analysis of public consultation - ec.europa.eu · analysis of public consultation 0 abstract...
TRANSCRIPT
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Analysis of Public
Consultation Study on Advance Passenger Information (API) -
Evaluation of Council Directive 2004/82/EC on the
obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data
Analysis of Public Consultation
Analysis of Public
Consultation Study on Advance Passenger Information (API) -
Evaluation of Council Directive 2004/82/EC on the
obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
Analysis of Public Consultation
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020
ISBN 978-92-76-17146-1
DOI 10.2837/882434
Catalogue number DR-04-20-133-EN-N
© European Union, 2020
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Analysis of Public Consultation
Table of Contents
PART I – About you ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
PART II – Relevance of the API Directive ……………………………………………………………………… 5
PART III – Effectiveness of the API Directive ……………………………………………………………… 30
PART IV – Efficiency of the API Directive ……………………………………………………………………. 44
PART V – Coherence of the API Directive …………………………………………………………………… 50
PART VI – EU added value of the API Directive …………………………………………………………. 54
Analysis of Public Consultation
0
Abstract
Advance Passenger Information (API) is information about passengers sent by air carriers to bother control authorities in the country of destination when passengers check-in. API data is collected for border control purposes and could also be collected for law enforcement and security purposes. The establishment of API systems- i.e. an electronic communications system for collection and transmission of data elements prior to flight departure - is a standard under the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). In the EU, it is regulated by Council Directive 2004/82/EC of 29 April 2004 on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data (hereafter: ‘API Directive’ or ‘Directive’).
The European Commission has launched an evaluation of the API Directive with support from an external contractor. To this end, it specifically seeks to gather evidence pertaining to:
- the current situation notably as regards the implementation of the API Directive;
- relevance, i.e. the extent to which the Directive’s objectives still match current needs and problems and, thus, specific aspects of the Directive that ought to be continued, changed or ceased;
- effectiveness, i.e. the extent to which the Directive has been successful in achieving or progressing towards its objectives, including (if any) specific drivers of and/or barriers to progress;
- efficiency, i.e. the nature and magnitude of the costs and benefits accruing to different stakeholders as a result of gathering, processing and transmitting API data;
- EU added value, i.e. the extent of the additional value resulting from the Directive, compared to what could reasonably have been expected from Member States acting (alone) at national and/or regional levels; and
- coherence, i.e. the extent to which the Directive is coherent with other EU interventions which have similar objectives, with wider EU policy and with international obligations.
Analysis of Public Consultation
1
Introduction
The Public Consultation (PC) was launched on 10th of September online on EU Survey
platform and was opened until 3rd December 2019 (duration of 12 weeks). As a
common practice, the PC was available in all EU official languages[1]. All stakeholders
and the general public had the possibility to provide their views and inputs as part of a
public consultation.
A total number of 42 responses were received from a range of stakeholder types. In
addition, responses were received in 9 EU official languages – English, Estonian,
Greek, Portuguese, German, Spanish, Italian, Finnish and French. The results of the
PC are analysed in a separate Annex (Annex 5 to this report) as well as integrated into
the evidence base for the evaluation.
[1] Except Irish (Gaelic).
Analysis of Public Consultation
2
PART I – About you1
Profile of respondents (42 responses)
A majority of the PC respondents (45% or 19 out of 42 responses) answered the PC as
public authorities. The main types of respondents represented in the PC were:
company/business organisations (21% of respondents from organisations or 9
responses), EU citizens (17% of respondents or 7 responses) and business
associations (7% of responses or 3 respondents). In addition, there was 1 respondent
from a non-governmental organization, 1 non-EU citizen and 2 other respondents.
Figure 1. Profile or respondents
Organisation size (34 responses)
The majority of respondents from organizations were part of large organizations of
250 and more employees (59% or 20 out of 34 respondents). In addition, 18% (or 6)
of respondents were from micro organizations of 1 to 9 employees and 15% (or 5)
were from small organizations of 10 to 49 employees. Finally, there were only 3 (9%)
respondents from medium organizations of 50 to 249 employees.
1 Some of the questions in the first section of the PC survey include personal data. For
data protection reasons, they have not been included in this analysis.
3
9
7
1
1
2
19
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Business association
Company/business organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Other
Public authority
Analysis of Public Consultation
3
Figure 2. Organisation size
large59%
medium9%
small15%
micro17%
Analysis of Public Consultation
4
In which country are you or your organisation based? (36
responses)
Most of the PC respondents are based in EU Member States, with only 8% of PC
respondents (3 responses) residing in third countries. The main EU Member States
represented are: Portugal (14% or 6 responses), Belgium and Spain (12% or 5
responses each). They are followed by Italy, France, United Kingdom, Czechia and
Romania (5% or 2 responses each). Error! Reference source not found. below
illustrates the origin of all responses by country. Answers from non-EU Member States
come from the following countries: Norway (1 response), Switzerland (1 response)
and Canada (1 response).
Figure 3. Countries in which respondents are based
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
6
S W I T Z E R L A N D
S W E D E N
S L O V A K I A
P O L A N D
N O R W A Y
N E T H E R L A N D S
L U X E M B O U R G
L I T H U A N I A
L A T V I A
I R E L A N D
G R E E C E
G E R M A N Y
F I N L A N D
E S T O N I A
C R O A T I A
C A N A D A
U N I T E D K I N G D O M
R O M A N I A
I T A L Y
F R A N C E
C Z E C H I A
P O R T U G A L
B E L G I U M
S P A I N
Analysis of Public Consultation
5
Position of respondents (42 responses)
The majority of respondents were from a national, regional or local public authority
(48% or 20 responses). In addition, 17% (or 7 responses) of respondents were passengers and 12% (or 5 responses) were from air carriers. IT solutions providers accounted for 7% (or 3 responses) and airport authorities/staff represented 5% (or 2 responses). Associations of air carriers accounted for 5 responses (or 2 responses), while sea carriers and others accounted for 2% or 1 response each. Figure 4. Position of respondents
Passengers - how often do you take the plane for a flight between two EU/Schengen countries per year? (5 responses)
One respondent reported that they fly between two EU/Schengen countries at least once
a month. Other responses included travelling by air between two EU/Schengen countries
10 times per year, 4 times per year, twice and once per year.
