detected are Italian ones, followed by Romanian and Greek ID cards. FRONTEX experts point out that this is not necessarily an indication of those ID cards being more easily counterfeited. Rather, it could also mean that Italian or Romanian counterfeits can be more easily detected, for example because border guards are more familiar with them. In case of Italy, in addition to counterfeited ID cards, there were many cases of stolen blanks used to create fake ID cards (see Table B.4 in Appendix B, category ‘false-other’ ), and also a few cases of false images on genuine cards. In case of France and Spain, imposters using genuine documents (green part of bar) play a much larger role than counterfeited documents.

In the case of France, these are often migrants from Africa who speak French fluently and pretend to be French nationals or residents. In the case of Poland, human traffickers often actively help Ukrainian citizens in entering Poland and obtaining a Polish ID which these people then use to travel to the UK. Swedish police officers interviewed for this study confirmed problems with imposters, stating that it is increasingly difficult to detect cases where persons use genuine documents that represent another, similar-looking person, i.e. the comparison between the ‘life image’ and the image on the document. To make sure such cases are detected, biometric features and data are important, such as fingerprints and face recognition. While most Swedish border crossing points are capable of carrying out such checks, the legal support to check fingerprints in a chip against the cardholder is not fully covered.

Additional analysis of the FRONTEX data on fraudulent ID cards and residence documents is provided in the appendices. We also provide a summary of how the EU has responded to the challenges with regard to identity verification and document authentication at border crossing points in the same appendix.

378 Frontex data

110

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

3.5 Conclusions – problem definition and baseline scenario The analysis of the 2015 Citizenship Consultation, the assessment of the YEA database and our own interview programme indicates that there are a number of problems that citizens, private entities and national authorities face due to the existence of many different types of ID cards and residence documentation.  In regard to ID cards, the problems mainly relate to border control, access to private sector services, and the renewal/issuance of the document.  With regard to residence documents, the problems mainly relate to misperception of citizens, lengthy and unclear procedures, the lack of awareness of local authorities, and problems in accessing public and private sector services.  The scale of the problem has been assessed drawing on Eurostat figures on the number of EU citizens residing in another Member State than their own, in conjunction with data from YEA on entry- and residence-related enquiries.

Affected Description of Problem Stakeholder Problems It has been shown that around 7.2 million citizens could be potentially affected by affecting problems in relation to the diversity of residence and ID documents. There are multiple citizens problems that citizens can face: Terminology:  Residence Cards are labelled differently across the EU which can lead to confusion on the use and legal status of documents.  Also ID cards are labelled differently across the EU which leads to uncertainty about the use of ID cards/residence documents for different purposes. In this way, the citizen could experience inconveniences or financial loss. Problems in relation to ID Cards:  Uncertainty as to which documents entitle citizens to cross borders (e.g. also driving license). Again in this way, the citizen could experience inconvenience or financial loss (i.e. not able to board flight due to lack of valid documentation).  Lengthy border checks as ID cards look differently in some cases. No possibility to use e-gates with ID cards (savings through e-gates would apply to 40-50% of EU travellers or to around 15.7 million citizens per year).In some cases, it is not possible to request replacement ID cards in other Member States.  Non-acceptance of documents by public authorities (e.g. not being able to participate in elections and enrolling at school can be prevented)  Non-acceptance of documents by private service providers (e.g. non-acceptance by airline companies, banks, etc.) It is estimated that EUR 12.4m could be saved if airline companies handled a harmonised ID document when carrying out pre- boarding checks.  Non-employment due to unawareness of employers that EU citizens do not need a work permit as mentioned in interviews. Residence Documents:  Misperception (residence documents are not travel documents and resulting inconvenience and financial loss).

111

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Section documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Problem Definition & Baseline 3 Scenario

 Delays in receiving documents from public authorities and delays in application procedure when requesting documents.  Lack of awareness of authorities/airlines of Visa exemptions for TCN family members. Problems  Public authorities need to provide costly training to officials to deal with the variety affecting of different documents. Public  Since national authorities across the EU have been issuing new documents over the Authorities years, training needs to be provided every time new documents are issued. This is necessary to ensure authorities can detect fraudulent documents, such as counterfeited ones, personalised ones using stolen blanks, or even genuine documents obtained illegally.  Public authorities need to ensure ID and residence documents are not falsified and subsequently used to cross borders or access services. Therefore, checking documents at borders could be time consuming. Border  The diversity of ID cards and residence documents can make it difficult for border control control officials to check citizens’ identities efficiently if they are stopped at control authorities points. It was calculated that border control authorities in Member States could save up to EUR 26.3 m per year if ID cards were harmonised across the EU  Costs of training officials to deal with different ID cards and residence documents are similar to those listed above for public authorities generally. Problems  Overall, service providers interviewed do not perceive the verification of identity as a affecting major issue as all national ID cards are normally accepted as a proof of identity to private access public and private sector services as long as they are considered documents sector valid to cross borders.  However, certain recurrent inconveniences and costs with ID cards exist. The main problems seem to be the costs involved in training staff and the uncertainty about the validity of certain documents. For instance, in the case of banks, around EUR 3.9m could be saved if staff only had to deal with one type of ID card across the EU. This number is only a case study focusing on one industry. Thus, actual savings for the private sector could potentially be much higher.

112

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

4 Policy Objectives & Policy Options In this section we consider the justification for EU intervention, the policy objectives that should be promoted and the various policy options with regard to measures to address the problems examined in the previous section.

4.1 The EU’s Competence to act and justification for EU action Having established the existence of the problems in relation to ID cards and residence documents, there is a need to consider whether the EU has the competence (i.e. a legal basis) to do so and whether the EU should intervene (i.e. could Member States acting alone also resolve the problems?). 4.1.1 Legal basis for EU intervention The EU Treaties provides the necessary powers for any EU action. In particular, Article 21 (1) TFEU sets out the free movement rights of Union citizens. Article 21 (2) TFEU mentions that: “If action by the Union should prove necessary to attain this objective and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt provisions with a view to facilitating the exercise of the rights referred in paragraph 1.” The fact that the EU may act in a non-exclusive area does not mean that it must do so. There are two main questions379 that should be considered in seeking to justify EU action and in establishing whether the EU has the competence to act in relation to the problems identified in Section 3:  Subsidiarity - Can the problem related to ID cards and residence documents be resolved at the Member State level without EU intervention?  Proportionality – Is EU action necessary and does not go beyond what is needed to resolve the problem at hand?

4.1.2 Subsidiarity As pointed out in Section 4.1.1, the fact that the EU has legal competence to address a problem, does not mean that the EU is best placed to do so.380 The extent to which EU action in the area of free movement is consistent with the principles of subsidiarity is a paramount consideration in this context since:  Article 262 TFEU provides that Union acts can be annulled by the CJEU for non-respect of the subsidiarity principle;  Under the Treaty’s Subsidiarity Control Mechanism, national parliaments can issue ‘reasoned opinions’ when they consider that an EU draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. In certain circumstances this can lead to abandoning a legislative proposal.381

379 EU Commission, Better Regulation Guidelines, Chapter III Guidelines on Impact Assessment, paragraph 2.2, May 2015. 380 EU Commission, Better Regulation Guidelines, Chapter III Guidelines on Impact Assessment, paragraph 2.2, May 2015. 381 For example, under the so-called ‘Orange Card procedure’. See Article 7 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, Consolidated Treaties (TEU, TFEU, EU Charter), http://europa.eu/pol/pdf/qc3209190enc_002.pdf#page=207

113

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

There is scope for initiatives by individual Member States to improve free movement in relation to ID cards and residence documents. Several measures have already been taken to improve the situation at the national level. For example, some Member States have established databases allowing both public and private sector entities to check the authenticity of documents. Furthermore, other Member States have introduced online application procedures for EU citizens to register their residence which facilitates the procedure for requesting and issuing documents. There have also been legislative changes in some countries. For example, Italy has introduced a new plastic ID card in addition to its paper-based documents. National measures are, however, subject to the obvious limitation that their direct benefits are largely or exclusively confined to a single Member State (or several Member States in case of data exchange and other forms of cooperation) whereas addressing problems in relation to free movement clearly requires action with an EU-wide dimension. Moreover, national measures may solve problems at home, but unknowingly create new problems for officials in other Member States. For example, this might occur when a Member State extends the duration of validity of its ID cards without informing other Member States of this step (a real situation cited in the previous section), or when the data on a chip is so well protected that other countries’ authorities cannot access it. Diverging rules on effecting name changes can also create problems. These examples demonstrate how the interdependency of Member States in respect of ID cards and residence documents used by mobile citizens creates the need for action to be instigated and coordinated at the EU level. In the current situation, despite the previously mentioned actions of individual Member States, there is evidence of continuing problems including a lack of awareness with respect to ID and residence documentation (e.g. no awareness that residence documents are not travel documents)382, administrative burdens in respect of ID and residence documentation (e.g. a long waiting time after submitting an application and before receiving registration certificates) 383 and real obstacles to free movement (e.g. no acceptance of visa exemption for TCN family members).384 Another problem relates to the security implications of diverging document security standards in relation to ID and residence documentation. As pointed out in the previous section on the problem definition, low standards on the security features of documents may facilitate document fraud and thus the abuse of free movement rights or criminal activity involving identity theft. This in turn can complicate the investigation and detection of crime. Relying on uncoordinated national initiatives is likely to entail a lack of focus on improving the sharing of information and practical cooperation between EU Member States. The research and stakeholder interviews have revealed that border control authorities and private sector entities are often ill-informed about specific residence and ID requirements since national legislation changes while databases and the exchange of information cannot keep pace.385 The relevant national authorities or private sector services lacked information about – or had a directly negative experience of – ID cards and residence requirements elsewhere in the EU. 386 There is a strong argument for action in this area, such as establishing training programmes or pan-national information networks, which would be most effective if undertaken at the EU level.

382 See Section 3.2.2 383 See Section 3.2.2 384 See Section 3.2.2 385 See Section 3.3 386 See Section 3.3

114

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

4.1.3 Proportionality The content and form of Union action must not go beyond what is necessary to meet the objectives of the Treaties.387 Respect for the principle of proportionality is about ensuring that the policy approach and its intensity match the identified problem/objective.388 Proportionality is assessed on a case-by-case basis and always depends on the specifics of the situation that is being addressed. Furthermore, it can only be fully verified once objectives are set and the impacts of alternative options assessed.389 Therefore, no further general assessment can be conducted here. Instead proportionality will be assessed later in regard to the specific policy options (see Section 5).

4.2 Objectives of EU Intervention As argued in the previous section, EU intervention in respect to ID cards and residence documents should be for the purposes of facilitating free movement, simplifying the daily life of citizens and addressing security risks and the abuse of free movement and should be aligned with the Treaty objectives (i.e. Articles 21 (2) TEU). Apart from these general objectives EU intervention in relation to ID and residence cards should focus on more specific objectives that are related to the general objectives outlined above. First of all, its aim should be to raise awareness among citizens, national authorities and the private sector of the citizen’s rights when they exercise free movement rights. As has been shown in Section 3 there is a problem related to the lack of awareness among all stakeholders with regard to the nature and rights linked to ID and residence documents which can lead to inconvenience and financial loss for the citizens concerned. Secondly, the specific objective of EU intervention should also be to lower costs and administrative barriers for citizens and their family members related to the use of ID cards and residence documents, in the exercise of their rights. For example, and as explained in Section 3, citizens and their family members are often not able to access certain services with their ID cards and residence documents due to the national authority’s or private sector’s non-acceptance of those documents which results in costs and barriers for citizens. The third specific objective should be to lower costs both for private entities and for public authorities, including border control authorities. For example, as pointed out in Section 3, private sector entities such as airlines and banks can face an administrative and financial burden in dealing with various different ID and residence documents particularly since their staff need to be trained in handling many different documents and in detecting fraudulent cards. The same holds true in respect to public authorities, particularly border control authorities, since the different security features included in the ID and residence documents require a longer period to check documents, in certain situations causing delays at the border. As outlined in Section 3 there have been situations where the genuine nature of documents could not be established by the authorities. A fourth free movement-related specific objective should be to reduce fraud related to ID cards which, as shown in Section 3 is a considerable problem given the diversity of documents. Internal security and free movement are inherently linked since enhanced internal security in the EU can

387 Article 5 (4) TEU 388 Better Regulation Toolbox, p. 24 389 EU Commission, Better Regulation Guidelines, Chapter III Guidelines on Impact Assessment, p. 19, May 2015

115

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4 contribute to increased acceptance and legitimacy of the principle of free movement in the EU. The abolition of internal border controls in the Schengen Area relies on authorities in the Member States following certain minimum standards with regard to document and border security.390 The policy objectives of any proposed EU measure covering ID cards and residence documentation can be summarised as being to:

General Objectives  Facilitate and promote the exercise of free movement for EU citizens and TCN family members;  Simplify daily life for EU citizens;  Address security risks and abuse of free movement, notably related to identity fraud. Enhanced internal security in the EU can contribute to increased acceptance and legitimacy of the principle of free movement in the EU. The abolition of internal border controls in the Schengen Area relies on authorities in Member States following certain minimum standards with regard to document security. Specific objectives  Improve the awareness of citizen’s rights while exercising EU free movement rights;  Reduce costs and administrative barriers for citizens and their family members related to ID and residence documents, in the exercise of their rights;  Reduce cost for private entities, resulting from the diversity of ID cards;  Reduce cost for public authorities, including from inefficiency of border control;  Increase acceptance by public and private entities of documents issued by other Member States;  Reduce fraud related to ID cards. Enhanced internal security in the EU can contribute to increased acceptance and legitimacy of the principle of free movement in the EU. The abolishment of internal border controls in the Schengen Area relies on authorities in Member States following certain minimum standards with regard to document security.391

The diagram below summarises the intervention logic, i.e. problems identified in Section 3 and the resulting objectives of any action at the EU level, the policy options, the possible benefits to citizens, public authorities and the private sector.

390 This objective is linked to Council draft Recommendation on the need to reduce the number of travel, identity and residence documents and to guarantee its harmonization and centralized production. - Document 6491/2/96, ASIM 58 dated from 06 May 1996 which states that: “Countries should seek to harmonize and limit the number of identification and travel documents in circulation to the minimum possible, so to ease verification of its authenticity, validity and purpose.” 391 This objective is linked to Council draft Recommendation on the need to reduce the number of travel, identity and residence documents and to guarantee its harmonization and centralized production. - Document 6491/2/96, ASIM 58 dated from 06 May 1996 which states that: “Countries should seek to harmonize and limit the number of identification and travel documents in circulation to the minimum possible, so to ease verification of its authenticity, validity and purpose.”

116

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right Section of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

Figure 4.1: Intervention logic

117

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

In relation to the various aspects of the intervention logic: The rationale for intervention lies in problems arising from the current diversity of ID and residence documents (examined in Section 2). The problems arising from this situation (examined in Section 3) include the unnecessary costs that public and private sector organisations incur in checking different types of documents, and other negative consequences, for example delays that can be experienced by citizens at borders. In addition, the current diversity of ID cards and residence documents poses security risks due to identity fraud and the abuse of free movement rights. To summarise the root causes of the problem and possible interventions:  Firstly, there is a diversity of ID cards/residence document in terms of contents and protection mechanisms. This could be addressed through harmonization measures (minimal on contents alone, intermediate on contents and protection, strong on both).  Secondly, there is a lack of understanding of the extent of rights and obligations provided by the Directive. This could be tackled through 'soft measures' including information dissemination, easy redress mechanisms, and training. As argued earlier in this section, a legal basis for EU intervention exists. Section 4.2 set out the policy objectives that might guide such intervention. This includes a number of general objectives (summarised in the above diagram) and also various more specific goals (also summarised in the diagram above). The remainder of Section 4 and then Section 5 elaborate on elements towards the right-hand side of the above diagram - the policy options (Section 4.3), and the expected results and impacts associated with each policy option (Section 5.1 to 5.5). Pursuing the intervention logic further, the benefits lie in various outcomes that might be expected from EU intervention, namely:  Outputs – this could include improved cooperation between national authorities, capacity- building and training and other measures to improve the efficiency of procedures, as well as action by Member States to harmonize key features of ID cards and residence documents.  Results – if some or all of these outputs occur, then the ‘result’ should include more efficient and less time-consuming border control procedures, with reduced costs to national authorities and less inconvenience to citizens, improved security and a reduction in the fraudulent use of ID cards, and similar benefits to the private sector entities (airlines, banks, etc) and citizens who use their services.  Impacts – if the ‘results’ come about, then there should be enhanced free movement for citizens with wider positive impacts of a social and economic nature. At the same time, the security of the citizen should be improved. The extent to which these positive effects occur depends to a large extent on which policy option or combination of policy options is adopted (see Section 5.6). Likewise, there will be different costs and benefit to the different groups of stakeholders, i.e. European citizens, national authorities and parts of the private sector (e.g. airlines and banks), and these costs and benefits will vary across the EU28 Member States. Furthermore, the impact of related EU policies (e.g. EU policies on other documents such as passports and TCN residence cards) as well as external factors (e.g. development of intra-EU mobility and trends in relation to document fraud) will have an impact on the extent to which positive effects will materialise. However, overall, action at the EU level to help bring about a reduction in the diversity of ID cards and residence documents, and to improve joint working between Member States, should have generally positive impacts on free movement.

118

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

4.3 Definition of Policy Options The table below provides an overview of the different policy options for both ID and residence documents. Policy Options 1, 2 and 5 are discussed without differentiating between ID and residence cards since the suggested measures overlap to a very large extent. In those few instances where differences exist this is highlighted in the text. In respect to Policy Options 3 and 4, separate sections are presented for ID cards and residence documents respectively. It should be noted that in relation to Policy Option 2, all sub-options could be adopted autonomously or as a package. In respect to Policy Options 3 and 4 the respective sub-options (a) and (b) could be adopted autonomously or as package. In both cases sub-option (a) and (b) are coupled with the respective sub-option (c). In respect to each policy option, all sub-options represent various degrees of harmonisation and thus the difference between the options is not clear-cut. The sub-options are nevertheless included under the umbrellas of Policy Option 2, 3, 4 and 5 to provide a better overview and broad categories of the various degrees of harmonisation. Table 4.1: Overview of policy options

 Policy option 1 (ID Cards and Residence Documents) – status quo scenario, i.e. continuation of the baseline situation.  Policy option 2 (ID Cards and Residence Documents) – soft law measures to improve the understanding on how the existing system of residence documentation and ID cards works;  Policy option 3 (Residence Documentation) –  Policy option 3 (ID Cards) – limited limited harmonisation of aspects relating to harmonisation in regard to security residence documentation. features in relation to ID cards.  Policy option 4 (Residence Documentation) –  Policy option 4 – (ID cards) - maximum maximum harmonisation involving a much harmonisation involving a much wider wider range of harmonising residence range of harmonisation of ID card features documentation features and procedures. and procedures.  Policy Option 5: EU card with combined ID and residence status features. If all Member States used ID cards as holders of e-identity, electronic residence certifications could simply be uploaded on the ID card. In order to provide a proof of residence the e-residence certification could simply be read directly from the card with the help of an ID card terminal. As a consequence the only documents that mobile EU citizens need to hold would be their ID card. No other documents would need to be issued at all.

4.3.1 Policy Option 1- Maintaining the Status Quo (Residence and ID Cards) The first option with regard to ID cards and residence documentation would be to maintain the status quo. Some key stakeholders we consulted either did not express any preferences (e.g. stakeholders in BE, SE) or favoured the status quo (e.g. authorities in AT, PL)392 as they did not feel that there are serious obstacles to free movement due to the diversity of ID and residence documentation. More specifically the stakeholders were not aware of any their citizens experiencing problems in other Member States. There are likely to be three different scenarios if the status quo is maintained:

392 DG JUST Consultation

119

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

First, the situation remains unchanged where ID cards and residence documents continue to be regulated differently across EU Member States; Second, differences between the Member States increase even further with national authorities undertaking legislative changes at the national level and/or because intra-EU mobility could increasingly lead to more people being affected. While there could be an argument that incremental change is not necessarily negative (see bullet point below) there is a risk that change will not be even across EU Member States but rather asymmetrical; Third, there might be a situation where Member States on their own initiative, gradually phase out problematic documents and introduce improved security features based on international standards. Under this scenario harmonisation might evolve gradually independently of EU action. Given that Member States have not done this so far already and given different traditions in relation to identity documents, this scenario is unlikely. However, one indication that the situation related to ID card security features may improve even in the absence of further EU intervention is that according to our research, 5 out of 14 Member States currently issuing ID cards not in full compliance with the ICAO standard (parts 1-6 and 9-12), plan to upgrade their ID cards’ design in the near future, generally introducing biometric features to them. In this context it should also be pointed out that the Member States have twice declared in the European Council that the residence permit format (with amendments) should be used for TCN family member residence cards. This indicates a willingness among Member States to change the status quo. At the same time, however, the fact that Member States expressed such an intention almost ten years ago and the fact that many Member States continue to issue other kinds of cards shows that such an effort cannot be undertaken at the Member State level alone. Residence Documents There is a high likelihood that steps towards the second scenario would be made by Member States even in absence of EU intervention since some measures are already underway. For example, Germany changed the legal framework on EU residence documentation in 2013 by abolishing residence cards for EU citizens. Also, Spain abolished residence cards for EU citizens in 2011. Furthermore, the context of EU free movement has changed since intra-EU mobility has increased which leads to a higher proportion of citizens being affected. Another consideration is that currently more persons are trying to irregularly enter the EU and want to exercise free movement by means of document fraud or marriage of convenience.393 As already pointed out there are differences in the Member States’ legal frameworks as to whether specific residence documents exist and which form such a document takes. In Section 2.1 it has been shown that currently a minority of Member States issue residence cards for EU citizens while all Member States issue residence cards for family members of EU citizens. With regard to permanent residence cards, all Member States issue cards to both EU citizens and their family members. Especially for mobile EU citizens with non-EU family members, this can create confusion since the requirements within a family might be different. In addition, (as mentioned in Section 2) there is also some confusion regarding the use of residence documentation with citizens assuming that they can be used as travel documents.394 Maintaining the status quo means that EU citizens will remain

393 It was mentioned by a German Free Movement expert that the main problem in Germany is document fraud as well as marriage of convenience. For evidence on document fraud see Frontex Risk Analysis quoted in Section 2. 394 On this point see tender, Section 2.4

120

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4 unaware of the requirements and functionalities with regard to residence documentation in a particular country. The diversity of residence documentation creates problems with regard to document security since paper-based documents and plastic cards with few security features can easily be forged. As shown in Section 2, the format of residence documents differs with some documents being paper-based while others are a plastic card and some (mostly for non-EU family members) include biometric features. Furthermore, it has also been shown that even if plastic cards are issued there are different security features across Member States. Maintaining the status quo could imply that Member States will continue to face problems with fraudulent documentation. The problem could also worsen as currently Europe faces an increased number of TCNs trying to enter the EU and travelling between Member States potentially using forged or stolen ID cards issued to EU citizens. ID Cards As with residence documentation, the second scenario outlined earlier is most likely to occur. For example, Bulgaria recently adopted new legislation on integrating e-identity features linked to ID card while other Member States have contemplated introducing a mobile version of the ID card. Another example is the phasing out of paper ID cards in Italy and incremental replacement with other ID cards. These initiatives of individual Member States do not guarantee any convergence of standards or interoperability of ID and residence card-related technology since this is currently not explicitly required by EU legislation. With regard to the availability of ID cards, the status quo implies that some EU Member States will continue to not issue ID cards. Three out of 28 Member States do not have an ID card at the moment (Denmark, Ireland (although passport card qualifies as ID card) and the UK). Maintaining the status quo means that nationals of those Member States could continue to face problems when they exercise their free movement rights in other EU Member States. 395 There is of course no intention to oblige Member States to issue ID cards. There are currently also differences with regard to the administrative and financial aspects for national authorities and the citizens and these will remain. In some Member States, ID cards are issued free-of-charge to citizens while in other Member States the costs vary from a very small fee (e.g. less than EUR 1 in Greece) to a substantial cost (EUR 60 in Austria). These costs may vary if citizens request the ID card via the consular network in other EU Member States. Furthermore, some nationals cannot request the ID card via the consular network. If the status quo is maintained mobile EU citizens might be faced with high costs when requesting the ID cards in other Member States or might even be required to travel to their country of origin to renew their ID cards. This creates high costs, inconvenience and an additional administrative burden on the citizens concerned. Differences exist as well among Member States with regard to the use of ID cards to access public and private sector services. While some Member States issue ID cards with e-functions that provide the holder with the opportunity to purchase specific products online or access public services such as e-voting, in other Member States ID cards do not have any function besides proving the identity of its holder. If the status quo is maintained, these differences between Member States will remain. This could have negative effects, for example with regard to the Internal Market as in some Member States products can be bought with e-ID features while this is not possible in others. Furthermore, it

395 See for example the situation of the British national mentioned in Section 2 who could not open a bank account without ID card.

121

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4 would also lead to uncertainty among citizens as to whether they can use e-ID features in other Member States.396 As pointed out in Sections 2 and 3, the security features of ID cards currently differ across EU Member States. Maintaining the status quo means that security features will still vary providing an opportunity for forgers to target the documents of those countries where security features are relatively low. This problem is likely to increase in the coming years. For example, the FRONTEX Report ‘Risk Analysis of 2016’ mentions that the “number of persons aiming to get to the UK with fraudulent document significantly increased (+70%) compared to 2014. This trend is mostly attributable to the increasing number of Albanian nationals often misusing Italian and Greek ID cards.”397 In addition to this, the report also states that a large number of migrants from other countries than Albania use fraudulent documents obtained in the Member State of entry to the EU in order to undertake secondary movements within the EU.398 4.3.2 Policy Option 2 - Soft Law Interventions (Residence and ID Cards) Soft law measures could take various different forms. These different aspects could be either adopted individually or as a package. Furthermore, they could apply to both ID cards and residence documentation. Soft law measures with regard to ID cards and residence documents are favoured by many stakeholders that have been consulted (e.g. national authorities in HU, SK, FI and HR and civil rights organisations in BE, ES and SE).399

Possible Soft Law Measures  Sub-option 2 (a) - Awareness raising measures: to increase knowledge among EU citizens about their rights and those of their family members in relation to residence documents and ID cards.  Sub-option 2 (b) - Enhanced cooperation: between the Member States including sharing best practices on: (i) detection of fraudulent documents; (ii) document checking equipment (iii) administrative efficiency in issuing ID cards and residence documents;  Sub-option 2 (c) - EU-wide training: in order to train practitioners such as border control officials and private sector service providers on matters related to ID cards and residence documents.  Sub-option 2 (d) - Single Point of Contact: to help ensure that enquiries from another Member State are routed through to the correct authority, and developing an online register on both ID cards and residence documents allowing authorities and service providers to check the authenticity of documentation in each Member State.

