Talk:National identity cards in the European Economic Area and Switzerland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge proposal

Although I see the reason for having two articles here, I think it would be more helpful and informative to discuss both topics in one article. In that way, we could more clearly explain the relation between the EU and the EEA in terms of ID cards. --Noiratsi (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Another thing—I don't really understand any of this (perhaps that's a good reason for a merge) but it seems to me that if EU citizens can use their ID cards to travel to the EEA and EEA citizens can use their cards to travel to the EU, it doesn't make sense to have two articles. What are the fundamental differences between the two types of card? It seems to me that it might make more sense to merge ID cards in the EU to this article, if they all allow travel anywhere in the EEA. --Noiratsi (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

One article duplicates another. --Dima1 (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Swedish national ID card

The text says:

"Although, as a matter of European law, holders of a Swedish national identity card are entitled to use it as a travel document to any European Union member state (regardless of whether it is belongs to the Schengen Area or not), Swedish national law does not recognise the card as a valid travel document outside the Schengen Area[according to whom?] in direct violation of European law."

This is nonsense and incorrect. There is no difference in validity between Swedish national ID cards and other EU national ID cards. Nothing in the Swedish law mentions where the ID card is valid. Furthermore, if there would be differences in Swedish and European law regarding this matter, European law takes precedence according to the treaties (a Directive works that way). This entire section should be deleted as it is misleading regarding the validity of Swedish ID cards. The reason this issue has arisen is that Swedish authorities (the police) have been (embarassingly) confused about what the EU law actually says, and therefore tells the citizens to bring their passports to all countries outside of Schengen and their national ID cards to countries within Schengen -which is not what the EU Directive says. For references about the Directive and the Swedish law, see National identity card (Sweden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.204.193 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a Swedish law somewhere which says that border guards have to accept foreign national ID cards, and the Swedish border guards pay great attention to the word "foreign": a Swedish national identity card is only a foreign national ID card if presented to a border guard in e.g. France or the UK but not if presented to a border guard in Sweden. I'm not sure if this is compatible with Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely, but this is nevertheless how Swedish border guards interpret the law. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Swedish law explicitly requires a passport from a Swedish citizen going to leave Sweden, except if heading for a Schengen country. Link:Passlag (1978:302) See 5 § Sorry the law is available in Swedish only. However there is an act that allows citizens of EU+EEA+Switzerland but not Sweden to enter and leave Sweden with only an identity card stating citizenship. Link:Utlänningsförordning See 17 § Sorry Swedish only--BIL (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, 17 § utlänningsförordningen was probably what I was thinking of: "Ett identitetskort för en utlänning [...]" = "An identity card for a foreigner [...]". The Swedish authorities pay great attention to the word "foreigner". Thus, a Swedish national ID card is not going to work if you fly from Arlanda to Heathrow (as border checks are made by Swedish and British border guards), but it will probably work if you instead take the train from Stockholm to London (as border checks are made by French and British border guards). A short extension of the journey time by about 20 hours for people with a national identity card but without a passport. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to fly from Stockholm to London with only a Swedish national ID card, if you change plane inside Schengen outside Sweden, e.g. in Amsterdam or Frankfurt. National ID cards from EU are valid to enter the UK.--BIL (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it should be added to the article that Swedish border guards believed that the reason for banning national identity cards for flights to the UK was that they were not accepted in the UK. Therefore guards stopped people from other EU countries having national identity cards, even if they were legally allowed to leave Sweden and enter the UK with them, and the info from the authority at home and from the EU said they were valid in all of EU, and the info from UK border guard web site said they were valid there, and the airline informed that the entry requirements of the destination country must be checked.--BIL (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I have understood, Swedish border guards only ban Swedish national identity cards but not foreign EU national identity cards. Also, from what I have understood, the Swedish national identity cards are banned both at entry and at exit. It would make no sense to ban the cards at entry to Sweden if you believe that there would be problems in the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Everything in this has been kind of confusing and the guards did not know exactly. The Swedish law says that Swedes do not need a passport at entry if they can prove otherwise that they are Swedish citizes. I am Swedish and have passed the Arlanda border using the National ID card after visiting China. But there are reports of refusal to accept it for travellers from UK.--BIL (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

BIL is right. Stockholm-Copenhagen-London-Stockholm can be flown with an ID, whereas Stockholm-London-Copenhagen-Stockholm cannot. André Devecseri (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

