|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
+xI agree that the politics makes it unlikely, that the EU will want to connect their systems to ours and of course you could convert the data into a different format and send it that way, although it is a bit clunky and old fashioned. Nowadays everybody wants their data in 'real time'. They are too impatient to wait for an overnight batch run. "I believe the UK police are still sharing information with the Schengen system, but via Interpol" This is sort of correct, but of course the criteria for putting a notice on Interpol is very different to the criteria for the old Schengen alerts. The pre Brexit arrangement was to create an alert for every SO, regardless of risk. The Interpol system requires the police to justify their decision with a proper risk assessment. The unknown question, is what criteria will ETIAs apply to SO. If you answer yes to the question about convictions and you are not on the Interpol list, how will they determine whether or not to let you in? The existing literature suggests they will ask the UK for further info if that happens and that it is a manual process, not automated, so it could come down to an individual opinion of the Border force official who is involved. I have to say I don't know what the criteria are, but then EU bureaucracy is secret even by the standards of most bureaucracies. Anyway, if someone has never notified travel to the Schengen Zone (or even the EU) while on the SOR (or maybe even just notifying their passport number), there is every chance that the EU don't know about them and failure to disclose wouldn't cause a problem. If they have notified while on the SOR, then if the conviction in question was in the fifteen years before the date of the application, it would probably be better to disclose, just to be on the safe side in terms of being seen to comply with the rules. Either way, once the fifteen years are up, the ETIAS rules say that disclosure is not required, so not disclosing would be complying with the ETIAS rules.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 298,
Visits: 3.7K
|
+xI have to say I don't know what the criteria are, but then EU bureaucracy is secret even by the standards of most bureaucracies. Anyway, if someone has never notified travel to the Schengen Zone (or even the EU) while on the SOR (or maybe even just notifying their passport number), there is every chance that the EU don't know about them and failure to disclose wouldn't cause a problem. If they have notified while on the SOR, then if the conviction in question was in the fifteen years before the date of the application, it would probably be better to disclose, just to be on the safe side in terms of being seen to comply with the rules. Either way, once the fifteen years are up, the ETIAS rules say that disclosure is not required, so not disclosing would be complying with the ETIAS rules. I do like that people still think it's the EU "bureaucracy" to blame. Even the published standards suggest that each country retains the right to have their own rules. That they have tried to implement a standard set is a bonus. There has always been a right to reject individuals. David Icke is currently banned from traveling to The Netherlands, transition arrangements, EISTA notwithstanding. The UK has never been part of Schengen. We can't really complain if UK visitors' ability to travel to most of the EU is a mess. It's what we voted for. I'm of the opinion that a barefaced lie to the EISTA questionnaire is very unlikely to result in a refusal at the border, but only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues and once off the SOR it would not even have been a consideration. This is just the EU enforcing their sovereignty, not bureaucracy.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 769,
Visits: 5.7K
|
+x+xI have to say I don't know what the criteria are, but then EU bureaucracy is secret even by the standards of most bureaucracies. Anyway, if someone has never notified travel to the Schengen Zone (or even the EU) while on the SOR (or maybe even just notifying their passport number), there is every chance that the EU don't know about them and failure to disclose wouldn't cause a problem. If they have notified while on the SOR, then if the conviction in question was in the fifteen years before the date of the application, it would probably be better to disclose, just to be on the safe side in terms of being seen to comply with the rules. Either way, once the fifteen years are up, the ETIAS rules say that disclosure is not required, so not disclosing would be complying with the ETIAS rules. I do like that people still think it's the EU "bureaucracy" to blame. Even the published standards suggest that each country retains the right to have their own rules. That they have tried to implement a standard set is a bonus. There has always been a right to reject individuals. David Icke is currently banned from traveling to The Netherlands, transition arrangements, EISTA notwithstanding. The UK has never