Selected Commission Notes (1995)
Possible Third Pillar initiatives by the Commission [Brussels, 17 March 1995]
Introduction
To begin, I definitely agree with W that we should concentrate on major K.3 initiatives. The present communication, covering a wide range of aspects, certainly serves as a sound basis for a continued discussion on possible future actions by the Union, but what we need right now above all is a realistic and very concrete working program. To that end, I will argue that we should concentrate our efforts on the following three areas: 1) Admission policies; 2) Movement of legally resident third country nationals; 3) Combat of illegal immigration.
Free movement of persons
The Communication puts forward the opinion that cooperation in the fields of immigration and asylum with the sole purpose of facilitating the free movement of persons is a "clearly limited objective" (point 3). I do not agree with this opinion, on the contrary, as the Treaty clearly states, the main objective of Title VI is in fact to achieve this freedom. The current situation clearly shows that much work remains to be done if we are going to build a solid foundation for a frontier-free area and thus fully realise all of the four freedoms of the internal market. The achievement of the free movement of persons should therefore well suffice as our basic point of departure, especially since it is a very concrete and well established objective of the Union (as compared to the rather vague notion that we have to face up to new challenges of migration pressure).
Mutual confidence and harmonization
To be a bit theoretical for a moment: The non-existence of internal border checks is a matter of sovereignty, more precisely a loss of sovereignty. As every nation state, in this case the MS, aims at control over its own actions, this non-existence requires that the MS can trust each other, i.e., that one MS does not permit entrance to a third country national that another MS would have refused access to the territory of the Union. For this mutual confidence to be at hand, every single MS requires influence on the actions of the other MS. This necessity should materialise in harmonization of provisions governing external border controls, the entry and stay of third country nationals and the right to asylum.
The key word is thus confidence. The main task for the Commission should therefore be to put forward proposals aiming at laying a foundation for mutual confidence to prevail as between MS. Only this way can the free movement of persons be a reality.
To be solid, this foundation must consist of legally binding instruments, such as conventions, laying down harmonized rules to be applied without exceptions in all MS, ensuring that the conditions for admission of third country nationals are the same throughout the Union.
To illustrate the lack of progress so far, it is enough to refer to the Draft Resolution on a harmonized application of refugee status. This resolution definitely does not fulfil the requirements necessary to create mutual confidence. It is not legally binding and, despite its title, it is clearly not an expression of harmonization, rather it can be characterized as a compilation of the various MS national legislations, not calling for any imperative adjustment on the part of the MS.
Subsidiarity and JHA-competence
When the appropriate basis for a working program has been established, we should also take into account the subsidiarity principle and the limits of JHA-competence.
Covering a wide range of aspects, the Communication deals with both preventive and controlling measures, as well as integration of third country nationals legally resident in the Union. However, the actions referred to in relation to preventive measures involve almost exclusively areas not within JHA-competence, e.g., human rights policy, security policy and trade policy. The same, although to a lesser extent, goes for integration policy, which in addition also would seem to be put in doubt if the subsidiarity principle is applied. There is one exception, though: Movement of legally resident third country nationals (also explicitly mentioned in the Treaty (K.1.3.)).
To elaborate a bit on this. Measures to regulate the movement of legally resident third country nationals are undoubtedly necessary to ensure the proper function of the frontier-free area. Without internal border controls, third country nationals legally resident in one MS can "easily" take up residence and/or employment in another MS. To avoid this scenario of illegal immigration within the Union, and to secure the benefits of the internal market for all legal residents of the Union - regardless of nationality -, measures to regulate the movement of legally resident third country nationals should be taken.
So, what we have left then are admission polices and combat of illegal immigration. These areas are stipulated in the Treaty and therefore clearly within JHA-competence. Not surprisingly, we are now down to policies providing for the achievement of the free movement of persons (as anticipated in the Treaty). As stated in the introductory paragraph of this note, we thus have three areas to concentrate our efforts on: 1) Admission policies; 2) Movement of legally resident third country nationals; 3) Combat of illegal immigration.
In scope, this might to some seem like a rather narrow approach, but as W points out, the human resources to our disposal are severely limited.
It should be noted that applying the subsidiarity principle, as proposed above, might be a way of gaining greater support from MS. It would also leave the Commission to concentrate on, inter alia, admission policies, which should, although not easily as recent developments show, enjoy greater opportunity of being accepted by MS since the notion of the free movement of persons in the framework of the internal market is well established.