1
1
1
2
2
3
5
7
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Association of sea or overland carriers
Other
Sea or overland carrier
Airport authorities / staff
Association of air carriers
IT solutions provider
Air carrier
Passenger
National, regional or local public authority
Analysis of Public Consultation
6
PART II – Relevance of the API Directive
Q1. Are you aware of EU actions in the area of API? (40
responses)
When asked whether they are aware of EU actions in the area of API, 98% (or 39) of
respondents reported that they are, as opposed to 2% (or 1) that revealed that they
are not aware of the actions.
Figure 5. Are you aware of EU actions in the area of API?
Q2. To what extent do you agree/disagree that the EU policy on API is relevant to achieve the objectives identified below?:
Improve border control (40 responses); Combatting irregular migration (40 responses); Enhancing internal security and
public order (40 responses); Fighting terrorism (40 responses)
A large majority of respondents (68% or 27 responses) reported that they strongly
agree that the EU policy on API is relevant to improving border control and 15% (or 6)
of respondents reported that they agree on this. While 13% (or 5 responses) of
respondents reported that they neither agree or disagree on this statement,
respondents that either disagree or strongly disagree accounted for 3% (or 1
response) of responses each.
A large majority of respondents (58% or 23 responses) reported that they strongly
agree that the EU policy on API is relevant to combatting irregular migration and 18%
Yes97%
No3%
Analysis of Public Consultation
7
(or 7) of respondents reported that they agree on this. While 15% (or 6 responses) of
respondents reported that they neither agree or disagree on this statement,
respondents that disagree and don’t know accounted for 5% (or 2 responses) each.
The majority of respondents either strongly agree (57% or 23 responses) or agree
(28% or 11 responses) that the EU policy on API is relevant to enhancing internal
security and public order. In addition, respondents that neither agree nor disagree on
this accounted for 10% (or 4 responses). Finally, respondents that either strongly
disagree or don’t know account for 3% (or 1 response) each.
A large majority of respondents either strongly agree (63% or 25 responses) or agree
(15% or 6 responses) that the EU policy on API is relevant to fighting terrorism. In
addition 15% (or 6 responses) of respondents neither agree nor disagree on this.
Finally, respondents that either disagree, strongly disagree or don’t know account for
3 % (or 1 response) each.
Figure 6. To what extent do you agree/disagree that the EU policy on API is relevant to achieve
the following objectives?
Q2a. Please explain briefly. (19 responses)
7 out of 19 respondents mentioned the usefulness of API data concerning security,
with some of them reporting that receiving API data prior to arrival of passengers
allows border control authorities to better prepare. In addition, 6 out of 19
respondents reported that the use of advanced passenger information allows law
enforcement and border authorities to perform targeted checks and thus combat
terrorism and irregular migration. 3 respondents underlined that the impact on the
passenger’s travel experience should be incorporated as one of the objectives of the
API Directive. In addition, 2 respondents reported that the added value of the
Directive is limited in the areas of combatting terrorism and irregular migration, since
the boarding has already started by the time of API data transfer. Finally, one
respondent mentioned that the API Directive must clearly state that passenger data
27
23
23
25
6
7
11
6
5
6
4
6
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
I M P R O V E B O R D E R C O N T R O L
C O M B A T I R R E G U L A R M I G R A T I O N
E N H A N C E I N T E R N A L S E C U R I T Y A N D P U B L I C O R D E R
F I G H T T E R R O R I S M
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Analysis of Public Consultation
8
may be used to prevent terrorist acts and specify how and when authorities working in
this field may obtain access to such data.
Q3. To what extent do you agree/disagree that the developments identified impact the need to collect API?:
Growing international passenger traffic to Europe (39 responses); Rise in illegitimate travelling (39 responses); Use of
fraudulent travel documents (39 responses); Growing cross-border criminal activities (e.g. drug smuggling, human
trafficking, etc) (39 responses); Heightened terrorist and security threats (39 responses); Technological innovation of
border management systems (39 responses); Limitation of national capacities (e.g. budget, internal resources, etc.) (39
responses); Other (12 responses)
A vast majority of respondents either strongly agree (51% or 20 responses) or agree
(26% or 10 responses) that growing international passenger traffic to Europe is a
development that impacts the need to collect API. In addition, 15% (or 6 responses)
of respondents neither agree nor disagree and 5% (or 2 responses) disagree on the
impact of this development. Finally, respondents that reported they do not know
account for 3% (or 1 response).
A vast majority of respondents either strongly agree (48% or 19 responses) or agree
(26% or 10 responses) that abuses of means of transport for irregular migration
purposes or rise in illegitimate travelling are developments that impact the need to
collect API. In addition, 15 % (or 6 responses) of respondents neither agree or
disagree, as opposed to 5% (or 2) that disagree. In addition, 3% (or 1 response)
either strongly disagree or don’t know.
The majority of respondents either strongly agree (56% or 22 responses) or agree
(23% or 9 responses) that the use of fraudulent travel documents impacts the need to
collect API. In addition, 10% (or 4 responses) of respondents neither agree nor
disagree and 5% (or 2 responses) disagree on this statement. Finally, 2 respondents
(or 5%) reported they do not know.
A big majority of respondents either strongly agree (54% or 21 responses) or agree
(28% or 11 responses) that the growing cross-border criminal activities impact the
need to collect API. Respondents that neither agree nor disagree on this account for
10% (or 4 responses). Finally, respondents that either disagree, strongly disagree or
don’t know account for 3% or 1 response each.
The majority of respondents either strongly agree (67% or 26 responses) or agree
(21% or 8 responses) that the heightened terrorist and security threats impact the
need to collect API. In addition, 5% (or 2 responses) of respondents neither agree nor
disagree. Finally, respondents that either disagree, strongly disagree or don’t know
account for 3% (or 1) of responses each.