National ID cards to Faroe Islands

Visit Faroe Islands and the Danish embassy in London clearly stated in a mail that not only Nordic citizens can use ID cards to the Faroe Islands. Yet, my edit has been altered twice. The fact that BIL actually portrays me as some sort of fraud, when in fact I have corresponded with border police in many countries and have helped Timatic themselves correct a number of errors in the past, prompts me to link the correspondence I've had with sources regarding the Faroes (in Danish)

http://oi62.tinypic.com/2ue4bc4.jpg (with Visit Faroe Islands) http://oi60.tinypic.com/1emoex.jpg (with the Danish embassy in London)

Further sources include www.nyidanmark.dk, defined as "the official web portal about rules for entering and residing in Denmark. [...] maintained collectively by the Danish Immigration Service and the Danish Agency for Labour Market and Recruitment".

In both the Danish and English versions of the section "Faroe Islands and Greenland" it says "An ID card issued by an EU or Schengen country that is valid for entry into Denmark does not give permission to enter Greenland. Such individuals will require a passport to travel to Greenland" (NOTE: "EU or Schengen country" here does not refer to Nordic countries) https://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/visa/the_faroe_islands_and_greenland.htm

If this applied to the Faroes as well, why on Earth does it not say that?

I do not claim to know these things to perfection, because I've turned out to be wrong on more than one occasion in the past. And indeed, regarding the Faroes and Greenland in particular, information has been scarce with many contradictions and thus a frustrating task for me to find. Still, what I linked surely has to have a fair say in it.

Even so, I have now mailed Atlantic Airways and Vágar airport for even more supporting info 38.125.9.183 (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Off topic, regarding Greenland, I finally got a clear answer as to the requirements. They're ridiculous: technically non-Nordics do need a passport, but, Air Greenland accepts all EEA ID cards, and given the lack of passport controls at Greenlandic airports, the airline is in practice the ones with the final say. In other words: formally only Nordic citizens can use their ID cards - in practice any EEA national can.

How stupid is that? Greenland's own airline, who has the final say for travellers, does not follow the territory's rules. I currently have no idea how to explain this to Timatic, who are currently investigating this.

Link to my correspondance with Air Greenland (Danish) https://www.facebook.com/airgreenland/posts/10152866424825718

Those who can read Danish: what do you think? Should I challenge the airline's answer? 38.125.9.183 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have prefered using sources that can be checked by others, i.e. weblinks. That is a principle for Wikipedia (WP:SOURCE). For the Faroe Islands I added two sources that 38.125.9.183 reverted. The sources are:

• Passport and visa (visitfaroeislands.com) which says: Citizens of the Nordic countries, with a passport from these countries, are not obliged to show a passport, but have to be able to identify themselves with a document of identification that includes a picture. In general, EU citizens are obliged to show a valid passport when entering the Faroe Islands. In most cases, showing an ID card is not sufficient. There are, however, some exceptions.
• Practical information (Atlantic Airways) which says: From 01st of October 2005 a passport is required for all travelers with Atlantic Airways.
• Praktiske oplysninger (Atlantic Airways) which says in Danish: Husk pas eller anden offentlig udstedt billedlegitimation, når du rejser udenlands med fly. This translates to: Remember passport or other offical id card with photo, when travelling internationally. There is a contradiction between Danish and English on Atlantic Airways, but I assume that the Danish text applies to Nordic citizens and the English text to others.

There is no source for the Faroe Islands in the article now after 38.125.9.183 removed my links.

For Greenland:

• The Faroe Islands and Greenland (Danish Immigration Service) which says: An ID card issued by an EU or Schengen country that is valid for entry into Denmark does not give permission to enter Greenland. Such individuals will require a passport to travel to Greenland
• CHECK-IN (Air Greenland) which says: Resident in Denmark - An ID card authorised by the European Schengen Information System can also be used.

The Schengen acquis 1999/435/EC is a formal legal text, and it says:

• 1. The provisions of this Agreement shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands or to Greenland. 2. Taking into account the fact that the Faeroe Islands and Greenland apply the provisions on the movement of persons laid down within the framework of the Nordic Passport Union, persons travelling between the Faeroe Islands or Greenland, of the one part, and the States parties to the 1990 Convention and the Cooperation Agreement with the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway, of the other part, shall not be subject to border checks.