Admission policies
Here we have three distinct categories: a) Asylum and admission on other humanitarian grounds related to asylum (incl. temporary protection); b) Family unification/-formation; c) Admission for other purposes, e.g., employment and studies.
The two former ones being the most important as regards the number of aliens concerned, but also the most sensitive in view of the lack of progress so far and the fact that the negotiations on the Draft Resolution mentioned above still have not come to a definite conclusion. Therefore it might be wise to initially prepare an initiative on the third category, c) admission for other purposes. A successful implementation in this case would also lay the ground for future initiatives relating to category a) and b).
The above categories deal with substantive immigration law. Of course we also have to take into account, inter alia, the Resolution on minimum standards of asylum procedures. W proposes a Draft Convention on asylum procedures, to be presented in June. Sounds ideal, but is it not a bit premature? Even more ideal would be to get the Council to approve of a Convention on both substantive and procedural immigration law, approaching the point where the Union would have its own complete "Aliens Act". But this seems, at least to me, to be a long-term project.
Illegal immigration
I have not said too much about illegal immigration so far. In this area the Commission already has two proposals currently being processed in the Council machinery: the revised Draft External Frontiers Convention, and the proposal on a common visa policy. To ensure efficient control at the external borders and to guarantee that all MS apply visa requirements to the same extent, these proposals must in some way be "guided" through the Council.
Further comments on W's note
Regarding the ares in which we should concentrate our efforts, in essence, W and I appears to have come to similar conclusions (see point 3 in his note), although, as already hinted at, his time schedule seems to be a bit more "positive" than mine.
Comments on F's note
Temporary protection: All admission policies dealing with protection should be dealt with in a common framework (possible a Convention on asylum and admission on other humanitarian grounds relating to asylum).
Burden Sharing: Sensitive issue at the moment. Might it not be wise leave this issue to the Council, at least for the time being? I know that LB likes to argue in favour for burden sharing. Maybe a Swedish initiative could break the ice? (although this is not for the Commission to have an opinion on, is it?)
Convention on family unification: I agree with W that this scope is to limited (see point 3 b ii of W's' note), i.e., a Convention should also include provisions on family formation and possible also admission for other purposes (see above).
As already said loud and clear, this is not the time for additional Communications. This is a time for action, although carefully planned.
To conclude
In this paper I have tried to differentiate between the wide range of areas discussed in the current Communication, as to, through reasoning starting out from the objective free movement of persons, make up a "list" of areas where initiatives could/should be taken. The result of this exercise matches to a great extent the priorities put forward by W.
Resolution on the harmonization of national policies on family reunification [Brussels, 30 March 1995]
Area of application
The Resolution covers "family reunification in respect of persons who are not nationals of a Member State but who are lawfully resident within the territory of a Member State on a basis which affords them an expectation of permanent or long-term residence". It does not, however, cover "persons who have been granted refugee status, for whom some Member States have more favourable policies".
The Resolution is not legally binding, but is to be taken into account "in any proposals for the revision of national legislation".
Contents
It is stated that the Member States "will normally" grant admission to: 1) the resident's spouse; 2) the children, other than adopted children, of the resident and his or her spouse; 3) children adopted by both the resident and his or her spouse before becoming resident in a Member State.
However, the Member States "reserves the possibility" of admitting other family members for "compelling reasons which justify the presence of the person concerned".
They also "reserve the right" to require that the person resident has been so for "certain periods of time" before family members are admitted, and to make the admission "conditional upon the availability of adequate accomodation and of sufficient rersources to avoid a burden being placed on the public funds of the Member State concerned", etc.
Spouses
The marriage must not have been contracted "solely or principle for the purpose of enabling the spouse to enter and take up residence in a Member State". Nor may the marriage be polygamous if the resident already has a wife resident in the territory of a Member State.
Children
Member States "reserve the option" of admitting a child who is the offspring of either the resident or his/her spouse, and "reserve the possibility" of admitting a child adopted by the resident and his/her spouse while being resident in a Member State.
The Resolution states that the children in all cases must be below a maximum age to qualify for admission, but no definite age limit is actually given. It is merely said that it "should be between 16 and 18 years".