A large majority of respondents either strongly agree (44% or 17 responses) or agree
(36% or 14 responses) that the technological innovation of border management
systems impacts the need to collect API data. In addition, respondents that neither
agree nor disagree to this statement account for 10% (or 4 responses). Finally, 5%
(or 2 responses) of respondents disagree and 3% (or 1 response) strongly disagree or
don’t know.
Analysis of Public Consultation
9
Respondents that either strongly agree or agree account for 33% (or 13 responses)
each. In addition, respondents that neither agree nor disagree and that disagree
account for 13% (or 5 responses) each respectively. Finally, respondents that strongly
disagree account for 3% (or 1 response) and those that do not know account for 5%
(or 2 responses).
Respondents that either strongly agree or agree that there are other developments
impacting the need to collect API account for 8% (or 1 response) and 25% (or 3
responses). In addition, 17% (or 2 responses) of respondents neither agree nor
disagree, while 50% (or 6 responses) reported they do not know.
Figure 7. To what extent do you agree/disagree that the developments identified impact the need to collect API?
Q3a. Please explain your answer or mention other factors,
actual or potential, that you consider important. (6 responses)
2 respondents reported that there is a persistent need that the API Directive is
harmonised with the PNR Directive, with one of them underlining that they should
either be merged into one or more clearly separated, as the current situation creates
grey areas in legislation. In addition, another 2 respondents revealed that carries
support the implementation of passenger data programmes, provided that they
enhance external border control management and improve passenger facilitation. One
respondent reported that in light of the situation in which public authorities are
unwilling to invest in staff which can manage the increased number of travellers, a
possible solution is the use of biometric data prior to the arrival/departure of the
passenger. Finally, another respondent underlined that measures that have an effect
equivalent to border inspections should not be imposed on private operators.
20
19
22
21
26
17
13
10
10
9
11
8
14
13
6
6
4
4
2
4
5
2
2
2
1
1
2
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
G R O W I N G I N T E R N A T I O N A L P A S S E N G E R T R A F F I C T O E U R O P E
A B U S E S O F M E A N S O F T R A N S P O R T F O R I R R E G U L A R M I G R A T I O N P U R P O S E S / R I S E I N I L L E G I T I M A T E
T R A V E L L I N G
U S E O F F R A U D U L E N T T R A V E L D O C U M E N T S
G R O W I N G C R O S S - B O R D E R C R I M I N A L A C T I V I T I E S ( E . G . D R U G S M U G G L I N G , H U M A N T R A F F I C K I N G , E T C )
H E I G H T E N E D T E R R O R I S T A N D S E C U R I T Y T H R E A T S
T E C H N O L O G I C A L I N N O V A T I O N O F B O R D E R M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M S
L I M I T A T I O N O F N A T I O N A L C A P A C I T I E S ( E . G . B U D G E T , I N T E R N A L R E S O U R C E S , E T C . )
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Analysis of Public Consultation
10
Q4. In your view, could the objectives of the EU policy on API
(i.e. combatting irregular migration, improving border control, enhancing security and fighting terrorism) be better achieved
through other means? (38 responses)
The majority of respondents to the PC (55% or 21 responses) reported that in their
view the objectives of the EU policy on API could be better achieved through other
means, as opposed to 45% (or 17 responses) of respondents that reported the
objective could not be better achieved.
Figure 8. In your view, could the objectives of the EU policy on API be better achieved through other means?
Q4a. Please explain briefly. (11 responses)
4 out of 11 respondents reported that the objectives of the EU policy on API could be
better achieved through merging the API and PNR Directives so that responsible
authorities can use better instruments to combat crime. In addition, 2 respondents
revealed that the objectives could be better achieved if the scope of data collection is
extended to include other types of transport in addition to air transport. Another 2
respondents reported that this could be achieved through the introduction of an
interactive API system. One respondent underlined that there should be less
responsibilities for air carriers, specifying that a uniformed system of all border
controls in EU should be linked to carriers’ systems. Finally, 1 respondent specified
that the objectives could be achieved by traditional intelligence services and border
surveillance and another one reported that they could be achieved through operative
information exchange between relevant authorities.
No45%
Yes55%
Analysis of Public Consultation
11
Q5. To what extent do you consider that the EU policy on API
has contributed to the following: Improved risk analysis (38
responses); Faster border checks / improved passenger experience (38 responses); Better identification of irregular
migrants (33 responses); Increased refusal to entry of irregular migrants (38 responses); Increased capture of smugglers
facilitating irregular migration; Improved use of border force staff to combat irregular migration (37 responses); Better
investigation of suspected criminals (38 responses); Increase in the arrest of criminals (38 responses); Enhanced internal
security and public order (38 responses); Improved cooperation across Member States (judicial, law enforcement, best practice
sharing, risk analysis, etc.) (38 responses); Better identification
and investigation of terrorist suspects (38 responses)
The majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (34% or 13 responses) or
agree (47% or 18 responses) that the EU policy on API has contributed to improved
risk analysis. In addition, 11% (or 4 responses) of respondents reported they neither
agree nor disagree to this statement, while 8% (or 3 responses) do not know.
A large majority of respondents either strongly agree (39% or 15 responses) or agree
(26% or 10 responses) that the EU policy on API has contributed to faster border
checks/improved passenger experience. In addition, 18% (or 7 responses) of
respondents neither agree nor disagree with this statement, compared to 11% (or 4
responses) that disagree and 5% (or 2 responses) that do not know.
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (42% or 16 responses)
or agree (26% or 10 responses) that the EU policy on API has contributed to the
better identification of irregular migrants, as compared to 13% (or 5 responses) that
neither agree nor disagree. In addition, respondents that disagree or strongly disagree
with this statement account for 5% (or 2 responses) or 3% (or 1 response)
respectively, whilst respondents that do not know account for 11% (or 4 responses).
The majority of respondents either strongly agree (37% or 14 responses) or agree
(26% or 10 responses) that the EU policy on API has contributed to increased refusal
to entry of irregular migrants, as compared to 21% (or 8 responses) that neither
agree nor disagree. In addition, 11% of respondents do not know (or 4 responses)
and 5% (or 2 responses) disagree with the statement.