been part of Schengen. We can't really complain if UK visitors' ability to travel to most of the EU is a mess. It's what we voted for. I'm of the opinion that a barefaced lie to the EISTA questionnaire is very unlikely to result in a refusal at the border, but only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues and once off the SOR it would not even have been a consideration. This is just the EU enforcing their sovereignty, not bureaucracy. "only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues" There was an issue pre Brexit, because every SO would be stopped and questioned, with the possibility of being refused entry, if the border guards felt like it. Once you have ETIAs approval, it should last for 3 years and should mean no more being stopped and questioned. As for the idea that each country will have it's own rules, I don't see how that would work, because once you are in Schengen, there are no border checks, and nothing to prevent you moving around. Equally, a ban from one Schengen country, could mean a ban from all Schengen nations, which is why David Icke being banned from Holland stops him from going to any other Schengen state. However, the guidance says that an ETIAs could be issued, giving access to one Schengen country but not others and how that might work isn't yet clear. https://etias.com/articles/how-national-units-process-etias-applications
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
+x+x+xI have to say I don't know what the criteria are, but then EU bureaucracy is secret even by the standards of most bureaucracies. Anyway, if someone has never notified travel to the Schengen Zone (or even the EU) while on the SOR (or maybe even just notifying their passport number), there is every chance that the EU don't know about them and failure to disclose wouldn't cause a problem. If they have notified while on the SOR, then if the conviction in question was in the fifteen years before the date of the application, it would probably be better to disclose, just to be on the safe side in terms of being seen to comply with the rules. Either way, once the fifteen years are up, the ETIAS rules say that disclosure is not required, so not disclosing would be complying with the ETIAS rules. I do like that people still think it's the EU "bureaucracy" to blame. Even the published standards suggest that each country retains the right to have their own rules. That they have tried to implement a standard set is a bonus. There has always been a right to reject individuals. David Icke is currently banned from traveling to The Netherlands, transition arrangements, EISTA notwithstanding. The UK has never been part of Schengen. We can't really complain if UK visitors' ability to travel to most of the EU is a mess. It's what we voted for. I'm of the opinion that a barefaced lie to the EISTA questionnaire is very unlikely to result in a refusal at the border, but only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues and once off the SOR it would not even have been a consideration. This is just the EU enforcing their sovereignty, not bureaucracy. "only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues" There was an issue pre Brexit, because every SO would be stopped and questioned, with the possibility of being refused entry, if the border guards felt like it. Once you have ETIAs approval, it should last for 3 years and should mean no more being stopped and questioned. As for the idea that each country will have it's own rules, I don't see how that would work, because once you are in Schengen, there are no border checks, and nothing to prevent you moving around. Equally, a ban from one Schengen country, could mean a ban from all Schengen nations, which is why David Icke being banned from Holland stops him from going to any other Schengen state. However, the guidance says that an ETIAs could be issued, giving access to one Schengen country but not others and how that might work isn't yet clear. https://etias.com/articles/how-national-units-process-etias-applications I'm not saying that EU bureaucracy is to blame for ETIAS; I'm saying it's to blame for any secrecy around standards, guidelines and discretion. Every country has its bureaucracy, though, including the UK. For example, the statutory guidance on disclosing police information on enhanced DBS checks still gives local forces a fair amount of discretion in what they decide to disclose. In the EU, the central bureaucracy's secrecy is far more wide-ranging, across so many countries, but there is still plenty of room for local bureaucrats to apply their own levels of secrecy. In the case of individuals being banned from individual countries, it just means they can't normally be stopped at the border, but if they're found within that country then they could be in more serious trouble with the local law enforcement. It would probably affect their ability to get even a limited ETIAS after that. In the case of high-profile individuals, would they need to run that risk when they can do what they need to do by video-link?
