C Explanatory Memorandum
Sommaire
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Introduction - 1080
Visas and Passport Control - 1088
Customs Control - 1104
Currency Control - 1109
Recommendations of various international organisations in this field - 1115
Draft Recommendation - 1120
Draft Order of the Assembly - 1126
1 Introduction
1. On the 29th May, 1952, the Committee on Legal- and Administrative Questions appointed a Sub-Committee composed of M. Rolf Edberg, Chairman (Sweden), Lt. Col. H. Montgomery Hyde, M. P. Rapporteur (United Kingdom), Mr. Crosbie (Ireland), M. Kiesinger (German Fe.deral Republic), M. Lannung (Denmark) and ;M. Pinton (France) t o
Noteconsider a motion tabled in the Assembly on the 6th December, 1951, by the late Count Jacini and a number of Jhis colleagues. This Motion, which was referred to the Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions on the following day, was worded.as follows
Note: " The Assembly, Considering, that in present circumstances frontier formalities cause unnecessary trouble to travellers without, moreover, meeting the security and police requirements for which ithis control was introduced, Expresses, the wish that the appropriate services of the Member States investigate this question with a view to simplifying these formalities to the greatest extent .possible."" The Assembly, Considering, that in present circumstances frontier formalities cause unnecessary trouble to travellers without, moreover, meeting the security and police requirements for which ithis control was introduced, Expresses, the wish that the appropriate services of the Member States investigate this question with a view to simplifying these formalities to the greatest extent .possible."
2. The Sub-Committee held a first session on the 29th-30th August, 1952, at Gothenburg, Sweden, and a second session at Dublin on the 31st March-lst April, 1953, under the chairmanship of M. Rolf Edberg.
3. Between these two sessions, the Sub- Committee was invited by its parent Committee to consider the effect of the Recommendations for the standardisation of passports adopted by the Ministers' Deputies at their fifth meeting (7th-llth July, 1952) on its work. Whilst it always welcomed any progressive steps in this field, the Sub-Committee, nevertheless, expressed the view that further advance was both necessary and possible. The Committee agreed with > its Sub-Committee and instructed it to proceed with its work.
4. During its second session, the Sub- Committee was able to agree on a preliminary report, which was approved by the Plenary Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions on 8th May, 1953. The Committee furthermore agreed with its Sub-Committee that it would be of advantage if it could have a first opinion from Member Governments on its proposals before finally submitting them to the Assembly for its consideration and, possibly, for transmission to and action by the Committee of Ministers. On 27th May, 1953, the Assembly agreed that the provisional report of the Committee should be circulated to Member Governments and that their views should be requested thereon and forwarded, if possible by 15th July, 1953, to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. As was stated in M. de Menthon's letter to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers dated 19th May, 1953, the Assembly's object was to ascertain whether the broad lines of its work were generally acceptable and whether the draft recommendation it intended to submit to the Assembly was likely to meet with the approval of the Committee of Ministers. It was understood that the Sub-Committee would then consider the comments of the Governments at a meeting to be held in Istanbul on 13th-15th August, 1953.
5. The Committee regrets to inform the Assembly, however, that the Governments of only five Member States, namely, Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the Saar, had sent their comments by the 15th September, 1953. The views of the United Kingdom Government have been made known unofficially to the Sub-Committee. It was considered inadvisable, however, to delay further the tabling of a recommendation in the Assembly, and for this reason the Sub-Committee at meetings held in Strasbourg on the 15th, 16th and 18th September 1953, gave careful consideration to the comments of Governments which had been received—and amended its original proposals in the light of the Governments suggestions where this was considered appropriate. It is desired in this connection to make the following remarks on the views expressed by the Member Governments.
2
Comments on the views of Member Governments
6. The Committee regrets that there should appear to be comparatively little understanding among the Governments of the feelings which prompted the decision of the Assembly to enquire into the present position with regard to frontier formalities, and it is strongly felt that there is insufficient appreciation among the Governments of the need for reforms and the very real possibilities of achieving results. The work of the Scandinavian Interparliamentary Committee for the simplification of frontier formalities in the Scandinavian States which led to the creation of the limited Scandinavian passport union, and which was carried out in the face of strong opposition and criticism of the appropriate Government departments, at least in the initial stages, shows clearly that progress can be made and that many of the technical difficulties mentioned by the Governments are far from insuperable and can, in fact, be removed.
7. The Committee wishes, however, to pay tribute to the spirit in which the replies of the Netherlands and Saar Governments were written. It is particularly encouraged by the Netherlands Government's statement " that normal and unrestricted passenger traffic between Member States of the Council of Europe is considered here as an essential pre-requisite for economic recovery and the establishment of closer political links among the countries of free Europe ".
8. The Committee welcomes the French Government's statement that it is willing to abolish the passport requirement for travel to most of the Member States of the Council of Europe and the Irish Government's willingness to give further consideration to the Committee's proposals in this connection. It is also gratified to learn that the Belgian Government is" prepared to consider, when circumstances permit, the extension of the special facilities now granted to Dutch, French, Luxembourg and Swiss nationals in the way of passport exemption to other neighbouring States. It is very much hoped that the attitude of the other Member Governments when it is known will prove to be equally encouraging.
9. The Committee has noted with satisfaction that there is strong support for its recommendation that all visas should be abolishecl for travel as between Member States of the Council of Europe, and looks forward with confidence to the speedy implementation of this proposal.
10. The Committee notes with pleasure that its proposal for the abolition of visas for travel to certain non-Member States is supported by the Irish and Saar Governments.
11. As regards customs control, the Committee wishes to emphasise that the standard concessions which it proposes are minimum standard concessions. It is clear not only that Member States are at complete liberty to make still more far-reaching concessions but that they are encouraged by the Committee to do so.
12. The objection of the Belgian Government to nationals returning home from a holiday being granted the same concessions as visitors from other European countries is regretted. The Committee again wishes to draw attention to the concession recently introduced in both Denmark and Sweden as a result of the efforts of the Scandinavian Interparliamentary Committee for the simplification of frontier formalities for travellers, whereby travellers, whether resident in these countries or not, may now import free of customs duty and without import licence, apart from personal effects, articles purchased abroad for their own use or to be given away as gifts to relatives and friends up to a total of 275 Swedish crowns in Sweden or 350 Danish crowns in Denmark (approx. 50 U. S. dollars). It is thought that similar steps have been taken in Norway. The Committee is also informed that, as is stated in the Irish Government's comments, residents of Ireland returning from a visit abroad are granted the same concession as overseas visitors from Europe and are allowed to import articles other than personal effects and other than cigarettes, tobacco, wines and spirits, intended as gifts and not for sale, up to a value of £5 without payment of duty. Residents in Ireland are also granted the same concessions as European visitors in respect of tobacco, wines and spirits. The Committee, whilst suggesting that the £5 concession in Ireland should include articles for personal use and not gifts alone and should be increased to the equivalent of 20 U. S. dollars as a minimum, is agreed that the example of Denmark, Sweden and Ireland should be followed, and a decision to this effect taken within the Council of Europe would be useful and worthwhile. It is in the view of the Committee essential that travellers should be allowed to bring into all member countries, including their own, articles other than personal effects, whether intended for themselves or for friends, up to a certain value. Without such a concession, it seems doubtful whether the present system of customs control, which was instituted at a time when tourists were far less numerous than now, can be modernised to suit present-day conditions.