The majority of respondents either strongly agree (35% or 13 responses) or agree
(37% or 10 responses) that the EU policy on API has contributed to the increased
capture of smugglers facilitating irregular migration, compared to 22% (or 8
responses) of respondents that neither agree nor disagree. In addition, 3% (or 1
response) strongly disagree and 14% (or 5 responses) do not know.
The majority of respondents either strongly agree (38% or 14 responses) or agree
(35% or 13 responses) that the EU policy on API has contributed to the improved use
of border force staff to combat irregular migration , compared to 14% (or 5
responses) of respondents that neither agree nor disagree. In addition, respondents
that do not know account for 8% (or 3 responses) and those who disagree account for
5% (or 2 responses).
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (47% or 18 responses)
or agree (29% or 11 responses) that the EU policy on API has contributed to the
better investigation of suspected criminals, as compared to 8% (or 3 responses) that
neither agree nor disagree. In addition, respondents that either disagree or strongly
Analysis of Public Consultation
12
disagree with this statement account for 5% (or 2 responses) or 3% (or 1 response)
respectively, whilst respondents that do not know account for 8% (or 3 responses).
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (37% or 14 responses)
or agree (21% or 8 responses) that the EU policy on API has contributed to the
increase in the arrest of criminals, as compared to 21% (or 8 responses) that neither
agree nor disagree. In addition, respondents that either disagree or strongly disagree
with this statement account for 5% (or 2 responses) or 3% (or 1 response)
respectively, whilst respondents that do not know account for 13% (or 5 responses).
Respondents to the PC either strongly agree or agree that the EU policy on API has
contributed to the enhanced internal security and public order account for 34% (or 13
responses) and 42% (16 responses) respectively, as compared to 13% (or 5
responses) that neither agree nor disagree. In addition, respondents that either
disagree or strongly disagree account for 3% (or 1 response) each respectively and
those who do not know account for 5% (or 2 responses).
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (34% or 13 responses)
or agree (29% or 11 responses) that the EU policy on API has contributed to the
improved cooperation across Member States , as compared to 16% (or 6 responses)
that neither agree nor disagree. In addition, 11% (or 4 responses each) either
disagree or do not know.
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (39% or 15 responses)
or agree (37% or 14 responses) that the EU policy on API has contributed to the
better identification and investigation of terrorist suspects, as compared to 5% (or 2
responses) that neither agree nor disagree. Respondents that either disagree or
strongly disagree account for 5% (or 2 responses) each and those that do not know
account for 8% (or 3 responses).
Figure 9. To what extent do you consider that the EU policy on API has contributed to the
following?
15
13
13
14
18
14
13
14
16
15
13
14
11
16
8
11
13
10
10
10
19
18
2
6
5
8
3
5
8
8
5
7
4
2
4
1
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
5
3
3
5
4
3
2
B E T T E R I D E N T I F I C A T I O N A N D I N V E S T I G A T I O N O F T E R R O R I S T S U S P E C T S
I M P R O V E D C O O P E R A T I O N A C R O S S M E M B E R S T A T E S ( J U D I C I A L , L A W E N F O R C E M E N T , B E S T P R A C T I C E …
E N H A N C E D I N T E R N A L S E C U R I T Y A N D P U B L I C O R D E R
I N C R E A S E I N T H E A R R E S T O F C R I M I N A L S
B E T T E R I N V E S T I G A T I O N O F S U S P E C T E D C R I M I N A L S
I M P R O V E D U S E O F B O R D E R F O R C E S T A F F T O C O M B A T I R R E G U L A R M I G R A T I O N
I N C R E A S E D C A P T U R E O F S M U G G L E R S F A C I L I T A T I N G I R R E G U L A R M I G R A T I O N
I N C R E A S E D R E F U S A L T O E N T R Y O F I R R E G U L A R M I G R A N T S
B E T T E R I D E N T I F I C A T I O N O F I R R E G U L A R M I G R A N T S
F A S T E R B O R D E R C H E C K S / I M P R O V E D P A S S E N G E R E X P E R I E N C E
I M P R O V E D R I S K A N A L Y S I S
Stronly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Analysis of Public Consultation
13
Q5a. Please provide any additional comments to the contribution
of API to the objectives. (10 responses)
4 out of 10 respondents reported that air carriers do not have enough visibility on how
the API collection and processing by authorities has contributed to the intended
objectives of the API Directive. In addition, 3 respondents revealed that the possibility
of receiving information in advance has assisted authorities in countering threats at
the external border. 2 respondents reported that receiving passenger information has
helped better anticipate different situations with one of them mentioning that this has
resulted in more arrests in the transit zone or in the destination country. Finally, one
respondent underlined that an interactive API system would be more effective at
achieving the objective of the Directive.
Analysis of Public Consultation
14
PART III – Effectiveness of the API Directive
Q6. Do you agree with the following statements?: Collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would improve border control (38
responses); Collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would improve the fight against irregular migration (38 responses);
Collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would better
support law enforcement authorities (38 responses)
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (63% or 24 responses)
or agree (13% or 5 responses) that collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would
improve border control, as compared to 8% (or 3 responses) that neither agree nor
disagree. In addition, respondents that either disagree or strongly disagree with this
statement account for 8% (or 3 responses) or 3% (or 1 response) respectively, whilst
respondents that do not know account for 5% (or 2 responses).
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (58% or 22 responses)
or agree (18% or 7 responses) collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would
improve the fight against irregular migration, as compared to 5% (or 2 responses)
that neither agree nor disagree. In addition, respondents that either disagree or
strongly disagree with this statement account for 5% (or 2 responses) or 8% (or 3
responses) respectively, whilst respondents that do not know account for 5% (or 2
responses).
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (68% or 26 responses)
or agree (13% or 5 responses) that collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would
better support law enforcement authorities, as compared to 8% (or 3 responses) that
neither agree nor disagree. In addition, respondents that strongly disagree or disagree
account for 3% (or 1 response) each and those that do not account for 5% (or 2
responses).