Comments
The Resolution is definitely extremely vague; it is full of exceptions and reservations/qualifications. There is certainly a need for considerably clearer and less ambiguous provisions on who is to be admitted and who is not, if the aim of our efforts is to provide for a solid foundation for mutual confidence to prevail.
Also, as noted above, the Resolutions does not set a maximum age for family reunification (not that it would be any easier to get agreement on an age limit of, say 18, with Sweden involved in the negotiations). Furthermore, it does not cover short/fixed-term residents (e.g. third country temporary employees and students) or admission for family formation.
The question then is if a Conventions should be limited to only family unification/-formation, or if it should deal with all (or at least additional) aspects of the admission of third country nationals not related to asylum (as W proposes). The answer of course depends on, inter alia, when we want it to be ready for submission to the Council, and on how much text we estimated that the Council are likely to agree on within an acceptable period of time.
Seminar on European Policies in the field of Immigration and Integration Brussels [Brussels, 19 April 1995]
Kommissionens övergripande strategi för invandrings-, flykting- och invandrarpolitiken
En effektiv europeisk invandrings- och flyktingpolitik måste inbegripa både kort- och långsiktiga åtgärder. Samtidigt som gemensamma regler för invandring och flyktingmottagning måste definieras och åtgärder vidtas för att förhindra illegal invandring, måste arbete påbörjas för att åtgärda grundorsakerna till att människor ser sig tvingade att lämna sina ursprungsländer. Därtill bör även invandrarpolitiken förstärkas. En gemensam "helhetspolitik" måste därför bestå av följande tre komponenter:
- Förebyggande åtgärder;
- Effektiv invandringskontroll/säkerställande av rätten till asyl;
- Integrering av legala invandrare.
Genom denna ansats kan således kontrollåtgärder kombineras med långsiktigt samarbete med ursprungsländer och åtgärder för att förbättra situationen för legala invandrare som redan är bosatta i Unionen.
Förebyggande åtgärder
Invandrings- och asylfrågor bör fullt ut integreras med EU:s gemensamma utrikes- och säkerhetspolitik (GUS) och Unionens instrument inom områden som handel, utvecklings- och humanitärt bistånd och mänskliga rättigheter, måste användas i syfte att förebygga okontrollerad migration.
Effektiv invandringskontroll/säkerställande av rätten till asyl
För att motverka illegal invandring och säkerställa rätten till asyl bör EU definiera och tillämpa en gememsan invandrings- och flyktingpolitik. Samtidigt måste illegala invandrare identifieras och, om humanitära skäl inte talar emot detta, effektivt avvisas till sina ursprungsländer eller tredje land. När det gäller konventionsflyktingar och andra skyddsbehövande (de facto-flyktingar) är målsättningen att behandlingen av asylansökningar skall kunna ske rättvist och effektivt i alla EU-länder. Dessutom måste någon form av 'burden sharing'-system införas vid massflyktssituationer för att stödja utsatta medlemsstater och tillförsäkra att adekvat skydd kan erbjudas temporärt skyddsbehövande.
En gemensam politik förutsätter regler som binder samtliga medlemsstater och som därmed tillförsäkrar potentiella invandrare och flyktingar likvärdig behandling oavsett vilken medlemsstat de vänder sig till. Bindande regler är också nödvändiga för att det ömsesidiga förtroendet medlemsstaterna emellan skall kunna upprätthållas och därmed för att en stabil grund skall kunna läggas för ett gränslöst Europa där de ensklida staterna inte längre tävlar om vem som för den mest "restriktiva" invandrings- och flyktingpolitiken.
För att åtgärder mot illegal invandring skall vara effektiva på längre sikt och tillämpningen av första asyllandsprincipen på länder utanför EU inte skall ge upphov till orimliga bördor, krävs också ett utökat samarbete i flykting- och gränskontrollfrågor med de blivande medlemsstaterna i Central- och Östeuropa. Ekonomiskt stöd kan bli nödvändigt för att effektiva gränskontroller och ett asylsystem som uppfyller grundläggande rättssäkerhetskrav skall kunna byggas upp i dessa länder.
Integrering av legala invandrare
För att uppnå en bättre integrering av legala invandrare är det nödvändigt att förstärka invandrarpoltiken, främst genom att tillförsäkra långvarigt och legalt bosatta invandrare rättigheter som mer liknar dem som tillkommer EU-medborgare, t ex fri rörlighet för arbetskraft, etc.