13. The Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions now has the honour to present its final report on the simplification of passport, customs and currency formalities to the Assemby. It was unanimously approved by the Committee on 21st September 1953.
14. The present report is divided into three separate parts dealing with passport control, customs control and currency control. But before embarking on the main part of the report, the Committee wishes to draw attention to two developments of outstanding importance which have recently taken place. They are the limited passport union comprising Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden, and the arrangements between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.
The limited Scandinavian Passport Union
15. A limited Passport Union was set up comprising Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden on 12th July, 1952.
16. The Passport Union was established as a result of two administrative measures which were taken simultaneously in the four participating countries. The regulations regarding aliens were amended, for example, in Sweden
Note, to the effect that Danish, Finnish and Norwegian citizens arriving in Sweden from Denmark, Finland or Norway were exempted from the obligation to be in possession of a passport on arrival, and during their stay in Sweden, for the period during which a residence permit is not required ; at the present time this period is limited to three months. Furthermore, the regulation which requires Swedish citizens to be in possession of a passport on leaving Sweden was amended to the effect that, when leaving direct for Denmark) Finland and Norway, Swedish citizens are exempt from this obligation. Corresponding amendments to existing regulations were made in Denmark, Finland and Norway.
17. In addition to these amendments of internal regulations, two agreements were signed by the four countries concerned. The first of these agreements provided that the participating countries should be obliged to re-admit aliens—that is, non-Scandinavians— who have taken advantage of the above-mentioned arrangements to travel from one Scandinavian country to another. The other agreement is a protocol whereby the contracting parties undertake not to repeal the amendments referred to above without giving reasonable notice.
18. Provision is made for the accession of Iceland to the arrangement on a reciprocal basis.
19. The practical effects of these new regulations are as follows : the obligation of presenting any document of identity has been abolished for Danish, Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish subjects for journeys between Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. For travellers who are not Danish, Finnish, Norwegian or Swedish subjects, passport control regulations continue to be applied as hitherto.
20. At the larger intra-Scandinavian frontier points, separate entrances and exits have been established for Scandinavians and for other foreigners. It could, of course, happen that a non-Scandinavian could consciously or unconsciously use the entrance or exit for Scandinavians. For this reason, it is necessary to keep a certain check at the entrance for Scandinavians. That control, however, is only exercised in such a way that a person who for some reason is believed not to be a Scandinavian is asked for his nationality.
21. Four further points about the recently constituted Scandinavian passport union should be mentioned :
21.1 These arrangements do not mean that the intra-Scandinavian borders are now free. Everybody is still obliged to cross the frontier at a recognised frontier post;
21.2 Regulations regarding refusal of admittance, expulsion and deportation are still in force;
21.3 It has been agreed that travellers who arrive by air at a Scandinavian airport from a country outside Scandinavia for direct transit to another Scandinavian country, will, as a rule, not be dealt with by passport control officers before reaching the airport at their final destination ;
21.4 Although the present arrangements only apply to Scandinavian citizens (i.e. including Finnish but not Icelandic citizens) it is the aim in due course to combine these four territories into a single unit for purposes of control of tourist traffic. In due course, therefore, an Englishman entering the Scandinavian group of States at the Danish-German frontier will only be asked to give proof of his identity at that frontier, and will thereafter be able to proceed without any further passport formality to any part of Finland, Norway or Sweden.
The Republic of Ireland—United Kingdom Arrangements
22. Certain arrangements for the simplification of frontier formalities between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom came into force on the 7th April, 1952. These arrangements provide as follows :
22.1 It is now no longer necessary for a citizen of either country to show an identity document of any kind when he crosses the frontier between the two countries.;
22.2 Aliens reaching the United Kingdom from abroad via the Republic of Ireland are not interviewed again by immigration officers on arrival either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. In the same way, aliens travelling to the Republic of Ireland via the United Kingdom are seen by British immigration officers and not on arrival in the territory of the Republic of Ireland.
23. It should be noted that no formal written agreement has been concluded between the Irish and the United Kingdom Governments for this purpose. The two States have similar control systems of aliens and apply similar standards in their immigration examinations, and each State is satisfied, generally, that an alien admitted to the other is within the categories which it itself would not exclude.
Special arrangements among the Benelux countries and between Belgium and France
24. In addition, the Committee wishes to draw attention to the special arrangements at present existing as between Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands :
a To enter Belgium the following documents suffice :
24.1.1 Nationals of France (for visits of less than 2 months) and Luxembourg : valid national identity card or passport issued since 1st October, 1944 (even if expired);
24.1.2 Netherlands nationals : a passport (even if expired) on condition that it was issued or renewed after the 1st January, 1946, and that it is not more than five years since it expired, or a certificate of Netherlands nationality (Bewijs van Nederlandschap) ;
b To enter France, no valid passport or visa is required for visits of less than three months by :
24.2.1 Belgian nationals holding a valid Belgian identity card or an expired passport, provided it is not more than 5 years since it expired and that it was issued or renewed after the 6th October, 1944;
24.2.2 Luxembourg nationals holding a valid Luxembourg identity card, or papers similar to those mentioned in the case of Belgian nationals above;
24.2.3 a valid passport but no visa is required by nationals of the Netherlands;
c To enter Luxembourg the following documents suffice : — nationals of Belgium, France and the Netherlands : a valid national identity card or a passport, even if expired, provided it is not more than five years since it expired and that it was issued or renewed, after the 1st October, 1944 in the Netherlands, after 6th October, 1944 in Belgium, and after the 1st October, 1944 in France.
d To enter the Netherlands the following documents suffice :
24.4.1 Belgian and Luxembourg nationals : a valid national identity card or a passport, even if expired, on condition that it is not more than five years since it expired, or that it was issued or renewed after the 1st October, 1944 in Belgium, or after the 1st August, 1945 in Luxembourg;
24.4.2 French nationals : (for visits of less than two months) a valid passport.
Special arrangements between Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Saar
25. An official identity card dated later than 1st January, 1945, is sufficient for travel between France and the Saar for visits of less than three months. A passport, even if expired, on condition that it was issued or renewed after 1st October, 1944, is accepted for travel between Belgium and the Saar and Luxembourg and the Saar.
Arrangements between Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Switzerland
26. It should be added that an ordinary identity card is sufficient for travel between France and Switzerland, between Belgium and Switzerland, and between Luxembourg and Switzerland.
3 Visas and Passport Control
27. As a general rule, to which there are a number of exceptions, it is (necessary to-day for a national of one of the Member States of the Council of Europe to be in possession of a passport when travelling to another Member country.