Sub-option 2 (a) - Awareness raising As mentioned in Section 3 many problems related to ID and residence documents arise due to misperceptions and no information.400

396 For an initial analysis of the economic benefits of e-ID features, see: http://www.government2020.de/blog/?p=1420 397 P. 25, Frontex: Risk Analysis for 2016 398 P. 25, Frontex: Risk Analysis for 2016 399 CSES consultation. 400 See section 3.2.2

122

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

Policy Option 2 would include awareness raising measures across the EU to inform citizens better about various obligations and rights in relation to residence documents and ID cards. In regard to residence documents, awareness-raising could focus on: (i) residence requirements; (ii) the procedure for obtaining different forms of residence documents; (iii) rights in regard to residence documentation; and (iv) residence-related duties when arriving in another EU Member State. With regard to ID cards, NGOs in several countries argued that there is need to do more to inform citizens about the rights linked to the ID cards in other EU Member States (i.e. the right to cross borders, the right to open a bank account, etc.). More of an effort could also be made to inform citizens about the usefulness and functioning of e-ID features to access public and private services.401 These measures would be designed to increase the knowledge of EU citizens and their family members and help them to exercise their free movement rights without unnecessary delays due to having the wrong information.402 Furthermore, the measures should help citizens to uphold their rights and increase awareness of their obligations linked to the position of the residence document.403 In more practical terms, awareness-raising could take the form of increasing the capacity of Your Europe Advice or SOLVIT. This could be done by strengthening links between local authorities and Your Europe Advice/SOLVIT, by increasing for the capacity of SOLVIT/Your Europe Advice and/or through information campaigns that are targeted to mobile citizens (e.g. by conducting campaigns with employers, universities, etc, that tend to employ mobile citizens). Sub-option 2 (b) - Enhanced cooperation between national authorities A second soft law measure could be to promote enhanced cooperation between national authorities. Enhanced cooperation could take various different forms. For instance, Member States could engage in best practice sharing with regard to detecting fraudulent documents and practices. To take an example, border officials in Cyprus pointed out that there is a high rate of marriages of convenience and situations where an EU Member State national applies for a registration certificate so that a TCN can get a residence card under EU law and then leave Cyprus. Therefore, it was argued that enhanced information exchanges could help to identify whether all EU nationals and TCN family members have been issued with residence documents under Directive 2004/38 in another EU countries (both prior and after their registration with the Cypriot authorities). This would facilitate the task of investigating the abuse of rights. in another example, the Croatian authorities, amongst other national authorities we spoke to, pointed out that it is important to regularly exchange examples of ID cards and information about the security features of the ID cards, which could be achieved via enhanced cooperation. Enhanced cooperation could also focus on exchanging views about having the necessary equipment in place to check residence documentation and ID cards. In discussions with FRONTEX it was mentioned that while high security standards of documentation are desirable, this is not always effective since many border control authorities do not currently have equipment to check certain security features in documents. Thus, best practice sharing could lead to a minimum threshold of specific types of equipment available to authorities and potentially the private sector which allows

401 In Section 2 it has been shown that currently many citizens do not activate e-ID functions when they have the option because they are either concerned about data protection or they do not consider it useful. 402 For instance, as pointed out in the tender, there are many cases of EU citizens (TCN family members) not knowing that residence cards do not count as valid travel documents. 403 For instance, it was pointed out by one stakeholder that family members of EU citizens are not aware of the consequences of not complying with the requirement of communicating any change in their situation that allowed them to obtain the residence document within a maximum period of one month.

123

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4 the checking of documentation. This could be linked to either an existing or new scheme funded by the Commission to help Member States to procure the equipment and to train officials to use it. In addition, Member States could step up the sharing of information and views on issues they all face relating to the production, issuing and use of ID cards and residence documents.404 Furthermore, experiences with regard to abolishing certain types of documents could be exchanged (e.g. the recent trend to abolish residence cards for EU citizens or the phasing out of old versions of ID cards). Exchanging experiences between Member States on such matters might help them to find solutions to common issues. With regard to the practicalities of enhanced cooperation, the Article 6 Committee could be used. This is composed of representatives of EU Member States and hosted by the Commission. The Article 6 Committee was set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 of 29 May 1995 laying down a uniform format for visas and its mandate was further extended with Council Regulation No 1030/2002 to also discuss features of EU residence permits. A soft law measure could further extend the mandate of the Committee to also discuss matters in relation to residence documentation and ID cards for EU citizens and their TCN family members. Sub-option 2(c) - Capacity-building and training A third form of a potential soft law measure could be capacity-building and training organised through an EU-wide network. This could cover similar aspects as mentioned in the previous paragraphs but would mainly involve practitioners (such as border control officials and private sector service providers) rather than government officials. The aim would be to provide training with regard to the rights and obligations related to residence and ID cards as well as to train them in the checking of documentation, etc. In the case of both ID and residence documents for border control officials, training could be organised via FRONTEX. While this type of training does already exist it could be intensified both in terms of the number of beneficiaries and the content. In addition, some basic training for the employees of private sector entities could be provided, possibly via EU-level associations. For instance, in case of airline companies, Airlines for Europe and IATA could take the lead by issuing guidelines on the legal status of residence documents for third country family members. Some aspects of this type of training provision could potentially be EU funded (e.g. by the EU Border Fund). Training via associations is likely to be regarded positively by the private sector as it would save costs invested in training.

Sub-option 2(d) - Single points of contact and national registers

Our research suggests that there is a need to facilitate the cross-border availability of information on ID cards and residence documents so that checks can be carried out more easily that involve requesting information from national authorities in another EU Member State. Setting up Single Points of Contact in each EU Member State would provide a way of enquiries from another Member State being routed through to the correct authority. The Single Points of Contacts could, for example, be based in Ministries of Interior or Ministries of Justice in each of the Member States. Going beyond this, the role of PRADO could be further developed as a tool for sharing information. The PRADO register is a good example of a tool which provides information on a large amount of national documentation. This helps public and private sector authorities to check the layout and design of documentation and in this way they are better prepared to check the authenticity of documents. In interviews across the Member States, an even greater role of PRADO was regarded as

404 See responses to YEA database.

124

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4 beneficial. This could involve developing the search features, making it more visible and more accessible and by requiring Member States to update it more regularly. This would make it more useful to a wider range of public and private organisations. In particular, banks could speed up the procedure of opening a bank account and reduce the administrative cost.

In addition to PRADO, there is a case for developing systems across all EU Member States which help stakeholders to not only check the design of ID and residence documentation but also to check the authenticity of a specific ID or residence document. While some Member States already have such databases in place (e.g. AT, BE, DE) they vary in respect to the type of documents they cover and they only cover some Member States.405 Summary It can be concluded that there are various useful ways in which soft law measures could lead to more efficiency, more certainty about the correct implementation of EU requirements and more efficient tackling of fraudulent practices. Nevertheless, soft law measures would not tackle the root causes of the problem of different and unclear requirements and the lack of document security in some Member States.

4.3.3 Policy Option 3 - Limited Harmonisation Policy Option 3 would involve legislative action at the EU level to promote the harmonisation of certain features of residence documents and ID Cards (see separate sub-sections in this section). This could build on existing harmonisation initiatives, for example of electronic signatures and certification services under the e-Signature Directive.406 Limited harmonisation, particularly with regard to introducing minimum security features with respect to both ID cards and residence documents, is favoured by many national authorities (such as those in BG, CY, EL, FI, IE, PT, RO, SI, SK).407 However, it has also been argued that harmonisation should not go beyond minimum features since documentation ‘is an expression of the identity of each country’ (e.g. SK) and since it could facilitate falsification of documents as counterfeiters would need to deal with fewer versions of ID cards across Europe (e.g. BG).408 Policy Option 3 - Residence documents In relation to residence documents, Policy Option 3 could involve different sub-options. The aim would be to partially harmonise some of the key aspects in relation to residence documents issued by different EU Member States. Before presenting the different sub-options in relation to Policy Option 3, several aspects need to be highlighted: First, in regard to each option there is the possibility to harmonise requirements either across all EU Member States or only across those countries that issue certain types of documents. In our research we did not find evidence to support the case to require Member States that do not issue certain documents to (re-)introduce them as this would increase administrative burden for both citizens and authorities. Second, harmonisation could take place on an optional or mandatory basis. Again we did not find any evidence to support the case for optional harmonisation as this would not tackle the problems

405 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/check-document-numbers/check-document-numbers.pdf 406 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/trust-services 407 DG JUST Consultation. 408 DG JUST public consultation.

125

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4 arising from the current diversity of residence documents. Third, a potential legislative instrument or several legislative instruments could lay down requirements for only one, some or all of the different residence documents. In our research as well as during interviews, we did not find evidence suggesting the necessity to differentiate between the different types of residence documents when making policy recommendations. Therefore, the policy options presented below refer to all documents equally. However, on some occasions a different treatment is warranted and will be specified (e.g. as shown, a special status can be observed in relation to residence document for TCN family members).

Limited Harmonisation of Residence Documents Limited harmonisation could take three different forms which are not mutually exclusive:  Option 3 (a) - A requirement that the title of the document is in the national and in the English language;  Option 3 (b) - A requirement to allow citizens the opportunity to apply for documents online and be able to collect documents in due time;  Option 3 (c) - The phasing out of all documents not meeting the requirements of the previous two sub-options within a period of up to 10 years.  Option 3 (d) - Introducing a uniform format for residence documents for third country nationals related to EU citizens.

There are two different sub-options with regard to the harmonisation of residence documentation with a legally binding instrument. Sub-option 3 (a) – Common use of English language terminology There is some evidence that citizens and border control authorities are often not aware of the legal status of residence cards (see Section 3 of this report). For example, in Belgium and Estonia, the residence documentation resembles ID cards and is thus occasionally confused with travel documents. This is also reflected in many interviews we undertook where it was pointed out that awareness raising and training are important to tackle some misconceptions in relation to documents (see previous section). In order to increase clarity of the legal status and the functionality of residence cards it was mentioned explicitly by authorities in several Member States (e.g. Austria and Lithuania) that it would be helpful to require Member States to print the title of the document in the original and the English language on the document and when not equivalent also mention the terminology used in Directive 2004/38/EC on the document. The need to include English terminology in public documents was also acknowledged in the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012. While this proposal is not concerned with residence documentation it shows the need for adapting at least the language of public documents in order to facilitate the analysis of the authenticity of documentation by national authorities and to ensure their timely acceptance across the EU. An alternative to the common use of the English language is a system where the information mentioned on the card is numbered. This is, for example, the case in regard to the European driver license. Biographical information is provided in the native language but each data item has a number that allows inspectors anywhere in the EU to identify the nature/meaning of the data.

126

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

Sub-option 3 (b) - Online applications and deadlines for issuing documents The research suggests that there would be considerable benefits for both the Member States and citizens if citizens are able to apply for residence documentation online. As noted in Section 4.1.2, several Member States have introduced online application procedures for EU citizens to register their residence which facilitates the procedure for requesting and issuing documents. In this way citizens can more swiftly apply for documents and the authorities can more speedily issue the documents, saving time and costs for all concerned and reducing the sort of ‘hassle’ factors referred to in the problem definition. Stipulating that Member States should over time adopt online application procedures could be linked to an EU-wide requirement relating to the timeframe in which documents should be issued. Directive 2004/38/EC already lays down that a permanent residence card for non-EU family members shall be issued “within six months of the submission of the application.”409 Sub-option 3 (c) – Phasing out documents not meeting these requirements A requirement could be introduced to phase out all documents which are currently in circulation and which do not meet the requirements suggested under previous sub-options. This is necessary since documents in a number of Member States do not have an expiration date or they are valid for a long time period. This could lead to the problem that even if new legal requirements exist, older versions would still be in circulation and would obstruct the objective of harmonisation. In order to make the transition to new documents easier both for public authorities and for citizens requesting documents a certain time period should be granted to authorities within a period of, for example, 10 years. As shown in Section 2, most residence documents are valid for either 5 or 10 years or indefinitely. Thus, a 10-year transition period would facilitate the process for those Member States where documents are not valid indefinitely. All limited harmonisation aspects could be either optional or mandatory. However, it was mentioned several times during the interviews that optional harmonisation might not lead to any significant improvement. This is because it poses the risk that Member States might not feel incentivised to adopt the changes. Thus, if only a small number of Member States decided to adopt limited harmonisation measures, there would be no substantial improvement to the status quo. In regard to all options there is also the possibility to apply these requirements to those that issue the respective card. Given that limited harmonisation would only lead to some minor simplification it would not make sense to apply it to those countries that do not issue a certain type of document. Sub-option 3 (d) – Harmonisation of residence documents for third country national family members of EU citizens There is an argument that only residence documents for TCN family members of EU citizens should be harmonised. Several Member States already treat this group of persons differently to EU residents by requiring higher security standards for TCN family members. For example, in France fingerprints are included in residence cards for non-EU family members but not in residence cards for EU citizens. The reason for this seems to be related to the fact that TCN family members need to show the document in addition to their passports when crossing the border while this is not necessary for EU nationals. The national authorities in several Member States (e.g. Luxembourg, France and Greece) suggested that in accordance with Regulation 348/2008, the family members of EU citizens should hold residence cards in the same uniform format as other TCNs. This would have benefits by

410 Note that the average validity period of ID cards across EU Member States is 10 years.

127

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4 harmonising the security features of the cards, as well as ensuring practical benefits for family members, state agencies and private sector service providers (banks, estate agents, insurance companies etc.) as a result of a uniform card which was easily recognised in all EU Member States. Recognition of a harmonised card would also reduce the number of queries made by the national authorities concerning the TCN family member’s Schengen visa exemption, and for the family member, benefits could be seen in reduced waiting times. Policy Option 3 - ID cards

Overview – Limited harmonisation (ID cards)  Policy option 3 (a) - Ensure that the title of the ID card is in English and as well as the national language.  Policy option 3 (b) - Adopt an EU-wide format with some common features such as information mentioned on card and common minimum security features compliant with the full ICAO standard (parts 1-6 and 9-12), including a facial image and contactless RFID chip.  Policy option 3 (c) - The phasing out of all documents not meeting requirements of sub- options mentioned in the previous two bullet points within 10 years.

Sub-option 3 (a) – Common use of English language terminology This sub-option would require the ID card title to be in English as well as the national language (similarly to the limited harmonisation sub-option suggested in respect to residence documents). As noted earlier, an alternative to the common use of the English language is a system where the information mentioned on the card is numbered. This is for example the case in regard to the EU driver license. Biographical information is provided in the native language but each data item as a number that allows inspectors anywhere in the EU to identify the nature/meaning of the data. Moreover, the ID card should actually be named as such (rather than ID document or other terms currently used in some Member States). In this way national authorities (particularly the border control officials) would more easily be able detect whether a document is an ID card and thus whether it enables the holder to travel across borders. This would have a positive impact on border control officials and on citizens themselves, as it would reduce delays in crossing internal EU borders. Sub-option 3 (b) – EU-wide format with some common features A further measure could require Member States to adopt an EU-wide format with some common features such as information mentioned on the card and minimum security features (such as compliance with the full ICAO standard (parts 1-6 and 9-12). Under this option, adopting some common features would not stop Member States from still being able to adapt the design of other features of the ID card to national requirements. The fact that many aspects of the design could be specific to individual Member States could increase their willingness to adopt the measure. As with residence documentation some aspects included in Regulation 2252/2004 could serve as a basis for Policy Option 3 (b). Common information on the card could include: the title of the document; the document number; name (surname and forename(s)); the valid until date or a word to indicate unlimited validity; the place of issue and date of beginning of validity; type of document (the specific type of residence document issued); date/signature/authorisation; the printed area could contain the national emblem of the Member State to distinguish the ID card and provide a safeguard of its national origin; the machine-readable area would conform to ICAO guidelines; inclusion of photograph; additional information boxes would be provided (date and place of birth;

128

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4 nationality; gender); address of the holder. Furthermore, in regard to security features, it could be required that documents follow the full ICAO standard 9303 (parts 1-6 and 9-12). This would in practice mean that all ID cards would have to include a contactless RFID chip to be able to read the data prescribed by the standard. An instrument laying down the limited harmonisation of ID cards could have positive effects, (to the extent that paper-based ID cards are replaced in Member States still issuing them) on free movement, facilitating access to services, reducing the administrative burden for citizens (e.g. by making it possible to use e-gates at airports with an ID card) and authorities (by enabling them to maintain current divergent e-ID functionality) and strengthening document security across the EU. Sub-option 3 (c) – Phasing out documents not meeting these requirements A requirement could be introduced to phase out all documents which are currently in circulation and which do not meet the requirements suggested under previous sub-options by a fixed deadline. This is advisable since documents in a number of Member States do not have an expiration date or they are valid for a long time period. This could lead to the problem that even if new legal requirements exist, older versions of some national ID cards would still be in circulation and would undermine the objective of introducing minimum common features of this Policy Option 3(b). The deadline should allow sufficient time for the authorities and citizens to cope with the transition to new documents. Sub-option 3 (c) would require that all previous versions of ID cards are phased out within 10 years after entry into force of the EU measure. There are valid arguments to shorten this time period to five years (especially in regard to paper-based documents) in order to achieve the desired effects more quickly. However, in order to make the phasing out less burdensome for Member States, 10 years seems appropriate since many if not most Member States tend to renew their ID card design within such a timeframe anyway, meaning the EU measure would not force them to introduce another round of revisions to their ID cards that they would not have in any case foreseen.410

4.3.4 Policy Option 4 - Maximum Harmonisation Policy Option 4 would represent the most ambitious approach with measures to harmonise all key features of ID cards and residence documents. Policy Option 4 - Residence cards In regard to maximum harmonisation there are three sub-options:

Policy Option 4 - Maximum harmonisation – Residence Cards  Policy Option 4 (a) - Requiring Member States to adopt a common EU-wide format for all residence documentation by harmonising them in the same manner as stipulated by Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 380/2008 of 18 April 2008;  Policy Option 4 (b) - The phasing out of all documents not meeting requirements of the sub- options mentioned in the previous bullet points within 10 years.

410 Note that the average validity period of ID cards across EU Member States is 10 years.

129

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

Sub-option 4 (a) - Common EU-wide format for all residence documentation Sub-option 4 (a) would involve establishing a common format at the EU level for all types of residence documentation in accordance to Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 380/2008. While there could be problems with regard to the political feasibility of maximum harmonisation, this option would nevertheless have several advantages. First, through standard documentation in all EU countries and a standardisation of all residence documents, there would be more transparency and mobile EU citizens would be better informed about residence requirements. It would also facilitate the work of national authorities since the streamlining of all documentation would imply that authorities would be more familiar with all documents regardless of where they are issued. Therefore, more certainty would exist when carrying out authenticity checks and the checks might take less time. Second, and as argued during one of the focus groups, several Member States already have the same documents for different types of residence status and if extended to other there would be greater economies of scale. If only one type of document needs to be printed and only adapted to the specific residence status, the authorities would only need one type of machinery, one procedure and one type of material to issue different documents. In practice, the uniform format for residence documentation should contain all the necessary information and meet very high technical standards, in particular as regards safeguards against counterfeiting and falsification. The format should also be suited to use by all the Member States and bear universally recognisable harmonised security features, which are visible to the naked eye.411 Some suggestions on the information and security features are set out in the box below but a more detailed overview can be found in Annex of Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 380/2008. Some of the security features are secret to prevent forgers benefiting from the information which made it impossible to consider these features in this study.

Selection of elements to be harmonised in a Common Residence Format  Common Information and Biographical Data - the title of the document; the document number; name (surname and forename(s)); ‘valid until’ or word to indicate unlimited validity; place of issue and date of beginning of validity; type of document (the specific type of residence document issued); date/signature/authorisation; the printed area would contain the national emblem of the Member State to distinguish the residence document and provide a safeguard of its national origin; machine-readable area would conform to ICAO guidelines; inclusion of photograph; additional information boxes would be provided (date and place of birth; nationality; gender); address of the holder  Colour/Printing Process – colours to be found in the Annex of Council Regulation (EC) No 380/2008 and printing process in secret annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002.  Material – the material used should follow the minimum requirements: no optical brighteners; duo-tone watermarks; security reagents to guard against attempts at tampering by chemical erasure; coloured fibres (partly visible, partly fluorescent under UV light); and UV-fluorescent planchettes.  Printing techniques/ Issuing technique/Protection against copying – all information to be found in Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 as amended by Council Regulation

411 Recital 5 of Regulation 1030/2002.

130

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

(EC) No 380/2008 .  Biometric data – two fingerprints and a biometric facial image should be included on the document.

It also needs to be borne in mind that the secret security standards suggested by Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 might need updating in line with technological developments. The Commission already made a proposal along those lines.412 Nevertheless, due to the secret and technical nature of the security features it is beyond the scope of this study to review whether the standards spelt out are still state of the art. Sub-option 4 (b) – Phasing out documents not meeting these requirements A requirement should be introduced to phase out all documents which are currently in circulation and which do not meet the requirements suggested under previous sub-options. This is necessary since documents in a number of Member States do not have an expiration date or they are valid for a long time period. This could lead to the problem that even if new legal requirements exist, older versions would still be in circulation and would obstruct the objective of harmonisation. In order to make the transition to new documents easier both for public authorities and for citizens requesting documents, a certain time period should be granted to the authorities. The time limit should ideally be longer than under limited harmonisation since more substantial changes would need to be made to the layout and features of the documents. A transitionary period of 10 years could be appropriate (i.e. documents will be phased out within 10 years). Option of mandatory or optional application In regard to all three sub-options, there could be the option of mandatory or optional application. With optional application, there is a risk that Member States might not feel incentivised to adopt any given measure. Furthermore, if the measure is only adopted by a small number of Member States there would be no substantial improvement compared with the status quo. Furthermore, there is also the possibility to require harmonisation only by countries issuing a certain document or harmonisation by all countries by requiring them to introduce residence documentation. Our research suggests that diversity exists only in regard to residence cards for EU citizens (18 Member States do not issue these cards). It should be noted that requiring these Member States to introduce or reintroduce this requirement would lead to a significant burden and is thus not recommended. For instance, the German authorities pointed out that residence cards for EU citizens have been abolished in 2013 to reduce the administrative burden on citizens and administrative authorities. Policy Option 4 – ID Cards

Summary – Maximum Harmonisation  Policy Option 4 (a) - Adopt an EU-wide ID card format with all common features (i.e. similar to requirements of Regulation 1030/2002) and include a RFID-chip in all Member States;  Policy Option 4 (b) - Adoption of an EU ID document;  Policy Option 4 (c) - Enhanced administrative cooperation;  Policy Option 4 (d) - The phasing out of all documents not meeting requirements within 10

412 COM (2016)434 final

131

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

years. With regard to maximum harmonisation, three sub-options might be considered:

Sub-option 4 (a) – An EU-wide ID card format with fully harmonised features The first sub-option would involve the use of a document format containing a harmonised format, design and key security features for all Member States that issue ID cards including the requirement for all ID cards to incorporate a chip to enable e-ID. The common harmonised features could focus on similar aspects as those harmonised by Regulation 1030/2002 or as harmonised in respect to passports. For a detailed overview of the features it harmonises, see “Selection of Elements to be harmonised in a Common Residence Format” under sub-option 4(a) for residence cards. By adopting the elements listed there, this option would go beyond Policy Option 3(b) by also including fingerprints on same materials and physical features, rather than focusing on common minimum security features. Sub-option 4 (b) – Adoption of an EU ID document A legislative instrument could provide Member States – and perhaps individual citizens – with the option to adopt an EU identity card in addition to their national ID cards. This option has been assessed in a May 2016 European Parliament study: “The Legal and Political Context for setting up a European Identity Document.”413 The study assesses the added value of introducing a European identity card in order to facilitate political participation at the EU level. The report argues that an EU ID card would enhance democratic participation rights at the EU level and facilitate free movement. Moreover, the report puts forward recommendations as regards the legal and technical components required for the setting up of an interoperable European ID card. However, the report also analyses the legal and political feasibility of and challenges for setting up an interoperable European identity card given the current legislative and political context. More specifically, the report summarises stakeholder feedback which suggests that introducing a European ID card could be counter-productive since it could be perceived as overly complex, extremely costly and bureaucratic to introduce such a card. There could also be political sensitivities that complicate such a course of action. Sub-option 4 (c) – Requiring Member States to issue ID Cards through their consular networks A potentially effective solution is to require Member States to issue ID cards through their consular network. As mentioned in Section 2 of this report, not all Member States offer their citizens the opportunity to request cards outside their country. Requiring all Member States to issue ID cards via their consular network could be linked to a requirement to not charge citizens more than the costs in the home country and the shipping costs. In this way, citizens living in other Member States would not need to travel back to their home country to renew ID cards which can impose a high financial burden on them. Under Policy Option 4 (c) it was initially contemplated that another option could be to further promote administrative joint co-operation with regard to ID cards between Member States. This could mean that a uniform ID card could be renewed or issued by the host Member State in liaison with the Member State of a person’s nationality. Furthermore, it might be possible to regulate the processing of data between administrations in the Member States as well as the system to be used to exchange data (e.g. the Internal Market Information System (IMI).

413 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/556957/IPOL_STU(2016)556957_EN.pdf

132

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4

Enhanced administrative cooperation could have several advantages for citizens, national administrations, border control authorities, and private sector service providers. This includes the strengthening of document security and thus a decrease in identity fraud, facilitating identity control for private sector service providers, and facilitating free movement for EU citizens. Nevertheless, enhanced administrative cooperation was not supported by any of the interviewees in our stakeholder consultation. None of the interviewees from academia, NGOs, national authorities or border control administrations agreed with this idea. As such, it would potentially be very difficult to implement in practice. Therefore, this option was ultimately discarded and instead the issuance of documents via consular networks was considered to be more appropriate. Sub-option 4 (d) – Phasing out documents not meeting these requirements A requirement would be introduced to phase out all documents which are currently in circulation and which do not meet the requirements suggested under previous sub-options. This is necessary since documents in a number of Member States do not have an expiration date or they are valid for a long time period. This could lead to the problem that even if new legal requirements exist, older versions would still be in circulation and would obstruct the objective of harmonisation. In order to make the transition to new documents easier both for public authorities and for citizens requesting documents a certain time period should be granted to authorities. The time limit should ideally be longer than under limited harmonisation since more substantial changes would need to be made to the layout and features of the documents. A transitionary period of between 5-10 years seems appropriate (i.e. documents should be phased out within 10 years). Common aspects relating to Policy Options 3 and 4 - mandatory or optional application of measures In regard to all options, there could be the option of either mandatory or optional application of the measure. In the case of optional application, Member States might not feel incentivised to adopt the common layout. Particularly in relation to ID cards, the willingness of Member States to adopt an optional measure will not only be driven by costs but also by sovereignty concerns. In addition, Member States that have recently changed their ID card layout might not want to change the format again in the near future. Furthermore, if the measure is only adopted by a small number of Member States there would be no substantial improvement to the status quo. With regard to all the policy options there is also the possibility to require only harmonisation of Member States issuing ID cards or, conversely, to inly require those countries who do not issue these documents to do so. The latter option seems to be politically not feasible in Ireland, Denmark and the UK. Overall, the research suggests that there are very mixed views on the scope for action at the EU level to promote the maximum harmonisation of ID cards. For instance, some of the national authorities (primarily Ministries of Interior) consulted for this study (in Austria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Malta and Poland) explicitly stated they did not see the necessity of a legislative measure on ID cards. In contrast, national authorities in some other countries (e.g. Cyprus and Estonia) advocated EU measures to lay down minimum requirements with regard to key security features and the inclusion of biometrics to help prevent fraud. Border control authorities interviewed in various Member States tended to favour harmonisation of security features. Amongst the private sector and the NGO stakeholders opinions were very mixed with around half of those we consulted indicated that no legislative action is necessary or that they are not really concerned by the issue, while the others argued that harmonisation could be

133

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4 beneficial. Another aspect worth mentioning is while in most cases interviewees or participants in focus group meetings had a view on whether harmonisation was necessary or not, almost no interviewee had a particular view on the form such a legislative measure could take. As noted in Section 2, the Council’s 2010 conclusions and the Commission’s 2016 Action Plan on document security are relevant and need to be taken into account in any consideration of Policy Option 4.