But the airlines do require identification. In Denmark people do not by law need identification document, except for some services like air travel (and when arrested), then it up the organisation to decide the required type of document. A general rule of thumb in Denmark is that an official Nordic id-card with photo for Nordic people and passport for others, and the airlines use this, but seem not always enforcing them.

But my conclusion is that we can not write in this article that national id cards from any EU country are valid. They might be accepted, but just might. --BIL (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

One thing: Visit Faroe Islands have implied themselves that their written info is outdated. It says only German and Itlian citizens can use their ID cards on the page, but in their mail, they said any EEA citizen can.

Point being: one can, until more info is found, keep the statement that only Nordic cards are accepted to the Faroes, but Visit Faroe Islands should not be used as a source of that statement, because this is not at all what they say.

As for Atlantic Airways, one can chat with them on their website, and they told me EEA ID cards can be used provided you're arriving from the Schengen area, but not from, say, Edinburgh. This may be because they believe ID cards aren't valid in the UK (I reckon they've "learnt" from Swedish police), since they did not explicitly say it was their policy as an airline. Since I forgot to take a screenshot of the chat, I will not make any changes for now. May try again later.

Btw, "Husk pas eller anden offentlig udstedt billedlegitimation, når du rejser udenlands med fly. This translates to: Remember passport or other offical id card with photo, when travelling internationally. There is a contradiction between Danish and English on Atlantic Airways, but I assume that the Danish text applies to Nordic citizens and the English text to others.".

How is this a contradiction? Offentlig udstedt billedlegitimation means official photo ID and that's what it says in English (except the word "card" is added). A national ID card is a prime example of this btw. 178.83.201.96 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

National ID cards to Moldova

Please read this, in regards to card requirements (message at the bottom was written first) 178.83.201.96 (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

European ID-cards for travel to African countries

The article claims that you would be able to enter Tunisia with an European ID-card as long as you travel on an organized tour. It would be good to have a link to support that claim. I cannot find any information about this at any reliable place (preferably a Tunisian government site).

The matter is discussed on travel forums where also Morocco, Egypt and Turkey (all European countries, not just Germany etc.) are mentioned as countries that can be visited with just an EEA ID card when part of a tour group. Is this true? At least when visiting Morocco on a guided daytrip from southern Spain a while back, passport was the only acceptable identification document.

If it is possible to use the card as a travel document also in these countries, then it should be mentioned. Otherwise obviously not. 83.245.240.114 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I just checked and indeed it only seems to apply to western Europeans, so I'll have that removed. Also, the list of countries might have changed (and no, I have learnt the hard way that you cannot at all assume that what IATA says is up-to-date).

Also, Egypt can only be visited by certain Europeans without a passport, and it doesn't matter whether it's an organized tour or not. As for Morocco, IDs stopped being valid there altogether recently. André Devecserii (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Travel documents

The current article says:

At present, four EEA member states (Denmark, Iceland, Norway and United Kingdom) do not issue national identity cards to their citizens. Therefore, citizens from these four countries can only use a passport as a travel document when travelling to other EEA member states or Switzerland, however when travelling within the Schengen Area, Nordic Passport Union or the Common Travel Area, any valid identity document is usually sufficient, if anything at all. Norway has decided to start issuing such cards from 2017.

This is not correct. The Schengen acquis does not in any way affect which travel documents are valid or required for traveling between the Schengen countries. The only effect of the Schengen acquis is that people do not need to show their travel documents at the internal borders. However, which travel documents are valid or required has nothing to do with the Schengen acquis. It is regulated by directive 2004/38/EC and other legislation, which is the same for all EEA, also member states outside Schengen (like UK and Ireland). --Glentamara (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed "Schengen Area". But it can be remarked that for citizens of several countries in the EU, any for them valid identity document can be used in all of the EU and EEA, since only the national identity identity cards or passports are valid there. Thereby those citizens say "you can travel all over the EU without a passport". But not all citizens.--BIL (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it is incorrect. It does not state that: because of the Schengen agreement, you can travel with any valid identity document. It states that: within the Schengen Area, you can travel with any valid identity document, which is correct as there is no border checks that would require travel documentation. You may still require valid identity documentation as this is required by law in many countries. Rob984 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