Figure 10. Do you agree that collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would improve the following?
24
22
26
5
7
5
3
2
3
3
2
1
3
1
2
2
2
C O L L E C T I N G A P I F O R I N T R A - E U / S C H E N G E N F L I G H T S W O U L D I M P R O V E B O R D E R C O N T R O L
C O L L E C T I N G A P I F O R I N T R A - E U / S C H E N G E N F L I G H T S W O U L D I M P R O V E T H E F I G H T A G A I N S T
I R R E G U L A R M I G R A T I O N
C O L L E C T I N G A P I F O R I N T R A - E U / S C H E N G E N F L I G H T S W O U L D B E T T E R S U P P O R T L A W
E N F O R C E M E N T A U T H O R I T I E S
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Analysis of Public Consultation
15
Q6. Do you agree with the following statements?: Collecting API
for flights departing from the EU/Schengen area to a non-
EU/non-Schengen country would improve border control (38 responses); Collecting API for flights departing from the
EU/Schengen area to a non-EU/non Schengen country would improve the fight against irregular migration (37 responses);
Collecting API for flights departing from the EU/Schengen area to a non-EU/non-Schengen country would better support law
enforcement authorities (37 responses)
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (61% or 23 responses)
or agree (26% or 10 responses) that collecting API for flights departing from the
EU/Schengen area to a non-EU/non-Schengen country would improve border control.
In addition, 8% (or 3 responses) neither agree nor disagree and 5% (or 2 responses)
do not know.
A majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (51% or 19 responses) or
agree (16% or 6 responses) collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would
improve the fight against irregular migration, as compared to 11% (or 4 responses)
that neither agree nor disagree. In addition, respondents that do not know account for
8% (or 3 responses), while respondents that strongly disagree or disagree account for
8% (or 3 responses) and 5% (or 2 responses) respectively.
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (62% or 23 responses)
or agree (24% or 9 responses) collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would
better support law enforcement authorities. In addition, respondents that neither
agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly disagree account for 3% (or 1 response) each
respectively, while those that do not know account for 5% (or 2 responses).
Figure 11. Do you agree that collecting API for flights departing from the EU/Schengen area to a non-EU/non-Schengen country would improve the following?
23
19
23
10
6
9
3
4
1
2
1
3
1
2
3
2
C O L L E C T I N G A P I F O R F L I G H T S D E P A R T I N G F R O M T H E E U / S C H E N G E N A R E A T O A N O N -
E U / N O N - S C H E N G E N C O U N T R Y W O U L D I M P R O V E B O R D E R C O N T R O L
C O L L E C T I N G A P I F O R F L I G H T S D E P A R T I N G F R O M T H E E U / S C H E N G E N A R E A T O A N O N -
E U / N O N S C H E N G E N C O U N T R Y W O U L D I M P R O V E T H E F I G H T A G A I N S T I R R E G U L A R M I G R A T I O N
C O L L E C T I N G A P I F O R F L I G H T S D E P A R T I N G F R O M T H E E U / S C H E N G E N A R E A T O A N O N -
E U / N O N - S C H E N G E N C O U N T R Y W O U L D B E T T E R S U P P O R T L A W E N F O R C E M E N T A U T H O R I T I E S
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Analysis of Public Consultation
16
Q6. Do you agree with the following statements?: Collecting crew members information in advance would improve border
control (38 responses); Collecting crew members information in
advance would improve the fight against irregular migration (38 responses); Collecting crew members information in advance
would better support law enforcement authorities (38
responses)
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (42% or 16 responses)
or agree (26% or 10 responses) collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would
improve border control, as opposed to 16% (or 6 responses) that neither agree nor
disagree. In addition, respondents that disagree or strongly disagree account for 5%
(or 2 responses) and 3% (or 1 response) respectively, while those who do not know
account for 8% (or 3 responses).
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (31% or 12 responses)
or agree (26% or 10 responses) collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would
improve the fight against irregular migration, as opposed to 16% (or 6 responses)
that neither agree nor disagree. In addition, respondents that either disagree or
strongly disagree account for 11% (or 4 responses) and 5% (or 2 responses)
respectively, while those who do not know account for 11% (or 4 responses).
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (45% or 17 responses)
or agree (29% or 11 responses) collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would
better support law enforcement authorities, as opposed to 13% (or 5 responses) that
neither agree nor disagree. In addition, 5% (or 2 responses) of respondents strongly
disagree with the statement, while 3% (or 1 response) disagree. Those who do not
know account for 5% (or 2 responses).
Figure 12. Do you agree that collecting crew members information in advance would improve
the following?
16
12
17
10
10
11
6
6
5
2
4
1
1
2
2
3
4
2
C O L L E C T I N G C R E W M E M B E R S I N F O R M A T I O N I N A D V A N C E W O U L D I M P R O V E B O R D E R C O N T R O L
C O L L E C T I N G C R E W M E M B E R S I N F O R M A T I O N I N A D V A N C E W O U L D I M P R O V E T H E F I G H T
A G A I N S T I R R E G U L A R M I G R A T I O N
C O L L E C T I N G C R E W M E M B E R S I N F O R M A T I O N I N A D V A N C E W O U L D B E T T E R S U P P O R T L A W
E N F O R C E M E N T A U T H O R I T I E S
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Disagree Strrongly disagree Don’t know
Analysis of Public Consultation
17
Q6. Do you agree with the following statements?: Collecting API for other modes of transport would improve border control (39
responses); Collecting API for other modes of transport would
improve the fight against irregular migration (39 responses); Collecting API for other modes of transport would better support
law enforcement authorities (38 responses)
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (61% or 24 responses)
or agree (23% or 9 responses) collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would
improve border control. Respondents that neither agree nor disagree account for 5%
(or 2 responses) each, while those who disagree and strongly disagree account for 8%
(or 3 responses) and 3% (or 1 response) respectively.
A majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (56% or 22 responses) or
agree (28% or 11 responses) collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would
improve the fight against irregular migration. Respondents that neither agree nor
disagree account for 5% (or 2 responses), while those who disagree and strongly
disagree account for 8% (or 3 responses) and 3% (or 1 response) respectively.
A large majority of respondents to the PC either strongly agree (66% or 25 responses)
or agree (21% or 8 responses) collecting API for intra-EU/Schengen flights would
better support law enforcement authorities, as opposed to 5% (or 2 responses) that
neither agree nor disagree. In addition, respondents that disagree account for 8% (or
3 responses).
Figure 13. Do you agree that collecting API for other modes of transport would improve the following?
Q7. To your knowledge, have the following factors prevented the
effective implementation of the EU policy on API? (38
responses)
Data protection issues was the main factor preventing the effective implementation of
the EU policy on API according to 63% (or 24 responses) of respondents. This was
24
22
25
9
11
8
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
C O L L E C T I N G A P I F O R O T H E R M O D E S O F T R A N S P O R T W O U L D I M P R O V E B O R D E R
C O N T R O L
C O L L E C T I N G A P I F O R O T H E R M O D E S O F T R A N S P O R T W O U L D I M P R O V E T H E F I G H T
A G A I N S T I R R E G U L A R M I G R A T I O N
C O L L E C T I N G A P I F O R O T H E R M O D E S O F T R A N S P O R T W O U L D B E T T E R S U P P O R T L A W
E N F O R C E M E N T A U T H O R I T I E S
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
Analysis of Public Consultation
18
followed by issues related to the data received (61% or 23 responses) and the need to
adapt each Member State’s requirements (58% or 22 responses). Other factors
impeding the implementation of the API policy according to respondents were the
costs associated with setting up an API system (50% or 19 responses) and the lack of
clarity of the API Directive (29% or 11 responses). In addition, 13% (or 5 responses)
of respondents reported that there are other factors that obstruct the effective
implementation.
Figure 14. To your knowledge, have the following factors prevented the effective
implementation of the EU policy on API?
Q7a. Please explain briefly. (10 responses)
4 out of 10 respondents reported that the lack of harmonisation across Member States
regarding aspects such as data elements, frequencies, type of flights and ad-hoc
requests and the lack of proportionality on sanctions are increasing the costs for air
carriers. In addition, 2 respondents revealed that the biggest issue is the low quality
of the passenger data. 2 other respondents mentioned privacy issues, with one of
them underlining that the API Directive does not clearly specify the use of passenger
data for combatting terrorism and organized crime. 1 respondent reported that
unification in a single database for quality, format and transmission times, can
facilitate the verification of passengers. Finally, another respondent revealed that data
quality has been a problem in the context of both API and PNR and a solution would
be to transmit the data in the same format.
Q8. As a result of the EU policy on API, did you or your
organisation or the stakeholders represented by your organisation have to incur any costs that you would not have
incurred otherwise? (26 responses)
5
11
19
22
23
24
O T H E R
L A C K O F C L A R I T Y O F T H E A P I D I R E C T I V E
C O S T S A S S O C I A T E D W I T H S E T T I N G U P A N A P I S Y S T E M
N E E D T O A D A P T T O E A C H M E M B E R S T A T E ' S R E Q U I R E M E N T S ( E . G . T Y P E O F D A T A , F O R M A T ,
T I M I N G O F T R A N S M I S S I O N . . . )
I S S U E S R E L A T E D T O T H E D A T A R E C E I V E D ( Q U A L I T Y , F O R M A T , T I M I N G O F
T R A N S M I S S I O N . . . )
D A T A P R O T E C T I O N I S S U E S
Analysis of Public Consultation
19
When asked whether the EU policy on API has incurred any costs on their
organisation, 8 respondents to the PC that reported that the incurred costs for them
have been between EUR 50,001-200,000 (4 responses) or above EUR 2 million (4
responses), followed by 2 respondents reporting costs between EUR 10,000 -50,000.
In addition, costs between EUR 500,001 – 2 million and costs less than EUR 10,000
were reported by 1 respondent each respectively. Finally, 3 respondents reported that
no additional costs were incurred to their organisation and 11 respondents reported
that they do not know.
Figure 15. What costs were incurred to your organisation as a result of the EU policy on API?
Q8a. If costs have been incurred, please explain briefly. (10
responses)
5 out of 10 respondents reported that the costs that were incurred to their
organisation mainly result from developing and maintaining API systems for collecting
and transmitting passenger data. In addition, 3 respondents revealed that costs
resulted from the requirements and the adherence of the API program to the industry
standards, with two of them reporting that carriers are often charged with additional
costs, beyond those related to the transmission of data. Finally, one respondent
reported that costs were mainly incurred from staff salaries and another respondent
mentioned costs for the purchase of data coding system.
1
1
2
3
4
4
11
L E S S T H A N E U R 1 0 , 0 0 0
E U R 5 0 0 , 0 0 1 - E U R 2 M I L L I O N
E U R 1 0 , 0 0 0 - E U R 5 0 , 0 0 0
N O A D D I T I O N A L C O S T S
E U R 5 0 , 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 , 0 0 0
A B O V E E U R 2 M I L L I O N
D O N ' T K N O W
Analysis of Public Consultation
20
PART IV – Efficiency of the API Directive
Q9. Do you consider that the implementation of API has brought
benefits? (40 responses)
A large majority of respondents to the PC reported that they do consider that the
implementation of API has brought benefits (80% or 32 responses), as opposed to 3%
(or 1 response) of respondents that reported that they do not consider this. In
addition, 17% (or 7 responses) of respondents reported that they do not know.
Figure 16. Do you consider that the implementation of API has brought benefits?
Q9a. If yes, which one(s) of the following benefits? (34
responses
A large majority of respondents (85% or 29 responses) identified support to law
enforcement authorities as the main benefit of the implementation of API. This was
followed by the benefit of better identification of irregular migration (82% or 28
responses) and the benefit of faster border checks (65% or 22 responses). Finally,
Yes80%
No 2%
Don’t know18%
Analysis of Public Consultation
21
only 3% (or 1 response) of respondents reported that there are other benefits from
the implementation of API.