4.3.5 Policy Option 5 – An EU card with combined ID and residence status features Another option emerged during one of the focus group meetings for this study. If all Member States were to use ID cards as holders of e-identity, electronic residence certifications could simply be uploaded to the ID card. In order to provide a proof of residence, the e-residence certification could simply be read directly from the card with the help of an ID card terminal. Policy Option 5 would mean that the only documents that mobile EU citizens would need to hold would be their ID card. No other documents would need to be issued. In Belgium, the address of the cardholder is already only included on the ID card’s chip and not printed on the actual card itself. This allows cardholders to change their address of residence without having to obtain a new/revised card. If the same method were applied at EU level, an address change from one Member State to another would be greatly facilitated and administrative burden reduced to the same level as in case of an address change within one Member State. This possibility would only be realistic in the long-term if Member States are willing to embrace full digitalisation of administrative procedures, and the necessary investment in hardware and software changes. As things stand, there would be problems with the interoperability of national databases and technical issues relating to data security (although these would only occur to the extent that databases would actually be linked where different degrees of integration could be envisaged, including transition periods). Further problems could exist for the private sector as each single service provider that needs proof of residence would also need to have an ID card reader at their disposal. Nevertheless, this option would potentially in the long term simplify the work of national administrations and citizens alike. In terms of document security, a completely harmonised common document could also mean that the impact once counterfeiters manage to create false versions of this document would be much greater than when only one country’s document is falsified. Moreover, this option raises the question of where the data contained on the ID cards would be saved. Storing data in a central database at the EU level would be problematic as currently many Member States do not even have a central registry for all their own citizens. One example of what could be possible is the cooperation in criminal law where criminal records are transferred between Member States in certain circumstances already. Given these considerations, this policy option can be regarded as ‘aspirational’ and hence its impact will not be assessed in Section 5. An alternative longer-term solution to problems associated with intra-EU travel would be to introduce – in addition to existing ID documents – a ‘mobile passport’ as already exists in the US.414 This is essentially an application used on a mobile phone and attached to a traveller’s profile which allows this person to pass through US border control points in a range of airports. Once completing the appropriate forms, the traveller receives an encrypted barcode which they then can present as a

414 http://www.mobilepassport.us/

134

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Policy Objectives & Policy Options 4 receipt to border control officials who then scan the barcode. Such a system could speed up border control processes.415 A further alternative to the use of physical ID documents would be for authorities to record the identity of a citizen in a central database and then deliver a QR code (a non-falsifiable identifier) to that citizen. The citizen could then use this QR code to prove their identity vis-à-vis authorities who would read the code to access the original database which would show the recorded identity information. This could be complemented by an option whereby the citizen needs to enter a code to allow third parties to access the data. This could make fraud much more difficult and physical security features unnecessary. However, such a solution would be difficult if not impossible to implement for a number of reasons:  A network connection would be required wherever citizens need to prove their identity;  There are concerns that QR codes in themselves do not increase security. However, if the information in the database would include an iris scan, it might be safer (iris scanners are already used e.g. in the Netherlands416);  Many Member States don’t have central registration systems for their citizens in place, often for data protection reasons (e.g. in Germany). In France, the creation of a central system is currently being debated but not yet implemented;  The ICAO issued a statement that QR codes should not replace visible digital seals for non- electronic documents. For the reasons outlined above, it does not seem appropriate to further investigate this option.

415 Discussions on a similar app already exist on EU level. The intended app is passport based and not ID card based. 416 https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2011/05/25/diplomats-can-now-use-iris-scanner-at-schiphol

135

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

5 Impact Assessment

This section sets out the impact assessment. We assess the various Policy Options set out in Section 4 in terms of their coherence, efficiency, effectiveness in achieving the policy objectives set out in Section 4, expected impacts and other factors such as subsidiarity, proportionality and practicality. Based on this assessment we then identify the preferred policy option. The approach to the impact assessment follows the methodology outlined in the Better Regulation guidelines (COM (2015) 215 final, 19.5.2015).

Structure of the Impact Assessment

 Section 5.1: Framework – sets out the criteria that are used to assess the various policy options;  Section 5.2: Assessment of policy options – assessment of the policy options, their costs and benefits and likely impacts on key stakeholder and other factors:

. Policy Option 1: Baseline or status quo scenario; . Policy Option 2: Soft law measures; . Policy Option 3: EU intervention to promote limited harmonisation; . Policy Option 4: EU intervention to promote maximum harmonisation; . Policy Option 5: EU card with combined ID and residence status features.

 Section 5.3: Preferred option – ranking of policy options leading to identification of the preferred policy option.

5.1 Framework for the assessment of policy options Under the heading of Question 5 ‘What are the impacts of the different policy options and who will be affected?’ the Better Regulation guidelines define the purpose of this stage in an Impact Assessment as being to: “Support policy decisions that deliver the best balance between benefits and costs, the IA analysis must assess all the relevant advantages and disadvantages of the retained policy alternatives ("the options") against the reference of the baseline.” The guidelines go on to state that for all retained options, the impact assessment should specify how they would tackle the identified problems and meet the policy objectives. To do this, there is a need first to identify the changes that a proposal would imply for key stakeholders, notably those who would have to comply with any new legislative requirement, those who would have to implement and enforce it and those who are expected to be the final beneficiaries.

5.1.1 Key Stakeholders In this study, the key stakeholders are identified as being EU citizens, national authorities and the private sector (a more detailed description of each of these stakeholder groups has been provided in Section 1). In relation to each key stakeholder group, the key issues that have been assessed in considering the various Policy Options are summarised below:

136

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

Key Stakeholders

 EU citizens and non-EU national family members - will the policy option make it easier or harder to exercise the right to free movement?  Public authorities – will the administrative burden on national authorities (national, regional, local) increase or decrease (in short and long-term)? What are the financial impacts on national authorities? Besides the authorities in charge of issuing/administering the documents (i.e. municipalities), the impact on other national authorities (e.g. border control authorities) also needs to be taken into consideration.  Private sector entities – most private entities (e.g. banks, air carriers, insurance companies etc.) need proof of identification to provide certain services (e.g. opening a bank account, boarding an aircraft). What will be the effect of different policy options on the private sector entities?

The Commission’s IA guidelines pose a number of questions regarding the actions stakeholder would have to take to implement any policy options. This includes: the actions and measures affected parties need to take to comply or to enforce compliance with any EU measures; whether or not these actions would realistically be taken (balance between compliance costs and costs for public authorities involved in ensuring compliance); and if so, whether this would allow the stated policy objectives to be reached. We address these and other issues in relation to each of the policy options. These aspects are considered as part of the assessment of the individual policy options in Sections 5.2 to 5.6.

5.1.2 Criteria for assessing policy options The criteria used to assess the policy options are outlined below. The Better Regulation guidelines indicate that these should be used to help identify the preferred policy option but we have used the same criteria first to assess each policy option individually. Later in this section we score each policy option in regard to each of the criteria. 417

Criteria for assessing policy options

 Coherence - the coherence of each policy option with the overarching objectives of EU policies and with the EU objectives in the field of border control and free movement (as defined in Section 3)  Effectiveness – the extent to which different policy options would achieve the general and specific objectives (see section 4.2), namely to strengthen free movement rights and increasing border and document security as a means to enhancing the legitimacy of free movement rights. This is mainly linked to facilitating the procedures of acquiring documents/residence status when EU citizens and their non-EU national family members are residing in a host Member State.

417 The scoring ranges from -2 = very negative impact; - 1 = negative impact; 0 = neutral Impact; +1 = positive impact; +2 = very positive impact. The scoring provided on each policy option has to be treated with caution as it is based only to a limited extent on quantitative information but mostly on qualitative evidence collected during the study.

137

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

 Efficiency – the extent to which the different policy options represent the most cost-effective way of achieving the objectives. The costs - i.e. the human and financial resources required to implement the various measures – need to be weighed up against the benefits to different stakeholders and other direct and indirect impacts. To estimate benefits, it is also relevant to consider how many EU citizens and third-country family members are concerned.  Proportionality – the extent to which the policy option is limited to the action that is necessary to achieve the policy objectives. Likewise, whether the proposed policy option is proportionate in terms of the administrative, financial and other resources required to implement it, i.e. are the resource inputs reasonable given the likely benefits?  Impacts – i.e. the impact of the different policy options on key stakeholder groups (see following section) and, more generally, the impact of the respective policy options on extending and facilitating acceptance of the ID card and residence documents by public and private entities.

Some of the above-listed impacts relate to unintended consequences (e.g. environmental and some social and economic impacts). Since these are not related to the intervention’s objectives, they are not assessed for each of the policy options but only for the preferred option in Section 5.6. An over- riding consideration is practicality, i.e. the extent to which a policy option is likely to be accepted and implemented by authorities at a national level.

5.1.3 Types of impacts A typology of impacts is set out below (this is taken from the Better Regulation Guidelines).418 A wide range of possible economic, social and environmental impacts should be assessed:

Typology of Impacts

 Impacts of a broad nature: economic, social and environmental.  Impacts of a specific nature, including increases (or decreases) in compliance costs, i.e. those costs incurred by the relevant parties (businesses, citizens etc.) to comply with any new legislative requirement, their sub-components (administrative burdens, labour costs; equipment costs, etc.) and the administrative and enforcement costs incurred by the responsible authorities; gains (or reductions) in market efficiency, competitiveness, innovation; and the impacts on fundamental rights, employment and skills, social inclusion, etc.;  Relationship with the underlying initiative: direct impacts generated by a policy measure and indirect (or second-round) impacts that arise as a result of the behavioural changes prompted by the direct impacts and often affect third parties.  Effect on key stakeholders - affected parties, groups or regions, businesses, citizens, workers, public administrations, third country actors, etc. Frequency and certainty - long/short term, one-off, recurrent, certain or likely (risks).

418 Chapter 3, p.26.

138

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

According to the Better Regulation guidelines, all relevant impacts should be assessed quantitatively, if possible, as well as qualitatively. Similarly, impacts should be monetized whenever possible. There is, however, a recognition that when quantitative analysis is not possible or proportionate, impacts should instead be assessed qualitatively. In the assessment of the various policy options below, we start by summarising the key measures that were set out in more detail in Section 4, and then examine the costs and benefits. This is followed by an assessment of the effects of each policy option on key stakeholders (as defined above in Section 5.1.1) and an assessment in relation to the key criteria of coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and proportionality (Section 5.1.2). The assessment of each policy option is then summarised in tabular format using a scoring system (this is used later to compare the policy options and to help identify the preferred option).

5.2 Policy Option 1 - Status Quo Section 3 provided an overview of the status quo situation. We estimate that up to 19.6 million citizens could be affected by problems related to residence in another Member State over a period of three years. Furthermore, due to a high number of citizens travelling in the EU (214 million), many citizens may potentially be affected by problems in relation to ID cards when travelling from one Member State to another, or when they reside outside their home country. Section 3 also highlighted the types of problems that public and private sector actors could also experience.419 In Section 4, it was suggested that the situation would either remain unchanged or more severe effects and/or divergences might develop. This could happen because of factors such as: increased cross-country mobility; differences between the Member States increasing even further as a result of Member States undertaking legislative changes at the national level; and an increase of document fraud might make the need for more security features in cards more pressing. In the baseline scenario, no additional costs (compared with the present situation) would be incurred by the authorities either at the EU or national level. However, the existing costs and problems identified in Section 3 associated with coping with a variety of changing documents, fraud, and ineffective border control will remain. At the same time, no additional benefits to the three stakeholder groups would occur either. Indeed, there would continue to be costs associated with inconvenience to citizens, and an administrative burden on public authorities and the private sector arising from having to deal with the situation described in Section 3 (Problem Definition). Furthermore, since more and more citizens could be affected by the problems identified in Section 3, it can be assumed that in the baseline scenario there would be an increase in costs. Bearing this in mind, Policy Option 1 can be assumed to be cost neutral from an efficiency point of view and even if costs would occur (i.e. diversity increases) these costs are not related to any policy initiative as such. Turning to proportionality, whilst this scenario does not impose any additional costs on authorities, it cannot be considered proportionate as it does not contribute to achieving any policy objectives either.

5.2.1 Impact on key stakeholders Under Policy Option 1, citizens would continue to face administrative complications when residing in another Member State other than their own, or when trying to access services in another

419 See table in conclusion of Section 3 for an overview of the different problems in relation to ID and residence cards.

139

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

Member State, be it as residents or as visitors. The costs could be expected to rise gradually as the overall number of EU citizens residing in a Member State other than their own is expected to increase if upward trends in mobility over the past 5 years continue.420 These costs are considerable, as shown in Section 3.2.421 Public authorities would not, as noted above, incur any additional costs under Policy Option 1 but they would continue to have to deal with a large variety of ID and residence documents presented to them by citizens (which requires continuous training as an on-going cost). The number of fraud detections fluctuates instead of showing a clear upward trend. 422 However, it can still be expected that pressure on border control officials will be higher in the foreseeable future due to the upward trend in the number of journeys, increased security concerns, increased requirements for document controls and the general pressure on maintaining efficiency while keeping costs down. Hence, there is likely to be a negative impact arising from the baseline scenario on public authorities. Nonetheless, several national authorities we spoke to argued that ID card should not be the subject of EU intervention as it is a sensitive issue that is related to national identity. This was argued despite the fact that symbols (such as national flags) could still distinguish the documents of one Member State from another. Private sector entities such as banks or airlines would also continue to have to deal with a large variety of ID and residence documents. This would continue to impose a burden – and continuing unnecessary costs - on them for the reasons explained in Section 3.

5.2.2 Assessment of key issues If Policy Option 1 is adopted, the objectives put forward in Section 4 of strengthening the right to free movement and enhancing document and border security would not be effectively addressed by existing measures alone. The status quo scenario therefore scores badly in terms of effectiveness. Under the baseline scenario, the estimated 7.2 million (36% of the 19.9m total) EU citizens residing in another Member State than their own and facing difficulties related to ID and residence documents will continue to face the type of administrative complications identified in Section 3.2. This number can be expected to increase, as mentioned in Section 3.1. Extrapolating trends from 2012 to 2016, the 15.3 million residents in another Member State in 2016 could increase to 19.3 million by 2021. Moreover, the composition of the ‘stock’ of residents in another Member States changes over time: as additional citizens move to another Member State, others may decide to return to their Member State of origin, or may be naturalised in their host Member State. As a consequence, within an overall total of 7.2 million citizens, there will be some who face challenges

420 See statistics for 2015: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Share_of_non- nationals_in_the_resident_population,_1_January_2015_(%25)_YB16.png and statistics for 2011: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/File:Share_of_foreigners_in_the_resident_population_EU-27_2012.png. In 2012, 13.6 million EU citizens were residing in another EU Member State while in 2015 there were 15.3 million persons living in one of the EU Member States on 1 January 2015 with the citizenship of another EU Member State. 421 E.g. we estimate that 7.2 million people will be affected, no quantification of hassle costs faced by citizens is possible. 422 It should be noted though that detected fraudulent documents cannot be equalised with the actual number of fraudulent documents since obviously not every fraudulent document will be detected. The figures can therefore only be used as proxy indicator.

140

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 related to residing in another Member State for the first time each year. To illustrate the potential magnitude of problems, it is useful to recapitulate the range of administrative hurdles citizens may face, from using an inappropriate travel document (such as a driving licence), renewing an ID card in another Member State, accessing public services such as social security institutions, to enrolling in schools. These problems cannot be quantified in monetary terms. It is also worth recapitulating what has been outlined in Section 3.2 regarding ‘Your Europe Advice’ enquiries relating to entry and residence formalities. These enquiries have increased over time, suggesting that the number of citizens negatively affected, and thus the cost of the dynamic baseline scenario, may in fact also increase over time. Moreover, residents are not the only citizens potentially facing negative consequence under the baseline scenario. As has been shown in Section 3, tourists and other citizens temporarily crossing intra-EU borders may also face barriers to free movement, for example when trying to rent a car or to access other private sector services requiring identification, or when subject to an identity check by airlines (even on intra-Schengen flights) because airline officials are not familiar with the different types of travel documents (including those used by TCNs). FRONTEX data shows that in 2013 (the latest year for which data was available for this research) there were 548,556,638 arrivals on intra- EU/Schengen flights. While this figure may include many non-EU nationals and many individuals who travelled more than once on intra-EU/Schengen flights, it nevertheless provides an indication of the potential number of citizens who at least once per year travel to another EU Member State.423 Under Policy Option 1, the legitimacy of the principle of free movement would continue to be undermined by its abuse by counterfeiters and fraudsters, as shown by the data presented in Section 3.5. According to these data, the number of detected fraudulent ID cards has increased from 6,500 in 2013 to 9,226 in 2015, and the number of such residence documents decreased from 3,073 in 2013 to 2,320 in 2015. This suggests that action in relation to ID cards is particularly urgent from a security point of view as otherwise the situation is likely to deteriorate under the baseline scenario. While it can be expected that at least some Member States will gradually introduce additional security features on their identity documents, even in absence of further EU measures, it is doubtful whether these extra features will be sufficient in addressing the prevailing security issues since the trend in abuse is upwards at least in case of ID cards, even though the design of many of these has already been improved in the past. However, without coordinated actions to ensure these features can be consistently checked by border control officials across the EU Member States, the positive effect of such measures on security will remain limited. In a dynamic baseline scenario, Member States will continue to use different approaches to the design of ID and residence cards, different procedures for requesting and issuing such documents, and phase them out over different timeframes. This would also undermine coherence with other EU legislation, such as Regulation 380/2008, as residence cards for EU citizens and third country family members would continue to differ from already harmonised residence permits. While these considerations lead us to conclude that the baseline scenario has a net negative impact in that problems will continue into the future, the table below presents the impact as 0 across all categories to facilitate comparison with the other options in Section 5.6 where we identify the preferred option.

423 Note that there are unfortunately no statistics available referring only to EU nationals and their third country family members.

141

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

Table 5.1: Summary – Policy Option 1 Key: -2 = Very negative impact; - 1 = Negative impact; 0 = Neutral Impact; +1 = positive impact; +2 = very positive impact Key Evaluation Questions Policy Option 1 (Dynamic baseline) Coherence 0 Effectiveness 0 Efficiency 0 Proportionality 0 Citizens 0 Impact on Public authorities 0 Stakeholders Private Sector 0 Overall 0

5.3 Policy Option 2 – Soft Law Measures Because of their broadly similar nature, we have assessed ‘soft law’ measures together for both ID and residence documents (but in places distinguishing between the two). As defined in Section 4, there are four different ‘soft law’ sub-options which are not mutually exclusive:

Sub- POLICY OPTION 2 – SOFT LAW MEASURES options 2 (a) Awareness raising measures – to increase knowledge among EU citizens about their rights and obligations and those of their family members in respect to residence documentation and to increase knowledge among EU citizens in regard to ID cards. For example, awareness raising could focus on informing citizens about the rights and obligations linked to the ID cards and residence documentation in other EU Member States and to inform citizens about the value of e-ID features. 2 (b) Enhanced cooperation between national authorities - sharing best practices on: (i) detection of fraudulent documents; (ii) document checking equipment (iii) administrative efficiency in issuing ID cards and residence documents; 2 (c) EU-wide capacity-building and training – in order to train authorities and private sector on how to detect fraudulent documents and how to increase efficiency in issuing/checking documentation. 2 (d) Single Point of Contact – all Member States should be encouraged to establish a single Point of Contact and to introduce online tools allowing the authorities and private sector service providers to check the authenticity of ID and residence documentation. There could also be the setting up of a web-based register at the EU level allowing for information access and exchange on ID and residence documents issued by Member States.

Sub-option 2(a) - Awareness raising measures As mentioned in Section 4, Policy Option 2 could take the form of awareness-raising measures across the EU to inform citizens better about residence and ID card entitlements and obligations.

142

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

This would increase the knowledge of EU citizens and their family members regarding ID card and residence-related issues and help them to exercise their free movement rights without unnecessary delays due to having the wrong information. An EU-wide awareness-raising campaign could form part of the ‘Europe for Citizens Programme’ and could be coordinated at an EU level by an existing EU scheme or network such as Your Europe Advice and/or SOLVIT. The capacity of these organisations would have to be strengthened in order to respond to cases more quickly and to conduct information campaigns that are targeted on mobile citizens (e.g. by using cooperative campaigns between SOLVIT and employers, universities, etc.). National and local authorities would also be involved in awareness-raising activities. Costs: if SOLVIT were used to coordinate the awareness-raising campaign, one additional FTE person might be needed to coordinate the action in each country. We have based the average salary for the additional FTE person on a grade 5 Commission official’s salary scale. The costs would be lower in some Member States and higher in others. However, we believe that the grade 5 Commission official rate provides a good average. In addition, we have assumed that each Member State would receive some EU funding to help with awareness-raising activities at the national and local level. The scheme that could be used to provide this EU funding would need to be identified if Policy Option 2 was adopted. While we calculate the campaigning costs for three years, campaigning might need to be extended well beyond three years. However, an initial three year period has been chosen since this allows for a review of whether the measures are appropriate or not at a point where adjustments could still if necessary be made to improve the effectiveness of the campaign.

Sub-option 2(a) measures Costs Additional SOLVIT personnel EU28 x 1 x EUR 134,000 (cost of a grade 5 Commission official including salary 424 , office space, equipment, overhead, insurance) = EUR 3,752,000. Funding for national campaigns EUR 14,000,000 (Sum of EU28 x EUR 500,000) over three years Total EUR 17.75m

Benefits: Citizens would be better informed about the requirements in respect to ID cards and residence documents before relocating to another Member State and before engaging in intra-EU travel and this should significantly reduce the so-called ‘hassle’ costs.425 ‘Hassle’ costs are usually associated with businesses but can equally apply to citizens and include waiting time, inconvenience, the cost of alternative arrangements, etc. For example, the increased awareness of valid travel documents could significantly reduce the costs related to the refusal to board an aircraft.

In Section 3 it was shown that the Your Europe Advice database has registered many cases where citizens asked for clarification on which document can be used as valid travel document.426 In an interview with a European airline association it was confirmed that while airlines do not keep statistics, there are cases where citizens are not allowed to board planes due to documentation that cannot be confirmed as valid. The costs of this situation can in some circumstances be quite significant since a new flight might have to be booked at short notice and potentially additional costs

424 http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/docs/toc100_en.pdf (OJ P 045 14.6.1962, p. 1385) 425 See Better Regulation toolbox, p. 339. 426 See Section 3.2.1

143

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 for transport and missed appointments may be incurred. While acknowledging the benefits of reducing ‘hassle costs’, these costs are inherently difficult to quantify since they can vary greatly from one situation to another and there are no statistics on hassle costs in relation to ID/residence related inconveniences. Policy Option 2(b) - Enhanced cooperation between national authorities As mentioned in Section 4, under Policy Option 2(b) measures would be introduced to improve the sharing of ID card and residence document-related information such as information on security features, statistics on fraudulent cards, etc. One option would be to extend the mandate of the Article 6 Committee (set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 of 29 May 1995) so that officials could also discuss issues relating to EU residence documentation and ID cards. The suggested cooperation mechanism does thus not require Member States to take any actions in setting up a new forum. Instead, only two participants would need to be seconded to the Article 6 Committee once a year, one for deliberations relating to ID cards and the other for residence documents. Costs: It is assumed that there would be one or two officials fulfilling this role per Member State and that issues would be discussed during regular Article 6 Committee meetings. In this way no additional costs would arise apart from the expenses for the participation of two more experts. It is assumed that EU funding would help to cover the costs for three years of operations with national funding being phased in over this period. It should be noted that additional activities might need to be undertaken by officials apart from simply attending the meetings (e.g. preparation for the meeting and follow-up actions after the meeting). However, these costs are not accounted for in the following estimate as they would not necessarily lead to specific additional costs since they would form part of the routine function of the official.

Sub-option 2(b) measures Costs Average cost per Article 6 Committee meeting Same as regular Article 6 Committee costs Extra costs for additional 2 participants per EUR 500 per participant x 2 Member State Total EUR 28,000 per year (if meeting takes place once per year) Benefits: The benefits of Policy Option 2(b) would be that national authorities would be better informed about different types of ID cards and residence documents. In this way, efficiency at borders and when citizens access private sector services would be enhanced. From a non-financial perspective, exchanging information in this forum could lead to a better understanding of different systems and in the long-term might increase the willingness to take common actions when national sovereignty concerns prevent immediate legislative action. Quantifying the benefits of Policy Option 2 (b) is not possible since making a link between an improved information exchange and a decrease in costs to citizens or national authorities cannot be established. Sub-option 2(c) -EU wide training and capacity building Policy Option 2(c) would involve measures to promote capacity-building and training for officials and private sector service providers in Member States to improve their capacity to deal with different types of ID cards and residence documentation. Costs: The key target group would be national authorities, especially border control officials. We have assumed that FRONTEX could be responsible for coordinating this measure. As mentioned earlier in Section 3, FRONTEX already provides training for border control officials on document security. Under sub-option 2 (c) more training sessions than currently are provided would take place.

144

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

It should be noted that the costs for a training courses and road shows have been based on information from FRONTEX based on its experience in carrying out such workshops. Furthermore, the e-learning course does not involve any extra-costs as it has already been developed by FRONTEX. We suggest to make this tool available to more stakeholders. Measures Price per Amount of training Total EUR Unit p.a. Two-week training course at FRONTEX 130,666427 2 training sessions at EUR 261,332 with one subject matter expert from each FRONTEX Member State Road shows at major airports, ports and 4,500 28 training sessions, EUR 126,000 external land borders one in each Member State E-learning Course Unknown All border guards 0428 Total EUR 387,332 Under Policy Option 2, a series of training sessions would also be organised for the private sector. We have assumed that there would be an average of two sessions per Member State that are organised in conjunction with relevant national associations (e.g. representing insurance companies, airlines, banks, etc.). We have also assumed that two trainers would be required per workshop so that the training takes place in smaller groups. The associations would then be responsible for disseminating the findings of the workshops to their members. There would obviously be additional costs related to associations engaging in training sessions with their respective industry. However, this cost would not be that significant given that these training sessions probably already take place or could be linked to other events/training sessions. The high-level training would however contribute to increased effectiveness of those training sessions. Summary - Cost of training sessions for private stakeholders Total (EUR) Number of training sessions per year 56 (2 per MS) Average number of participants per session 35 Cost of paying for trainer(s) (per session) EUR 1,500 Average cost of hiring a meeting room for three days with catering EUR 2250 Average cost of travel and subsistence per meeting per expert EUR 300 Cost of materials/handouts per participant EUR 25 E-learning Course for all employees EUR 0429 Total EUR 752,350

427 Based on the figure provided from Frontex: 70.000€ for 15 participants, the costs for a workshop with 28 participants should be EUR 1,050,000. 428 As mentioned, the e-learning tool is already developed by Frontex. Therefore, there might be some further costs involved in extending the elements of the e-learning tool related to ID and residence documents. However, once developed the e-learning tool could be distributed for free to all border guards. 429 Same Frontex tool as the one developed for border guards could be used.