...
Utvärdering av hittillsvarande arbete
Som redan framgått är huvuddelen av såväl de rättsakter som redan antagits, som de som är under utarbetande i Ministerådets arbetsgrupper, av icke bindande karaktär. Därtill är de generellt mycket vaga i sina formuleringar och innehåller genomgående en mängd undantag till de regler som fastläggs. De ställer därför inga egentliga krav på anpassning av medlemsstaternas respektive nationella lagstiftning. Att tala om harmonisering är däför en grov överdrift. Trots dessa tillkortakommanden måste dock resultaten accepteras; de visar helt enkelt vad medlemsländerna f n har varit förmögna att komma överens om. Men på längre sikt är detta sakernas tillstånd naturligtvis inte acceptabelt. Kommissiones uppgift är därför att verka för att bindande rättsakter antas av Ministerrådet och vi avser därför att succesivt lägga fram förslag till konventioner. Redan nu förbereds en konvention om familjeåterförening (är detta offentligt?). Kommissionens arbete underlättas dock inte av det faktum att även samtliga medlemsstater har initiativrätt.
[Rättmätig kritik kan också riktas mot Yttregränskontrollkonventionens bestämmelser om sanktioner mot transportföretag (som är bindande!). Det är helt klart att dessa påverkar möjligheterna för skyddsbehövande att söka asyl (se Kommissionens kommunikation om asyl från 1991). Det är därför beklagligt att medlemsstaterna sett sig tvingade att vidta denna åtgärd som ett led för att motverka illegal invandring. Det är dock i dagsläget svårt att se något alternativ till dessa bestämmelser. (Kanske något som skulle utredas?)]
Det hittillsvarande arbetet har emellertid inte varit helt utan positiva resultat. Genom Dublinkonventionen tillförsäkras alla asylsökande att deras ansökan behandlas av en medlemsstat (om det inte finns ett första asylland utanför EU) och förslaget till en "Gemensam aktion om status för tredje-landsmedborgare som är lagligt bosatta i Unionen under en lång period" är ett viktigt första steg mot en försträrkt invandrarpolitik. Genom Yttregränskontrollkonventionen/Unionsfördraget införs ett gemensamt visum för hela Unionen och lagligt bosatta invandrare ges möjlighet att resa till samtliga medlemsländer utan att behöva ansöka om visum.
Vad gäller förebyggande åtgärder finns tyvärr ännu inga vidtagna åtgärder att presentera. Frågan togs dock upp på högsta politiska nivå av Europeiska rådet i december 1992. Det slogs då fast att bl a följande faktorer är avgörande för ett minskat invandringstryck på Europa: - upprätthållande av fred och avslutande av väpnade konflikter; - respekt för mänskliga rättigheter; - skapandet av demokratiska stater med adekvata sociala villkor; - liberal handelspolitik; Sålunda finns det gott om arbetsuppgifter för Kommissionen de närmaste fem åren och säkerligen därefter också... Frivilligorganisationerna har här en viktig uppgift när det gäller att påverka medlemsländernas regeringar.
Sanctions on carriers [Brussels, 2 May 1995]
Background
Sanctions on carriers is a mechanism aimed at enforcing entry requirements (notably visa requirements). By obliging carriers to ensure that their passengers are in possession of the travel documents necessary for entry into the territory of the country of destination, the national border police only becomes the "second instance" of entry control. The immediate, and presumably intended, consequence is that the country of destination is relieved from costs of detaining and expelling aliens (if not expelled, they may become illegal immigrants) who do not fulfil entry requirements. Also, the large numbers of unfounded claims for asylum are reduced.
From a humanitarian standpoint, the problem posed by carrier sanctions (and strict visa requirements) is that these measures do not distinguish asylum-seekers with well-founded claims for protection, from other aliens. For a person fleeing persecution, obtaining a visa, or even a passport, might be an impossible task. In fact, according to the UNHCR, this is very often the case. The sanctions imposed on carriers therefore seriously risk foreclosing the chance to apply for asylum for persons in true need of international protection.
It should be added that the sanctions consequently creates/extends the market for trafficking in humans. Not without sound reasons then, many NGO:s find carrier sanctions unacceptable.