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 769,
Visits: 5.7K
|
+x+x+x+xI have to say I don't know what the criteria are, but then EU bureaucracy is secret even by the standards of most bureaucracies. Anyway, if someone has never notified travel to the Schengen Zone (or even the EU) while on the SOR (or maybe even just notifying their passport number), there is every chance that the EU don't know about them and failure to disclose wouldn't cause a problem. If they have notified while on the SOR, then if the conviction in question was in the fifteen years before the date of the application, it would probably be better to disclose, just to be on the safe side in terms of being seen to comply with the rules. Either way, once the fifteen years are up, the ETIAS rules say that disclosure is not required, so not disclosing would be complying with the ETIAS rules. I do like that people still think it's the EU "bureaucracy" to blame. Even the published standards suggest that each country retains the right to have their own rules. That they have tried to implement a standard set is a bonus. There has always been a right to reject individuals. David Icke is currently banned from traveling to The Netherlands, transition arrangements, EISTA notwithstanding. The UK has never been part of Schengen. We can't really complain if UK visitors' ability to travel to most of the EU is a mess. It's what we voted for. I'm of the opinion that a barefaced lie to the EISTA questionnaire is very unlikely to result in a refusal at the border, but only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues and once off the SOR it would not even have been a consideration. This is just the EU enforcing their sovereignty, not bureaucracy. "only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues" There was an issue pre Brexit, because every SO would be stopped and questioned, with the possibility of being refused entry, if the border guards felt like it. Once you have ETIAs approval, it should last for 3 years and should mean no more being stopped and questioned. As for the idea that each country will have it's own rules, I don't see how that would work, because once you are in Schengen, there are no border checks, and nothing to prevent you moving around. Equally, a ban from one Schengen country, could mean a ban from all Schengen nations, which is why David Icke being banned from Holland stops him from going to any other Schengen state. However, the guidance says that an ETIAs could be issued, giving access to one Schengen country but not others and how that might work isn't yet clear. https://etias.com/articles/how-national-units-process-etias-applications I'm not saying that EU bureaucracy is to blame for ETIAS; I'm saying it's to blame for any secrecy around standards, guidelines and discretion. Every country has its bureaucracy, though, including the UK. For example, the statutory guidance on disclosing police information on enhanced DBS checks still gives local forces a fair amount of discretion in what they decide to disclose. In the EU, the central bureaucracy's secrecy is far more wide-ranging, across so many countries, but there is still plenty of room for local bureaucrats to apply their own levels of secrecy. In the case of individuals being banned from individual countries, it just means they can't normally be stopped at the border, but if they're found within that country then they could be in more serious trouble with the local law enforcement. It would probably affect their ability to get even a limited ETIAS after that. In the case of high-profile individuals, would they need to run that risk when they can do what they need to do by video-link? I'm not sure that 'secrecy' is the problem in this instance. The Schengen nations are in the process of setting up their ETIAs national units at the moment. They probably haven't drafted their precise rules yet. What the published guidance says, is that first they automatically check the databases, such as Schengen and Interpol, for an alert. If no alert is found, then they move to the question about convictions. If the answer is 'yes', then they do a manual check on the application. But what does that manual check involve? Well, according to the guidance it only includes manually checking the exact same databases (Interpol, Schengen etc) for an alert! That's the only criteria. No alert, means no reason to refuse the application. It may be that simple, but over time, somebody in one of the national units might start to ask questions about what the point of the manual check really is. Is it just to repeat the automatic check, or should it involve making a more in depth investigation into the person's risk. I expect that this will only happen once someone slips through the net and commits an offence. Only at that point will the authorities wake up and say to themselves; maybe we need to do some extra checks on these people.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