145

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

Training sessions for border control officials and private sector associations could involve essentially a one-off cost. However, there is a case for capacity-building of this type to be continued over a number of years. In this case the estimated cost of EUR 387,332 for border control officials and EUR 752,350 for private sector service providers would be incurred annually. We have assumed, however, that EU funding would only be provided to cover two years for the training sessions and afterwards the costs would be covered by national authorities and/or the private sector. Within private sector businesses there could be a cascade effect with the benefits of training being shared more widely and training sessions being replicated. Benefits: the benefits of Policy Option 2(c) would be that border control officials and private sector service providers would be better informed about different types of ID cards and residence documents. This could have the effect that not only the private and public sector is better informed, but that they pass on the information to citizens/clients. In this way, efficiency at borders and when citizens access private sector services would be enhanced, reducing the costs for citizens, public authorities and border control officials alike. As with Policy Option 2 (b), the nature of Policy Option 2 (c) does not allow for a precise quantification of benefits for border control officials and private sector service providers. However, referring back to Section 3, the qualitative benefits relate to a lowering of costs for border control officials and airlines because documents can be checked more quickly and efficiently.430 Sub-option 2(d) - Single Points of Contact and web-based register This option entails creating a Single Point of Contact in each Member State to deal with ID and residence document queries. As argued in Section 3, our research suggests that there is a need to facilitate the cross-border availability of information on ID cards and residence documents so that checks can be carried out more easily that involve requesting information from national authorities in another EU Member State. The Single Points of Contact would provide a way for enquiries from one Member State to be routed through to the correct authority in another Member State. The Single Points of Contacts could be based in Ministries of Interior or Ministries of Justice in each of the Member States. Alternatively, they could be placed at SOLVIT. This option also entails setting up a web-based register at the EU level allowing for information access and exchange on ID and residence documents issued by Member States. As explained earlier (Section 2), many EU Member States currently have no database for information on the validity of ID and residence cards. In 14 countries such databases already exist but they cover different types of documents. For example, the database in Austria is just directed at Vehicle Data Queries while in Belgium the authenticity of ID cards, residence permits and passports can be checked.431 In contrast, for many Member States the only way to check the authenticity of documents is to rely on general information on the PRADO website or to contact the authorities that issued the document. Introducing a web-based register in all EU Member States for all requests for information about the validity of ID cards and residence documents would ensure equal and more efficient access to information across the EU.

430 See Section 3 case studies on: „Quantification of Airlines’ Costs and Potential Cost Savings – Pre-Boarding Checks for Nationals and Non Nationals“; „Quantification of Banks’ Costs and Potential Cost Savings – Opening a Bank Account for Nationals and Non Nationals”; Quantification of Border Control Costs and Potential Cost Savings – Identity Checks for Nationals and Non Nationals 431 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/check-document-numbers/check-document-numbers.pdf

146

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

The proposed register would not represent a central repository of ID and residence documents issued by the 28 EU Member States. Rather, it would provide a mechanism for national authorities to verify that a certain document has in fact been issued in another Member State. This means that, instead of providing information on individual document holders the database would merely indicate whether a certain document has been issued to an unspecified individual or not. While the Member State issuing the document will know which specific individual it issued the document to, it will not share that individual’s details with the authorities in other Member States but only confirm the document has indeed been issued correctly and is valid. If this approach were adopted, there should be no data protection concerns with respect to the end users of the database. Costs: We have assumed that Single Points of Contacts would need to be established by the national authorities and could be hosted by SOLVIT. This would require one member of staff being designate as the contact in each EU Member State. We hence assume the costs of this measure to be equal to the cost estimated for sub-option 2(a). Setting up and administering a web-based register on ID and residence documentation in each EU Member State could be done by extending the existing PRADO system or by setting up individual registers in the Member States (as already the case in some Member States). In the former scenario, the costs of setting up 28 individual registers would be saved and costs would essentially relate to data entries and administering the database. However, using PRADO as a centralised register might create problems in regard to data compatibility. The latter activities could be undertaken by the Member State document experts who are currently already in charge of providing and select the information on the PRADO website. The potential costs of setting up/administering registers for ID and residence documentation would be comparable to the establishment of existing databases such as the Belgian register described earlier (i.e. the register would confirm whether a specific document has been issued without providing any other information about the card holder or the issuing institution). The main costs according to our research would be the design of such a database, the adoption of standards, ensuring interoperability and adapting national systems to it, as well as security requirements for accessing information and protecting against cyber-attacks. Other experience involving a similar initiative suggests that the one-off cost of setting up a web-based register could be around EUR 5 million (e.g. a recent study for DG JUST on pre-trial detention estimated similar costs for a web-based register to share information on suspects of a crime. It should be noted that this is a conservative estimate). In addition, maintenance cost need to be added. Assuming this would require two full-time members of staff, and taking the same remuneration proxy as a basis as for the SOLVIT personnel, this would amount to a maintenance cost of EUR 268,000 p.a.

Sub-option 2(d) measures Costs

Additional SOLVIT personnel for EU28 x 1 x EUR 134,000 (cost of a grade 5 Commission official Single Point of Contact including salary 432 , office space, equipment, overhead, insurance) = EUR 3,752,000. Web-based register on ID and Estimated at EUR 5m one-off, and EUR 268,000 p.a. for

432 Based on average cost of a junior civil servant in the EU Commission: REGULATION No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, Article 66. (OJ P 045 14.6.1962, p. 1385)

147

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

residence documentation maintenance Total EUR 9,020,000

Benefits: In addition to the benefits of Single Points of Contact, i.e. an improved flow of information, a web-based register (or inter-linked registers in each Member State) could help public and private sector entities to quickly determine whether a document is genuine or not. This could be beneficial as an additional instrument to PRADO because it would help to determine authenticity not only in respect to documents generally but also in respect to one specific document. If tools such as PRADO and national registers were fully functional, the training costs for private sector businesses to familiarise their personnel with different types of IC cards and residence documents could be reduced. While it is not possible to determine a measurable benefit from setting up the Single Points of Contact, in Section 3 it was mentioned that on average it takes banks longer to open a bank account for non-national EU citizens due to longer background checks than for nationals. A web-based register for ID and residence documentation could contribute to a speedier procedure saving banks time when opening accounts. The case study in Section 3 suggested that assuming that 0.65 million EU citizens opened a bank account in another Member States in 2014, EUR 3.9m could be saved if the application procedure was as quick as it is for nationals.433 Summary The estimated costs of Policy Option 2 are summarized below. In total, the cost to EU28 Member States can be estimated to amount to EUR 19.6m in the first year. Some costs would be recurring and we suggest an initial pilot period of three years after which the initiatives would be evaluated and a decision taken on whether or not to continue the activities. It should be noted that the suggested initial three-year period does not mean that this period would be sufficient to effectively implement Policy Option 2. For example, awareness-raising will need to be a continuing effort instead of being limited to three years. The reason for calculating costs for a three-year period is that it is a suitable timeframe in which the measures can be tested and if necessary adapted. It may well be that costs would change significantly after first conclusions can be drawn from the evaluation of the first three years. Over the three years’ pilot duration of the Policy 2 implementation period, the costs are estimated to be a total EUR 45.1m. Summary - Policy option 2 Annual costs (EUR) Total cost over three- costs year-period (EUR) 2(a) Awareness raising EUR 4,666,666 EUR 14,000,000 2(a) SOLVIT coordination EU28 x 1 x EUR 134,000 = EUR 3,752,000 EUR 11,256,000 2(b) Enhanced Cooperation EUR 28,000 EUR 84,000 2(c) EU wide training Training of public authorities: EUR EUR 3,413,496 387,332; Training of private sector: 750,500 EUR 1,137,832 2(d) Single Points of Contact EU28 x 1 x EUR 134,000 = EUR 3,752,000 EUR 11,256,000 2(d) Web-based register EUR 5,000,000 (set up) EUR 5,804,000 EUR 268,000 maintenance p.a. Total EUR 18,604,498 EUR 45,813,496

433 See section 3.3.

148

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

Most of the above costs would be borne by Member States although there would be scope for EU grants to be used to subsidize certain elements (e.g. enhanced SOLVIT coordination and cooperation generally).

5.3.1 Assessment of key issues

All four soft law measures would make some effective contribution to achieving the general policy objective of enhancing free movement in the EU. The main mechanism of delivery would be raising awareness among all key stakeholders. The suggested soft law measures would be mainly directed at preparing stakeholders in the best possible way to deal with the legislative diversity in the EU.

At the same time, soft law measures would not fully address the problem, namely in relation to the diversity of layouts, security features, functionality and terminology of residence and ID documentation. This means that the drawbacks associated with the diversity of ID cards and residence documents would continue to exist (e.g. while some Member States may introduce legislative changes others may not) which means that certain obstacles to free movement would not be removed. The impacts could be as follows for stakeholder groups: Citizens - under this scenario, citizens would continue to experience different obligations and rights in respect to ID and residence documents across the EU. Nevertheless, citizens would be better informed about their rights and obligations in respect to ID cards and residence documents before relocating to another Member State and before engaging in intra-EU travel. This should significantly reduce the so-called ‘hassle’ costs. The potential cost savings to citizens (e.g. from quicker border checks) cannot be quantified. Public authorities might incur some additional costs in implementing Policy Option 2 but we have assumed that EU funding would be available to help reduce these costs to Member States, specifically the costs of the awareness-raising activities, Single Points of Contact and improved mechanisms for storing and sharing information. At the same time, however, national administrations and border control officials should be more aware of the layout, design, security features of ID cards and residence documentation in other EU countries. This could have a positive impact, in particular by increasing efficiency in border and local administrations which issue and check ID cards and residence documentation. Furthermore, increased training could have a positive impact on the detection of fraudulent documents. Private sector entities such as banks or airlines would continue to have to deal with a large variety of ID and residence documents. Nevertheless, the proposed sector-oriented training sessions should help raise awareness of the layout and functionality of the different types of ID and residence cards. While this would most likely lead to more efficiency in handling different types of documents, there would be significant costs of training to the private sector although these costs might also be partially met by EU funding, initially at least. The coherence of all four suggested soft law measures is ensured since they are combined with already existing forums to minimise costs and to avoid a disproportionate administrative burden. For example, it is proposed that awareness-raising measures are routed via SOLVIT since it has a presence in all 28 Member States. EU-wide training workshops and capacity-building could be based on existing FRONTEX workshops. Enhanced cooperation mechanisms are suggested to take place via the Article 6 Committee. The Single Point of Contact databases could be considered to be a more detailed extension of the PRADO Register. Overall soft law measures would cost an estimated EUR 46m over a pilot period of three years. Some or all of the costs that would arise from the soft law measures could be covered by EU

149

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 subsidies. In this way, the costs to national authorities would be reduced to a minimum. While it can be expected that benefits will ultimately compensate for the costs of the soft law measures it is not possible to quantify the benefits (as explained in respect to each sub-option in Section 5.3 above). It can, however, be argued in broad terms that ‘hassle’ cost (i.e. waiting time, inconvenience, cost of alternative arrangements, etc.) for all involved stakeholders would be reduced. For example, in regard to citizens, the potential magnitude of benefits may accrue to up to 18 million EU citizens who reside in another Member State than their own and to an even higher number of intra-EU travellers. The estimate of 18 million citizens should be treated with caution because not every citizen falling in this category would be affected to the same extent. Likewise, the costs for the private sector are likely to decrease. It has been shown in Section 3 that if the procedure for opening a bank account is as quick as for nationals, up to EUR 3.9m p.a. could be saved in costs to banks.

In terms of proportionality, the soft law options would rely on existing frameworks for their implementation. None require Member States to change existing legislation or to fundamentally change national practices. At the same time a positive effect can be expected since awareness and knowledge of all involved stakeholders will be improved. It can thus be argued that all four soft law measures are proportionate to the aim pursued. Table 5.2: Summary – Policy Option 2 Key: -2 = Very negative impact; - 1 = Negative impact; 0 = Neutral Impact; +1 = positive impact; +2 = very positive impact Key Evaluation Questions Policy Option 2 Coherence +1 Effectiveness +1 Efficiency +1 Proportionality +1 Citizens +1 Impact on Public authorities +1 Stakeholders Private Sector 0

5.4 Policy Option 3 – Limited harmonisation Policy Option 3 would involve an EU-level measure to bring about the limited harmonisation of ID cards and residence documentation. In relation to both ID cards and residence documents, a common requirement would be for the title to be in English as well as in the national language. There are then further more specific features: Sub- POLICY OPTION 3 – LIMITED HARMONISATION options 3 (a) Title and name of ID cards and residence documents to be in English as well as the national language. In this way citizens would be more aware about their rights linked to a document and border guards would more easily be able to detect whether a document is an ID card and thus whether it qualifies its holder to travel across borders. 3 (b) Residence documents Requirement in regard to all residence documents that citizens are able to apply for

150

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

Sub- POLICY OPTION 3 – LIMITED HARMONISATION options documentation online and to receive documents within a certain amount of time. ID Cards EU-wide template with some common features such as information mentioned on card and minimum security features (such as compliance with parts 1-6 and 9-12 of the ICAO standard). Under this option, Member States are still able to adapt design and other features of the ID card. 3 (c) Introducing a deadline (e.g. within 10 years) for the replacement of existing ID cards and residence documents by new versions that comply with requirements. Residence documents 3(d) Introducing a uniform format for residence documents for third country nationals related to EU citizens.

We begin by first assessing Policy Option 3 in relation to residence documentation and then ID cards (Section 5.4.2). 5.4.1 Policy Option 3 - Residence documentation Sub-option 3(a) – Common use of English language Under Sub-option 3(a), the title of residence documents would be in English, in addition to the use of national languages. Costs: The costs of this option would be minimal as most Member States already include the title in English. In more specific terms:  Only registration certificates in certain countries (BE, CZ, DE, ES, FI, HR, HU, LU, LT, PL, RO) would need to add the title in English;  With regard to residence cards for EU nationals, the title would need to be adapted to provide them in English in AT, BE, DE, ES, FR, IT LI, LU, PL, EL, SK and SE;  In AT, BE, ES, FR, IT PL, SK and SE the titles of residence documents for TCN family members would need to be adapted. In terms of costs, two aspects are relevant - the cost of changing legislation and a recurring marginal impact on production costs as the card/paper template would not need to be adapted but only in relation to the printed title on the card. It is very difficult to provide cost estimates since there is only rather limited information on production costs and the cost of adding a title to the card. The average production cost of residence cards where information was available (four Member States) is approximately EUR 4. This average needs to be treated with caution as it is an average covering both paper-based and other types of residence documents (e.g. plastic). However, Sub-option 3(a) should not add significant costs, if any, to the EUR 4 average. This is because there is no change in the layout being suggested. Instead only minor changes (e.g. changing the title printed on the document) would be necessary. Benefits: up to 18 million EU citizens who reside in another Member State than their own and an even higher proportion of intra-EU travellers could benefit from Sub-option 3 (a). More specifically it would help reduce ‘hassle’ costs to them when applying for residence documents and when using

151

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 the residence documents. Policy Option 3a would also make it easier for airline officials and border control officials to deal with TCN family Members when they present their residence documentation in conjunction with a passport for travel purposes. It is not possible to quantify the benefits since -as mentioned earlier- hassle costs are a very broad category of costs that vary greatly from individual to individual. Furthermore, no statistics exist on how far the features of residence documents result in hassle costs or how high the hassle cost in regard to residence documents is. The costs for banks equally apply to residence documents as they are in most Member States needed for opening a bank account. The costs to airlines and border control officials also apply but only to residence documents for TCN family members since they need to show their residence document in conjunction with a passport. Due to the more limited scope of this sub-option, the savings would be less than the examples highlighted above. Sub-option 3(b) – Applying for residence documents online As explained in Section 4, this sub-option would entail the requirement in regard to all residence documents that citizens are able to apply for documentation online and to receive documents within a certain amount of time. Costs: An initial increase in costs would be involved in developing the systems required to allow citizens to apply for residence documents online. The costs would include establishing online application forms, introducing data security safeguards for the processing of data that is sent by citizens for the purpose of applying for the residence documents, and training officials in the use of the online application procedures. Denmark is currently establishing such an online procedure but no impact assessment has been conducted identifying the costs.

Sub-option 3(b) measures Costs Developing online application Not possible to estimate at this stage. systems for residence documents Training of officials in the use of This could be covered by the training envisaged under Policy online application systems Option 2(c). If this was not possible, the combined costs for the EU28 Member States would be similar, i.e. EUR 1,137,800 p.a. for a period of 3 years. Total EUR 3,413,496 over three years Sub-option 3 (c) – Phasing out documents not meeting these requirements Policy option 3(c) would involve phasing out documents not meeting these requirements over an agreed period (e.g. up to 10 years). There would be no additional costs incurred due to adopting this option. Rather, it could bring the costs incurred under Policy options 3(a) and 3(b) forward by accelerating the rate of introduction of these changes. Benefits: several countries already have online application systems for residence cards. This includes Estonia and Denmark (which, as noted above, is currently piloting the digitalisation of application procedures for residence documents). In both cases it is argued that online procedure are beneficial for both the citizen and the public authorities in terms of convenience, time savings and reduced costs. In the case of Denmark, it appears that although no specific cost-benefit analysis has been conducted, a rough estimate is that the new system should lead to a 40% to 50% time- saving for public authorities. While there is no data available on the administrative costs of issuing

152

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 residence documents, the average administrative cost of issuing ID cards based on information from six Member States is EUR 16. Applying this average to residence documents implies a saving of at least EUR 5.3m on an annual basis in those 17 EU Member States where data on the number of cards issued in 2015 was available. (EUR 16 x 554,225 cards issued in 2015 in 17 Member States = EUR 8, 867,600 – 40%). Impact on key stakeholders As indicated above, under both Policy Option 3 sub-options, citizens would most likely face fewer problems when for instance requesting residence documentation or when opening bank accounts where residence certificates need to be presented. Public authorities could save costs if application procedures are undertaken online. In addition, the work of border control officials would be facilitated if all names and titles of documents were in English, making it easier to distinguish ID cards from residence documents and facilitating the detection of fraudulent documents. It would also facilitate the work of private sector entities such as banks and airlines. Nevertheless, the diversity of layout, security features, etc., would remain an issue. Assessment of key issues Both sub-options would demonstrate a high degree of effectiveness in promoting the general policy objectives of helping to enhance free movement. For example, a main issue with regard to residence documents is the application procedure. The opportunity to apply online for residence documents would increase efficiency. Furthermore, including the title of the residence document in English on the document would help public and private authorities to determine the status of the residence document. The coherence of both sub-options of limited harmonisation is likely to be high as under sub-option 3(a) only minor amendments would be necessary. This would also be coherent with the EU e- Government Action Plan 2016-2020. Overall, the costs related to this option could be considered to be minimal. At the same time, the benefits should outweigh the costs of introducing the changes to the documents. As such there would be a high degree of efficiency. In terms of proportionality, both sub-options would only require some Member States to make changes to national procedures. Sub-option 3(d) - Uniform format for residence documents similar to the format prescribed by Regulation 1030/2002 for third country nationals’ family members only Costs: The costs of adopting this sub-option can be calculated in a similar way to the costs of Policy Option 4(a). The cost would be much lower, however, given that the only cards to be replaced prematurely would be residence cards for TCN family members of EU citizens. This would affect all 28 Member States. Based on 2.5 in Section 2.3.4, and as noted above, at least 793,175 different residence documents were issued in 2015 alone. Of these, only 56,859 were permanent residence cards though, mainly from Spain (36,137). The number of permanent residence cards issued in Member States other than Spain is thought to be very low. Therefore, it is only necessary to look at the average of validity of residence cards for family members (as opposed to permanent residence cards). As indicated in Section 2.2.7, all residence cards for family members are valid for 5 years. It can thus be assumed that all such cards currently in circulation would have to be replaced/phased out within 10 years anyway, meaning that there would be no additional substantial, but only marginal costs under Policy Option 4(b). Benefits: This option should remove all existing problems linked to the residence cards for TCN family members of EU citizens (including the two cards issued by Bulgaria and Hungary which apply

153

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 to this category of citizens as well as to EU citizens). This would remove problems that this group of people currently face with having their residence documents recognised by airlines, for instance. It may also contribute to internal security by harmonising one type of residence documents. Streamlining procedures for TCN residence documents may be particularly helpful given that TCNs may potentially use counterfeited breeder documents (e.g. birth and marriage certificates) that are more difficult for EU authorities to authenticate compared breeder documents used by EU citizens. Overall, however, given the magnitude of residence documents for EU citizens in circulation, this option would only solve a relatively small share of the problems identified in section 3 and under Policy Option 1.

5.4.2 Policy Option 3 - ID Cards Policy Option 3 in relation to ID cards consists of two sub-options: Sub-option 3(a) providing title and name in English; and (b) introduction of an EU-wide format with some common features, namely minimum biographical information and security features (compliance with parts 1-6 and 9- 12 of the ICAO standard). Sub-option 3(a) - Common use of English language As with residence documents, under sub-option 3(a) all ID cards would be required to provide the title in English. The benefits would be similar to those for residence documents and comparable to the experience on introducing these changes in relation to passports. Costs: the costs of this option would be minimal as most Member States already include the title of ID cards in English. Only the ID cards issued by four Member States (ES, FR, IT (old version) and PT434) currently do not include the title in English. As with residence cards, there would be some costs incurred by the authorities in the four countries concerned that would arise from the need to change their legislation and also some costs for the production of new ID cards. The average production cost of ID cards is EUR 12 (based on information from 7 Member States). This is unlikely to be significantly greater, if higher at all, if Policy Option 3(a) is adopted. Benefits: The potential benefits would be limited to nationals of the four EU Member States mentioned above. Sub-option 3(a) would help citizens from these countries avoid inconvenience and ‘hassle’ costs in relation to private sector service providers and border control procedures, if they are stopped and their ID card is checked. As mentioned earlier it is not possible to quantify the benefits in terms of reduction of ‘hassle’ costs due to the absence of meaningful statistics with respect to cases in which citizens, private sector actors or national authorities were faced with problems with the non-readability of documents. A more qualitative assessment of what is entailed in the concept of hassle costs is provided in Section 3 of this report.435 Section 3 also provided case studies on the costs for banks, airlines and border control officials of dealing with ID cards of non-national EU citizens as well as the savings that could be achieved if the same procedure applied to all ID cards. In regard to airlines it has been shown that EUR 12.3m could be saved for 229.5 million document checks if the procedure for EU nationals was the same as for nationals. In regard to border control, it was estimated that EUR 26m could be saved if the inspection time for nationals was the same as for EU citizens. Ultimately, in regard to banks it has been shown that for 0.65 million citizens opening bank accounts, EUR 3.9m could be saved if the application

434 In Portugal, the English title says: Citizen Card instead of Identity or Identification Card. 435 Section 3.2.

154

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 procedure was the same for EU nationals as for nationals. This would give a total cost saving for policy option 3(a) of EUR 42.2m. Sub-option 3(b) - EU-wide ID card format with minimum common features This policy option would involve introducing an EU-wide format with some common features such as information mentioned on card and minimum security features (such as full compliance with parts 1-6 and 9-12 of the ICAO standard, including a facial image and contactless RFID chip on the card). Under this option, Member States would still be able to choose the design and other features of their national ID cards. Costs: As mentioned in Section 2, in all Member States apart from Romania (no signature) there is already basic information mentioned on the ID card. This information is: surname/ name at birth and name, birthdate, place of birth, gender, nationality, photograph, signature, address, legally authorised name. Therefore, changing basic information on the card would only apply to Romania by changing the legislation to require requesting citizens to provide a signature. This would include two types of costs: first, changing the legislation in order to require the provision of a signature and secondly, marginally increasing production the costs of the cards. While there could be arguments that there will be significant costs since Member States will be required to adopt the relevant equipment to read the newly adopted ICAO standards in the ID cards, Member State should have this equipment already available for the purpose of checking passports. Therefore, it is assumed that this would not lead to additional costs for Member States. In regard to basic security features, more Member States would need to make changes to their ID cards in order to make them ICAO compliant. Under Policy Option 3 (b) Member States would need to comply with the full ICAO standard (parts 1-6 and 9-12). This should actually be more cost- effective than only requiring Member States’ ID cards to comply with the machine readability part of the standard. The reason is that the same reading equipment at border control points used for passports could also be used for verifying biometric ICAO-compliant ID cards, meaning the cost of additional equipment or infrastructure needed to fully implement this policy option should be marginal. This has been confirmed by FRONTEX experts, who stated that card readers used at border control points across the EU should be able to read the machine readability zone (MRZ) and chip of biometric cards, since they need to do the same already for EU passports. It should thus be possible to cross-check facial images either manually or using (semi-)automated systems. To rule out that the chip has been cloned, border control guards need the right certificates for the facial image or need to access the MRZ of the card in order to access the facial image on the chip without the certificate. On the other hand, requiring compliance with the full ICAO standard (parts 1-6 and 9-12) means that all ID cards will have to include a biometric facial image and a contactless RFID chip. Our research revealed that currently only 15 Member States’ ID cards comply with the full standard (inferring that they also include a contactless chip on their cards, although this could not be confirmed through the research, see Section 2.7) while 11 Member States436 currently issuing ID cards would have to upgrade their ID card design and issue new cards. In addition, Italy would have to phase out the paper-based ID card versions and switch completely to a plastic ID card, and Sweden would have to upgrade its Swedish ID card which, unlike the national ID card, does not meet the full ICAO standard. This takes the total number of Member States that would need to change at least some of their ID cards to 13.

436 AT, BE, EL, FI, FR, PT; CZ, HR, RO, SI, SK no information – conservative assumption that they too would have to change card design

155

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

Of these 13 Member States, five plan to make changes to their ID card in the near future anyway, including the introduction of biometric features.437 It is reasonable to assume that these Member States will issue ID cards in full compliance with the ICAO standard over the next ten years without further EU intervention. This leaves eight Member States that would incur considerable additional cost under this policy option438. Another factor in assessing the cost to Member States of introducing this option is to look at how long ID cards issued in the Member States concerned are valid. Given a phasing-out period of 10 years (policy option 3(c)), it is likely that many ID cards would have to be replaced by new ones anyway. Table 2.13 in this report shows that out of the 8 Member States who would have to change their ID card design, 3 issue ID cards with a validity of more than 10 years, albeit in some cases only to senior citizens.439 The other 5 Member States would have to replace all ID cards currently in circulation within the next 10 years even without EU intervention, meaning the increase in production cost of policy option 3(b) should be limited. The available information on costs is too limited to estimate the average increase in production costs per individual card in the 3 Member States that would have to replace ID cards earlier than planned if this policy option is implemented. However, a proxy value could be to look at how much it would cost to replace all ID cards currently in circulation in those three Member States by taking the average production cost of around EUR 10 of ID cards440 and the number of ID cards that have been issued in 2015. Data on the number of ID cards newly issued in these Member States in 2015 or for the latest year available, as shown in Table 2.5 of this report441, shows that the three Member States in question issued a total of 5,382,579 ID cards in 2015 or the latest year available.442 It is difficult to provide an aggregate cost figure, but one possibility is to take the figure of 5,382,579 cards issued per year in the eight Member States affected by this policy option and multiply it by EUR 10 (the production cost of a new ID card), which produces a figure of some EUR 53.8m. This figure represents the cost of replacing the ID cards issued in one year by a new, fully ICAO-compliant design. Benefits: The benefits of including a signature in Romanian ID cards will lead to removal of free movement obstacles for Romanian citizens. Requiring compliance with both parts 1-6 and 9-12 of the ICAO standard will lead to more efficiency at the border and increased security. It is not possible to quantify these aspects but one can estimate that all Romanian citizens who exercise their free movement rights (either by traveling to other EU countries or by residing in other EU countries) would be positively affected. According to the EU citizenship consultation carried out in 2015, of 2,107 individual citizens responding to the consultation, 47% travelled to another Member State between one and five times per year. While statistically not representative, using this as average it can be argued that roughly 9,457,171 persons.443

437 BE, CZ, EL, FI for all three ID card types, RO 438 AT, FR, HR, IT, PT, SE, SI, SK 439 FR, SI, SK 440 Estimate provided to the study team by EU officials 441 FR: 4,500,000; SI: 182,579; SK: 700,000 442 The 222,162 figure for Sweden has been divided by two since the national ID card is already ICAO-compliant, whereas the Swedish ID card is not. 443 Note that this only includes the travellers and not the expats. So the total affected population is actually much higher.