Figure 17. Which of the following benefits do you consider that the implementation of API has brought?
Q9b. If other, please explain briefly. (3 responses)
2 out of 3 respondents reported that they do not consider that the implementation of
API has brought benefits, with one of them underlining that air carriers do not have
enough visibility on how API data collection and processing by authorities has
contributed to intended objectives. In addition, 1 respondent reported that the
implementation of API has raised overall passenger awareness and has ensured better
checks for crew members.
Q9c. If at least one benefit identified (in Q9a): To what extent do you agree/disagree that, if you incurred costs for the
implementation of API, these costs were justified given the
benefit(s) of API? (36 responses)
Respondents to the PC that either strongly agree or agree that the incurred costs for
the implementation of API were justified given the benefits, account for 42% (or 15
responses) and 19% (or 7 responses) respectively, as compared to 11% (or 4
responses) of respondents that neither agree nor disagree. In addition, respondents
that either disagree or strongly disagree account for 3% (or 1 response) each and
those who do not know account for 22% (or 8 responses).
1
22
28
29
O T H E R
F A S T E R B O R D E R C H E C K S
I R R E G U L A R M I G R A T I O N B E T T E R I D E N T I F I E D
S U P P O R T T O L A W E N F O R C E M E N T A U T H O R I T I E S
Analysis of Public Consultation
22
Figure 18. To what extent do you agree/disagree that, if you incurred costs for the
implementation of API, these costs were justified given the benefit(s) of API?
Q9d. Please explain briefly: (10 responses)
5 out of 10 respondents reported that they have not observed benefits of the
implementation of API that would justify the incurred costs. In addition, 4 respondents
reported that although the costs have been high for their organisation, the benefits of
implementing API (such as enhancing the security of external borders and early
identification of migrants) have outweighed them. Finally, 1 respondent reported that
they do not have a reliable analysis on which to base such conclusions on.
Q10. In your opinion, is there room for simplification and/or
cost reductions in some aspects of the EU measures on API? (40
responses)
Respondents that agree that there is room for simplification and/or cost reductions in
some aspects of the EU measures on API account for 55% (or 22 responses), as
opposed to only 3% (or 1 response) that do not agree. In addition, 42% (or 17
responses) reported that they do not know.
15 7 4 1 1 8
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Analysis of Public Consultation
23
Figure 19. Is there room for simplification and/or cost reductions in some aspects of the EU
measures on API?
Q10a. If yes, in which area(s)? (26 responses)
Investment in API systems, processing and transmitting collected passenger
information and collecting passenger information are the main areas for simplification
and/or cost reduction, as they were each identified by 62% (or 16 responses) of
respondents. These are followed by enforcing legislation, identified by 38% (or 10
responses) and informing passengers about the carriers’ obligations to collect data,
identified by 35% (or 9 responses) of respondents as areas for improvement. Finally,
19% (or 5 responses) of respondents reported that there are other areas in which
simplification and/or cost reduction could be achieved.
Yes55%
No2%
Don’t know43%
Analysis of Public Consultation
24
Figure 20. In which areas is there room for simplification and/or cost reductions of the EU
measures on API?
Q10b. If other, please explain briefly. (8 responses)
A great majority of respondents (6 out of 8) reported that simplification and/or cost
reductions in the EU measures on API would be a possibility if a centralised collection
of data is introduced on the EU level. The main arguments that were revealed were
that this centralised mechanism could reduce costs for both carriers and states and
that it will ensure equal practices in Member States. In addition, 2 respondents
reported that a possible way to reduce costs is to harmonise aspects such as data
elements, frequencies, type of flights and ad-hoc requests across Member States.
Q11. Passenger Name Record (PNR) is the information provided by passengers and collected by airlines for enabling
reservations. It helps EU countries better identify individuals who pose a security threat and trace their travel patterns.
Transmission of PNR data by airlines to EU Member States is a requirement for all flights departing from and heading to the EU,
and for a majority of intra-EU flights. Under the EU policy on PNR, air carriers must also transmit API if they have collected
such data. Hence, the PNR Directive is also a legal basis to request airlines to transfer API data, if collected. Against this
background, to what extent do you agree/disagree that the EU
measures on API are coherent with the EU policy on PNR? (40
responses)
Respondents that strongly agree or agree that EU measures on API are coherent with
the EU policy on PNR account for 28% (or 11 responses) each, while those who
5
9
10
16
16
16
O T H E R
I N F O R M I N G P A S S E N G E R S A B O U T T H E C A R R I E R S ' O B L I G A T I O N S T O C O L L E C T A D V A N C E
P A S S E N G E R I N F O R M A T I O N
E N F O R C I N G T H E L E G I S L A T I O N ( E . G . M O N I T O R I N G C O M P L I A N C E , T A K I N G C O U R T
A C T I O N )
C O L L E C T I N G T H E N E C E S S A R Y I N F O R M A T I O N F R O M P A S S E N G E R S
P R O C E S S I N G A N D T R A N S M I T T I N G T O B O R D E R A U T H O R I T I E S T H E P A S S E N G E R I N F O R M A T I O N
C O L L E C T E D
I N V E S T M E N T I N A P I S Y S T E M S
Analysis of Public Consultation
25
neither agree nor disagree account for 17% (or 7 responses). In addition, respondents
that disagree account for 17% (or 7 responses), as compared to those that strongly
disagree and do not know who account for 5% (or 2 responses) each respectively.
Figure 21. To what extent do you agree/disagree that the EU measures on API are coherent with the EU policy on PNR?
Q11a. Please explain briefly. (15 responses)
5 out of 15 respondents reported that the EU measures on API and the EU policy on
PNR complement each other. In addition, 4 respondents mentioned that several
Member States have not established legal requirements for the collection of API and
PNR data which creates legal uncertainty and difficulties in implementation for
carriers. 3 respondents underline that because the scope of API and PNR Directives is
different, it is not possible to use PNR data for the purposes of API (combatting
irregular migration). In addition, 2 respondents reported that the scope of the two
Directives should be aligned and 1 respondent mentioned that if the collection of PNR
and API is merged, this could be useful for combatting terrorism and other crime
activities.