+x+x+x+x+xI have to say I don't know what the criteria are, but then EU bureaucracy is secret even by the standards of most bureaucracies. Anyway, if someone has never notified travel to the Schengen Zone (or even the EU) while on the SOR (or maybe even just notifying their passport number), there is every chance that the EU don't know about them and failure to disclose wouldn't cause a problem. If they have notified while on the SOR, then if the conviction in question was in the fifteen years before the date of the application, it would probably be better to disclose, just to be on the safe side in terms of being seen to comply with the rules. Either way, once the fifteen years are up, the ETIAS rules say that disclosure is not required, so not disclosing would be complying with the ETIAS rules. I do like that people still think it's the EU "bureaucracy" to blame. Even the published standards suggest that each country retains the right to have their own rules. That they have tried to implement a standard set is a bonus. There has always been a right to reject individuals. David Icke is currently banned from traveling to The Netherlands, transition arrangements, EISTA notwithstanding. The UK has never been part of Schengen. We can't really complain if UK visitors' ability to travel to most of the EU is a mess. It's what we voted for. I'm of the opinion that a barefaced lie to the EISTA questionnaire is very unlikely to result in a refusal at the border, but only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues and once off the SOR it would not even have been a consideration. This is just the EU enforcing their sovereignty, not bureaucracy. "only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues" There was an issue pre Brexit, because every SO would be stopped and questioned, with the possibility of being refused entry, if the border guards felt like it. Once you have ETIAs approval, it should last for 3 years and should mean no more being stopped and questioned. As for the idea that each country will have it's own rules, I don't see how that would work, because once you are in Schengen, there are no border checks, and nothing to prevent you moving around. Equally, a ban from one Schengen country, could mean a ban from all Schengen nations, which is why David Icke being banned from Holland stops him from going to any other Schengen state. However, the guidance says that an ETIAs could be issued, giving access to one Schengen country but not others and how that might work isn't yet clear. https://etias.com/articles/how-national-units-process-etias-applications I'm not saying that EU bureaucracy is to blame for ETIAS; I'm saying it's to blame for any secrecy around standards, guidelines and discretion. Every country has its bureaucracy, though, including the UK. For example, the statutory guidance on disclosing police information on enhanced DBS checks still gives local forces a fair amount of discretion in what they decide to disclose. In the EU, the central bureaucracy's secrecy is far more wide-ranging, across so many countries, but there is still plenty of room for local bureaucrats to apply their own levels of secrecy. In the case of individuals being banned from individual countries, it just means they can't normally be stopped at the border, but if they're found within that country then they could be in more serious trouble with the local law enforcement. It would probably affect their ability to get even a limited ETIAS after that. In the case of high-profile individuals, would they need to run that risk when they can do what they need to do by video-link? I'm not sure that 'secrecy' is the problem in this instance. The Schengen nations are in the process of setting up their ETIAs national units at the moment. They probably haven't drafted their precise rules yet. What the published guidance says, is that first they automatically check the databases, such as Schengen and Interpol, for an alert. If no alert is found, then they move to the question about convictions. If the answer is 'yes', then they do a manual check on the application. But what does that manual check involve? Well, according to the guidance it only includes manually checking the exact same databases (Interpol, Schengen etc) for an alert! That's the only criteria. No alert, means no reason to refuse the application. It may be that simple, but over time, somebody in one of the national units might start to ask questions about what the point of the manual check really is. Is it just to repeat the automatic check, or should it involve making a more in depth investigation into the person's risk. I expect that this will only happen once someone slips through the net and commits an offence. Only at that point will the authorities wake up and say to themselves; maybe we need to do some extra checks on these people. I realise that the page on the link is not an official source, but it seems to be a reliable source. As you say, there is uncertainty at the moment, but it looks like they're expecting to approve 95-96% of applications on the first pass. Any rejections go to the central unit, which they expect to approve half of the rejections. Those who are still not granted will be referred back to the original national unit where the application was received and they should be requesting further information from the applicant. Yes, most of this is down to uncertainty at the moment, but I still suspect that there won't be much transparency when the uncertainty comes to an end. I'm thinking that anyone whose application is eventually rejected will get an idea of why, and they will have an automatic right to appeal, but to the same national unit who just rejected their application despite the applicant having provided extra information. I doubt that any guidelines issued either centrally or nationally will be published.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 769,