156

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

In respect to requiring full ICAO compliance, it is also not possible to quantify the benefits. It can, however, be said that benefits would be mainly in respect to border crossings for border control agencies, the airlines and for citizens themselves (due to reduced waiting time at the border). Broad estimations of savings where national and EU ID cards holders are treated in the same way have been provided in Section 3. More specifically three case studies were presented on the costs for banks, airlines and border control authorities of dealing with ID cards of non-national EU citizens as well as the savings that could be achieved if the same procedure applied to all ID cards. In regard to airlines it has been shown that EUR 12.3m could be saved for 229.5 million document checks if the procedure for EU nationals was the same as for nationals. In regard to border control, it was suggested that EUR 26m could be saved if the inspection time for nationals was the same as for EU citizens. Likewise, in regard to banks it has been shown that for 0.65 million bank accounts opened EUR 3.9m could be saved if the application procedure was the same for EU nationals as for nationals. These estimated benefits would obviously not materialise in full as under Policy Option 3(b), differences would still exist in terms of design and security features. However, by harmonising minimum security features the work of border officials would be facilitated. Sub-option 3(c) – Setting a deadline of 10 years for limited harmonisation of ID cards A 10-year deadline (depending on when EU measures are adopted) should provide sufficient time for limited harmonisation of both residence documents and ID cards. By this date, all existing versions would need to have been replaced with versions that incorporate the features set out under Policy Option 3. This timeframe has been considered in the costing of sub-option 3(b) above. Impact on key stakeholders Under both sub-options, citizens would most likely face fewer problems when traveling to other Member States and in accessing private sector services (e.g. opening bank accounts or making use of other private/public services where an ID card is required). Public authorities that do not already include these minimum requirements would incur limited additional costs under this option as some information on the card would need to be changed. In some cases, this would, however, simply mean phasing out old ID cards (e.g. Italy) where a new template fulfilling the criteria co-exists with older versions not fulfilling the criteria. A positive effect could be expected for border officials who will be able to conduct border controls more efficiently due to the existence of limited harmonised standards. The work of private sector entities such as banks and airlines would be facilitated, especially if ID cards comply with the full ICAO standard (parts 1-6 and 9-12). Assessment of key issues Both Policy Option 3 sub-options (a) and (b) would demonstrate a high degree of effectiveness in achieving the general policy objectives of enhancing free movement in the EU. For example if all ID cards included ICAO security features (including parts 9-12) there would be less uncertainty among airlines as to whether a document makes the holder eligible to travel or not. Furthermore, including the title of the ID card in English would help public and private authorities to clearly recognise whether a document is an ID card or not. Policy option 3 (c) would ensure consistent implementation of the previous policy options across the EU, leading to less divergence, and allowing authorities time to adapt their systems. The coherence of both limited harmonisation sub-options would also be high as no major amendments to the current situation are foreseen. Furthermore, most ID cards already meet the

157

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 requirements suggested under the sub-options implying that few Member States would have to adopt the new format. The costs related to Policy Option 3 for ID cards would be minimal since most Member States already comply with these requirements. There would, however, be costs associated with upgrading ID cards for the 14 Member States that do not currently comply with the full ICAO standard. These costs, as explained above, are not possible to quantify. However, overall, efficiency should be high due to the small number of Member States where changes need to be made. Furthermore, machinery and/or software already exist anyways in the 7 non-complying Member States for the production of passports. As such, additional costs can be expected to be low. With regard to proportionality, both sub-options would only require changes to a small number of Member States while potentially having a major positive impact in clarifying the status and functionality of ID cards. It can thus be assumed that Policy Option 3 in relation to ID cards would be proportionate to the aim pursued. Below we provide a global evaluation of Policy Option 3. The ratings might differ from Option 3a and Option 3b but for the sake of simplicity (and comparability between Options) the rating takes into account both sub-options. Policy option 3 (c), by offering a clear timetable, would allow these benefits to occur earlier than if no phasing out of previous documents were required, and thus forms the basis for the benefits of points (a) and (b) to materialise. Table 5.3 Summary – Policy Option 3 Key: -2 = Very negative impact; - 1 = Negative impact; 0 = Neutral Impact; +1 = positive impact; +2 = very positive impact Key Evaluation Questions Residence Documents Coherence +2 Effectiveness +2 Efficiency +1 Proportionality +2 Citizens +2 Impact on Public authorities +2 Stakeholders Private Sector +1

Key Evaluation Questions ID Cards Coherence +2 Effectiveness +1 Efficiency +2 Proportionality +1 Citizens +1 Impact on Public authorities +1 Stakeholders Private Sector 0

5.5 Policy Option 4 – Maximum Harmonisation To recapitulate, this option consists of three sub-options for residence documents, and three sub- options for ID cards. These are: a common template for all types of ID card and residence documents based on Council Regulations 1030/2002 & 380/2008; a common template only for residence

158

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 documents for TCN family members of EU citizens; and laying down minimum standards of procedure to issue ‘breeder’ documents.

Policy Option 4 – Maximum Harmonisation

Residence documents ID Cards 4 (a) Replace all existing residence documents Use of a harmonised format, for all Member with a uniform format similar to the one States that issue ID cards (in accordance to Reg. prescribed by Regulation 1030/2002 1030/2002) including the requirement to make harmonising aspects such as: Information all IDs holders of the e-ID. and Biographical Data on document; Colour/Printing Process; Material; Printing techniques; Issuing procedure; Protection against copying. 4 (b) Provide Member States – and perhaps individual Applying a deadline for phasing out old citizens - with the option to adopt an ‘EU’ documents identity card in addition to their national ID cards. This might be easier for Member States to accept from the point of view of national sovereignty since national ID cards would continue to exist 4 (c) - The requirement that consulates in each Member State need to issue ID cards to their nationals 4 (d) - Applying a deadline for phasing out old documents

Below, we first consider the Policy Options relating to residence documents and then in relation to ID cards.

5.5.1 Residence documents Sub-option 4(a) - Uniform format for residence documents similar to the format prescribed by Regulation 1030/2002 This measure would involve introducing a uniform format based on the format prescribed by Regulation 1030/2002 and harmonising a wide range of residence document features: Information and biographical data in the document; colour/printing process; material; printing techniques; issuing procedures; and protection against copying. Costs: Policy Option 4(a) would require Member States to issue new residence documents. This could be done in a way that would allow Member States to gradually phase out existing documents before issuing new ones. if this approach is adopted, costs could be reduced. Nevertheless, as in case of Policy Option 3, a cut-off date would be advisable since some documents do not have an expiry date. Since currently no Member State issues residence documents are entirely in compliance with the format laid down in Regulations 1030/2002 and 380/2008, all 28 Member States would have to phase out and/or adapt their existing permanent residence cards for EU citizens and family members. Moreover, 20 Member States would have to phase out the registration certificates they

159

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 currently issue, and 9 Member States would have to phase out the residence cards they currently issue. Given different versions of certain residence documents are still in circulation, by the proposed cut-off date, a total of more than 181 different types of residence documents would have to be replaced (see Table 4 in Section 2.1.2). Since some of these would still be valid beyond six years, this will involve certain costs. For instance, Member States’ national printing presses would have to adapt to the new templates used, which would involve some cost. Even if half the residence documents currently in circulation were to expire within 10 years, meaning that they would have to be replaced in any case, which would create certain costs, the other half may have to be invalidated earlier than in the baseline scenario. The additional costs could be considerable. Our research shows that the average production cost of residence documents is EUR 4. Based on Table 2.5 in Section 2.3.4, at least 793,175 different residence documents were issued in 2015 alone. Of the 115 residence documents for which information is available, 27 have no expiry date while the remaining 88 cards have an average expiry date of 6.7 years (see Section 2.2.7). It can thus be reasonably assumed that at least half of the documents issued in 2015 are valid for more than 5 years. This means that under Policy Option 4 they would have to be renewed prematurely, i.e. within 10 years. The cost of replacing these cards can thus be calculated as (793,175/2)*EUR 4 (i.e. average production cost). The resulting figure is EUR 1,586,350 which is the cost of Policy Option 4. In addition, the cost of Policy Option 2 should be added since Policy Option 4 could not realistically be implemented without enhanced administrative cooperation and a central registry. Hence, the total cost of Policy Option 4(a) corresponds to a minimum of EUR 48m. Benefits: Policy Option 4(a) could be expected to remove all administrative issues citizens and authorities currently face in relation to residence documents, provided this sub-option would be implemented in conjunction with Policy Option 2, ensuring that national authorities, and some private sector entities, are sufficiently trained to recognise and verify the new documents. It should be noted though that the costs under Policy Option 2 would be limited to the transitional period (e.g. 3 years) but then no further training would be necessary in the short term. This would mean that the expected benefit would amount to removing most if not all problems for the 7.2 million residents in other Member States, and the many more regular travellers currently face. Hence, the benefit would be greater than under the previous three options individually. As mentioned earlier, it is not possible to quantify what benefits can be expected under Policy Option 4(a). On the one hand, there are no meaningful statistics available on the extent to which currently aspects of residence cards lead to different costs for citizens. On the other hand, if changes where to be made it is not possible to uniquely link any potential benefits back to activities under Policy Option 4 (a) Policy option 4 (b), the phasing out of all document not meeting the requirements of sub-options (a) by a fixed deadline will ensure that the benefits of these options will occur sooner than would otherwise likely be the case, as is the case with option 3 (c) described earlier.

5.5.2 ID Cards To recapitulate, this Policy Option 4 consists of four sub-options for ID cards. These are: Sub-option 4 (a): common template for ID cards based on Council Regulations 1030/2002 and 380/2008; Sub- option 4 (b) involving the introduction of an EU ID card (in addition to national ID cards); and Sub- option 4 (c) - a uniform ID card that can be issued and renewed by the host Member State in liaison with the home Member State, and Policy option 4(d) phasing out all documents not meeting the requirements of the previous options by a fixed deadline

160

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

Sub-option 4(a) - common format for ID cards based on Council Regulations 1030/2002 and 380/2008 Sub-option 4(a) would involve introducing a common format for ID cards and could involve a similar approach as policy option 4 (a) in respect to residence documents. Under this sub-option Member States would need to include the same biographical data on the card, include fingerprints on the chip of the card and include other minimum security features. Also, some common design features would be required under this sub-option. In addition, all Member States would be required to include a RFID-chip on their ID cards. Costs: the costs of this option would vary from Member State to Member State depending on the current layout of the ID card. For example, in countries like Germany, ID cards already include all relevant biographical data, they provide citizens the option to include their fingerprints on the card and they include sophisticated security features. Therefore, the costs would mainly arise from the re- design of the current card, and these are unlikely to be excessive. In other countries, such as Italy or Greece, however, where currently the quality of ID cards is considerably below the standards suggested by Council Regulation 1030/2002, the costs could be expected to be considerably higher. In all Member States national printing presses would have to adapt to the new formats used which would involve one-off costs. Furthermore, national application procedures for ID cards would need to change since in many Member States new information (such as fingerprints) would need to be requested. This would lead to one-off costs since local administrations would need to be informed/trained in the new procedures and new equipment might need to be introduced to take fingerprints (it is however likely that this equipment already exists for the passport applications). Although the figures need to be treated with caution, there is Commission estimate that the production of an ID card costs around EUR 10. As shown in Section 2, there were more than 20,878,343 ID cards issued in 2015 in the EU. Thus, replacing all of the ID cards issued that year alone would cost more than EUR 209m. Benefits: Policy Option 4(a) could be expected to remove all administrative issues citizens and authorities currently face in relation to ID cards, provided this sub-option would be implemented in conjunction with Policy Option 2, ensuring that national authorities, and some private sector entities, are sufficiently trained to recognise and verify the new documents. This would mean that the expected benefit would amount to a substantial proportion of the estimated cost of Policy Option 1 (the baseline scenario). In other words, the expected benefits would compensate to a large extent for the costs. Sub-option 4 (b) involving the introduction of an EU ID card (in addition to national ID cards) This option would involve the introduction of an EU ID card in addition to national ID cards. This option would seem to be a good compromise if Member States acknowledged the need to take action in respect of free movement considerations linked to ID cards but cannot agree on common features and/or would not agree to giving up sovereignty in designing their national identity cards. Costs: This is likely to be the costliest option as none of the current documents would be replaced and instead another document would be added to the numerous documents that are already in existence. Assuming that citizens would still request and obtain the document issued by their own

161

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 authorities,444 the costs would mainly be incurred by the 28 national authorities since new card templates would need to be designed and printed if requested by citizens. Costs would also be incurred by border control authorities and private sector entities since they would still have to deal with a variety of national cards and EU identity cards. Since all EU ID cards would have exactly the same features a higher threat of document fraud could also lead to further costs to ensure that counter-measures are adopted. Benefits: The benefits to citizens are likely to be limited since it can be expected that all Member States would still need to accept national ID cards instead of only the EU ID card. Therefore, potentially many citizens would not apply for an EU ID card, leading to the likelihood that problems in relation to national ID cards would continue to exist. Therefore, the costs for national authorities and private sector services of having to deal with an additional type of document would most likely be higher than any potential benefit to EU citizens.

Sub-option 4 (c) - consulates in each Member State to issue ID cards to their nationals Since the original idea of local authorities acting as ‘post offices’ for national administrations in other Member States was rejected by all stakeholders we consulted, a less controversial option would be to require all consulates across the EU to issue ID cards for their nationals for the same cost as in the Member States (plus shipping costs). Costs: This option would involve only costs for those seven Member States that currently do not issue ID cards via their consular network (Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Malta, Romania, and Spain). The costs would, however, be minimal since consulates would only need to provide their nationals with the opportunity to requests documents via the consulate. It is quite likely that the administrative burden arising from this could easily be assumed by the current staff in charge of addressing citizen requests. The production and issuing of the cards would also not lead to additional costs for Member State authorities as this would be carried out in the Member State according to normal procedures. The costs of shipping the card to the consulate would be charged to the citizen. Benefits: The benefits for expatriates of the seven EU Member States mentioned above could be quite substantial as the opportunity to apply for an ID card via a consulate would save a potentially costly trip back to their home country which is otherwise necessary for renewing the ID card. Sub-option 4(d) – Setting a deadline of 10 years for limited harmonisation of ID cards A period of 10 years should provide sufficient time for maximum harmonisation of both residence documents and ID cards. By this date, all existing versions would need to have been replaced with versions that incorporate the features set out under Policy Option 4. Impact on key stakeholders Citizens: under sub-option 4 (a) citizens would be required to provide their fingerprints when ID cards are requested which interferes with the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection. While in the Schwarz case the CJEU held that the interference with regard to passports is proportionate to the objective of maintaining security, it is uncertain whether this interpretation would hold true for ID cards as in some countries individuals cannot opt out from obtaining the document. At the same time, however, under all sub-options citizens could expect an improvement

444 It seems unlikely that this function could be assumed on an EU level since it would mean that a pan- European database of citizen data and a EU-wide printing facility needs to be set up. This seems not to be possible both from a feasibility point of view and from a data protection/privacy point of view.

162

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 in respect to free movement as a similar layout of ID cards across all EU Member States would increase acceptance by public and private authorities of the documentation. Public authorities would have to invest administrative and financial resources in changing the status quo in respect to ID cards which could lead to a considerable cost. At the same time, however, border control authorities might benefit from common features in ID cards as this would facilitate the procedures at borders and could facilitate the detection of fraudulent cards, thus increasing security. The private sector organisations that require ID card documentation to provide services would benefit from sub-option 4 (a) as it would reduce the burden of training staff to deal with various different documents. Furthermore, it would facilitate the actual checking of cards. Assessment of key issues Sub-option 4 (a) and 4 (b) would be effective in reaching the overall policy objective of free movement as a same layout and same features for all ID cards would simplify the work of border control officials and private sector service providers. However, sub-option 4 (b) would not eradicate the problem since national ID cards would still co-exist alongside the EU ID card and thus there could be even further complexity. In respect to sub-option 4 (c), requiring all consulates to issue ID cards to their citizens would substantially facilitate free movement for the citizens of those countries where this is currently not possible. Coherence should be high in case of sub-option 4 (a) since ID card documents would follow the same format as prescribed by Regulation 1030/2002. However, Policy Option 4 (b) could lead to incoherence with current national ID cards and to duplication as national ID cards and EU ID cards would both need to be valid in parallel.445 With regard to efficiency, all three sub-options would involve considerable costs in the short-term. In the long-term, sub-option 4 (a) might, however, reduce some costs due to economies of scale with the production of residence documentation. Some countries already use the same template for all types of residence documents in order to benefit from economies of scale. In relation to proportionality, all three options considerably change and influence the system in relation to national ID cards whose issuance is seen by many national authorities to be a key feature of national sovereignty. It has been argued by many stakeholders during the consultation that matters related to ID cards touch upon national sovereignty and that far-reaching EU action in this field is not proportionate to the aims being pursued. At the same time, it is worth considering that an attempt by a Member State to save costs by reducing the security features on the ID and residence documents they produce may have negative consequences on security for other Member States.

445 This would not be the case however if one document would only be used for travel purposes and the other for other purposes within the country that issued the document.

163

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

Table 5.4 Summary – Policy Option 4 Key: -2 = Very negative impact; - 1 = Negative impact; 0 = Neutral Impact; +1 = positive impact; +2 = very positive impact Key Evaluation Questions Residence Documents Coherence 0 Effectiveness +2 Efficiency -2 Proportionality -2 Citizens +2 Impact on Public authorities -1 Stakeholders Private Sector +1

Key Evaluation Questions ID Cards Coherence 0 Effectiveness +2 Efficiency -1 Proportionality -1 Citizens +1 Impact on Public authorities -1 Stakeholders Private Sector -1

5.6 Preferred Policy Option According to the Better Regulation Guidelines, it is not necessary to identify a preferred option but an attempt should be made to compare the options objectively against common criteria, as we have done above. Below, we aggregate the scores obtained through the assessment of each of the policy options to identify a preferred option. Subsequently we analyse the costs and benefits of the preferred policy option. We conclude this section by discussing the possible wider economic, social and fundamental rights impacts. As shown below (see Table 5.5) Policy Options 2 and 3(a), (b) and (c) score highest with regard to the different evaluation criteria. Thus, this combination of policy options is considered to be most suitable to promote the objectives of free movement, EU citizenship, and enhanced security at borders and internally within Member States. With regard to the enhanced security objective, this combination of policy options follows a set of minimum security standards based on the full ICAO 9303 standard (parts 1-6 and 9-12) and thus makes border control more effective and more secure. In regard to free movement, the combination of Policy Options 2 and 3 diminishes ‘hassle costs’ to EU citizens when crossing the border and when accessing private and public sector services. Combining Policy Options 2 and 3 does also not disproportionately intrude on national approaches as it remains far below the level of harmonisation of the uniform EU driving licence. Policy Option 2 measures with regard to ID cards and residence documents are favoured by many stakeholders that have been consulted by CSES and in DG JUST’s own consultation (e.g. national

164

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 authorities in HU, SK, FI and HR and civil rights organisations in BE, ES and SE favoured soft law measures as suggested in Policy Option 2).446 Equally, Policy Option 3 is favoured by many national authorities (such as authorities in BG, CY, EL, FI, IE, PT, RO, SI, SK).447 It is also argued that harmonisation should not go beyond minimum features since documentation ‘is an expression of the identity of each country’ (e.g. a view expressed in SK) and since it would facilitate falsification of documents (e.g. as argued in BG).448 Apart from addressing political sensibilities, the preferred option is also not estimated to involve significant costs since most EU Member States already comply with the suggested changes. The quantifiable benefits expected are reduced border crossing times when harmonised ID cards are used. This benefit arises only later but exceed the initial costs.

5.6.1 Identification of preferred policy option Overall, our assessment suggests that a combination of Policy Option 2 and Policy Option 3 would be the preferred way of tackling the problems identified in Section 3 both in respect of ID cards and residence documents. Policy Option 2 would require some changes to be made by EU Member States but they are not likely to be substantial since no changes to national legislation and documentation would have to be made. In addition, under Policy Option 3 only some amendments would be needed because most Member States already comply with the main requirements. The table below provides a summary of the number of countries and the extent of changes they are most likely to encounter under each policy option. For example, under Policy Option 3b on ID cards only four countries are currently not complying with this policy option. Therefore, the vast majority of Member States would be unaffected. A more detailed elaboration of the reasons for the ratings and the list of countries affected is provided in the Appendices. Table 5.5 Preferred option – extent of changes needed by Member States No/Minor Moderate Policy Options Major Amendments Amendments Amendments Residence Cards Policy Option 1 All MS - - Policy Option 2 - All MS - Policy Option 3a 11 17 - Policy Option 3b 21 7 Policy Option 3c All MS - - Policy Option 3d - All MS - Policy Option 4a - - All MS Policy Option 4c All MS - - Policy Option 5 - - All MS

446 CSES consultation. 447 DG JUST Consultation. 448 DG JUST Consultation.

165

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

Identity Cards Policy Option 1 All MS - - Policy Option 2 - All MS - Policy Option 3a 22 4 - Policy Option 3b 17 9 - Policy Option 3c All MS - - Policy Option 4a - - 22 Policy Option 4b - - 22 Policy Option 4c 19 7 - Policy Option 4d All MS - - Policy Option 5 - - All MS In Tables 5.5 (a) and 5.5 (b) below we bring together the rankings of each policy option against the criteria that were discussed earlier in this section. The ranking is from a scale of -2 to +2 (low to high). The highest overall ranking means it is the preferred policy option. Residence documents Table 5.5 (a): Residence documents - preferred option Key: -2 = Very negative impact; - 1 = Negative impact; 0 = Neutral Impact; +1 = positive impact; +2 = very positive impact Key evaluation criteria Policy Options 1 (Dynamic 2 (soft law 3 (limited 4 (maximum Baseline) measures) harmonisation) harmonisation) Coherence 0 +1 +2 0 Effectiveness 0 +1 +2 +2 Efficiency 0 +1 +1 -2 Proportionality 0 +1 +2 -2 Impact on Citizens 0 +1 +2 +2 Stakeholders Public authorities 0 +1 +2 -1 Private Sector 0 0 +1 +1 Totals 0 +5 +12 -1

In relation to residence cards, Policy Option 3 (limited harmonisation) has the highest ranking overall with a score of +12 compared with 0 for Policy Option 1 (status quo), +5 for Policy Option 2 and +1 for Policy Option 4 (maximum harmonisation). More information on how these scores have been arrived at is provided in earlier sub-sections but it is worth repeating the ratings for the preferred option. Policy Option 2 scores +1 on coherence since the envisaged measures are combined with already existing forums minimizing costs and avoiding a disproportionate administrative burden. However, at the same time Policy Option 2 is coherent with other measures taken on harmonization of driving licenses. With regard to effectiveness and efficiency, Policy Option 2 also scores +1 because some or all of the costs that would arise from the soft law measures could also be covered by EU funding. In this way, the costs to national authorities would be reduced to a minimum. It can be expected that benefits would ultimately compensate for the costs of setting up the soft law measures. In terms of

166

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 proportionality, Policy Option 2 would rely on existing frameworks for implementation. At the same time, however, it would not eradicate all existing problems. With regard to the impacts on key stakeholders, Policy Option 2 scores +1 for citizens and public authorities but there is a lower impact on the private sector because only a relatively small proportion of the sector would be affected. With regard to Policy Option 3, the score on coherence is +2 since only minor changes are necessary. In respect to effectiveness, the score is also +2 because the policy option will contribute to enhancing free movement. On the impact on key stakeholders, Policy Option 3 scores +2 for citizens and public authorities because citizens would most likely face fewer problems when for instance requesting residence documentation or when opening bank accounts where residence certificates need to be presented. Furthermore, public authorities could save costs if application procedures are undertaken online.

ID cards Table 5.5 (b): ID cards - preferred option Key: -2 = Very negative impact; - 1 = Negative impact; 0 = Neutral Impact; +1 = positive impact; +2 = very positive impact Key evaluation criteria Policy Options 1 (Dynamic 2 (soft law 3 (limited 4 (maximum Baseline) measures) harmonisation) harmonisation) Coherence 0 +1 +2 0 Effectiveness 0 +1 +1 +2 Efficiency 0 +1 +2 -1 Proportionality 0 +1 +1 -2 Impact on Citizens 0 +1 +1 +1 Stakeholders Public authorities 0 +1 +1 -1 Private Sector 0 0 0 -1 Totals 0 +5 +8 -2

With regard to ID cards, a detailed description on how the ratings have been calculated can be found in the earlier sub-sections on ID cards. The explanation for the ratings of Policy Option 2 were summarised in the preceding paragraph. The scores for Policy Option 3 are explained below.

Policy Option 3 scores +2 on effectiveness since it achieves the general policy objectives of enhancing free movement in the EU. For example, including the title of the ID card in English would help public and private authorities to clearly recognize whether a document is an ID card or a different document. In regard to coherence, Policy Option 3 scores high (+2) as no major amendments to the current situation are foreseen. Furthermore, most ID cards already meet the requirements suggested under the sub-options implying that few Member States would have to adopt the new format. The score in relation to efficiency is also high since most Member States already comply with the requirements. In regard to the impacts on key stakeholders, it is worth noting that citizens would most likely face fewer problems when travelling to other Member States and in accessing private sector services (score +1). In respect to public authorities that do not already include minimum requirements, these would incur limited additional costs under Policy Option 3 as some information on the card would need to be changed. A positive effect could be expected for border control officials who will be able to conduct checks more efficiently due to the minimum harmonised standards. The work of private sector entities such as banks and airlines would be

167

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 facilitated, especially if ID cards comply with the ICAO standard but only if combined with awareness- raising mentioned in Policy Option 2.

5.6.2 Cost and benefits of preferred policy option The costs and benefits of the preferred option reflect the combination of Policy Options 2 (soft law) and Policy Option 3 (limited harmonisation) for both residence documents and ID cards. To recapitulate, we estimate the accumulated costs of Policy Option 2 to be in the order of EUR 45.8m over three years (or EUR 18.6m in year 1 of implementation). In addition, the cost of Policy Option 3 for residence documents is expected to amount to at least EUR 3.4m over a period of three years (or EUR 1.1m in year 1). Combined, this produces an overall cost figure for the preferred option for residence documents of EUR 49.2m over three years, after which period the impact of implementation should be monitored and any amendments to the intervention considered. In addition to the cost of EUR 49.2m over a three-year-period for Policy Option 2, the cost of introducing the changes recommended under Policy Option 3 for ID cards would primarily affect 3 Member States. The approximate cost of replacing those ID cards would amount to EUR 53.8m per year/in year 1. However, this figure is only indicative, and shows what factors are driving the cost of Policy Option 3, namely: the number of Member States that would need to make substantial changes to their cards, and do not plan to do so anyway; the number of cards in circulation and issued each year in theses Member States; the timeline adopted by the EU for phasing out and replacing existing cards; and the period that cards currently issued are valid for. The cost per annum of the preferred option is summarised in the table below.