But that's the problem. You are not allowed to travel within the Schengen area without national identity card or passport. There could for instance be an internal control of foreigners within the Schengen or temporary border controls for some reason at the internal borders. The Schengen acquis says explicitly that it does not affect which travel documents a person needs to travel around in the Schengen area. --Glentamara (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It only states "usually sufficient". Is it actually breaking EU law to travel between countries without travel documentation? Rob984 (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to directive 2004/38/EC a person needs id card or passport. There is no difference in principle between Schengen countries and other EU countries since Schengen has nothing to do with which documents are valid or needed. --Glentamara (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

According to directive 2004/38/EC, a person has the right to enter or leave a EU member state, to another EU member state, with an ID card or passport. It also states the only requirement can be an ID card or passport. It does not state this must be a requirement. In many Schengen countries, you can travel without an ID card or passport, for example between Sweden and Finland. This article probably should state "often" rather than "usually" since many countries require persons to have an ID card or passport, even when only traveling (such as Belgium or Spain). Rob984 (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Article 5.1 in Directive 2004/38/EC states

(...) Member States shall grant Union citizens leave to enter their territory with a valid identity card or passport (...)

So yes, you are right that in principle the directive does not say that it is a must to carry a valid identity card or passport. On the other hand, however, there is nothing in the EU low (including the Schengen acquis) that prevents member states from requiring this, and in fact, most (maybe all?) do. You say that one can travel between Sweden and Finland without id card or passport. Of course you can normally cross the border without any valid travel documents since no systematic border controls exist. But legally this is not allowed. Except for citizens affected by the Nordic passport union, there is no right for EU citizens to be on e.g. Swedish territory without valid id card or passport. In fact, according to the Swedish aliens act 9 chap. 9 §, a EU citizen is obliged to present a valid passport or id card if requested by a policeman. Otherwise he/she is sent off.

So, yes, you need to bring your id card or passport when traveling within Schengen. You can of course take the risk and go there without any valid travel document, but you might get problems if you encounter an internal control of foreigners (or just a temporary border control at the internal border for that matter). --Glentamara (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not all, for example in Germany foreign EU citizens are not required to have ID, and in France, a driver's licence is sufficient. It would not be illegal to travel from France to Germany without ID, or to travel from Germany to France with only a driver's licence. Please stop editing the article while discussion is ongoing.

See the travel advice provided by the UK government: https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/france/local-laws-and-customs

See the information on the Common Travel Area from the Irish Citizens Information Board: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/common_travel_area_between_ireland_and_the_uk.html

I don't know why the Nordic Passport Union is mentioned if that is the case. If there is no provisions for all EU citizens, it's irrelevant. Do we agree that it should be removed?

Rob984 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, some member states have chosen to not require that EU citizens carry id cards or passports, but it has nothing to do with Schengen and is not a general rule applying in the Schengen area. However, the current formulation in the article implies that, which I think is wrong. We should not state things that are not correct on Wikipedia. I don't want to prolong this discussion but I note that the Commission writes the following on page 13 in this guide:

Removal of border controls means that passports or identity cards no longer have to be shown when crossing internal borders between Schengen EU countries. However you should always carry your passport or identity card as your right of free movement and residence is conditional on you being able to present these documents on request.

Furthermore I note that the Schengen borders code states the following in article 21:

The abolition of border control at internal borders shall not affect: (...) (c) the possibility for a Member State to provide by law for an obligation to hold or carry papers and documents; (...)

Best regards, --Glentamara (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how either of those contradict the statement. Under Directive 2004/38/EC, citizen's right to free movement is conditional on having an ID card or Passport. However it does not state that member states must enforce those requirements. The Commision is guiding citizens based on their rights per the EU Directive, not on each of the 28 member state's laws on what documentation is required. You legally can enter France from Germany with only a driver's licence. You do not have a right to do so under any EU Directive, but this is legal under French Law. Rob984 (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason the Schengen Area and CTA are mentioned is because a passport or ID card would always be required at a non-Schengen/CTA international border. Therefore it is relevant to Schengen as it is only possible as a result of those rules. I agree, it probably is not a "usually" the case and the wording shouldn't imply that. Rob984 (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"valid identity documentation"

I don't think this is very good wording since it isn't very specific. Possible alternatives I can think of:

"valid government-issued identity documentation"

"valid official identity documentation"

"valid government recognised issued identity documentation"

"valid officially recognised identity documentation"