Visas
28. Most Members of the Council of Europe do not, however, now require nationals of other Member States to be in possession of visas for visits of up to two or three months' duration. Only a valid passport is required, and in some cases, i.e. in the Scandinavian countries, between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, between the Benelux countries, and between Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Saar, even this is not necessary.
29. It is observed in this connection that certain countries, for example, Belgium1 , the Netherlands, and Norway have usually abolished the visa requirement for visits not exceeding two months' duration. The practice in the case of Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, and Sweden is to conclude visa abolition agreements in respect of persons who do not intend to stay in these countries for more than three months. Moreover, in the case of a person wishing to take up employment in France, Denmark, or Sweden, a visa is required, no matter how long or short his stay; the same is true in the case of Norway; in the case of Belgium a visa is required only if the person intends to take up employment during a stay which will exceed two months.
30. Some Members of the Council of Europe, however, still require nationals of many of the other Members to have their passports visad when travelling to these countries for ordinary tourist or business visits unlikely to last for more than a few days. These are Greece, the Saar and Turkey, and it is on the urgency of abolishing these visa requirements that the Committee wishes to insist. The situation on the 15th September, 1953 was as follows :
a Greece. Agreements for the abolition of visas for visits of less than 3 months' duration have been concluded with Italy, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Negotiations are at present in progress with Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden. From 1st June to 10th September, tourist visas are issued at half price.
b The Saar does not require nationals of Iceland, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands to be in possession of a visa when they enter its territory. French nationals are only required to be in possession of an official identity card issued later than 1st January, 1945. Nationals of the German Federal Republic must have a valid passport or a temporary travel document issued by the Western Occupation Authorities. Belgian and Luxembourg nationals are permitted to enter the Saar on production of a passport, even if expired, on condition that it was issued or renewed after the 1st October, 1944. Visas are issued by French Consulates abroad, and in the case of persons resident in France by the préfectures.
c Turkey. Agreements for the abolition of visas have been concluded with Belgium, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Turkish Government has indicated its willingness to enter into negotiations with the other members of the Council of Europe.
31. The Government of the German Federal Republic announced its unilateral decision, as from 1st July, 1953, to dispense with visas in the case of nationals of Members of the Council of Europe and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation visiting the Federal Republic for less than three months. The Netherlands Government has abolished visas in the case of nationals of the Federal Republic visiting the Netherlands. The British Government announced at the same time that, as from the 1st July, 1953, no charge would be made for visas granted to citizens of the German Federal Republic holding valid passports. In addition, the British Government agreed that holders of German Federal diplomatic, Ministerial or service passports need not obtain visas to enter or pass through the United Kingdom. The Government of the Republic of Ireland has taken similar steps. It is understood, moreover, that the Greek, Italian and Turkish Governments have indicated that they are prepared to consider the abolition of visas for holders of West German passports. Visas were abolished between the German Federal Republic and Belgium, as from the 1st January, 1953, for diplomatic and official passports. No visas are required for travel between the Saar and the German Federal Republic.
32. The Committee welcomes the progress which has been achieved in this sphere, and to which the Resolution adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 1952, on the recommendation of the Consultative Assembly
Note , has undoubtedly contributed. It is also gratified to learn of the recent recommendation of the Council of the O. E. E. C. proposing that the Governments of its member countries should examine the possibility of abolishing entry visas in the case of the German Federal Republic, on a reciprocal basis
Note.
Proposal for the abolition of visas
33. The Committee believes, however, that further progress is both necessary and possible, and therefore makes the following proposals :
33.1 Wherever they arc still required, visas should be completely abolished as soon as possible for travel between all Member States of the Council of Europe. This means that the Committee recommends that partial visa abolition agreements should be completed, and that, where this cannot be done formally, it should be clone in practice.
Note Members other than the Netherlands and the Saar should give early consideration to the possibility of abolishing visas in the case of nationals of the German Federal Republic.
33.2 In cases, however, where special circumstances make it particularly difficult for visas to be completely abolished the following measures should be taken forthwith :
a Transit visas should be dispensed with;
b Entry visas should be issued without charge
Note.
34. Whilst it is earnestly hoped that the complete abolition of visas may be achieved in the near future, it is pointed out that unilateral action without reciprocity in cases where special difficulties exist, can make a valuable contribution towards this goal, and Member States are therefore recommended to keep this possibility in mind. Such action has been taken not only by the German Federal Republic in the case of nationals of Members of the Council of Europe and the 0. E. E. C. but also by numerous European States in the case of nationals from a number of British Commonwealth countries and American Republics. Visas were thus abolished by :
a Belgium. — As from 15th October, 1948 and 15th January, 1950, for United States, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand nationals;
b Denmark. — For citizens of Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, the Union of South Africa, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Salvador, United States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela ;
c France. — As from 31st March, 1949 and 17th April, 1950, for citizens of the United States of America and Canada. The agreement was extended to the Saar on 10th May, 1949, with regard to citizens of the United States of America;
d The German Federal Republic — For citizens of the United States of America and Australia ;
e Italy. — As from 1st November, 1948, for citizens of the United States of America ;
f Luxembourg. — As from 15th February, 1947, 1st December, 1949, and 5th October, 1951, for citizens of the United States of America, Canada and Australia;
g Netherlands. — As from 15th August, 1947, 1st January, 1950, 1st April, 1951, for citizens of the United States of America, Canada and Australia;
h Norway. — As from 1st August, 1947, 1st April, 1950, 19th November, 1951, for citizens of the United States of America, Canada and Australia. Extended to certain Norwegian dependencies on 19th October, 1948, with regard to citizens of the United States of America;
i Sweden. — Royal decree of 25th April, 1950, 19th November, 1951, for citizens of the United States of America and Canada. Also abolished as from 1st November, 1951, for citizens of Australia;
j United Kingdom and Malta. — As from 12th November, 1948, 1st December, 1949, for citizens of the United States of America.
35. Finally, the Committee wishes formally to propose the abolition of the visa requirement for normal tourist and business travel to certain European States which are not Members of the Council of Europe
Note , namely, Austria, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. All Member States, except Greece and Turkey, have concluded visa abolition agreements with Switzerland. Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Luxembourg and Sweden have concluded reciprocal visa abolition agreements with Finland. Belgium and Portugal have agreed to abolish visas and France and Portugal have taken similar steps in the case of diplomatic service, or special passports. Belgium, Denmark, the German Federal Republic, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have concluded agreements with Austria
Note. No Member State of the Council of Europe has signed any visa abolition agreement with Yugoslavia. Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have concluded visa abolition agreements with Spain in the case of diplomatic and service passports. It is noteworthy, however, that Spain no longer requires United States visitors to be in possession of visas if the visit does not exceed six months. It is, in the view of the Committee, desirable that the lead given by a number of the Member States should be followed by the other Member States
Note.
36. The Committee recalls that the Consultative Assembly passed a Resolution at its Fourth Ordinary Session re-affirming its faith in the unity of the whole of Europe. The abolition of visas with certain non-Member States appears to be a step in accordance with the spirit of this Resolution, for it could not fail to lead to greater intercourse with these States and to greater possibility of making known the ideals of the Council of Europe.