Measures prescribed by the draft External Frontiers Convention and the Schengen Convention
Both the draft External Frontiers Convention and the Schengen Convention require the MS/Contracting Parties to incorporate into their national legislation measures aiming, in the words of the former convention, "to oblige the carrier to take all the necessary measures to ensure that persons coming from third countries are in possession of valid travel documents and of the necessary visas, and to impose appropriate penalties on carriers failing to fulfil this obligation" (Article 14, which corresponds to Article 26 in the Schengen Convention).
Previous Commission "action"
In a "Discussion paper on the right of asylum", annexed to its communication on asylum from 1991, the Commission notes that "some Member States impose heavy fines on airlines and shipping companies which carry aliens who are not in possession of the necessary entry documents". The Commission recognizes that these measures, labelled "liability of carriers", "have repercussions on the right of asylum" (SEC(91) 1857 final).
Alternative measures
In the medium/long term, apart from addressing "push factors", decreasing the number of attempts of illicit entry/immigration requires giving the right "signals" to would-be immigrants. To be effective, these signals have to be "real", meaning reflecting the actual practise in MS concerning, inter alia, expulsion and handling of unfounded asylum applications. There is therefore a need for common rules and practise providing for efficient and speedy expulsion of all persons not allowed entry or having failed definitely in an application for asylum, and rapid procedures for the examination of manifestly unfounded applications for asylum.
In the short term, it is more difficult to come up with a solution taking into account both the need to "protect" the Union against illegal immigration and to guarantee all persons in need of protection the right to (apply for) asylum.
It might be argued that a possible alternative to carrier sanctions would be to station Union/MS police at third country airports of departure as to make it possible for persons to submit a "preliminary" application for asylum before departing. This would, however, make it possible also for persons not in need of protection to file an application; to try to distinguish between well founded and manifestly unfounded applications in an hour or so prior to departure does not seem to be a realistic option.
To alleviate the unwanted consequences of carrier sanctions, a way forward might be to abolish visa requirements for nationals of third countries in cases where it can be reasonably expected that the vast majority of would-be immigrants are genuine refugees (e.g. countries with good economic conditions but with gross violations of basic human right). Still, this would not help refugees not in possession of a valid passport.
Yet another alternative would be to impose "differentiated" sanctions, i.e. to only apply sanctions against carriers transporting persons from third countries with a well founded reputation of "producing" large numbers of illegal immigrants (but which are "safe host countries").
It remains, however, to be carefully looked into if the suggested measures, or other short term alternatives, are possible to implement in the real world.
Carrier sanctions: Possible Commission initiatives [Brussels, 12 June 1995]
Introduction
This note follows up on my previous note on carrier sanctions of 2 May 1995. It proposes two Commission initiatives: a Directive and a Joint Action, i.e. one first pillar initiative and one third pillar initiative. To get right to the point(s):
Carrier sanctions create a new obstacle to the free movement of persons, as well as to the right of refugees to seek protection. Moreover, as expressed by the European Parliament, "carriers should not be put in a position of deciding who may exercise the right of free movement, and of applying for asylum, under various Treaties and Conventions" .
In the first case, which concerns intra-Community transportation, a directive prohibiting carrier sanctions and other measures having equivalent effect, should be proposed to make sure that identity checks for the purpose of verifying that entry requirements are fulfilled, are not carried out by carriers. If it is not possible the get agreement on the complete abolition of internal borders controls throughout the whole Union, it should at least be possible to do away with the additional controls carried out by carriers (the "Eurotunnel" is already exempted from sanctions).
Moreover, it might be argued that a prerequisite for the elimination of "internal" carrier sanctions is the entry into force of the Dublin Convention, as to guarantee that "asylum-shoppers" can be returned to the MS responsible for the examination of their asylum applications. Hence, another argument for the ratification (by the Netherlands) of the Dublin Convention.
In the second case, involving transportation from third countries, the approach has to be different. Sanctions directed at carriers transporting persons from third countries are prescribed by both the draft External Frontiers Convention (Article 14) and the Schengen Convention (Article 26) . As these instruments do not lay down any detailed rules, however, the way measures are implemented vary considerably from MS to MS. Here there is at least a need for greater harmonization since the level of sanctions facing a carrier should not depend crucially on the specific national provisions of the MS of destination, but rather on the level of negligence shown when checking would-be passengers.