11 11 7 7 2 2
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Analysis of Public Consultation
26
PART V – Coherence of the API Directive
Q12. The EU has adopted a new legal framework on data
protection (a General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Regulation 2016/679 and a Directive on the processing of
personal data for authorities responsible for preventing, investigating, detecting and prosecuting crimes – Directive
2016/680) which protects persons with regard to the processing of their personal data. Against this background, to
what extent do you agree/disagree that the EU measures on API
are coherent with that legal framework? (40 responses)
Respondents that strongly agree or agree that the EU measures on API are coherent
with the legal framework on data protection account for 20% (or 8 responses) and
35% (or 14 responses) respectively, while those that neither agree nor disagree
account for 25% (or 10 responses). In addition, respondents that disagree and
strongly disagree account for 3% (or 1 response) and 5% (or 2 responses)
respectively. Finally, respondents that reported they do not know account for 12% (or
5 responses).
Figure 22. To what extent do you agree/disagree that the EU measures on API are coherent with that legal framework?
Q12a. Please explain briefly. (8 responses)
3 out of 8 respondents reported that they are not aware of specific data protection
concerns with regards to the communication of API data and the GDPR Directive,
however with 2 of them highlighting that it should be taken in consideration that some
aspects of the use of API data for law enforcement purposes could be problematic. In
8 14 10 1 2 5
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Analysis of Public Consultation
27
addition, 2 respondents reported that the low quality of API data could be a potential
issue concerning data protection and 1 respondent underlined that the scope of the
API Directive should be narrowed. Finally, 2 respondents revealed that it is beneficial
that data protection is regulated in order to avoid abuse of personal data.
Q13. Please indicate, if any, other pieces of EU legislation interacting with the EU policy on API. Please briefly explain. (10
responses)
6 out of 10 respondents reported that other pieces of EU legislation that interact with
the EU policy on API include the Entry Exit System (EES) and the European Travel
Information and Authorization System (ETIAS). In addition, 2 respondents mentioned
interaction of API with the Schengen Border Code. 1 respondent reported that the PNR
Directive and the IMO-FAL obligations also interact with API and another mentioned
the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Q14. The Convention on International Civil Aviation (also known as Chicago Convention), signed on 7 December 1944,
establishes rules of airspace, aircraft registration and safety. Annex 9 to that Convention sets standards and recommended
practices for the efficient management of border control processes to expedite the clearance of aircrafts,
passengers/crew, baggage and cargo. Chapter 9 of Annex 9 sets standards and recommended practices for the States who have
implemented or consider implementing passenger data exchange systems. Against this background, to what extent do
you agree/disagree that the EU policy on API is coherent with
the international standards and recommended practices contained in Chapter 9 of Annex 9 of the Chicago Convention?
(40 responses)
A large majority of respondents either strongly agree (28% or 11 responses) or agree
(35% or 14 responses) that the EU policy on API is coherent with the international
standards and recommended practices contained in Chapter 9 of Annex 9 of the
Chicago Convention. In addition, 17% (or 7 responses) neither agree nor disagree and
20% (or 8 responses) reported they do not know.
Analysis of Public Consultation
28
Figure 23. To what extent do you agree/disagree that the EU policy on API is coherent with the
international standards and recommended practices contained in Chapter 9 of Annex 9 of the Chicago Convention?
Q15. To what extent do you agree/disagree that the policy on API defined at EU level is better able to achieve objectives to
improve border control, combat irregular migration and support law enforcement authorities than if defined at national/regional
level? (41 responses)
A large majority of respondents either strongly agree (51% or 21 responses) or agree
(27% or 11 responses) that the EU policy on API is better able to achieve objectives to
improve border control, combat irregular migration and support law enforcement
authorities than if defined at national/regional level. In addition, 17% (or 7 responses)
of respondents neither agree nor disagree, as opposed to 5% (or 2 responses) that do
not know.
11 14 7 8
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Don’t know
Analysis of Public Consultation
29
Figure 24. To what extent do you agree/disagree that the policy on API defined at EU level is
better able to achieve objectives to improve border control, combat irregular migration and support law enforcement authorities than if defined at national/regional level?
21 11 7 2
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree/nor disagree Don’t know
Analysis of Public Consultation
30
PART VI – EU added value of the API Directive
Q16. In your opinion, what are the most prominent benefits of
the EU policy on API that Member States acting on their own
could not have achieved? (18 responses)
8 out of 18 respondents reported that the EU policy on API has brought harmonised
legislation and standardisation of data to be collected across Member States. In
addition, 3 respondents revealed that a prominent benefit of the EU policy is that
without it not all Member States would have implemented API systems. The exchange
of information between responsible authorities in Member States is a benefit identified
by 3 respondents. 3 respondents identified as important benefits the detection of
criminals and the overall increased security in the EU. Finally, 1 respondent
acknowledged that even though the API Directive has flaws more problems would
incur if Member States were acting on their own.
Q17. If you have anything else you would like to comment on with relation to the EU policy on API, please explain briefly: (10
responses)
4 out of 10 respondents reported that the obligation to collect passenger information
should be extended to other modes of transport beyond air transport, with one
respondent mentioning this will eliminate the competitive disadvantage for air carriers
and another one insisting this would better assist law enforcement authorities. In
addition, 2 respondents reported that the collection of passenger information should
be extended to cover outbound extra EU/Schengen flights and to intra-EU flights.
Another 2 respondents revealed that there is a need to adopt an interactive API
system on the EU level so that carriers receive information whether to board or not a
passenger. Finally, 2 respondents reported that extending the scope of API data
collection to other forms of transport should be reconsidered, with one of them
mentioning that an impact analysis is necessary to assess the extent to which the
expected benefits will overcome the negative externalities of the extension.
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
more than one copy or posters/maps:
from the European Union’s representations
(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service
(http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions:
via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
doi:10.2837/882434