Passport Control
37. The Committee believes that the fundamental question is whether there are any valid reasons for maintaining the present system of passport control, and in considering this problem it is of opinion that the essential points are :
37.1 Whether the present control is effective;
37.2 Whether the results achieved are in reasonable proportion to the expenditure of time and money involved and to the inconvenience caused to travellers.
Whether the present control is effective.
38. The principal object [of passport control is to prevent the entry of undesirable persons into one country, or the exit of certain nationals from that country.
39. For the vast majority of travellers, however, the only purpose of the control is to record the legal crossing of a frontier. The Committee wishes to make three comments in this connection :
a Expulsion orders and deportation orders existed long before passports and, in particular, before the First World War. Appropriate arrangements were then made to arrest undesirables without reliance being placed on the passport. Reversion to that situation does not appear to be impossible;
b The value of stamping passports appears to be questionable. The experience of members of the Committee shows that practice in this respect varies considerably according to the country to which one travels, the frontier post through which one enters the country, the time at which one passes the frontier, or even the mood of the passport control officers;
c Without wishing to refer to the undesirable departure of certain persons from Member countries in recent years, the Committee, nevertheless, draws attention to the fact that during the holiday season at least traffic is often extremely heavy, and a thorough control appears impossible if trains and steamers are not to be delayed for long periods.
Whether the results achieved are in reasonable proportion to the expenditure of lime and money involved and the inconvenience caused to travellers.
40. The Committee is aware that no answer to the first part of this sentence is possible without adequate statistics. It has, however, been impressed by the figures quoted in the report of the Scandinavian Inter-Parliamentary Committee, which states that in 1950 passport control officials in the Scandinavian States refused admittance to a total of 1,700 nationals of those States out of a total of 3,700,000 travellers (i.e. less than .05 % of travellers were refused admittance). The report of the Committee adds that the number of Scandinavian persons who have been refused admittance has diminished considerably in the last few years.
41. If, however, the efficiency of the control appears to be somewhat slight, the delays and the inconvenience to travellers are particularly tiresome and irritating. It is sufficient to recall that often trains and steamers are delayed for periods of up to, and even above, one hour, so that passport control and other formalities may take place. And the result has been that despite the remarkable technical achievements of the twentieth century the journey from Paris to London by rail and sea could be done in less time at the beginning of the century than in 1953.
42. The Committee wishes to raise the following point : Would it not be true to say that a very large number of passports issued, for example, in the United Kingdom, are issued to persons who use them solely for journeys to France or perhaps to Belgium, or in any case to neighbouring countries? The authors of the report of the Scandinavian Inter-Parliamentary Committee certainly found that most passports issued in their countries were used for travel to neighbouring countries. Were the passport requirement to be waived on a bilateral or unilateral basis, there would be a marked reduction in the number of passports issued in one or more of the countries concerned, a corresponding reduction in the work of passport authorities, and a substantial alleviation of the troubles to which travellers are subject.
Ways of simplifying the present system
43. The Committee is agreed that the present system is costly, ineffective and inconvenient.
44. It is aware that various remedies have been suggested at various times of which the principal has been the introduction of a travel card to take the place of the existing passport :
a In 1946, Sweden proposed a new form of Scandinavian travel card. The introduction of this card was discussed in 1946 and 1947. It was to have been valid for one year and for Scandinavian travel—and to have cost one Swedish crown. It would have borne the holder's name, photograph and description. It would have been issued by the local pojice upon the production by the applicant of a birth certificate or similar document proving his identity, and after a responsible person known to the police had certified that the person shown in the photograph was the applicant. The card would also have included a space for an official stamp;
b More recently, at a meeting of Passport Officials of the Brussels Treaty Powers held on 20th November, 1952, various proposals were put forward for the simplification of frontier formalities ' within these countries. The French, Belgian and Luxembourg delegations proposed that an agreement should be concluded as between the five Member States allowing out-of-date passports to be used for a limited period. It is understood, however, that the United Kingdom Government is opposed in principle to travel on expired passports. The Netherlands Government proposed the introduction of a new travel card or the extension to the other four member countries of the validity of the " Netherlands Certificate of Nationality valid as a travel document."
45. The Committee wishes to point out that the proposal for a travel card was rejected by the 1926 Passport Conference held under the auspices of the League of Nations. It was also rejected by the Scandinavian Inter-Parliamentary Committee on the grounds that it would simply be another form of passport. The Committee concurs with these opinions and does not favour the adoption of a new travel document of this nature.
Proposals of the Committee
Ultimate objective
46. The Committee is convinced that the ultimate objective of the Members of the Council of Europe must be the complete abolition of passports for the purpose of travel between Member States.
47. The Committee points out. that this would be no more than a partial return to the practice of free movement which existed before 1914 in virtually thwhole of Europe.
48. In this connection, the Committee desires to recall the proposal made by the Polish Government at the Passport Conference held under the auspices of the League of Nations at Geneva on 12th-18th May, 1926, that " as a general rule all States Members of the League of Nations should abolish passports "
Note .
Intermediate objective
49. Present circumstances, however, make it unrealistic to recommend the immediate abolition, on a European scale, of passport control. The Committee therefore proposes that the Members of the Council of Europe should proceed in stages and that, if necessary, not all of them should move at the same pace.
50. The Committee proposes that certain groups of Member States should take steps to abolish the passport requirement. Such groups have already been formed among the Scandinavian States and between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. It is believed that other possibilities ought to be explored. The following combinations could, for example, be considered :
50.1 the members of UNISCAN (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom) to which Iceland and Ireland and possibly Finland might be added;
50.2 the six members of the European Coal and Steel Community (Belgium, France, the German Federal Republic, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) to which the United Kingdom and other Member States of the Council of Europe might be added.
51. There are, of course, other possible combinations. The Committee merely wishes to emphasise the desirability of following the example of the Scandinavian countries and of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. It proposes in the first instance the creation of regional groups. It is clear from their composition that there is an interlocking element in these groups, and we may, therefore, look forward, as a result of an evolutionary process, to the fulfilment of the ultimate objective which the Committee has set itself.
Immediate objective
52. The Committee, however, thinks that even such a step might prove too revolutionary for certain States and it therefore proposes another intermediate step which, in this case, involves immediate action. It proposes that certain groups of neighbouring countries (for example those named above) should waive the passport requirement for nationals of Members of the group and that identity cards at present issued by the competent national administrative authorities of certain Member States for domestic purposes, should be recognised by the other Member States as a document affording a satisfactory means of identification. It is understood that such identity cards should include a photograph and possibly, in certain cases, the fingerprints of the bearer. The Committee has in mind national identity cards, certificates of nationality A'alid as travel documents, electoral cards, demobilisation certificates (cartes d'ancien combattant), driving licences, national health cards, social security cards, postal identity cards, passes entitling holders to free railway travel, etc.