Preferred option for residence documents Preferred option for ID cards

Cost of option 2: EUR 18.6m in year 1

Cost of option 3: EUR 1.1m Cost of option 3: EUR 53.8m

The benefits, in turn, can also be aggregated from the impact assessment of Policy Options 2 and 3. The benefits of Policy Option 2 are that ‘hassle’ costs to citizens (such as delays, flights that cannot be taken, etc.) would be significantly reduced. This would benefit a potential 7.2 million EU citizens (see Section 3 and Section 5.2). Thus, the benefits are likely to be considerable. Border control officials and private sector entities would be better informed and this would increase efficiency at borders and allow citizens in a country to access services more easily, reducing costs for citizens and public authorities alike. The improved flow of information and the proposed central registry would speed up document checks and reduce training costs for employees of private sector entities. In case of the preferred option for ID cards, cost savings of EUR 42.2m may be incurred based on case studies relating to hassle cost for citizens, e.g. in the context of dealing with airlines. The additional cost savings due to adopting Policy Option 3 in addition to Policy Option 2 cannot be quantified. However, there are other cost savings that might be reasonably expected to arise from the preferred option, for example a reduction in crime (and hence police time) linked to the use of fraudulent ID cards and residence documents, which cannot be estimated but which could nevertheless be significant. Generally, the estimates above are only indicative since the benefits of the preferred option include potential cost savings that can be expected to arise from developing more efficient systems for the

168

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 use of ID cards and residence documents. However, these cost savings are extremely difficult to quantify because the costs incurred by public and private sector organisations in processing ID cards and residence documents are not monitored by them. We have therefore made ‘best estimates’ based on various assumptions concerning the costs and potential savings, and these suggest that there would be a quite substantial net financial gain to key stakeholders from the implementation of the preferred policy option. More generally, the preferred option would effectively achieve the general objectives of the intervention (see Section 3) and enhance free movement in the EU through a combination of awareness-raising measures and harmonisation of ID and residence documents to a common minimum standard and streamlining of procedures. This could lay the foundation for further harmonisation efforts in the longer term. The preferred option would be externally coherent as it builds on existing measures wherever possible and efficient in that a significant proportion of the costs will be one-off whereas the benefits will accrue over many years. Overall, we believe this option strikes the right balance between not being too intrusive as regards diverging national approaches to ID and residence documents, and thereby respects the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity whilst having a real positive impact for citizens, public authorities, and private sector entities, both in terms of facilitating free movement and increasing security.

5.6.3 Wider economic, social and fundamental rights impacts In addition to the direct impacts discussed above, the preferred option should have wider economic and social impacts. There will also be fundamental rights effects. As regards wider economic impacts, greater free movement (the intended result of the preferred policy option) should contribute to an increase in labour mobility in the EU which should, in turn, facilitate the more efficient allocation of resources. For example, where individuals face hurdles in terms of opening a bank account in another country, or there are delays in taking up new jobs due to problems with ID cards, such constraints on free movement are likely to discourage individuals from moving from one country to another to work. Reduced constraints on cross-border labour mobility by implementing the preferred policy option could potentially have benefits for a quite a wide range of economic sectors that rely on workers from other EU Member States.449 This includes higher education where there is a considerable degree of student and researcher mobility, specialised jobs in manufacturing, the healthcare sector, the hotels and catering sector, and certain parts of the construction and agricultural sectors, all of which have a high dependence on workers being able to exercise their freedom of movement within the EU. Tourism is also a sector that could potentially benefit. It is impossible to quantify these and other economic and labour market impacts. However, it is worth mentioning what these economic benefits entail. Thus, with enhanced free movement, various economic sectors will have access to cheaper and/or better skilled staff, thereby increasing job and wealth creation. It is difficult to make predictions on whether SMEs will be affected to the same extent as larger companies. Therefore, it is safer to focus on different sectors when analysing the extent of the effects. As outlined earlier, some sectors benefit more extensively from intra-EU mobility than others, and while large undertakings tend to predominate in sectors such as higher education, SMEs are more numerous in sectors such as agriculture.

449 See, for example, Scientific Report on the Mobility of Cross-Border Workers within the EU-27/EEA/EFTA Countries, DG Employment (2009)

169

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5

Furthermore, the reduced diversity of ID cards and residence documents will also have benefits on those sectors that require ID and residence documents to be shown when services are provided. In this report estimates of the potential benefits have only been made for banks and airlines because data was lacking to do so for other types of entities. Nevertheless, other types of entities (e.g. utilities, car rental, hotels, etc.) would potentially also benefit from the preferred policy option. A wider recognition of ID and residence documents across EU Member States, including the documents carried by TCNs who are family members of EU citizens, may also contribute to promoting social inclusion with affected individuals feeling they are treated on an equal basis to nationals of the host country and being generally able to access the same public and private sector services.450. Other social impacts of the preferred option relate to social protection. With minimum features included in all documentation, fraud in accessing social benefits should be reduced. If awareness among the authorities increases and thus ID cards are more readily accepted and residence documents are more efficiently produced, hurdles for foreign students to enrol in university/school could be lowered. Last but not least, the level of security within the EU would increase since it would be more difficult to falsify documents and to enter the EU based on illegitimate grounds. Whilst acknowledging the potential wider economic and social implications of reducing administrative hurdles on intra-EU mobility it needs to be noted that the link between the preferred option and macro-level factors such as Internal Market impacts and levels of consumption across Member States is very remote. Instead, other factors such as language and information on job opportunities are likely to be more important in influencing cross-border mobility. There may potentially be a more solid link in the long-term (for example if Policy Options 4 or 5 are adopted or if external factor become more relevant such as an exponential increase in intra-EU mobility). However, for the purposes of this study it should be sufficient to acknowledge these factors without assessing them in greater depth vis-à-vis the preferred option. As regards environmental impact, besides a potential increase in air traffic due to facilitated free movement, which would be impossible to attribute directly to the preferred option, we cannot envisage any impacts, whether positive or negative. With respect to fundamental rights, under the preferred option the same approach to privacy is followed as for the e-passports issued by EU Member States. There is no extension of the amount of data printed on the card. The facial image is also present on all cards. The main difference for some Member States’ current situation would be the inclusion of a biometric picture in the card chip. As for passports, these biometric data would be protected by cryptographic means. While the facial image would be readable and verifiable by any card reader - so in practice also by private companies – since the signature is verified by a public key, the biometric picture would only be readable and verifiable by the specific services (police, border control officials) that receive the cryptographic keys (CVCA keys). Apart from the fact that this exchange of keys is not already fully operational between EU national authorities, the secret nature of the keys prevents wider sharing (there is also no need for more extensive dissemination). Where privacy comes in much more is the extent to which Member States will store biometrics in their national database of identities and issued cards. Up to now no Member State has stored biometrics (including fingerprints and facial image). Policy Options 3 or 4 do not change this as the civil registry databases are out of scope of any future proposal. There

450 Feedback from CSES stakeholder consultation.

170

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 may, however, still be risks, for instance if data held by the card producer is hacked or if it is not permanently deleted after the card has been issued. A positive impact on fundamental rights can be expected in respect to the right to security, as stipulated in Article 6 of the Charter of European Charter of Fundamental Rights. While traditionally Article 6 and related case law focuses on the right to liberty, the CJEU has recently acknowledged that Article 6 of the Charter “lays down the right of any person not only to liberty, but also to security.”451 As mentioned earlier in this report, harmonising minimum security features of ID cards and residence documents should reduce document fraud and thus prevent the abuse of free movement rights. Since document fraud and the related abuse of free movement rights are often used for criminal purposes, the prevention of the latter will lead to an increased level of security within the EU. There could also be positive effects for citizens exercising political rights, for example in proving identify for the purposes of voting in European elections while in another Member State than their home country. In recommending this preferred option, it has to be acknowledged that the issuance of ID and residence documents is a national prerogative and thus the regulation of the design of such documents is a politically sensitive issue. We believe the preferred option respects the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. The case for EU intervention has been made in Section 4.1. While the current situation works to some degree, a considerable number of citizens face problems that due to their cross-border nature can only be solved at a European, rather than at a national level. A combination of soft measures and targeted and limited harmonisation where this produces minor costs is a proportional measure.

5.6.4 Feedback from Member States on preferred policy option Throughout this report we have provided feedback on specific issues from key stakeholders – national authorities, the private sector, citizens’ groups, etc. Here we summarise the extent of a consensus on the preferred policy option. Overall, whilst feedback from the research indicates that many key stakeholders are content with the status quo, there is also a wide-spread recognition that some (limited) EU action is needed in relation to ID cards and residence documents in the interests of promoting free movement and security. The consultations with Member States suggest that to the extent that the case for EU action is supported, there is a consensus in favour of adopting a combination of Policy Options 2 and 3 (see introduction to Section 4 and Section 5.6). Going beyond this is considered unrealistic and/or unnecessary in the foreseeable future. Amongst those who favour (limited) action at the EU level (i.e. border and law enforcement officials), the starting point is a willingness to accept a certain degree of diversity as long as ID cards are machine-readable, contain a microchip with biometric data and there is a way to be able to access the fingerprints on the chip. Linked to this, phasing out paper-based and old plastic ID documents which are not machine-readable and can be easily forged is seen as highly desirable. A number of more specific priorities were also suggested by those we spoke to. For example, one of the national authorities argued that a radio frequency-chip should be included in ID and residence cards as only this can be read by all scanners used at EU border-crossing points. It is not clear to us how much support there would be amongst national authorities for suggestions such as this given the possible cost implications. However, it should be noted that a number of Member States have

451 Joint Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland v Ireland, para. 42.

171

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Impact Assessment 5 already adopted this approach (e.g. Spain and Portugal). Another, more widely, supported proposal of a quite specific nature is for more regular updates of the PRADO database as well as adding a facial image on registration certificates (for EU citizens). Others (e.g. national authorities in CY, DK, EE, FR, EL, LU and MT) we consulted favoured a greater degree of harmonisation of ID and residence documents, possibly following the same or similar formats as prescribed for residence documents for EU family members under Regulation 380/2008.452 This, it was argued, would facilitate border management and increase internal security in the EU. In one case there was support for harmonising ID cards and residence documents so that all had the same format across the EU but opposition to mandatory possession of residence cards in all Member States since they are not mandatory in the country concerned. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a counter-argument we encountered is that the harmonisation of ID cards across Europe would be too difficult because of the varying legislative frameworks which would make this more complicated than in the case of passports. We also encountered the view that no change is needed, and/or that even though it is desirable, bringing about change would be too complicated and difficult to achieve in practice, at least in the foreseeable future. A key question is whether or not there is enough political will for change. We received very little feedback on this question. However, our sense is that for national authorities it is the security aspect of harmonisation of ID cards and residence documents that tends to drive the debate with the arguments linked to facilitating free movement playing a secondary (but still very important) role, especially for citizens’ groups and the private sector. Given current security concerns following terrorist attacks in several EU Member States, as well as the continuing refugee crisis and possibility that some terrorists are using this as a cover to enter Europe, it is not surprising that security issues are at the forefront. There is also an issue of political feasibility. On this point, some of those we spoke to argued that making EU funding available to support the harmonisation of key features of ID cards and residence documents would help to alleviate concerns and overcome resistance to more extensive changes. Others suggested that there is already a precedent for at least a limited degree of harmonisation – which did not require EU financial support – in the form of driving licences and passports. Just as there are differences of opinion between Member States over the case for EU action, and what form this should take, so there are also differences within countries. In general, border control authorities tend to be more in favour of the harmonisation of ID cards and residence documents – especially in relation to security features - than their counterparts elsewhere in national administrations. This is hardly surprising given that the police and border control agencies bear the brunt of the current diversity in ID cards and residence documentation while other parts of the national administrations perhaps focus on the costs of harmonisation, legal aspects and the implications for national sovereignty. At the other end of the scale, those we spoke to in private sector organisations tended to be the least supportive of the case for harmonisation, largely because current practices in dealing with the diversity of ID cards and residence documents seem to work well and there is less exposure to the problems such diversity can create. Another argument was that an EU-wide standard format for ID cards and residence documents would increase the risk of fraud as criminals would be able to focus on forging just one standard EU format. However, it is of course very difficult to generalise about the position of different types of stakeholders.

452 Note that most of those stakeholders only mentioned residence documents.

172

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Monitoring & Evaluation 6

6 Monitoring & Evaluation In this section we set out a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of the preferred option. The approach follows the Better Regulation guidelines. It is important that any measures that are implemented are monitored and evaluated to check that they achieve their objectives. Thus if shortcomings are detected corrective actions can be taken. It should be noted that the monitoring and evaluation framework outlined below is designed only for the preferred policy option. It does not include performance indicators and suggested data collection sources for the full range of possible interventions discussed in this report. The Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines (Tool 35) state that: ‘A broad outline of the monitoring and evaluation arrangements should be provided in the impact assessment report, with more specific arrangements for the preferred option. These should inform the essential monitoring and evaluation elements that ought to be included in the proposal itself and for preparing a detailed plan for monitoring and evaluation once the proposal is adopted by the Legislator.”

6.1 Overall framework As indicated in the Better Regulation guidelines, a number of factors relating to the lifecycle of an intervention should be monitored. Below we summarise these factors and the performance indicators that might be used to monitor them. Table 6.1 Overall framework

Life cycle Key indicators Data sources Implementation  Introduction at EU and Member State levels of Commission and national measures to implement Policy Option 2; authorities (ministries of  Introduction of limited legislation (Policy Option 3a) interior for ID cards and at the EU level and transposition by Member States ministries of immigration for residence documents) Application Extent to which there is an:  Eurobarometer surveys  Improvement in the awareness of citizen’s rights and feedback from while exercising EU free movement rights; citizens organisations  Reduction in costs and administrative barriers for  Surveys of private sector citizens and their family members related to ID and entities residence documents;  Completion of  Reduction in costs for private entities, resulting monitoring reports by from the diversity of ID cards; national authorities  Reduction in costs for public authorities,  Data gathering from including from inefficiency of border control; publicly available  Increase in the acceptance by public and private sources (see Annex B) entities of documents issued by other Member States;  Reduction in fraud related to ID cards and improved. border security Compliance and Number of Member States complying with EU As above enforcement legislation (Policy Option 3a) (implementation) Contextual  Number of non-nationals residing in different MSs Member States and information  Trends with regard to cross-border mobility Eurostat

173

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Monitoring & Evaluation 6

As noted earlier, implementation would be monitored in terms of the measures adopted at the EU and Member State levels to implement Policy Options 2 and 3, and the EU legislation needed to bring about ‘limited harmonisation’ of ID card and residence document features, together with transposition by Member States. ‘Application’ would involve monitoring progress against the specific policy objectives of EU intervention defined in this report (Section 4). ‘Compliance and enforcement’ would be assessed in relation to ‘implementation’. This aspect could be extended to include private sector organisations but we do not consider this appropriate given that it is unlikely that they would be required to comply with any legislation. Last but not least, it is envisaged that some contextual information will be collected on a periodic basis, i.e. developments that are not intentionally related to the policy intervention, although they may be influenced by it. The key developments in this context relate to free movement, namely trends with regard to cross-border mobility (for ID cards) and trends with regard to the number of non-nationals residing in different Member States (for residence documents).

6.2 Framework for monitoring preferred policy option The following table sets out suggested key performance indicators and data sources for the preferred policy option (i.e. a combination of Policy Options 2 and 3). Table 6.2 Key indicators for monitoring the implementation of the preferred option Policy Option 2 Indicators Data sources Awareness  Number and type of initiatives to raise awareness of raising rights under the Directive measures  Estimated number of citizens reached by Policy Option 2 awareness-raising measures Enhanced  Number of Member States engaged in different types of It is envisaged that cooperation enhanced cooperation activities (see Policy Option 2) Member States will provide between  Number of officials from MSs engaged in cooperation DG JUST with an annual national activities and feedback on benefits of cooperation; report providing the details authorities proportion of national agencies participating in required for these cooperation activities indicators to be monitored. EU-wide  Number and type of training sessions and number and In case that capacity- type of participants from different Member States (see confidential/sensitive data building and Policy Option 2 in Sections 4 and 5 for an explanation). is contained, Member training Indicators on the training session include: number and States should use a type of participants, length and content of sessions, securitised reporting feedback on ‘lessons learned’ from the sessions. system. Single Points of  Number of Member States setting up Single Points of Contact Contact (SPC) and developing online systems for ID checks; frequency of use of the SPC and online system; user-friendliness of the SPC and online system.  Number of ID checks undertaken via Single Contact Points and online systems Policy Option 3 Indicators Data sources EU legislation  Number of Member States introducing legislation to Central monitoring by DG on limited achieve limited harmonisation of ID cards and residence JUST based on information harmonisation documents provided by Member States of ID cards and  Proportion of ID cards and residence documents in (part of the annual report residence circulation in different MDs/EU that have limited mentioned under Policy documents harmonisation features Option 2 above).

174

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Monitoring & Evaluation 6

It will be important to adopt a realistic approach to monitoring the implementation of the preferred policy option and not to over-burden national authorities. Indicators are meant to supplement the normal evaluation cycle of a policy and should not seek to replace it. Likewise, although some key indicators can be quantified, there should not be an over-reliance on quantification and a qualitative assessment should also be undertaken to assess how well the preferred policy option is being implemented the effects being achieved. For example, it will not be sufficient under Policy Option 2 to analyse how many Member States will have set up a Single Point of Contact and online systems for ID checks. It will also be important to analyse whether key stakeholders are aware of the SPCs and how user-friendly these systems are. This is important for the analysis of the effectiveness of the measure. It is envisaged that national authorities will introduce the monitoring systems so that the data needed for the key performance indicators can be collected.453 Consultations with Member States will be needed to determine the most appropriate frequency of data collection and reporting but an annual cycle could be suggested. The data collected at Member State level will then have to be analysed on the EU level. Apart from the national activities, monitoring at the EU level will also be needed. For example collecting data on the workshops conducted by FRONTEX or the meetings held by the Article 6 Committee will need to be monitored at EU level rather than by Member States . Similarly, some EU-level coordination of national monitoring activities will be needed (e.g. to define a common template for data collection) as well as the collation and analysis of information that is provided by national authorities. It should be noted that some relevant information is already shared at the EU level. Particularly information needed to monitor Policy Option 3 can be retrieved to a certain extent from the PRADO website. This provides an overview of documents in circulation at Member State level and it explains the features included in these documents. However, the website is not always updated in regard to all Member States and thus the system needs improving to serve as data source for the preferred option monitoring purposes. In contrast, a lot of the other information is not yet collected at Member State or the EU level (such as data necessary to monitor Policy Option 2). The two-tier (Member State and EU level) monitoring framework set out above will provide a good understanding of the preferred option’s ‘outputs’. Below we suggest indicators for the results and impacts. These terms were defined earlier in this report (see Section 4.2 on the intervention logic). Table 6.3 Key indicators for monitoring results and impacts

Policy Option 2 Indicators Data sources

Outputs See Table 6.2  It is envisaged that Member States will  More efficient and less time-consuming border Results provide this control procedures, information to DG  Reduced costs to national authorities and less JUST in their annual inconvenience to citizens,

453 National authorities already gather some of the data needed to feed in the indicators system (e.g. number of residence documents issued per year, number of non-national EU citizens residing in a country, costs in relation to producing documentation (in some cases). However, more comprehensive data on for example border control checks (e.g. numbers of documents that were not valid, statistics on e-gates, etc.), costs of digital application systems, costs of documents in circulation, will be needed with approaches being harmonised across the EU Member States.

175

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Monitoring & Evaluation 6

Policy Option 2 Indicators Data sources  Improved security and a reduction in the reports fraudulent use of ID cards,  Surveys will be  Benefits as above to private sector entities needed to obtain (airlines, banks, etc) and those who use their information from services citizens and private sector organisations Impacts  Enhanced free movement for citizens to monitor ‘results’.  Enhanced access to public and other services for  Impacts will be non-nationals residing in host MSs assessed by DG JUST  Improved security of EU citizens through EU-wide  Wider social and economic impacts research In addition to on-going monitoring based on the annual reports submitted by national authorities, it is envisaged that the Commission will undertake an EU level evaluation of the preferred option’s implementation and effects within 3 to 5 years of the implementation date. This seems to be a reasonable timeframe as it allows for meaningful changes to occur whilst ensuring that any intervention is closely monitored and evaluated. This exercise would be repeated periodically (e.g. every five years). The EU level evaluation should be able to draw on monitoring data contained in the annual reports submitted by Member States. However, the assessment of impacts is likely to only be possible to undertake at the EU level and will probably have to rely on an essentially qualitative methodology (e.g. an analysis of feedback from national authorities and other key stakeholders such as citizens groups and business representatives on the extent to which implementation of the preferred policy option is having the desired impacts and contributing to the achievement of the general aims of EU intervention (see Section 4). It is unlikely to be possible to establish a causal link between quantitative data, for example, trends in the number of citizens exercising their free movement rights, and the measures envisaged in the preferred policy option.

176

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Overall Conclusions 7

7 Overall Conclusions The final report is based on extensive research including: data collection from Member States and an analysis of the 144 country fiches containing details of the ID cards and residence documentation currently in use across the EU; desk research and an analysis of the ‘Your Europe Advice’ database to help determine the extent to which these differences cause problems for EU citizens in exercising their right to free movement; 137 interviews at the EU level and across all the Member States; and three focus groups involving representatives from six countries. As explained in Section 2, the research indicates that Member States’ laws and practices differ quite significantly with regard to the types of ID card and residents documents they issue. We estimate that there are 144 different types of ID card and residence documents in use across the EU Member States. Almost all Member States issue ID cards, but the position with residence documentation is more varied: the majority of Member States issue registration certificates although this is not required by EU law and while a minority of Member States issues residence cards for EU citizens, all Member States issue residence cards for family members of EU citizens. With regard to permanent residence cards, all Member States issue cards to both EU citizens and their family members. Furthermore, there are a large number of different versions of ID cards and residence documents in use across the EU Member States. With regard to ID cards, in half of the Member States, three or more versions are in circulation while in most other Member States at least two versions are in circulation. With regard to residence documentation, in almost all EU Member States there are only one or two versions in use. In some Member States the different versions are all valid while in other Member States they are not. Whilst there are some similarities in regard to layout, format, security features, functionality, eligibility and other aspects related to ID and residence documentation, there are also substantial differences. Most ID cards include biometric features and are in plastic card format. However, in a number of Member States ID cards are without biometric features and/or paper based. With regard to registration certificate most Member States only issue paper-based documents. With the other residence documents there is a great variety. Thus TCN family members are usually provided with documents with biometric features while EU citizens are generally issued with paper-based or non- biometric plastic documents. In section 3 (by drawing on the analysis of the 2015 Citizenship Consultation, the assessment of the YEA database and our own interview programme) we highlight the fact that there are problems that citizens, private entities and national authorities face when the right to free movement is exercised arising from the existence of different types of ID cards and residence documentation. With regard to residence documents problems mainly relate to misperception of citizens, lengthy and unclear procedures, the lack of awareness of local authorities, and problems in accessing public and private sector services. With regard to ID cards, the problems mainly relate to border control, access to private sector services, and the renewal/issuance of the document. The scale of the problem has been assessed drawing on quantitative case studies, Eurostat data on the number of EU citizens residing in another Member State than their own, in conjunction with data from YEA on entry- and residence-related enquiries. In Section 4 of the report we argue that there is a convincing case, and legal basis, for EU action in relation to ID cards and residence documentation. This would have the aim of promoting the exercising of free movement for EU citizens and their TCN family members; simplifying daily life for EU citizens; and addressing security risks and abuse of free movement, notably related to identity fraud. Moreover, we suggest that enhanced internal security in the EU should contribute to an

177

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Section identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Overall Conclusions 7 increased acceptance and legitimacy of the principle of free movement. A total of five policy options together with related sub-options are suggested of which four are subject to assessment. The research indicates that the status quo is regarded as acceptable by many key stakeholders but that there is also a wide-spread recognition that some (limited) EU action is needed in relation to ID cards and residence documents in the interest of promoting free movement and security. Our consultations with Member States suggest that to the extent that the case for EU action is supported, there is a consensus in favour of adopting a combination of Policy Options 2 and 3. Going beyond this is considered unrealistic and/or unnecessary in the foreseeable future. We estimate the costs of implementing the preferred option for residence documents to be approximately EUR 49.2m over a three-year-period, and in case of ID cards EUR 3.4m over a three- year period plus EUR 53.8m per annum for replacing existing ID cards in three countries where this would not otherwise happen over a ten-year timeframe. A potential total of 7.2 million EU citizens could benefit through enhanced free movement and easier access to certain private sector services. Similarly, there would be cost savings and efficiency gains to public authorities. Implementation of the preferred policy option could lay the foundation for further harmonisation efforts in the longer term. The preferred option would be externally coherent as it builds on existing measures wherever possible and efficient in that the most substantial costs would be one-off whereas the benefits will accrue over many years. Overall, we believe the preferred option strikes the right balance in not being too intrusive as regards diverging national approaches to ID and residence documents, and thereby respecting the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, whilst having a real positive impact on citizens, public authorities, and private sector entities.

178

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

List of Interviews A

List of Interviews EU Level Name DG Gabor Bartha DG CNECT, eIDAS Jean-Francois Junger DG CNECT Luca Mangiat DG GROW, SOLVIT

Zoltan Magyar DG GROW, Unit R4 Ivan Lukač DG Mobility and Transport Silvia Kolligs-Tuffery DG HOME Isabel Baltazar DG HOME Laurent Bonanséa DG HOME Bénédicte Marquet DG HOME Caroline Loup DG JUST Richard Rinkens DG HOME Igor Nai Fovino JRC Cristina Gimenez-Estol DG GROW Zsuzsanna Felkai-Janssen DG HOME Jan Möller DG JUST Anna Moscibroda DG JUST Pablo Lahoz Marco European Association of Cooperative Banks Guillaume Xavier-Bender Airlines for Europe Marie-Caroline Laurent IATA Koen Vermeir IATA Monique de Smet IATA

Member States In total 137 interviews have been conducted: 38 interviews with stakeholders in national ministries, 18 interviews with border guard officials, 27 with private sector stakeholders, and 39 interview with NGOs or academic stakeholders. It has to be noted that not all relevant stakeholders could be interviewed due to the lack of willingness to be interviewed in some of the stakeholder groups ("N/A" in list of interviews).