Visits: 5.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI have to say I don't know what the criteria are, but then EU bureaucracy is secret even by the standards of most bureaucracies. Anyway, if someone has never notified travel to the Schengen Zone (or even the EU) while on the SOR (or maybe even just notifying their passport number), there is every chance that the EU don't know about them and failure to disclose wouldn't cause a problem. If they have notified while on the SOR, then if the conviction in question was in the fifteen years before the date of the application, it would probably be better to disclose, just to be on the safe side in terms of being seen to comply with the rules. Either way, once the fifteen years are up, the ETIAS rules say that disclosure is not required, so not disclosing would be complying with the ETIAS rules. I do like that people still think it's the EU "bureaucracy" to blame. Even the published standards suggest that each country retains the right to have their own rules. That they have tried to implement a standard set is a bonus. There has always been a right to reject individuals. David Icke is currently banned from traveling to The Netherlands, transition arrangements, EISTA notwithstanding. The UK has never been part of Schengen. We can't really complain if UK visitors' ability to travel to most of the EU is a mess. It's what we voted for. I'm of the opinion that a barefaced lie to the EISTA questionnaire is very unlikely to result in a refusal at the border, but only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues and once off the SOR it would not even have been a consideration. This is just the EU enforcing their sovereignty, not bureaucracy. "only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues" There was an issue pre Brexit, because every SO would be stopped and questioned, with the possibility of being refused entry, if the border guards felt like it. Once you have ETIAs approval, it should last for 3 years and should mean no more being stopped and questioned. As for the idea that each country will have it's own rules, I don't see how that would work, because once you are in Schengen, there are no border checks, and nothing to prevent you moving around. Equally, a ban from one Schengen country, could mean a ban from all Schengen nations, which is why David Icke being banned from Holland stops him from going to any other Schengen state. However, the guidance says that an ETIAs could be issued, giving access to one Schengen country but not others and how that might work isn't yet clear. https://etias.com/articles/how-national-units-process-etias-applications I'm not saying that EU bureaucracy is to blame for ETIAS; I'm saying it's to blame for any secrecy around standards, guidelines and discretion. Every country has its bureaucracy, though, including the UK. For example, the statutory guidance on disclosing police information on enhanced DBS checks still gives local forces a fair amount of discretion in what they decide to disclose. In the EU, the central bureaucracy's secrecy is far more wide-ranging, across so many countries, but there is still plenty of room for local bureaucrats to apply their own levels of secrecy. In the case of individuals being banned from individual countries, it just means they can't normally be stopped at the border, but if they're found within that country then they could be in more serious trouble with the local law enforcement. It would probably affect their ability to get even a limited ETIAS after that. In the case of high-profile individuals, would they need to run that risk when they can do what they need to do by video-link? I'm not sure that 'secrecy' is the problem in this instance. The Schengen nations are in the process of setting up their ETIAs national units at the moment. They probably haven't drafted their precise rules yet. What the published guidance says, is that first they automatically check the databases, such as Schengen and Interpol, for an alert. If no alert is found, then they move to the question about convictions. If the answer is 'yes', then they do a manual check on the application. But what does that manual check involve? Well, according to the guidance it only includes manually checking the exact same databases (Interpol, Schengen etc) for an alert! That's the only criteria. No alert, means no reason to refuse the application. It may be that simple, but over time, somebody in one of the national units might start to ask questions about what the point of the manual check really is. Is it just to repeat the automatic check, or should it involve making a more in depth investigation into the person's risk. I expect that this will only happen once someone slips through the net and commits an offence. Only at that point will the authorities wake up and say to themselves; maybe we need to do some extra checks on these people. I realise that the page on the link is not an official source, but it seems to be a reliable source. As you say, there is uncertainty at the moment, but it looks like they're expecting to approve 95-96% of applications on the first pass. Any rejections go to the central unit, which they expect to approve half of the rejections. Those who are still not granted will be referred back to the original national unit where the application was received and they should be requesting further information from the applicant. Yes, most of this is down to uncertainty at the moment, but I still suspect that there won't be much transparency when the uncertainty comes to an end. I'm thinking that anyone whose application is eventually rejected will get an idea of why, and they