53. The complete abolition of passports would probably entail new legislation in certain countries. The Committee is, however, particularly anxious to make proposals which can come into force immediately and preferably without the need for legislative action, although it believes that if necessary such action should be taken. In the interests of speed it therefore puts forward proposals for such measures as can be achieved by administrative action within the countries concerned, namely :
a Amendment to existing regulations to the effect that nationals of X, Y and Z arriving in À from X, Y and Z shall not be required to hold a passport on arrival in A and during their stay in À for the period during which a visiting permit is not required.
b (If necessary) Amendment to national regulations to the effect that for travel direct to certain countries, citizens need not be in possession of a passport on leaving the country.
c Agreements should be concluded between the participating countries providing for the re-admission of aliens—that is, non-nationals of participating states—who have taken advantage of the above arrangements to travel from one participating country to another. The Convention signed on 30th May, 1938 between Denmark and Sweden might serve as a guide in this connection.
d All other regulations regarding aliens would remain in force. In particular, aliens who are nationals of non-participating countries would continue to be subject to existing passport control.
54. Finally, the Committee desires to point out that if a group of States were willing to accept domestic identity documents as proof of the identity of certain foreigners, it would not be necessary for all the members of the group to insist on reciprocal treatment. In the case of an arrangement between the members of the European Coal and Steel Community and the United Kingdom, for example, the latter might accept the identity cards of Belgian, French, German Federal Republic, Italian and Luxembourg nationals and the certificate of nationality of Netherlands nationals, and the Belgian, French, German Federal Republic, Italian, Luxembourg and Netherlands authorities could recognise certain domestic identity documents issued in the United Kingdom
Note.
Passports for Refugees
55. The question of creating a European passport for refugees was raised by Mr. Crosbie in the Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions on 27th May, 1952. The Committee requested M. Pernot, Chairman of the Committee on Population and Refugees, to prepare a paper on this subject. After consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for' Refugees, M. Pernot duly submitted a paper to the Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions.
56. The substance of this paper was that the need for an internationally accepted document for refugees had long been recognised. The first such document was issued by a number of States under the international arrangements and conventions of 1922, 1924, 1926, 1933 and 1935 concerning Russian, Armenian and assimilated refugees and became known as the " Nansen Passport." Such passports are still issued by Belgium, France, Greece, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
57. The most important international travel document for refugees at the present time, however, is that issued in accordance with the agreement of 15th October, 1946, on the Adoption of a Travel Document for Refugees (known as the " London Travel Document " ) . The London Travel Document is issued by the Contracting States to all refugees staying lawfully in their territory who are covered by the Constitution of the International Refugee Organisation. A provision which makes this document particularly valuable to the refugee is that whereby he may return to the issuing country during the period of validity of the document (one or two years) without a visa from that country. The wording of the London Travel Document is specified by the agreement as well as the requirement that it shall be in booklet form, approximately 15 cm. X 10 cm.
58. It is, however, hoped to achieve a greater degree of uniformity when the new travel document provided for in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees signed at Geneva on 28th July, 1951, comes into force. Of the Member States of the Council of Europe, however, only Belgium, Denmark, the German Federal Republic, Luxembourg and Norway have so far ratified this Convention, and for this reason the Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, acting in accordance with the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, drew the attention of the committee on Population and Refugees to the desirability of recommending to the Committee of Ministers that the other Member States should take steps to ratify the said Convention.
59. At their ninth meeting (18th-22nd December, 1952) the Minister's Deputies, acting on behalf of the Committee of Ministers, invited Member States of the Council of Europe to ratify the 1951 Geneva Convention as soon as possible.
60. For the time being, therefore, the Committee considers that no further action is necessary. It is desirable, however, to keep the matter under constant review.
Special facilities for young persons
61. The Committee is agreed that every endeavour should be made to make it as easy as possible for parties of schoolchildren, students, sportsmen and other young persons, to travel within the Member States of the Council of Europe. It has given careful consideration to this problem and has, in particular, studied with interest the provisions of the arrangement concluded by the Brussels Treaty Powers (Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) concerning Collective Passports for young persons which came into force on 1st April, 1952.
62. Under this agreement, the conditions of issue and use of collective passports which had previously varied from country to country, are standardised. Parties of young people organised by schools and youth movements consisting of not less than five and not more than fifty persons may use these collective passports which are obtainable from the passport authorities. The age limit for holders is 21, but for foreign currency reasons the United Kingdom does not, in general, include young people over 18 years of age in the collective passports which it issues. Young people up to the age of 21 are, however, allowed to enter the United Kingdom on a collective passport issued by another Brussels Treaty country. The period of stay for travelling on such collective passports is restricted to two months and it is a condition of issue that the party is accompanied by a leader travelling on a valid individual passport who is responsible for the party during the various frontier formalities. Each Government reserves the right to require authentication of collective travel documents by its competent diplomatic or consular authorities unless all members of the party are under 16, but such authentication is gratis. All members of the party over 16 must be in possession of an individual identity document.
63. The Committee has also noted the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member Governments that " Collective passports should follow the standard form for such documents which was recommended by the experts of the Brussels Treaty Powers in London in January, 1952".
64. Whilst endorsing this recommendation, the Committee expresses the view that the Members of the Council of Europe which are not members of the Brussels Treaty Organisation should be invited to adhere to the arrangement concerning collective passports for young persons in order that parties of young people from all Members of the Council of Europe should be able to travel on collective travel documents and in order that the form and contents of these travel documents should be standardised.
65. The Committee observes, however, that certain Member States issue to their nationals and accept in the case of nationals of certain other Member States of the Council of Europe collective travel documents without imposing an age limit and that some of the agreements concluded by them place fewer restrictions than others on the kinds of visits for which collective passports may be issued. For example, the agreement between France and the Netherlands which came into force on 17th May, 1950 not only does not impose an age limit but contains a clause stating that collective passports may be issued " without the purpose of the journey having to be stated". The 1952 agreement between Belgium and Italy and that of 1952 between France and Ireland likewise impose no age-limit and they contain a provision to the effect that collective passports may be issued in the case of tourist visits. It is clear, on the other hand, that the regulations in the United Kingdom do not provide that collective travel documents may be issued for purely tourist visits and such documents are not normally issued in the case of persons over 18 years of age.
66. The Committee takes note that regulations in these respects vary from country to country and recommends the extension of the use of collective passports to persons over the age of 18 or 21 as the case may be in all the Members of the Council of Europe. So far as possible, there should be no limitation to the kind of visits for which collective travel documents are issued.
67. In making this recommendation, the Committee wishes to emphasise that it in no way affects its main proposal for the abolition of the passport requirement for travel between the Members of the Council of Europe. It merely considers this extension of the use of collective travel documents as a useful step towards the achievement of its ultimate purpose.
4 Customs control
68. The aim of the Committee has been to consider the possibility of introducing farreaching yet practical measures for the relaxation of the present rigid system of customs control.
69. The Committee recognises that, in present circumstances, customs control must remain. But it has considered it expedient to see how far the present system might be improved in order that it should become less inconvenient to travellers and customs staff.