179

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

List of Interviews A

Border Country Ministry Private Sector NGO/Academic/Expert Control/Police Michael Fuchs Ref III/3/a (Passwesen/Passport and ID documents) and Corina Royer (Abteilung III/4 Austria Aufenthalts-, Anonymous N/A N/A Personenstands- und Staatsbürgerschaftswe sen/Residence, Civil Status and Nationality issues), Ministry of Interior Bart Vrancken, Head of Service eID IBZ - SPF Intérieur Institutions et Population Isabella Doyen, Director ADDE (Association pour le Belgium Frederic Duterme, Anonymous N/A droit des étrangers asbl) Attaché, Office des

Etrangers – Bureau d’Etudes, Residence Documents Foreign Office Ministry of Latchezar Bogdanov, Lt.Gen (Ret.) Chavdar Ministry of Interior Interior Industry Watch Chervenkov, Bulgaria Directorate Identity 3. General Group – Bulgaria Center for the Study of Documents and Directorate Democracy migration Border Police Andrej Pevec, National Section for Border Karolina Vodanovic, Foundation for Civil Society Croatia Security, Ministry of N/A Croatia Airlines Interior Milivoje Zugic, Centre for Legal Research Sotiria Georgioula, Sergeant Savvas Migration Section, Lountzides Ministry of Interior Tonia Nicolaou, Bank Marilena Ioannidou, First Cyprus George Georgiou, of Cyprus Elements Euroconsultants Consular affairs, Sergeant Marios Ministry of Foreign Charalambous Affairs Frantisek Dancak, ID Petra Equabank, Magda Faltova, Association and travelling Kovandova, Raiffeisenbank, Czech Rep of Integration and documents unit, Director of Volksbank Löbau Migration Ministry of Interior Foreigners Police Zittau eG

180

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

List of Interviews A

Border Country Ministry Private Sector NGO/Academic/Expert Control/Police Tommy Keil, Vice Jakob Næsager, Head police inspector, Leif Randeris, of Unit for EU Denmark N/A NUC (National Indvandrerrådgivningen Residence Cards, State Centre for (Immigration Counselling) Administration Foreigners) Harry Kattai, Advisor, Eve Kalmus, Dr. Tatjana Evas, Tallinn Kodakondsus- ja Border Control University of Technology rändepoliitika Planning Division osakond, Department of citizenship and migration, Ministry of Evelin Vaik, Estonia N/A Interior Evelin Künk, Liis Viktor Kaljukivi, Valk, Police and Advisor, department of Border Guard citizenship and Office Jelena Karžetskaja, migration, Ministry of Information Centre for Interior Human Rights Hanna Minna Grasten, Piipponen, Chief Markus Richard Migration Department, Superintendent, Rickman, AML Lead, Ministry of Interior National Police Danske Bank Board Sini Castren, Tiina Rantanen, Parliament Secretary, Senior Officer, Hanne Selin, The Finland Finland Finnish Expatriate National Police Society Parliament Board Ilone Rintanen, Kimmo Elomaa, Senior Legal Counsel, Janne Kinnunen, Head of Border Posti Oy Senior Officer, Finnish and Coast Guard Immigration Service Division, Finnish Border Guard Anna Sibley, FASTI Laurent Friboulet, Jean-Thomas Arrighi, EU Head of Europe France N/A N/A Democracy Observatory on Section, Ministry of Citizenship Interior Claudia Charles, GISTI Vincent Rosahl, Referat IT I 4 - Identifizierungssystem e; Pass- und Dirk Stein Direktor Ausweiswesen, Retail Banking, Volker Westphal, book Ministry of Interior Germany N/A Banktechnologie, author and policeman,

Johannes Raschka, German Banking Free Movement Expert Referat M I 1 - Association Grundsatz- und Rechtsangelegenheit en der Migration, Freizügigke

181

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

List of Interviews A

Border Country Ministry Private Sector NGO/Academic/Expert Control/Police itsrecht der Unionsbürger Ministry of Interior Efstratios Kornelia Ranktik, Karakontinos, General Secretariat of Depurty Chief, Dr. Depsina Immigration Policy, Stavros Daliakas, Directorate of Anagnostopoulou, Greece Directorate General of Commercial Director, Border Security Professor EU law, University Nationality and Ellinair SA (Airline) of National of Macedonia Immigration Policy Airport of Ministry of Interior Thesaloniki Dr. Vivien Vadasi, Head Richard Kartosonto, Central of Migration Unit, European University Ministry of Interior Dr. Szabina IFI-TAR, Head of Office of Dr. Julia Molnar, Central Dr. Albert Pucsok, Immigration and European University Hungary N/A Attorney at Law, Nationality Peteri Law Firm Dr. Renata Mihaly, Head of Central Office Gabor Gyulai, Hungarian for Adminstrative and Helsinki Committee Electronic Public Services Migrant Rights Centre, Ireland N/A N/A Central Bank Ireland Ireland Stefano Monaco, Banca Popolare di Spoleto Stefania Piccinelli, Project Enrico Gili, Italian Coordinator, Citizen Association of Without Borders, GVC Dr Raffaella Renzi, Insurance Deputy Companies Supertintendent, Mauro Parducci, Italy Central Directorate of N/A Association of public Immigration and administration & civil Neva Cocchi, Manager, Border Control, society and Independent Immigration Ministry of Interior electorate (DEA) Office in Bologna, Marco Paggi, participant in Citizen Immigration and Without Borders project Employment Rights Lawyer Alvis Skenders, Shelter Safe House Dita Kugeniece, Agency for Mr. Berzins, Latvia N/A N/A International Programs for Monetizator LLC Youth

Svetlana Djackova, Latvian Centre for Human Rights

182

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

List of Interviews A

Border Country Ministry Private Sector NGO/Academic/Expert Control/Police Liga Silina, Baltic Regional Fund Evelina Gudzinskaite, Audrius Head of Division of Pauliukevicius, Indre Lechtimiakyte, Law and International Vladas Sungaila, Lithuania Senior Officer, International Organisation Cooperation, Insurance Broker State Border for Migration Migration Department, Guard Service Ministry of Interior Sylvie Catherine Bourin, Prommenschenkel Steve Schmittz, Luxembourg Luxembourg Deputy Director Deputy Director Sergio Ferreira, ASTI Bankers' Association Director, Immigration Judicial Police (ABBL) Directorate Felix Vella, e-ID Unit, Identity Malta Ryan Spagnol, Malta Residence Document N/A N/A N/A Unit, Identity Malta Anton Sevastas, Identity Malta Diana van Driel, Team Coordinator on Travel Pieter Krop, documents Ministry of document Interior and Kingdom expert, Centre Pieter Krop, Kroes Relations Netherlands Identity fraud N/A Advocaten (Immigration Marije Neve and and documents Lawyer, Kroes Advocaten) Geertjan Wenneker, at the Ministry Advisors, Ministerie of Defence van Veiligheid en Justitie Halina Balcerak, Province Senior Inspector, Department for Foreign Affairs Michael Bleszynski, Deputy Director Poland N/A N/A N/A Department for Legalisation to Stay Anna Lozia and Karol Maczka, Chief Specialist IT Office and IT Head of Division Pedro Nuno Caetano, Marketing Director, BPI (bank) Eduardo da Fonseca Qua, Jose Manuel Faria, Portugal N/A N/A High Commission for Legal Adviser, and Migration Nuno Lima, Economist, Portuguese Banking

183

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

List of Interviews A

Border Country Ministry Private Sector NGO/Academic/Expert Control/Police Association

Dumitru Florin Baba, Directorate for Persons' Records and Mirela Apostol, Luciana Lazarescu, Database Romania Romanian N/A Romanian Association for Administration Border Police Health Promotion (ARPS) Razvan Stegaru, General Inspectorate of Immigration Hepalova Peter Kukucka, Gabriela, Head Ministerial Advisor on of Visa Section, Patricia Tohova, ID and Residence Department of Europcar Dcouments Border and Slovakia N/A Aliens Police Katarina Karovicova, Jan Muran, Head of Department Police, Valeria Dekanyova, for Analysis of Travel Documents ZSE Documents Department

Pina Stepan, Migration Robert Gradisar, Goran Lukic, Svetovalnica and Naturalisation Chief operating Mojca Ajdovec, NLB za migrante (Legal Slovenia Directorate, Ministry officer, Ljubljana Bank counselling for migrant of Interior Airport workers)

Maria Jaxner, Madeleine Öhberg, National Desk Officer, Ministry document N/A N/A of Justice expert, border control

Stefan Danielsson Operational Marie Ahlqvist Bresle, Manager eMRTD Legal Expert, Swedish & National PKI

Sweden Tax Office (written Coordinator, feedback) Swedish Police Authority (written feedback) Lars Bjöhle, Kent Eriksson, Systems Operations Administration Manager Travel Manager /Swedish Documents, Migration Agency Legal (written feedback) Department Swedish Police

184

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

List of Interviews A

Border Country Ministry Private Sector NGO/Academic/Expert Control/Police Authority (written feedback)

Franceska Leichert

Legal Expert,

Swedish Migration Agency (written feedback) Colin Yeo, Lawyer Navtej Singh Ahluwalia, United N/A N/A International Human Rights Kingdom Sue Lukes, Housing Law Expert Specialist

185

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Analysis of Trends in Fraudulent B Documents and EU Policy Responses

Appendix B: Analysis of Trends in Fraudulent Documents and EU Policy Responses The data in this Appendix was provided to the study team by FRONTEX and is not publically available. Since this was specifically compiled for the study, no more recent data can be presented. The chart below shows a breakdown for the top 15 ID cards detected between January and August 2016 in the EU by country issuing the document and type of fraud.

Table B.1: ID cards (broken down by country issuing document and fraud type)

Source: Frontex

The total figures for the period Jan-Aug 2016 are as follows:

Table B.2: ID cards (broken down by country issuing document, total: 4,142)

1600 1383 1400 1200 1000 800 519 600 454 400 318286 269 261 197 200 81 63 50 46 41 38 38 25 16 14 11 9 5 5 4 4 2 2 1 0 0 0

0

SI

FI

IE

IT

ES SE

CZ

PL

EL

SK

LT

CY

LV

FR

PT

ET

LU

BE

AT

NL

BG

DE

RO

UK

DK

HR

HU

MT

Swtizerland

186

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Analysis of Trends in Fraudulent B Documents and EU Policy Responses

As the data show, a total of 4,142 fraudulent ID cards were detected between January and August 2016, with ones most commonly detected coming from Italy, followed by Romanian and Greek ID cards. Frontex experts point out that this is not necessarily an indication of those ID cards being more easily counterfeited. Rather, it could also mean that Italian or Romanian counterfeits can be more easily detected, for example because border guards are more familiar with them. In case of Italy, in addition to counterfeited ID cards, there were many cases of stolen blanks used to create fake ID cards (light green part of the bar), and also a few cases of false images on genuine cards.

In the case of France and Spain, imposters using genuine documents (green part of bar) account for more than two thirds of all fraud incidents. In the case of France, according to Frontex interview estimates, these are often migrants from Africa who speak French fluently and pretend to be French nationals or residents. In the case of Poland, human traffickers often actively help Ukrainian citizens in entering Poland and obtaining a Polish ID which these people then use to travel to the UK. Swedish police officers interviewed for this study confirmed problems with imposters, stating that it is increasingly difficult to detect cases where persons use genuine documents that represent another, similar-looking person, i.e. the comparison between the face of the person presenting the document (the ‘life image’) and the image on the document. To make sure such cases are detected, biometric features and data are important, such as fingerprints and face recognition. While most Swedish border crossing points are capable of carrying out such checks, the legal support to check fingerprints in a chip against the cardholder is not fully covered.

Trend data as shown in the chart below suggests that ID cards fraudulent incidents reached a peak in 2015, and have since come down considerably in case of counterfeited documents and imposters, whereas the trend for image substitutes and stolen blanks is more stable.

Table B.3: ID cards trend (broken down by fraud types)

187

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Analysis of Trends in Fraudulent B Documents and EU Policy Responses

Regarding residence documents, the FRONTEX data does not distinguishing between types of residence documents and residence permits. Nevertheless, it appears that the detection of fraudulent residence documents has gone down from 1,765 in 2013 to 1,383 in 2015. Once again, the UK leads the list of desired final destinations for those persons caught with fraudulent residence documents, followed by Germany and Italy. The chart below shows the breakdown of fraudulent residence documents by issuing country and type of fraud.

Table B.4: Residence documents (broken down by country issuing document and fraud type)

Source: Frontex

The chart below shows the exact figures for each issuing country: Table B.5: Residence documents (broken down by country issuing document, total: 1,213)

350 307 300

250 217 200 146 150 105102 96 100 58 29 28 50 23 15 14 12 12 10 9 6 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0

0

SI

FI

IE

IT

ES SE

CZ

PL

EL

SK

LT

CY

LV

FR

PT

ET

LU

BE

AT

NL

BG

DE

RO

UK

DK

HU

MT Norway

Switzerland

188

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Analysis of Trends in Fraudulent B Documents and EU Policy Responses

Once again counterfeited documents are the most common type of fraud in Italy, but also in Spain (unlike in case of ID cards where imposters were a more common occurrence in Spain). In France, as is the case with ID cards, imposters are more common than actually counterfeited documents. In almost all cases the number of detections went down compared to 2015 (indicated by the red dots). It is important to note that these detections are in addition to the travel documents carried by those passengers, since residence documents cannot be used to enter or exit the Schengen area on their own. Often, they are presented along with third country passports in order to try and enter the Schengen area without a visa.

As the chart below shows, the number of detected counterfeits and stolen blanks has actually gone down considerably from a peak in 2014, whereas the number of imposters has remained stable between 2013 and 2016. According to FRONTEX, this may be due to the use by some Member States of the harmonised residence permit format for residence cards of family members of EU citizens, and suggests that further harmonisation may indeed increase security.

Table B.6: Residence documents trend (broken down by fraud types)

Source: FRONTEX

The EU has responded to the challenges with regard to identity verification and document authentication at border crossing points with a range of measures. The Smart Borders Package454, first introduced in 2013, proposed the establishment of a common EU-wide Entry/Exit System to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of TCNs crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes.455 A revised proposal was adopted on 6 April

454 European Commission. 2014. Technical Study on Smart Borders. Final Report 455 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/securing-eu-borders/legal- documents/docs/20160406/regulation_proposal_entryexit_system_borders_package_en.pdf

189

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Analysis of Trends in Fraudulent B Documents and EU Policy Responses

2016.456 In November, the Commission then introduced the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) as one of several initiatives currently being considered by EU legislators aimed at improving control over who is able to enter the EU. The proposal would require visa-exempt travellers to undergo a risk assessment with respect to security, irregular migration and public health before entering the EU. "457 Along with this, amendments to the Schengen Borders Code have been proposed including a requirement to check the complete certificate chain when checking passports and ID cards at the border. Systematic checks of EU citizens (in addition to TCNs for whom this is already mandatory) against all relevant databases when these citizens arrive at Schengen external borders became mandatory in February 2017.458 In the long run, the plan is for holders of e-ID documents to use e-Gates, freeing up time for border guards to handle any other travellers. In December 2016, the Commission then published a Communication on an Action plan to strengthen the European response to travel document fraud459 recommending actions in the areas of 1) registration and identity, 2) issuance of documents, 3) document production, and 4) document control. More specifically in relation to ID and residence documents, the Commission has set up a project named ‘Fidelity’ which is funded under the Seventh Framework Programme. This has the aim of analysing shortcomings and vulnerabilities in the e-Passport life cycle, and developing technical solutions and recommendations to overcome them.460 The project recognises that passports as well as ID documents can only be considered completely secure provided individuals cannot obtain them using counterfeited secondary breeder documents (see Austria’s comment in case study 1). This ‘weakest link in the identity chain’ should be strengthened by introducing minimum security standards for such documents.461 There is also a range of databases which Member State authorities can make use of to authenticate travel documents. For example, the PRADO database contains high- resolution pictures of all national travel documents issued in the EU.462 In 2015, FRONTEX carried out an exercise emphasising a series of vulnerabilities in the travel document inspection process – implying that not all fraudulent documents are detected at the border.463 The vulnerabilities pertain to: the variability, indecision and inconsistency of technical equipment resulting in a number of false documents being incorrectly accepted as genuine; and, secondly, the variable and subjective performance of border-control officers – the ‘human’ element, compounded by the short time available for first-line checks.464

456 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1247_en.htm 457 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-3674_en.htm 458 https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/securing-eu-borders/fact- sheets/docs/systematic_checks_at_external_borders_en.pdf 459 https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda- security/legislative-documents/docs/20161208/communication_- _action_plan_to_strengthen_the_european_response_to_travel_document_fraud_en.pdf 460 http://www.fidelity-project.eu/ 461 http://www.fidelity-project.eu/media/Final_WS/D1-7-FIDELITY_IND-BDR_SLD_Breeder.pdf 462 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/EN/prado-start-page.html 463 Frontex. 2016. Annual Risk Analysis. p. 14 464 Frontex. 2014. The Document Challenge II

190

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity Appendix documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Analysis of Trends in Fraudulent B Documents and EU Policy Responses

To respond to this challenge, FRONTEX provides training for border guard officials on document security. A basic level course is currently being upgraded to an online eLearning tool targeted at officials not directly involved in border and coast guard tasks. Moreover, the Agency runs four 2- week-trainings on advanced skills per year, with 15 second line officers from various Member States per course. The courses cover printing techniques, common terminology and the examination of documents. Such trainings are also open to third countries, e.g. in the Western Balkans. The idea is that participants then spread the information obtained in their units. The cost of each of these courses is €70,000, fully borne by FRONTEX as the courses are free of charge for participants. FRONTEX also provides consular staff training for visa issuing staff of EU Member States in third countries (3 per year) and ‘road shows’ which are information sessions and one-week-trainings at airports aimed at first-line officers. In 2016, road shows will take place at 12 airports. These trainings inform on the latest trends in the design and abuse of identity documents, and reaffirm the role first line officers play in detecting false documents. Finally, a new Level 3 specialist course will be developed in cooperation with leading international authorities in the field. Emphasis will be set on the advanced elements of documents, identity security, new technologies and new trends in authentication of identities and documents. In case of the last two training programmes mentioned, the cost is limited to around €1,500 per trainer, in case of road shows a total of €4,500 for three attending trainers. At a national level, there are also training courses to help ensure improved border control procedures to check ID cards. This is, for example, the case in Bulgaria which operates a National Centre for Combating Falsified Documents since 2013 providing training and checking documents in third instance after police officers and District Directorates.

191

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Laws regulating the eligibility, application procedure, and use of identity/residence cards Key: ‘-’ = information not yet available; ‘NA’ = not applicable Appendix C: Summary of National Legislation Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members)  Bundesgesetz betreffend das - - - - - Passwesen für österreichische Staatsbürger (Passgesetz 1992) (Application procedures)  Verordnung der Bundesministerin für Inneres über die Durchführung des Passgesetzes Passgesetz- Austria Durchführungsverordnung – PassG- DV (Fees)  “Verordnung der Bundesministerin für Inneres über die Gestaltung der Reisepässe und Passersätze (Passverordnung - PassV)” (Design of card) Law of 19 July 1991 relating to  Constitutional See column See column previous See column previous See column population registers, identity cards, cards Court judgment previous column column previous column for foreigners and residence cards 121/2013 of 26 column (Belgian ID Card Law) September 2014 (‘Arrêt Cour constitutionnelle Amended by: 121/2013’) Royal Decree of 26 December 2015  Article 40-47 of Belgium changing article 6, §10 of the Law of 10 the Law of 15 August 2015 (below) with regard to the December 1980 on period of validity of identity cards: entry, stay, Arrêté royal du 26 décembre 2015 settlement and modifiant l'arrêté royal du 25 mars 2003 removal of foreign relatif aux cartes d'identité afin nationals (Loi sur d'exécuter l'article 6, § 10, de la loi du 19 l’accès au juillet 1991 relative aux registres de la territoire, le population, aux cartes d'identité, aux séjour, 192

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) cartes d'étranger et aux documents de l’établissement et séjour et modifiant la loi du 8 août 1983 l’éloignement des organisant un Registre national des étrangers) personnes physiques &  Article 43-57 & Loi du 10 août 2015 modifiant la loi du 19 article 69bis of the juillet 1991 relative aux registres de la Royal Decree of 8 population, aux cartes d’identité October 1981 (l’Arrêté royal du 8 octobre 1981) Annexe 9 & 9bis  Article 3 & 4 of the Royal Decree of 7 May 2008 (l’Arrêté Royal du 7 mai 2008) On the deliverance of electronic cards:  Law of 19 July 1991 on population registers, identity cards, etc. (Loi relative aux registres de la population, aux cartes d’identité, aux carte d’étranger et aux documents de séjour et modifiant la loi du 8 août 1983 organisant un registre national des personnes

193

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) physiques)  General instructions on cards for foreigners and residence cards (Instructions générales relatives aux cartes pour étrangers et aux documents de séjour) See previous column NA Закон за влизането, Закон за влизането, See previous пребиваването и пребиваването и column напускането на Р. напускането на Р. България на България на гражданите гражданите на ЕС и на ЕС и членовете на членовете на техните техните семейства:  Закон за българските лични семейства: http://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/213 документи: http://lex.bg/laws/ldo http://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/2 5535758 c/2134424576 135535758 (Bulgarian ID Documents Act) (Law on the Entry, (Law on the Entry,  Правилник за издаване на Residence and Departure Residence and Departure Bulgaria българските лични документи: from the Republic of from the Republic of http://lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2135663 Bulgaria of EU Citizens and Bulgaria of EU Citizens 268 their Family Members) and their Family (Bulgarian ID Documents Members) Implementation Ordinance) Закон за българските лични документи: http://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/2 134424576 (Bulgarian ID Documents Act) Identity Card Act (OG 62/2015) Aliens Act (OG 130/11 See previous See previous column See previous column See previous Croatia http://narodne- and 74/13) column column 194

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2015_06_6 http://narodne- 2_1189.html novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluz beni/2011_11_130_260 0.html http://narodne- novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluz beni/2013_06_74_1475 .html

Rules on the method of determining the conditions of entry and residence in the Republic of Croatia of citizens of the European Economic Area and members of their families and family members of Croatian citizens (OG 126/12, 81/13 and 38/15) http://narodne- novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluz beni/2012_11_126_270 6.html http://narodne- novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluz beni/2013_06_81_1713 .html http://narodne- novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluz beni/2015_04_38_788. html Ο Περί Αρχείου Πληθυσμού Νόμος του Ο περί του - See registration See registration certificates See registration Cyprus 2002 (141(I)/2002) Δικαιώματος των certificates column column certificates (Law on the Population Register 2002 - Πολιτών της Ένωσης 195

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) Articles 61-65) και των Μελών των column Οικογενειών τους να Κυκλοφορούν και να Διαμένουν Ελεύθερα στη Δημοκρατία Νόμος του 2007” http://www.cylaw.org/ nomoi/enop/non- ind/2007_1_7/index.ht ml (Law on the right of citizens of the Union and of members of their families to move and reside freely in the Republic of 2007’) Act 326/1999 on the - See registration See registration certificates See registration Residence of Foreign certificates column column certificates Nationals: column https://portal.gov.cz/ap p/zakony/zakon.jsp?pa Identity Card Act 328/1999 Coll. ge=0&nr=326~2F1999& https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakon.j rpp=15#seznam Czech Rep sp?page=0&nr=328~2F1999&rpp=15#sez Administrative nam Procedure Code 500/2004: https://portal.gov.cz/ap p/zakony/zakon.jsp?pa ge=0&nr=500~2F2004& rpp=15#seznam EU- NA See registration See registration certificates See registration opholdsbekendtgørelse certificates column column certificates Denmark NA n column. (Executive Order on Residence in Denmark 196

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) for Aliens Falling within the Rules of the European Union – Act No. 322 of 21 April 2009). Notat om tidsubegrændet ophold efter opholdsdirektivet (Note on permanent residence according to Directive 2004/38/EU of 18 May 2009t). Isikut tõendavate dokumentide seadus NA - Isikut tõendavate - - https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/50803 dokumentide seadus 2016002/consolide(Identity documents https://www.riigiteataja. Act) ee/en/eli/508032016002/ N.B. Legislation also covers e-residency consolide card.465 (Identity documents Act) Euroopa Kodaniku seadus Aliens Act https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/50401 www.riigiteataja.ee/en/el Estonia 2016002/consolide i/ee/Riigikogu/act/52204 (EU citizens Act) 2016002/consolide N.B. ID card for EU citizens only Isikut tõendavate dokumentide seadus https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/50803 2016002/consolide (Identity documents Act) N.B. Mobile-ID card only.  Identity Card Law 1999/829 Aliens Act 301/2004 NA  Aliens Act 301/2004 Aliens Act 301/2004  Aliens Act Finland  Aliens Act 301/2004 The Criminal Code of  The Criminal Code of The Criminal Code of 301/2004  The Criminal Code of Finland Finland (39/1889) Finland (39/1889) Finland (39/1889)  The Criminal

465 A digital identity card (E- residency card) – does not give a right for free movement and residence in Estonia or EU but can be applied by anyone in the world including EU citizens and their family members. Enables to use e-services and give digital signature and prove digital identity. See EE country fiche.

197

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) (39/1889) Municipality of Residence Municipality of Residence Code of Municipality of Residence Act 201/1994 Act 201/1994 Act 201/1994 Finland (39/1889) Municipality of Residence Act 201/1994 - Code de l'entrée Code de l'entrée et du Code de l'entrée et du Code de l'entrée et du séjour des séjour des étrangers et du séjour des étrangers et du et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile : articles droit d'asile”, articles étrangers et du droit d'asile, L121-1 à L121-5 R122-1 to R122-5 and droit d'asile”, chapitre (Right to live and work) article L122-1 (Eligibility articles R122-1 to premier Code de l'entrée et du and application R122-5 and (Eligibility). séjour des étrangers et du procedures) article L122-1 Code de l'entrée droit d'asile : articles Décret n°2014-1292 du 23 (Eligibility and et du séjour des R121-10 à R121-15” – octobre 2014 relatif aux application étrangers et du (required information exceptions au principe « procedures) droit d'asile : and documents) silence vaut acceptation » Décret n°2014-  Décret n°55-1397 du 22 octobre articles R121-10 Décret n°2014-1292 du 23 et des exceptions au délai 1292 du 23 1955 instituant la carte nationale à R121-15 octobre 2014 relatif aux de 2 mois de naissance des octobre 2014 d'identité, (Eligibility, application (Application exceptions au principe « décisions implicates” relatif aux France procedure and use of ID cards) procedure and silence vaut acceptation » (Deemed refusal time exceptions au  Code général des impôts : articles use of cards) et des exceptions au délai period) principe « silence 1628-0-bis à 1628 ter Circulaire du 10 de 2 mois de naissance Code de l'entrée et du vaut acceptation (Fees) septembre 2010 des décisions implicates” séjour des étrangers et du » et des sur le droit de (Deemed refusal time droit d'asile: articles D311- exceptions au séjour des period) 18-1 à D311-18-3” délai de 2 mois de citoyens Code de l'entrée et du (Fees) naissance des européens et séjour des étrangers et du décisions suisses ainsi que droit d'asile : article L311- implicates” des membres de 13 (Deemed refusal leur famille (Fees) time period) (Application Code de l'entrée et du Code de l'entrée procedure and séjour des étrangers et du et du séjour des use of cards) droit d'asile: articles étrangers et du Décret n°2014- D311-18-1 à D311-18-3” droit d'asile:

198

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) 1292 du 23 (Fees) articles D311-18-1 octobre 2014 à D311-18-3” relatif aux (Fees) exceptions au principe « silence vaut acceptation » et des exceptions au délai de 2 mois de naissance des décisions implicites (intérieur) (Deemed refusal time period) Code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile : articles D311- 18-1 à D311-18- 3 – (Fee)  Gesetz über Personalausweise und Federal registration law NA  Gesetz über die  Gesetz über die  Gesetz über den elektronischen ‘Bundesmeldegesetz’ allgemeine allgemeine die Identitätsnachweis, 24 June 2009 (BMG).466 (Eligibility, Freizügigkeit von Freizügigkeit von allgemeine (Eligibility, application and use) Unionsbürgern, Unionsbürgern, Freizügigkeit Germany application and use)  Verordnung über Gebühren für FreizügG/EU, Art. FreizügG/EU, Art. 4a von Personalausweise und den 5(1) (German Free Movement Unionsbürge elektronischen Identitätsnachweis (German Free Movement law) rn, (Fees) law) FreizügG/EU,

466 http://www.buzer.de/s1.htm?g=BMG&f=1

199

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) Art. 5(5) (German Free Movement law)  ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΚΟ NA  ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΚΟ See column for registration  ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΚΟ ΔΙΑΤΑΓΜΑ 106 ΔΙΑΤΑΓΜΑ 106 (ΦΕΚ certificates ΔΙΑΤΑΓΜΑ (ΦΕΚ 135/τΒ/21.6.2007) 106 (ΦΕΚ 135/τΒ/21.6.2007) για την «Ελεύθερη 135/τΒ/21.6. για την «Ελεύθερη κυκλοφορία και 2007) για την κυκλοφορία και διαμονή στην «Ελεύθερη διαμονή στην ελληνική επικράτεια κυκλοφορία ελληνική των πολιτών της και διαμονή  Νομοθετικό Διάταγμα 127/1969 επικράτεια των Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στην «Περί της αποδεικτικής ισχύος των πολιτών της και των μελών των ελληνική Αστυνομικών Ταυτοτήτων» Ευρωπαϊκής οικογενειών τους». επικράτεια ΦΕΚ29/τΑ’/18-2-1969 Ένωσης και των (Presidential Decree των πολιτών (Power of proof of Police ID cards) μελών των transposing the της  Νόμος 1599/1986 «Σχέσεις Κράτους οικογενειών Directive Ευρωπαϊκής – Πολίτη, καθιέρωση νέου τύπου τους». 2004/38/EC) Ένωσης και δελτίου ταυτότητας»( ΦΕΚ (Presidential (And several others – see των μελών Greece 75/τA’/11-6-1986, Article 25 Decree EL country fiche) των (Responsible authorities for the transposing the οικογενειών issue of the ID cards) Directive τους».  Νόμος 3345/2005 «Οικονομικά 2004/38/EC) (Presidential θέματα Νομαρχιακών  Διαταγή Αρχηγού Decree Αυτοδιοικήσεων και ρύθμιση της Αστυνομίας transposing διοικητικών θεμάτων» (ΦΕΚ Α.Π. 9100/1- the Directive 138/τΑ’/16.6.2005 502740/17.8.200 2004/38/EC) (Fees) (Order (non- (And several legislative act others – see EL stipulating Greek country fiche) Police competent authority for the issue of registration certificates for EU

200

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) citizens.)  Act I of 2007 on NA  Act I of 2007 on the See previous column See previous the Admission and Admission and column Residence of Residence of Persons with the Persons with the  Act LXVI of 1992 on Keeping Records Right of Free Right of Free on the Personal Data and Address of Movement and Movement and citizens Residence Residence www.valasztas.hu/parval2006/en/0  Government  Government Decree 2/1992_66tv.html Decree 113/2007 113/2007 (V. 24.) on  Government Decree 146/1993 (X. (V. 24.) on the the Implementation 26.) on the implementation of Act of Act I of 2007 Hungary Implementation of LXVI of 1992 Act I of 2007  Act II of 2007 on the www.valasztas.hu/parval2006/en/0 Admission and Right  Decree of the 2/1992_66tv.html of Residence of Minister of Justice Government Decree 414/2015 (XII. 23.) Third-Country 25/2007 (V. 31.) on the issue of identity cards and Nationals registration, and on the photo and  Government Decree signature recording 114/2007 (V. 24.) on the Implementation of Act II of 2007 Decree of the Minister of Justice 25/2007 (V. 31.)  Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts European Communities See previous See previous column - - 1956 to 2004 (Free Movement of column Ireland  Irish Constitution Passports Act Persons) Regulations 2008. 2015  Law R.D. 18 Giugno 1931, n.773 Legislative decree See previous See previous column See previous column - Testo unico delle leggi di pubblica n.30/07 of 6th February column Italy sicurezza (TULPS), art.3 2007.467 DECRETO DEL PRESIDENTE DELLA REPUBBLICA 28 Dicembre 2000, n. 445

467 This is the decree that implements the EU directive 2004/38/CE regarding the rights of free movement of EU citizens and family members.