will have an automatic right to appeal, but to the same national unit who just rejected their application despite the applicant having provided extra information. I doubt that any guidelines issued either centrally or nationally will be published. They could publish the guidelines, but the interpretation would still be left to each national unit. For example. They say they will not let in anyone who is a security risk. But how do they define that? Without more detail, it's practically meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have to say I don't know what the criteria are, but then EU bureaucracy is secret even by the standards of most bureaucracies. Anyway, if someone has never notified travel to the Schengen Zone (or even the EU) while on the SOR (or maybe even just notifying their passport number), there is every chance that the EU don't know about them and failure to disclose wouldn't cause a problem. If they have notified while on the SOR, then if the conviction in question was in the fifteen years before the date of the application, it would probably be better to disclose, just to be on the safe side in terms of being seen to comply with the rules. Either way, once the fifteen years are up, the ETIAS rules say that disclosure is not required, so not disclosing would be complying with the ETIAS rules. I do like that people still think it's the EU "bureaucracy" to blame. Even the published standards suggest that each country retains the right to have their own rules. That they have tried to implement a standard set is a bonus. There has always been a right to reject individuals. David Icke is currently banned from traveling to The Netherlands, transition arrangements, EISTA notwithstanding. The UK has never been part of Schengen. We can't really complain if UK visitors' ability to travel to most of the EU is a mess. It's what we voted for. I'm of the opinion that a barefaced lie to the EISTA questionnaire is very unlikely to result in a refusal at the border, but only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues and once off the SOR it would not even have been a consideration. This is just the EU enforcing their sovereignty, not bureaucracy. "only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues" There was an issue pre Brexit, because every SO would be stopped and questioned, with the possibility of being refused entry, if the border guards felt like it. Once you have ETIAs approval, it should last for 3 years and should mean no more being stopped and questioned. As for the idea that each country will have it's own rules, I don't see how that would work, because once you are in Schengen, there are no border checks, and nothing to prevent you moving around. Equally, a ban from one Schengen country, could mean a ban from all Schengen nations, which is why David Icke being banned from Holland stops him from going to any other Schengen state. However, the guidance says that an ETIAs could be issued, giving access to one Schengen country but not others and how that might work isn't yet clear. https://etias.com/articles/how-national-units-process-etias-applications I'm not saying that EU bureaucracy is to blame for ETIAS; I'm saying it's to blame for any secrecy around standards, guidelines and discretion. Every country has its bureaucracy, though, including the UK. For example, the statutory guidance on disclosing police information on enhanced DBS checks still gives local forces a fair amount of discretion in what they decide to disclose. In the EU, the central bureaucracy's secrecy is far more wide-ranging, across so many countries, but there is still plenty of room for local bureaucrats to apply their own levels of secrecy. In the case of individuals being banned from individual countries, it just means they can't normally be stopped at the border, but if they're found within that country then they could be in more serious trouble with the local law enforcement. It would probably affect their ability to get even a limited ETIAS after that. In the case of high-profile individuals, would they need to run that risk when they can do what they need to do by video-link? I'm not sure that 'secrecy' is the problem in this instance. The Schengen nations are in the process of setting up their ETIAs national units at the moment. They probably haven't drafted their precise rules yet. What the published guidance says, is that first they automatically check the databases, such as Schengen and Interpol, for an alert. If no alert is found, then they move to the question about convictions. If the answer is 'yes', then they do a manual check on the application. But what does that manual check involve? Well, according to the guidance it only includes manually checking the exact same databases (Interpol, Schengen etc) for an alert! That's the only criteria. No alert, means no reason to refuse the application. It may be that simple, but over time, somebody in one of the national units might start to ask questions about what the point of the manual check really is. Is it just to repeat the automatic check, or should it involve making a more in depth investigation into the person's risk. I expect that this will only happen once someone slips through the net and commits an offence. Only at that point will the authorities wake up and say to themselves; maybe we need to do some extra checks on these people. I realise that the page on the link is not an official source, but it seems to be a reliable source. As you say, there is uncertainty at the