70. It notes, in particular, that certain features of the current system are unduly oppressive. It appears, for example, quite unreasonable to require travellers to pay duty on small souvenirs which they have purchased abroad for their relatives or friends. If an attempt were made to meet the reasonable wishes of travellers in this respect and if appropriate regulations were issued, customs control would be made easier and swifter. The Com- . mittee wishes to point out that the figures quoted in the Report of the Scandinavian Inter- Parliamentary Committee on the Simplification of Customs Formalities show that the amount of revenue provided by customs duty on tourists' goods in the Scandinavian countries is inconsiderable. This in itself is an indication that tourists do not carry vast quantities of souvenir articles in their hand luggage when travelling to and from their country of residence.
71. The Committee proposes to simplify the present system in the following ways :
71.1 by standardising the regulations in all Member countries concerning the import and export free of duty and other taxes of personal effects and food supplies for personal use;
71.2 by granting travellers increased facilities to take abroad, or bring home, articles for their personal use, other than personal effects and personal food supplies;
71.3 by making practical suggestions for the simplification of the control machinery itself.
72. The Committee wishes, however, to emphasise :
a that its proposals are intended to affect all travellers regardless of their country of origin, their country of residence or their destination ;
b that the concessions proposed should be regarded as minimum concessions which members may extend if they so wish;
c that no formal reduction in the present powers of the customs authorities to examine the traveller or his luggage are contemplated.
Standardisation of regulations concerning the free import of personal effects and food supplies for personal use
Personal Effects
73. The Committee is aware that certain Member countries have, in the past, favoured a vague definition of " personal effects " which would be taken to include " all articles which a tourist from abroad might reasonably be expected to take with him for the purpose of his journey, excluding merchandise".
74. The Committee has, however, considered that there was value in defining more precisely what categories of goods are included within the term " personal effects ", so that tourists might know precisely what articles they are entitled to carry free of duty.
75. For this reason, the Committee recommends that the member countries of the Council of Europe should adopt regulations enabling all travellers, including their nationals, to export the following articles free of customs and other duties, without special import and export permits if they are intended solely for his personal use :
a articles of clothing, bedding and other articles for personal use such as watches, jewellery, toilet articles, etc.;
b other personal belongings, such as binoculars, cameras and small cinematograph cameras, together with developed and undeveloped films and plates, portable musical instruments, gramophones (including a reasonable number of records), wireless receiving sets and portable typewriters;
c bicycles, camping equipment and sports articles (for example, sporting guns and other shooting equipment, fishing tackle, skis, tennis rackets, canoes and similar small crafts without engines, including collapsible boats);
d perambulators and invalid chairs;
e articles of clothing for personal use acquired abroad which, having regard to their quantity and value and to the traveller's length of stay abroad, can be regarded as personal effects.
Personal Food Supplies
76. The Committee considers it sufficient to include in the suggested uniform regulations a clause to the effect that travellers may take with them, free of duty, such provisions and food supplies as they may need for personal consumption during their journey.
Increased facilities for travellers to carry articles other than personal effects and personal food supplies
77. Tourists going abroad or returning home from abroad usually wish to take, or to bring back with them, presents for relatives or friends, or souvenirs for their personal use.
78. At present, customs regulations in Member States of the Council of Europe restrict the number and quantity of articles, apart from personal effects, which travellers, and in particular persons returning home, may import free of duty. One notable exception is provided by Sweden where, since 1st January, 1953, travellers whether resident in Sweden or not, may import free of customs duty and without import licence, apart from personal effects, articles purchased abroad for their own use up to a total value of 275 Swedish crowns (approximately 50 U. S. Dollars). Similar regulations have come into force in Denmark and may soon come into force in the other Scandinavian countries. Another is provided by Ireland where, apart from personal effects, dutiable articles other than cigarettes, tobacco, wines and spirits, intended as gifts, and not for sale, imported in baggage and not exceeding £5 in value (when imported from countries in Europe) are admitted without payment of duty in the case of both visitors and residents in Ireland.
79. In practice, however, the attitude of customs officers varies little from country to country and it can be said that they normally allow travellers to bring in small quantities of articles on which the duty payable is not large.
80. However, although it is realised that in practice the customs authorities of all Member States carry out their duties with understanding, the Committee is of opinion that it is unsatisfactory both to the travellers and to the customs authorities that there should be a difference between the letter of regulations and their application in practice.
81. The Committee has, therefore, decided to examine the possibility of relaxing current regulations concerning what travellers may import or export free of taxes and duties.
Proposals of the Committee
82. The Committee proposes that persons travelling as tourists should be allowed to import into all Member States including their countries of origin, free of customs and other duties and without import licence, apart from personal effects, articles purchased abroad of a total value of not more than the equivalent of 20 U. S. dollars calculated on the basis of the retail prices of such goods in the country of purchase, on condition that they are carried on the traveller's person or in the luggage accompanying the traveller at the point of entry, provided that from their volume and composition it is clear that the goods so imported are not intended for sale but solely for personal use or consumption and provided also that the import of these goods does not contravene existing national regulations.
83. The Committee has proposed the sum of 20 U. S. dollars in view of the present currency restrictions for tourists in some Member States. It is, however, the opinion of the Committee that this sum should be increased as soon as possible. In this connection, the Committee wishes to draw attention to the fact that the Scandinavian Inter-Parliamentary Committee has proposed the sum of 50 U. S. dollars, which seems to the Committee to be an appropriate sum.
84. The Committee wishes to emphasise :
84.1 that the concession only applies to articles which are not intended for commercial use;
84.2 that by the quantity and nature of the articles in question, it is clearly shown that they are intended for private use (private use includes gifts carried for friends and relatives) ;
84.3 that the concession only applies to the personal luggage accompanying the traveller;
84.4 that any article of which the value causes the total value of the imported articles to exceed the authorised limit shall be taxable at its full value.
Limits to import of Tobacco, Cigarettes, Wines and Spirits
85. The Committee is anxious that there should be as few restrictions as possible to the kinds of articles which can be imported or exported under the concession proposed above. It recognises, however, that quantitative limits must still remain as regards certain commodities which are revenue producing in a high degree. As regards the import of tobacco, cigarettes and cigars, wines and spirits, it proposes that the following quantities should become minimum standards : 200 cigarettes or 250 grammes of tobacco or 25 cigars or lesser quantities of each in relative proportions; 2 litres of wines and spirits of which not more than 1 litre may be spirits; 1/2 litre (one pint) of toilet water of which not more than one-eighth of a litre (a quarter of a pint) may be perfumed spirits.
86. The Committee considers that if the foregoing proposals were adopted in all Member countries of the Council of Europe, it should be ultimately possible to modify the present system of control at frontiers and to replace it by a system of occasional checks at the point of entry. A similar procedure is suggested in the case of currency control, (see paragraph 90 (iii).
5 Currency Control
87. The Committee, aware that as regards foreign currency the situation differs from one Member country to another, does not believe that it is possible to establish at the present time uniform currency control regulations. The Committee nevertheless feels that certain improvements can be introduced :
Regulations current on 15th September, 1953, concerning foreign currency allowances available annually for travel within the Members of the Council of Europe
BELGIUM
Until 26th June, 1951
10.000 Belgian francs (200 U. S. dollars) in travellers' cheques plus 10,000 Belgian francs (or equivalent) in banknotes for each journey.