To minimize the repercussions on the right to asylum, a joint action on the harmonization of carrier sanctions should also include safeguards aimed at reducing the risk that persons in need of international protection are denied transportation.
Joint action on the harmonization of carrier sanctions
A joint action should lay down rules specifying the nature and the scope of sanctions to be imposed. For example, should the sanctions be confined to an obligation to provide for the return of refused aliens or financial liability if detention, supervisory personnel, and other means of transport are required, or should they extend to fines and even prison sentences? Moreover, should sanctions only apply if an alien is in fact refused entry, or should they be imposed solely on the ground that an alien transported lacks the necessary documentation (even if he/she is not refused entry)? These and other related questions have to be answered in a joint action.
It is also import to establish on who the burden of proof should fall upon; the MS concerned or the carrier? As to not require the carrier to pass any judgement on an asylum claim (and thus ensure that such claims are dealt with by, and only by, the competent national authorities), the answer to this questions necessarily has to be: the MS. Sanctions should therefore only be enforced if a MS can establish that a carrier has been negligent in checking documents, and knowingly has transported a person without necessary documentation who does not have a well-founded fear of persecution.
Furthermore, a joint action taking account of the humanitarian concerns raised by carrier sanctions would show that the Commission takes Article K.2 of the TEU seriously, i.e. that all matters under the third pillar shall be dealt with in compliance with, inter alia, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the 1951 Geneva Convention. It would thus make absolutely clear that the aim of carrier sanctions is to curb illegal immigration, not to prevent genuine asylum-seekers from gaining access to asylum procedures in the Member States of the European Union.
1 External Frontiers Convention = 2 Joint actions? [Brussels, 3 July 1995]
Introduction
As foreseen in its preamble, the draft External Frontiers Convention essentially consists of two parts: controls on persons at the external frontiers and a common visa policy . In addition, we find provisions on the recognition of residence permits as visas and carrier sanctions. The former closely related to the common visa policy; the latter a kind of pre-frontier control on persons. To complicate the matter, however, we also find provisions on the drawing up of a joint list of persons to be refused entry and, by implication, to be refused a visa.
If necessary, it would therefore seem natural to split the draft Convention into two Joint actions:
- Joint action on controls on persons at the external frontiers of the Member States of the European Union,
- Joint action on a common visa policy.
The drawback of turning the draft Convention into a number of Joint actions is of course that it would rule out any involvement of the Court of Justice.
Joint action on a common visa policy
The priority would be to get the Joint action on a common visa policy adopted as it is a necessary complement to the Regulations based on Article 100c of the EC Treaty.
If it could be made clear that this Joint action applies to the crossing of external as well as internal borders, we would not have to worry about the definition of external borders (art. 1), nor about its territorial application when it comes to Gibraltar (art. 30). This common sense approach would, however, partly be in conflict with the first pillar "droit de voyager" initiative, as it includes the recognition of residence permits as visas.
The Joint action would include the following articles of the draft Convention: 8 and 9 (recognition of residence permits as visas); 17 to 25 (common visa policy); and also some of the definitions in 1, and the content 7:1 and 10 (7:1 is referred to in 19; 10 in turn in 7:1). Article 10 concerns the joint list of persons to be refused entry; article 7:1 the conditions for entry.
Joint action on controls on persons at the external frontiers of the Member States of the European Union
As already mentioned, by turning the Convention into Joint actions we would, on the one hand, avoid the discussion about the competence of the Court of Justice. On the other hand, it was the Commission who introduced the article on the jurisdiction of the Court in the first place (art. 29). How to solve this dilemma?
The main outstanding problems remaining would be the possible inclusion of third country nationals who are members of the family of citizens of the Union on the joint list (art. 10); procedure for adopting implementing measures (two thirds majority vs. unanimity) (art. 26); and the territorial application (including the Gibraltar problem) (art. 30). The first, and possibly the second, would also apply to the Joint action on a common visa policy.
Apart from the articles already mentioned, the Joint action would include the following articles of the draft Convention: 1 (definitions); 2 to 7, 11, 12, 15, 16 (crossing, control, surveillance of external frontiers, refusal of entry, etc.); (10 and) 13 (joint list of persons to be refused entry); 14 (carrier sanctions).
Rickard Olseke