moment, but it looks like they're expecting to approve 95-96% of applications on the first pass. Any rejections go to the central unit, which they expect to approve half of the rejections. Those who are still not granted will be referred back to the original national unit where the application was received and they should be requesting further information from the applicant. Yes, most of this is down to uncertainty at the moment, but I still suspect that there won't be much transparency when the uncertainty comes to an end. I'm thinking that anyone whose application is eventually rejected will get an idea of why, and they will have an automatic right to appeal, but to the same national unit who just rejected their application despite the applicant having provided extra information. I doubt that any guidelines issued either centrally or nationally will be published. They could publish the guidelines, but the interpretation would still be left to each national unit. For example. They say they will not let in anyone who is a security risk. But how do they define that? Without more detail, it's practically meaningless. Fully agree with you because if they did it would be easier for a "legal advisor" to manipulate them to meet their own client's scenario.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI have to say I don't know what the criteria are, but then EU bureaucracy is secret even by the standards of most bureaucracies. Anyway, if someone has never notified travel to the Schengen Zone (or even the EU) while on the SOR (or maybe even just notifying their passport number), there is every chance that the EU don't know about them and failure to disclose wouldn't cause a problem. If they have notified while on the SOR, then if the conviction in question was in the fifteen years before the date of the application, it would probably be better to disclose, just to be on the safe side in terms of being seen to comply with the rules. Either way, once the fifteen years are up, the ETIAS rules say that disclosure is not required, so not disclosing would be complying with the ETIAS rules. I do like that people still think it's the EU "bureaucracy" to blame. Even the published standards suggest that each country retains the right to have their own rules. That they have tried to implement a standard set is a bonus. There has always been a right to reject individuals. David Icke is currently banned from traveling to The Netherlands, transition arrangements, EISTA notwithstanding. The UK has never been part of Schengen. We can't really complain if UK visitors' ability to travel to most of the EU is a mess. It's what we voted for. I'm of the opinion that a barefaced lie to the EISTA questionnaire is very unlikely to result in a refusal at the border, but only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues and once off the SOR it would not even have been a consideration. This is just the EU enforcing their sovereignty, not bureaucracy. "only a year ago we'd all be pretty confident that a PPU notified trip whilst on the SOR there would have been no issues" There was an issue pre Brexit, because every SO would be stopped and questioned, with the possibility of being refused entry, if the border guards felt like it. Once you have ETIAs approval, it should last for 3 years and should mean no more being stopped and questioned. As for the idea that each country will have it's own rules, I don't see how that would work, because once you are in Schengen, there are no border checks, and nothing to prevent you moving around. Equally, a ban from one Schengen country, could mean a ban from all Schengen nations, which is why David Icke being banned from Holland stops him from going to any other Schengen state. However, the guidance says that an ETIAs could be issued, giving access to one Schengen country but not others and how that might work isn't yet clear. https://etias.com/articles/how-national-units-process-etias-applications I'm not saying that EU bureaucracy is to blame for ETIAS; I'm saying it's to blame for any secrecy around standards, guidelines and discretion. Every country has its bureaucracy, though, including the UK. For example, the statutory guidance on disclosing police information on enhanced DBS checks still gives local forces a fair amount of discretion in what they decide to disclose. In the EU, the central bureaucracy's secrecy is far more wide-ranging, across so many countries, but there is still plenty of room for local bureaucrats to apply their own levels of secrecy. In the case of individuals being banned from individual countries, it just means they can't normally be stopped at the border, but if they're found within that country then they could be in more serious trouble with the local law enforcement. It would probably affect their ability to get even a limited ETIAS after that. In the case of high-profile individuals, would they need to run that risk when they can do what they need to do by video-link? I'm not sure that 'secrecy' is the problem in this instance. The Schengen nations are in the process of setting up their ETIAs national units at the moment. They probably haven't drafted their precise rules yet. What the published guidance says, is that first they automatically check the databases, such as Schengen and Interpol, for an alert. If no alert is found, then they move to the question about convictions. If the answer is 'yes', then they do a manual check on the application. But what does that manual check involve? Well, according