After 26th June, 1951
Gradual removal of all restriction on the purchase of travellers' cheques. 25,000 Belgian francs (or equivalent) in banknotes may be taken for each journey.
DENMARK
Until 31st December, 1951
500 Danish crowns ( = 72 U. S. dollars). In practice, no restriction in the purchase of United Kingdom currency for travel to that country.
From 1st January, 1952
750 Danish crowns ( = 108 U. S. dollars). Special concession for travel to United Kingdom withdrawn.
From 1st February, 1953
2,000 Danish crowns ( = 289 U S. dollars) with special allowance for tourists taking their own car.
F R A N C E
Until 8th February, 1952
50,000 French francs ( = 143 U. S. dollars), plus 50,000 French francs for each journey).
From 8th February, 1952
30,000 French francs ( = 86 U. S. dollars) plus 25,000 French francs for one journey only to each Member State of O.E. E. G.
From 1st January, 1953
CEquivalent of 30,000 French francs ( = 86 U. S. dollars) plus 10,000 French francs in banknotes per person twice a year.
The second allowance may only be obtained two months after the first. If the full amount of the first allowance has not been used, the unused portion may not be added to the second allowance.
Persons travelling in their own cars to Spain may claim an additional allowance of 12,000 French francs. Those travelling to Italy may claim an additional allowance sufficient to purchase 300 litres of petrol in Italy.
GE R M A N F E D E R A L R E P U B L IC
Until 1st October, 1951
600 German Federal marks ( = 143 U. S. dollars).
From 1st October, 1951 to 1st October, 1952
420 German Federal marks ( = 100 U. S. dollars).
From. 1st October, 1952, to 31st March, 1953
500 German Federal marks ( = 119 U. S. dollars) Children under 13 years are entitled to an allowance of 250 German Federal marks ( = 59 U. S. dollars).
An additional allowance can be obtained for a journey to a member country of 0. E. E. C.
Since 9th December, 1952
The equivalent of 300 German Federal marks ( = 71 U. S. dollars) may be obtained for a winter sporting holiday in a member country of O. E. E. C.
Since 1st April, 1953
800 German Federal marks ( = 190 U. S. dollars).
G R E E C E
Each application is considered on its merits, having regard to the foreign exchange situation of the country.
I C E L A N D
Applications for foreign exchange are considered on their merits. The export of Icelandic banknotes is prohibited.
IR E L A N D
From 1st February to 31st March, 1952
£50 ( = 140 U. S. dollars) plus £20 ( = 56 U. S. dollars) for persons travelling by car.
Since 1st April, 1952 to 30th April, 1953
£25 ( = 70 U. S. dollars) plus £15 ( = 42 U. S. dollars) per person touring by car.
From 1st May, 1953
£35 ( = 98 U. S. dollars) plus £20 for persons touring by car and £10 (28 U. S. dollars) for those touring on motor cycles. Allowance for children £25 ( = 70 U. S. dollars).
I T A L Y
Until 31st October, 1951
The equivalent of 130,000 liras ( = 208 U. S. dollars) plus 30,000 liras in banknotes.
Since 31st October, 1951
The equivalent of 200,000 liras ( = 320 U. S. dollars) plus 30,000 liras. Children can obtain the equivalent of 160 U. S. dollars for each journey. An additional allowance may be obtained through the Exchange Control Office.
N E T H E R L A N D S
Until October, 1952
400 florins ( = 105 U. S. dollars).
Since October, 1952
600 florins ( = 157 U. S. dollars). Children under 12 years are allowed the equivalent of 300 florins ( = 79 U. S. dollars).
Persons travelling in their own car are granted a supplementary allowance varying between 300 and 500 florins according to their country of destination.
N O R W A Y
Until 8th May, 1952
300 Norwegian crowns ( = 70 U. S. dollars).
Since 8th May, 1952
500 Norwegian crowns ( = 70 U. S. dollars).
SWEDEN
750 Swedish crowns ( = 145 U. S. dollars).
N. B. — For travel to other Scandinavian countries including Iceland and Finland and to the United Kingdom, travellers may, in practice, take whatever amount of currency they require.
T U R K E Y
35 Turkish pounds.
U N I T E D K I N G D OM
£100 ( = 280 U. S. dollars).
From November, 1951, to 30th January, 1952
£50 ( = 140 U. S. dollars) plus £20 ( = 56 U. S. dollars) for persons travelling by car.
From 30th January, 1952, to 24lh March, 1953
£25 ( = 70 U. S. dollars) plus £15 ( = 42 U. S. dollars) for persons travelling by car.
Allowance for children £15 ( = 42 U. S. dollars).
Since 25th March, 1953
£40 ( = 112 U. S. dollars) plus £20 ( = 56 U. S. dollars) for persons travelling by car.
The allowance for children is £30 ( = 84 U. S. dollars).
A U S T R I A
1,000 schillings in Austrian banknotes ( = 38 U. S. dollars) and the equivalent of 150 schillings in foreign banknotes ( = 5.70 U. S. dollars). An additional allowance may be granted in individual cases and with the approval of the Bank of Austria. A special allowance is made for persons travelling in their own car.
N. B. — Certain countries, inter alia, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom, specify that tourists may before they leave their country of residence, purchase their return ticket in their national currency. Other countries do not mention whether or not this practice is authorised.
Import and Export of currency in banknotes
88. The Committee proposes that al Member States of the Council of Europe should authorise the import and export by all travellers of banknotes up to the value of at least £10 in their own currency.
Currency control
89. The Committee recognises that in present circumstances it is impracticable to recommend the abolition of all currency restrictions for tourist travel in the Member countries. It is, therefore, agreed that some form of currency control must remain for the time being.
90. The Committee proposes :
90.1 that Members should make the most generous possible allocation of currency for the purpose of travel to Member States The Committee recalls in this connection that the Code of Liberalisation of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation requires Member countries which have achieved a 75 % liberalisation of trade to grant to their nationals a minimum allocation for foreign travel equivalent to 100 U. S. dollars per person per year
Note.
90.2 that the main responsibility for currency control, insofar as it is considered necessary by Member States, should be exercised through their banks At present, the purchase of foreign currency is only possible on production of a passport. The Committee has, however, proposed that, for certain groups of States at least, passports should no longer be required in certain circumstances. In order that this simplification should be really worth while, it will be necessary to amend existing regulations to the effect that purchases of foreign currency must be entered in passports and it is for this reason that the Committee suggests that banks should be made responsible for currency control by recording currency purchases of its customers in some other form. It is not proposed, however, to standardise the practice of Member States in this respect, but to leave each country to work out the most suitable and effective system. The Committee is especially anxious that passport relaxation should not entail disadvantages for travellers as regards currency. This is unfortunately so at present in certain countries, for example in France : the Committee understands that a French traveller going to Belgium and carrying only his identity card may not take with him currency in excess of French francs 10.000. If, however, he carries a passport, he may then take with him the equivalent of French francs 30,000 twice a year and at an interval of at least two months which is the allowance authorised by the French Government. The Committee wishes to insist on the importance of not diminishing the value of reforms by restricting their application in practice.