201

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members)  Law on Personal Identification Cabinet of Ministers NA Cabinet of Ministers See previous column. See previous Documents (Personu apliecinošu Regulation no. 675 of Regulation no. 675 of 30 column. dokumentu likums, Latvijas 30 August 2011 August 2011 “Procedures Vēstnesis, 18 (4621), 01.02.2012.) “Procedures for the for the Entry and  Cabinet of Ministers Regulation Entry and Residence in Residence In the Republic no.134 of 21 February 2012 the Republic of Latvia of of Latvia of Citizens of the “Personal Identification Documents Citizens of the Union Union and Their Family Regulation” (Ministru Kabineta and Their Family Members (Ministru 2012. gada 21. februāra noteikumi Members (Ministru kabineta 2011. gada 30. nr. 134 “Personu apliecinošu kabineta 2011. gada 30. Augusta noteikumi nr. dokumentu noteikumi”, Latvijas Augusta noteikumi nr. 675 “Kārtība, kādā Vēstnesis, 35 (4638), 01.03.2012.) 675 “Kārtība, kādā Savienības pilsoņi un viņu Latvia A number of other legislative provisions – Savienības pilsoņi un ģimenes locekļi ieceļo un see LV fiche. viņu ģimenes locekļi uzturas Latvijas ieceļo un uzturas Republikā”, Latvijas Latvijas Republikā”, Vēstnesis, 141 (4539), Latvijas Vēstnesis, 141 07.09.2011.) (4539), 07.09.2011.) A number of other Law on Personal legislative provisions – Identification see LV fiche. Documents (Personu apliecinošu dokumentu likums, Latvijas Vēstnesis, 18 (4621), 01.02.2012.) Law on the Legal Status NA See registration Law on the Legal Status of See previous of Aliens No IX-2206 of certificates column Aliens No IX-2206 of the column.  Law on the Identity Card of the the Republic of Republic of Lithuania of 29 Republic of Lithuania No IX-577 of 6 Lithuania of 29 April April 2004 (last November 2001 (as last amended 2004 (last amendments amendments came into Lithuania on 12 October 2010; amendments came into force 26 force 26 November 2015) came into force 1 January 2011) November 2015) http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter www.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showd http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/i 3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p oc_l?p_id=387008 nter3/dokpaieska.show _id=1091900; doc_l?p_id=1091900 Order of 23 May 2013 of

202

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) Order of 25 July 2008 of the Minister of the Internal the Minister of Internal Affairs Ministry of the Affairs of the Republic Republic of Lithuania No of Lithuania No 1V-290: 1V-45725 regarding the https://www.e- Order of 25 October 2007: tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/ http://www.lrs.lt/pls/inter3 TAR.2779206FA382/PX /dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_i AWOfMesz d=449728), as amended. Law of 29 August 2008 NA See registration See registration certificates See registration on free movement of certificates column column certificates persons and column immigration, as amended (“L”) http://www.gouvernem ent.lu/5702060/Loi- modifiee-du-29-aout- 2008-sur-la-libre-  Law of 19 June 2013 concerning circulation-des- identification of physical persons, as personnes-et- amended (“L”) l_immigration---TC-au- www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives 11-fevrier-2016.pdf /2013/0107/2013A1582A.html Luxembourg Grand-Duke regulation Grand-Duke Regulation of 18 June 2014 of 5 September 2008 on concerning identity card, as amended the execution of certain (“R”) provisions concerning www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/201 administrative 4/0107/index.html formalities foreseen by the law of 29 August 2008 on free movement of persons and immigration, as amended(“R”) http://eli.legilux.public.l u/eli/etat/leg/rgd/2008 /09/05/n6/jo

203

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) NA Part B of the NA NA NA Identity and European Union Act CAP.460 on Identity Other Identity Malta Card and other Identity Documents Act Documents Act, Order, 2012. Available here. 2012, available here De Paspoortwet, Rijkswet van 18-12- - - Netherlands - - - 2013, Stb 2014,10  Act dated 06.08.2010 on Personal Act of 14 July 2006 on NA See registration See registration certificates See registration Identity Cards (JOURNAL OF LAWS the entry into, certificates column. column. certificates 2016 no. 391 dated 24.03.2016). residence in and exit column.  Regulation of the Minister of from the Republic of Internal Affairs of 29th January 2015 Poland of nationals of regarding the identity card's the European Union pattern, as well as its issue, loss, Member States and damage, cancellation (Official their family members Poland Journal of 2015, position 212). (Journal of Laws No.  Regulation of the Minister of the 144, item 1043), Internal Affairs of 20 November (“Residence Act”) 2014 on keeping the ID Cards Register. Code of Administrative Procedure dated 14 June 1960 (Journal of Law 2013 item 267 with further amendments). Act 37/2006, of August See registration See registration certificates  Law no. 7/2007 of 5 February 2007 NA See registration 9 - Regulates the right certificates column. column. (Lei nº 7/2007) created the Citizen's certificates of European Union Card and regulates its issuance, column. citizens and respective Portugal replacement, use and cancellation. family members to  Decree No. 203/2007, of 13 move and reside freely February. within Portuguese (Fees) 468 territory

468 http://www.sef.pt/portal/v10/PT/aspx/legislacao/legislacao_detalhe.aspx?id_linha=4559#0

204

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members)  Decree No. 992/2010, of 29 (Fees) Ordinance n.1334- D/2010 – Approves the official forms of the Registration Certificate of EU citizen [certificado de registo], of the permanent residence title of EU citizen [documento de residência permanente], and the value of the fees for the issuance of such documents469 Governmental See previous Governmental Emergency See previous column. See previous Emergency Ordinance column. Ordinance no. 102/2005 column.  Governmental Emergency no. 102/2005 on the on the free movement of Ordinance no. 97/2005 on the free movement of citizens of the Member registration, domicile, residence and citizens of the Member States of the European identity documents of Romanian States of the European Union and the European citizens (Official Journal of Romania Union and the Economic Area on the Romania no. 641/20.07.2005), amended by European Economic Romanian territory Law no. 290/2005 (Official Journal Area on the Romanian (Official Journal of of Romania no. 959/28.10.2005) territory (Official Romania no.  Ten other legislative acts – see RO Journal of Romania no. 646/21.07.2005), as fiche. 646/21.07.2005), as amended. amended. Six other legislative acts – Five other legislative see RO fiche. acts – see RO fiche.  Zákon o občianskych preukazoch, v Act No. 404/2011 on See previous See previous column. See previous column. See previous Slovakia znení neskorších predpisov the Residence of Aliens, column. column. (Act No. 224/2006 on identification as amended (zákon o

469 https://dre.pt/application/dir/pdf1s/2010/12/25302/0032800330.pdf#1

205

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) cards, as amended) regulates the pobyte cudzincov, v eligibility, application procedure and znení neskorších use of identity cards predpisov) regulates Administrative fees are stipulated in Act the eligibility, No. 145/1995, as amended (zákon o application procedure správnych poplatkoch, v znení neskorších and use of residence predpisov) cards. Administrative fees are stipulated in Act No. 145/1995, as amended (zákon o správnych poplatkoch, v znení neskorších predpisov) Aliens Act (Zakon o NA See registration See registration certificates See registration tujcih; Ztuj-2; Official certificates column. column. certificates Gazette Nr. 50/2011, column. 57/2011 - corr., 26/2014, 90/2014, 19/2015, 47/2015) Rules on the content, form, method of issue  Identity Card Act (Zakon o osebni and expiry of residence izkaznici; ZOIzk-1; Official Gazette registration certificates Nr 35/2011) and residence permits Rules on the implementation of the Slovenia for citizens of EU Identity Card Act (Pravilnik o izvrševanju countries and their zakona o osebni izkaznici; the Official family members as well Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia Nr as family members of 52/2013). Slovenian citizens (Pravilnik o vsebini, obliki, načinu izdaje ter prenehanja potrdil o prijavi prebivanja in dovoljenj za prebivanje za državljane držav članic Evropske unije in 206

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) njihove družinske člane ter družinske člane slovenskih državljanov; the Official Gazette Nr. 99/11, 90/12, 65/13 in 6/15).  Royal Decree NA See column for  See column for See previous  Royal Decree 1553/2005, of 23rd 240/2007 registration certificates registration column December (as amended) certificates Spain Order PRE / 1490/2012, Law 59/2003 of 19 December on of July 9 Judgment CJEU of 21 Electronic Signatures December 2011 (Ziolkoswki) - The law - - - “Utlänningslage n (2005:716)  The law Lag (2015:899) om from 29 identitetskort för folkbokförda i September Sverige regulates id cards for people 2005 stipulates registered in Sweden. the issue of the  The regulation Förordning Residence Sweden (2005:661) om nationellt permit card. identitetskort regulates National ID The same law cards. also regulates the data and information (biometrics) used for the cards. The Immigration (EEA) NA See column on Immigration (EEA) - Regulations 2006 and registration certificates. Regulations 2006: UK NA amendments in 2009, Section 17 is applicable to Conditions of regulation 2011 and 2012 (UK resident cards.472 15(1)(a) or (b) of the (‘the

472 Issue of residence card

207

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) implementation of Derivative residence Regulations’).474 Directive 2004/38/EC) card: The Immigration  FOIA requesNo Section 16 is applicable (Provision of Physical 29699 – Home Office to resident Data) Regulations 2006 confirmation that certificate470 (as amended) set out the

17. (1) The Secretary of State must issue a residence card to a person who is not an EEA national and is the family member of a qualified person or of an EEA national with a permanent right of residence under regulation 15 on application and production of— (a)a valid passport, and (b)proof that the applicant is such a family member. (2) The Secretary of State must issue a residence card to a person who is not an EEA national but who is a family member who has retained the right of residence on application and production of— (a)a valid passport, and (b)proof that the applicant is a family member who has retained the right of residence. (3) On receipt of an application under paragraph (1) or (2) and the documents that are required to accompany the application the Secretary of State shall immediately issue the applicant with a certificate of application for the residence card and the residence card shall be issued no later than six months after the date on which the application and documents are received. (4) The Secretary of State may issue a residence card to an extended family member not falling within regulation 7(3) who is not an EEA national on application if— (a)the relevant EEA national in relation to the extended family member is a qualified person or an EEA national with a permanent right of residence under regulation 15, and (b)in all the circumstances it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to issue the residence card. (5) Where the Secretary of State receives an application under paragraph (4) he shall undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances of the applicant and if he refuses the application shall give reasons justifying the refusal unless this is contrary to the interests of national security. (6) A residence card issued under this regulation may take the form of a stamp in the applicant’s passport and shall be valid for— (a)five years from the date of issue, or (b)in the case of a residence card issued to the family member or extended family member of a qualified person, the envisaged period of residence in the United Kingdom of the qualified person, whichever is the shorter. (6A) A residence card issued under this regulation shall be entitled “Residence card of a family member of an EEA national” or “Residence card of a family member who has retained the right of residence”, as the case may be. (7) Omitted. (8) But this regulation is subject to regulation 20(1) and (1A). - See more at: http://www.eearegulations.co.uk/Latest/ByPage/part3_17#sthash.NGiCO9iz.dpuf 470 16. (1) The Secretary of State must issue a registration certificate to a qualified person immediately on application and production of—

208

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

(a)a valid identity card or passport issued by an EEA State, (b)proof that he is a qualified person. (2) In the case of a worker, confirmation of the worker’s engagement from his employer or a certificate of employment is sufficient proof for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b). (3) The Secretary of State must issue a registration certificate to an EEA national who is the family member of a qualified person or of an EEA national with a permanent right of residence under regulation 15 immediately on application and production of— (a)a valid identity card or passport issued by an EEA State, and (b)proof that the applicant is such a family member. (4) The Secretary of State must issue a registration certificate to an EEA national who is a family member who has retained the right of residence on application and production of— (a)a valid identity card or passport, and (b)proof that the applicant is a family member who has retained the right of residence. (5) The Secretary of State may issue a registration certificate to an extended family member not falling within regulation 7(3) who is an EEA national on application if— (a)the relevant EEA national in relation to the extended family member is a qualified person or an EEA national with a permanent right of residence under regulation 15, and (b)in all the circumstances it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to issue the registration certificate. (6) Where the Secretary of State receives an application under paragraph (5) he shall undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances of the applicant and if he refuses the application shall give reasons justifying the refusal unless this is contrary to the interests of national security. (7) A registration certificate issued under this regulation shall state the name and address of the person registering and the date of registration. (8) But this regulation is subject to regulations 7A(6) and 20(1). - See more at: http://www.eearegulations.co.uk/Latest/ByPage/part3_16#sthash.pD2GLw3x.dpuf 474The following persons shall acquire the right to reside in the United Kingdom permanently— (a)an EEA national who has resided in the United Kingdom in accordance with these Regulations for a continuous period of five years, (b)a family member of an EEA national who is not himself an EEA national but who has resided in the United Kingdom with the EEA national in accordance with these Regulations for a continuous period of five years, (c)a worker or self-employed person who has ceased activity, (d)the family member of a worker or self-employed person who has ceased activity, (e)a person who was the family member of a worker or self-employed person where— (i)the worker or self-employed person has died, (ii)the family member resided with him immediately before his death, and (iii)the worker or self-employed person had resided continuously in the United Kingdom for at least the two years immediately before his death or the death was the result of an accident at work or an occupational disease, (f)a person who— (i)has resided in the United Kingdom in accordance with these Regulations for a continuous period of five years, and

209

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Summary of National Legislation C

Registration Residence cards Residence cards (family Permanent Residence Permanent Member Identity cards certificates members) cards Residence Cards State (family members) A number of other Acts legal basis for taking “extended family of Parliament apply.471 biometric information members” can obtain from non-EEA nationals permanent residence with an entitlement to under Immigration enter or remain in the UK (EEA) Regulations 2006 by virtue of an after 5 years of enforceable EU right or of continuous residence any provision made in the UK. related links People who Immigration (Provision of must enrol their Physical Data) Regulations biometric information 2006 (as amended), from under section 2(2) of the 31 March 2015 a non-EEA European Communities national applying for a Act 1972. Case law also permanent residence card applies.473 will have to submit biometric information Source: country fiches

(ii)was, at the end of that period, a family member who has retained the right of residence. (2) Once acquired, the right of permanent residence under this regulation shall be lost only through absence from the United Kingdom for a period exceeding two consecutive years. (3) But this regulation is subject to regulation 19(3)(b). 471 Immigration Act 1971, British Nationality Act 1981, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Asylum and Immigration 2004 Act, UK Borders Act 2007, Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, Immigration Control (Amendment) Act 2008, Immigration Act 2014 473 ‘Zambrano’ cases: as the primary carer of a British citizen child or dependent adult, where requiring the primary carer to leave the UK would force that British citizen to leave the EEA. ‘Chen’ cases: as the primary carer of an EEA national child who is exercising free movement rights in the UK as a self-sufficient person, where requiring the primary carer to leave the UK would prevent the EEA national child exercising those free movement rights. 'Ibrahim and Teixeira' cases: either as the child of an EEA national worker or former worker where that child is in education in the UK o as the primary carer of a child of an EEA national worker or former worker where that child is in education in the UK, and where requiring the primary carer to leave the UK would prevent the child from continuing their education in the UK as the dependent child aged under 18 of a primary carer in one of the categories set out above, where requiring that dependent child to leave the UK would force the primary carer to leave the UK with them.

210

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and Appendix identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Photos of ID Cards D

Appendix D: Photos of ID Cards Separate file

211

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Country Fiches E

Appendix E: Country Fiches Separate file

212

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Analysis of Changes Required to F Align with Policy Options

Appendix F: Analysis of Changes Required to Align with Policy Options The tables below provide an overview of the scale of the amendments for each Member State that would be required to align ID cards and residence documents with the various policy options set out in Section 4. The information in the tables is based on the information received from the country fiches and the table differentiates between three ratings:  ‘No/Minor amendments’ means that in respect to the respective policy option a Member State does not have to undertake changes to the status quo since they already comply with the suggested changes.  ‘Moderate amendments’ means that a Member State has to implement some changes to the status quo but these amendments are only moderate and do not require changes on a large scale. An example would be to include an extra feature/change of language in a document that is already been issued.  ‘Major amendments’ refers to a situation where a Member State has to completely revisit the current situation. For instance, if a Member State was required to introduce a document that is substantially different to the current document this would fall in the ‘major amendments’ category.

F.1 Residence documents Policy Option 1 represents maintaining the status quo and thus no amendments will be necessary due to EU action. In contrast, Policy Option 2 would require moderate changes in all Member States. The overall costs for the EU as a whole of Option 2 are estimated to be 46m over three years (see in Section 5.3). Policy Option 3a would require no amendments in BG, CY, DK, EE, IE, LT, LV, MT, NL, PT, SI, SK, UK since those countries already comply with the suggestions (i.e. use of English language and Latin Alphabet on the documentation). In other countries, moderate changes can be expected since some residence documentation needs to be modified (e.g. the title and other information included in the document need to be provided in English). In respect to Policy Option 3b we currently do not have information on the amount of countries already offering online

applications (we are only aware that this exists in EE and DK). However, we do have some information on countries where there is currently evidence that the application procedure is unduly long. Thus moderate changes can be assumed to be taken there. Option 3c would only imply that old documents are phased out/not issued anymore and thus only implies minor amendments for all MS. In respect to Option 4a major amendments can be expected for all countries since it requires a common EU-wide format for all residence documentation and currently all Member States adopt different types of documents. While impact may slightly differ since some Member States only issue paper-based cards and others already issue plastic cards, all Member States would have to make amendments to fit the comment format. Under Policy Option 4b moderate amendments can be expected. While again all Member States would need to change their status quo the difference to option 4a is that only one set of documents (e.g. residence

213

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Analysis of Changes Required to F Align with Policy Options documentation for third country family members) would need to be amended. Option 4c would only imply that old documents are phased out/not issued anymore and thus only implies minor amendments for all MS. To conclude, Option 5 would involve major changes for all Member States since it would require major changes particularly in respect to technological amendments. Residence Cards

No/Minor Policy Options Moderate Amendments Major Amendments Amendments

Policy Option 1 All MS - - (Status Quo) Policy Option 2 - All MS - (Soft law measures)  Registration certificates (BE, CZ, DE, ES, FI, HR, HU, LU, LT, PL, RO) Policy Option 3a475  Residence cards for EU (Use of English language BG, CY, DK, EE, IE, LV, nationals (AT, BE, DE, ES, terminology/Latin - MT, NL, PT, SI, UK FR, IT, LI, LU, PL, EL, SK alphabet) and SE)

 Residence cards for TCN family members (AT, BE, ES, FR, IT, PL, SK and SE) Policy Option 3b476 AT, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, (Online applications should EL, FI, HR, HU, IT, LT, BE, FR, UK, ES, SE, DE, IE be offered and time limit LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, for issuance should exist) RO, SI, SK Policy Option 3c (Phasing out non-compliant All MS - - documents) Policy Option 4a (Common EU-wide format - - All MS for all residence documentation) Policy Option 4b (Common EU-wide format for TCN family members - All MS - residence documentation only Policy Option 4c (Phasing out non-compliant All MS documents) Policy Option 5 - - All MS (An EU card with combined

475 This data stems from the photographs inserted in the fiches. 476 This data is based on countries where many delays in issuing documentation has been reported in the YEA database.

214

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Analysis of Changes Required to F Align with Policy Options

No/Minor Policy Options Moderate Amendments Major Amendments Amendments

ID and residence status features) Source: Country fiches

F.2 Identity Documents Similarly to the situation with residence documents, policy Option 1 represents maintaining the status quo and thus no amendments will be necessary due to EU action. In addition, also Options 3c and 4d would only imply that old documents are phased out/not issued anymore and thus only minor amendments for all MS will be necessary. Again similar to the situation with residence documents, Policy Option 2 would require moderate changes in all Member States. Ultimately, Option 5 would involve major changes for all Member States since it would require major changes for both national ID and residence documentation. Policy Option 3a only requires moderate amendments in ES, FR, IT and PT since those countries do currently not use the English language or Latin Alphabet on the ID card. In all other countries, no changes are necessary. In respect to Policy Option 3b we suggest that all documents should fulfil minimum common standards similar to Regulation 1030/2002. All Member States already comply with the suggested requirements apart from the machine readability requirement of ICAO compliance (parts 1-6). However, this would only require changes in four countries (BE, EL, FI and SE) where the ID card does currently not comply with this standard. In respect to Option 4a major amendments can be expected for all countries since it requires a common EU-wide format for all ID cards and currently all Member States adopt different types of documents. While impact may slightly differ since some Member States might be closer to the common format than others (e.g. CY, DE (optional), IT (2016 version), LT, ES, HU (optional), LT, LV and PT already include fingerprints) all Member States would have to make amendments at least in terms of design. Under Policy Option 4b also major amendments can be expected for all MS since a new document would have to be introduced in all countries. Ultimately, under policy option 4c, moderate changes can be expected in the following countries: CZ, ES, HR, FI, HU, MT, and RO. These are the only countries that do currently not issue ID cards in their EU consulates. ID Cards

Policy Options No/Minor Amendments Moderate Amendments Major Amendments

Policy Option 1 All MS - - (Status Quo) Policy Option 2 - All MS - (Soft Law Measures)

215

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Analysis of Changes Required to F Align with Policy Options

Policy Options No/Minor Amendments Moderate Amendments Major Amendments

Policy Option 3a477 AT, BG, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK (Use of English language EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, ES, FR, IT, PT terminology/Latin IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, alphabet) PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK EE, ES, Policy Option 3b HU, IE, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, AT, BE, FR, EL, FI, HR, IT, (EU-wide format with PL, PT, RO, UK PT, SI, SK, SE478 some common features)

Policy Option 3c (Phasing out non- All MS compliant documents) Policy Option 4a (An EU-wide ID card All MS (except DK, UK) format with fully harmonised features) Policy Option 4b (Adoption of an EU ID All MS (except DK, UK) document) Policy Option 4c479 AT, BG, BE, CY, DE, EE, EL, CZ, ES, HR, FI, HU, MT, (Requiring all consulates FR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, - RO to issue ID cards) PL, PT, SE, SI, SK Policy Option 4d (Phasing out non- All MS compliant documents) Policy Option 5 (An EU card with combined ID and - - All MS residence status features) Source: Country fiches

477 This data is based on the document photographs included in the fiches 478 The number could be higher, but several MS did not provide information on this point 479 This information is based on Q19 of the fiches.

216

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Interview Questionnaire G

Appendix G: Interview Questionnaire

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement

Interview checklist

Below we list the questions based on the European Commission’s terms of reference that we are investigating. There will probably not be enough time to discuss all the questions and some may be more relevant to your role/interests than others. At the beginning of the interview, please tell us which questions you would like to concentrate on. The questions mostly relate to the situation in your country.

Free movement issues  How and to what extent do EU citizens and their family members in your Member State encounter problems linked to identity and residence documents when exercising their right to free movement?  How and to what extent do citizens of your Member State and members of their family encounter problems linked to identity and residence documents when residing in other Member States?  Do you think citizens in your country are sufficiently aware of the rights, functions and obligations linked to identity cards and residence document issues by the authorities in your Member State? Administrative and financial issues  To what extent do national authorities like your own face problems arising from the existence of many different types of identity cards and residence documents across the EU Member States?  To what extent is there an administrative cost to national authorities arising from the need to issue several types of cards/documents and to handle different types issued by other Member States?  What would be the advantages and disadvantages for (a) citizens and (b) the authorities if the local administration from the Member State of residence of the citizen could issue national identity cards and/or emergency travel documents from another Member State? Security dimension  What impact (if any) does the diversity of identity cards and residence documents across the EU Member States have on border security and border control?  In terms of document security, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the identity cards and resident documents in your country and in the EU generally? Which (if any) security features are lacking (e.g. security of the document against forgery and counterfeit, and/or electronic security of data on the chip preventing the data on the chip being changed without leaving a trace).  What impact (if any) does the diversity of identity cards and residence documents have on the security of citizens (e.g. security related to crimes such as identity fraud or terrorism)? Use of ID cards and residence to access public and private sector services  To what extent can identity cards and residence documents be used in different EU Member States to access services in sectors such as banking, transport and shared services (e.g. car rental)?  Is there a difference (in terms of administrative burden or requirements) between accessing services within a Member State like yours and accessing a service on a cross-border basis?

217

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives on residence and identity documents to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement Appendix

Interview Questionnaire G

Future priorities  Do you think there is a need to take actions at EU level in regard to identity cards and residence documentation any of the following areas? If yes, why? . To facilitate free movement within the EU? . To reduce the administrative burden for (a) citizens and (b) national authorities? . To facilitate border management? . To ensure security of citizens residing within the EU? . To ensure the accessibility to services requiring proof of identification?  More specifically, what solution do you prefer for reducing issues stemming from accepting ID cards issued by other EU Member States?  Likewise, what would be the solution you prefer for having your national ID cards accepted in all other EU Member States without problems?  If you think, EU action is necessary in any of the fields mentioned above, what form should any intervention take? What are the critical success factors for any EU action

218