to the guidance it only includes manually checking the exact same databases (Interpol, Schengen etc) for an alert! That's the only criteria. No alert, means no reason to refuse the application. It may be that simple, but over time, somebody in one of the national units might start to ask questions about what the point of the manual check really is. Is it just to repeat the automatic check, or should it involve making a more in depth investigation into the person's risk. I expect that this will only happen once someone slips through the net and commits an offence. Only at that point will the authorities wake up and say to themselves; maybe we need to do some extra checks on these people. I realise that the page on the link is not an official source, but it seems to be a reliable source. As you say, there is uncertainty at the moment, but it looks like they're expecting to approve 95-96% of applications on the first pass. Any rejections go to the central unit, which they expect to approve half of the rejections. Those who are still not granted will be referred back to the original national unit where the application was received and they should be requesting further information from the applicant. Yes, most of this is down to uncertainty at the moment, but I still suspect that there won't be much transparency when the uncertainty comes to an end. I'm thinking that anyone whose application is eventually rejected will get an idea of why, and they will have an automatic right to appeal, but to the same national unit who just rejected their application despite the applicant having provided extra information. I doubt that any guidelines issued either centrally or nationally will be published. They could publish the guidelines, but the interpretation would still be left to each national unit. For example. They say they will not let in anyone who is a security risk. But how do they define that? Without more detail, it's practically meaningless. Fully agree with you because if they did it would be easier for a "legal advisor" to manipulate them to meet their own client's scenario. That doesn't seem to have deterred many Western European countries so far.... Even so, media commentators seem clear that you can be refused entry for a threat to national security or a risk to society. In addition to the David Icke situation, I'm also thinking of those men who were refused entry to the UK to do their speaking tours about "dating advice", although there have been many others where the decision was less controversial and more clearly related to national security. Regarding publishing guidelines, that would still allow some room for argument, but should also make it clearer what the focus is.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
tedstriker
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 50,
Visits: 2.9K
|
Spotted a slight glimmer of hope for those of us stuck in the 10-15 years category for ETIAS. The European Data Protection Supervisor has been consulted (as legally required) on the amendments to ETIAS law. Essentially he does not believe the amendment has a legal basis for changing the time frames from the original framework and points out they should be changed back.
2.1. Time periods in relation to previous criminal convictions
8. Pursuant to Article 17(4)(a) of the ETIAS Regulation, as part of the application form for travel authorisation, the applicant must provide information about possible previous criminal convictions. To this end, the applicant must reply “whether he or she has been convicted of any criminal offence listed in the Annex over the previous 10 years and in the case of terrorist offences, over the previous 20 years, and if so when and in which country” (emphasis added).
9. The EDPS notes, however, that in Article 2(2) of the draft Delegated Decision, the time periods in relation to a possible previous criminal convictions are significantly extended - 15 years for criminal offence listed in the Annex and 25 years for a terrorist offence.
10. The EDPS recalls that pursuant to Article 290(1) of the TFEU, a legislative act may delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act (emphasis added). In this context, Article 17(5) and (6) of the ETIAS Regulation limits the delegation only to “specifying the content and format of the questions” and not to redefining their substantial elements, such as the maximum period, during which a previous criminal conviction is deemed relevant.
11. In light of the above, the EDPS considers that the provision of Article 2(2) of theProposal is in contradiction with the legislative delegation in Article 17(5) and (6) of the ETIAS Regulation, as well as with Article 290(1) of the TFEU. Consequently, the time periods related to a possible previous criminal convictions in Article 2(2)of the Proposal should be aligned with the time periods provided for in the basic act, i.e. Article 17(4)(a) of the ETIAS Regulation.
The whole document is available here: https://edps.europa.eu/system/files/2022-08/22-08-03_additional-set-of-predetermined-questions_en.pdfI know the EDPS is the highest data protection within the EU but I don't know how much they actually take notice of his opinions despite the fact they need to ask for them. There is also a change of course they manage to change the periods by some other method thereby swerving the problem. Obviously nothing is set in stone but just a glimmer of hope for those of us who fancy a holiday in the interim period between old disclosure periods and new.
|
|
|
|