90.3 that regular currency control at frontiers should be discontinued and replaced by occasional checks similar to those suggested by the Committee for the customs control of travellers .
5.1 Recommendations of various International Organisations as to the Methods of Carrying out passport control, Customs control, and Currency Control
91. The measures advocated by the Committee in the previous chapters do not diminish the urgent need to simplify methods of carrying out all the frontier formalities which, it is admitted, are likely to remain for some years to come.
92. This problem is of considerable antiquity and it has been the subject of numerous enquiries and conferences. Briefly, it is concerned with simplifying and expediting police, customs and currency formalities for passengers at frontiers, particularly through the simultaneous performance of these types of inspection either while the train is in motion or at a single frontier station, the inspection being conducted in the case of contiguous countries jointly by the countries of exit and of entrance.
93. For many years, the question has been, and it still remains, within the terms of reference of the following international intergovernmental organisations : Transport and Communications Commission, Economic and Social Council, United Nations ; Inland Transport Committee, Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations; International Civil Aviation Organisation.
94. The work of these organisations and indeed of the League of Nations is embodied in the following international reports and agreements :
94.1 Resolution adopted on 2ist October, 1950 by the Conference on Passports, Customs Formalities and Through Tickets, held in Paris under the auspices of the Provisional Committee on Communications and Transit of the League of Nations;
94.2 International Convention relating to the Simplification of Customs Formalities, Geneva, 3rd November, 1923;
94.3 Final Act of the Passport Conference held at Geneva, 1926;
94.4 Report on the Meeting of Experts to prepare for a World Conference on Passports and Frontier Formalities, Geneva, 14th-15th April, 1947;
94.5 International Convention to facilitate the crossing of frontiers for passengers and baggage carried by rail, adopted by the Inland Transport Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe and signed on 10th January, 1952, by representatives of Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.
95. In general, it may be said that these agreements record progress in the task of facilitating the crossing of frontiers by travellers. For example, the Final Act of the Passport Conference held at Geneva in 1926, recommended that passport control, both in entering and leaving the country should be carried out :
a while the trains are in motion, whenever possible;
b when that is impossible, during the stop of trains at one of the two frontier stations (station of exist or entry) and in such a way that police inspection by the two countries concerned is effected if possible simultaneously or at least one immediately after the other ".
96. The Report of the Meeting of Experts held in 1947 under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, to prepare for a world conference on passport and frontier formalities, reiterated the Recommendations of the Passport Conference of 1926, but added specific instructions under the four headings :
Police control;
Currency control;
Customs inspection of luggage;
Public Health inspection.
97. The interest which these two agreements arouse is at least equalled by the Convention to facilitate the crossing of frontiers signed at Geneva as recently as 10th January, 1952. It is, however, to be noted that the signatories to this Convention, number only eight, (i.e. Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland), and that the last is not a Member of the Council of Europe.
98. This Convention provides for :
a the establishment and operation,whenever frontier formalities cannot be satisfactorily carried out when the trains are in motion, of joint frontier stations for combined frontier control :
98.1.1 under this arrangement there would be created in the joint frontier stations a zone which would include, inter alia, a specified area of the station, the passenger trains and the section of the track on which they stand throughout the whole period of the frontier control ;
98.1.2 the laws and regulations as well as the powers and rights and duties of officials of the adjoining country would apply to that zone;
98.1.3 all formalities would have to be concluded within a maximum time-limit of forty minutes.
b Police and Customs Examination while the train is in motion :
98.2.1 this is to be done whenever the non-stop run either before or after the frontier station of each of the two adjoining countries allows sufficient time in its territory for completion of the necessary formalities, or whenever such procedure would appreciably reduce the length of the stop at the frontier station;
98.2.2 Officials of the adjoining country are permitted to board international trains and carry out examination therein on the territory of the other adjoining country.
Comments of the Committee
The recommendations of the Conference of Experts held at Geneva, 1947
99. The Committee observes that the report of the Committee of Experts convened by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in 1947 contained recommendations only, and it was accepted by Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom, but not by Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Saar and the German Federal Republic.
1952 Convention to facilitate the crossing of frontiers for passengers and baggage carried by rail
100. The Committee notes that the Convention was signed, subject to ratification, by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden (and Switzerland) but it has been ratified by two signatories only, namely France and Norway. Three ratifications are required before the Convention comes into force. The following Members of the Council of Europe have therefore not signed this Convention : Ireland, Denmark, the Saar, the German Federal Republic, the United Kingdom, Iceland, Greece and Turkey.
101. The Committee is informed that Denmark, the United Kingdom and the German Federal Republic did not sign the 1952 Convention for the following reasons :
Denmark. — The Danish Government reserved its position concerning the question of Denmark's accession to the Convention, because, in its view, the Convention did not appear to contain any provision the adoption of which would result in substantial relief or simplification as compared with the rules relating to customs control in force in Denmark.
United Kingdom. — The United Kingdom Government which was represented at the Conference which preceded the signature of the Convention has not yet explained its reasons for not signing the Convention, nor has it stated that it will not sign it at some future date. It is to be noted, however, that in the course of the negotiations, the United Kingdom delegation indicated that the train "services between England and the Continent " did not strictly speaking constitute international trains". To the request of the representative of the International Union of Railways that, on the Golden Arrow service at least, customs control should take place on the train between Dover and Victoria Station, the United Kingdom delegate replied that this was not possible. The Representatives of Belgium and the Netherlands associated themselves with this request, and the United Kingdom representative said he would inform his Government of the wishes expressed by the delegates.
German Federal Republic. — The German Federal Republic, not being represented on the Economic Commission for Europe, was not invited to sign the Convention. Negotiations were, however, held under the auspices of the Sub-Committee on Rail Transport to consider the special difficulties relating to the formalities to be complied with by travellers crossing the West German frontier by rail. A model bilateral executive agreement for conclusion between interested governments concerning the exercise of frontier control on longdistance international trains was drawn up. In January, 1952, the Danish Government informed the Transport Division of the Economic Commission for Europe that it had received from the German Federal Government a draft of a bilateral Danish-German agreement on the simplification of frontier formalities with regard to rail, road and sea transport. It is not known whether this agreement has since been signed by the parties concerned. A bilateral agreement on the simplification of frontier formalities by rail has been signed between the Netherlands and the German Federal Republic, according to a statement made by the Netherlands delegate at the seventh session of the Inland Transport Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe.
Proposals of the Committee
102. The Committee proposes :
102.1 that steps should be taken to ensure that those Members of the Council of Europe which did not take part in the 1947 Conference are nevertheless invited to comply with its recommendations; and
102.2 that the Members of the Council of Europe who have signed but not ratified the 1952 Convention should deposit their instrument of ratification as soon as possible and that those who have not signed this Convention, but are able to do so, should be invited to accede to it forthwith.