Thoughts? Rob984 (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Different identity documents are issued by different countries, and what constitutes a 'valid identity document' also differs. For example, in Sweden, there are the so-called 'national identity cards' (issued by the police and embassies) which, despite the name, can be used internationally, and then there are the normal identity cards (issued by the tax authority and various private companies) which only can be used nationally. And then there are Swedish EU-style passports and driving licences which typically also count as identity documents. All of these documents are de facto accepted where an identity document is required, but there is no such thing as 'government-recognised identity documents' as the government doesn't set up any lists of valid types of identity documents, and I'm not sure what 'official identity documents' or 'officially recognised identity documents' would mean in Sweden. Those who want to see an identity document are free to choose which identity documents they wish to accept. Then there are a couple of documents which, although they identity information, normally aren't accepted as identity documents, such as the European health insurance card and a card issued by the migration authority to immigrants. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't miss the intention of this paragraph, which is concerned with the practical reality rather then formality. Anything which tends to establish that the traveler is either an EEA (or Swiss) citizen or has legal residence in an EEA country (or Switzerland) will suffice. Obviously passports (whether in card or booklet form) are the gold standard, but, even in law they do NOT have to be "valid" - they could have expired many years ago or even been cancelled (eg if another, newer passport has been issued). In most of the Schengen area and certainly in all of the common travel area of the British Isles and Gibraltar, most officials will accept documents and evidence that tends to establish status - for example the parole evidence of a passport holder that the accompanying travelers are spouse and child or utility bills and correspondence. Obviously this flexibility and relaxed attitude diminishes the closer the interrogation is to ports, but I have personally seen an illegal (according to UN resolutions) Rhodesian passport that expired in 1988 accepted by Spanish border officials in 2015 to admit from Africa a refugee from Zimbabwe on the basis that it was genuine, the photograph had not been tampered with and still identified the bearer as having been born in Ireland in the 50s and, consequently an Irish (and EU citizen) without evidence to the contrary. BushelCandle (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

An invalid passport will not guarantee travel from one EEA country to another. Admission from outside the EEA is not what is being discussed in the sentence.

I think "valid identity documentation" is probably OK. "valid" doesn't necessarily mean up to date. The Oxford Dictionary defines "valid", in this context, as "Legally or officially acceptable". Possibly we could clarify this is in regard to national law? Rob984 (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

According to directive 2004/38/EC, member states can require persons entering or leaving their territory, from or to another EU member state, to have an ID card or passport. Rob984 (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And btw, the sentence is not concerned with practical reality, but rather the legal situation. In reality, you could travel throughout most of the Schengen Area with only a drivers licence and have no problems. Even countries like Belgium where an ID card or passport is legally mandatory, the authorities will, in practice, always accept a drivers licence. Rob984 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is now "not concerned with practical reality but rather the legal situation" only because several edits (including some by you) have changed its meaning. At one stage, the relevant section was more informative and accurate:

Four EEA member states do not issue national identity cards to their citizens: Denmark, Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom (except to residents of Gibraltar); although Norway has decided to start issuing such cards from 2016. At present, citizens from these four countries can only use a passport as a travel document when travelling to other EEA member states or Switzerland. However, when travelling within the Schengen Area or Common Travel Area, any evidence or document (such as a driving licence or EHIC card) tending to establish identity, nationality and/or official residence is often sufficient in practice (and as required by Article 5(4) of the Directive and regulation 11(4) of the EEA Regulations).^{(my emphasis added)}

A valid EEA passport does not "guarantee" admission to any state foreign to the state that issued it. Rarely and unusually, EEA passport bearers can still lawfully be refused admission to other EEA states on the grounds of ordre public - for example, if they are considered to be virulently contagious or seditious. Encyclopedias are not just concerned with narrow legal perspectives but also the practical realities of typical behaviors.

I don't think the notion that "member states can require persons ... leaving their territory, from or to another EU member state, to have an ID card or passport" is entirely true either. As far as I know all of the EEA countries are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 of which states:

"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

BushelCandle (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well obviously there are exceptions. I don't know why you are being pedantic when it's irrelevant to my point.

Being an EU citizen does not make you a citizen of every EU country. You have the right to leave your own country, but you don't have the right to enter any other country. Of course, you cannot be deported from your own country if you enter without a valid passport; so, if you are French, you can enter France from another Schengen country without a valid passport or ID card; but you can also enter with nothing, and this has nothing to do with the EEA. Like you say, it is a human right. Rob984 (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you tell me which revision had a different meaning? If accurate information has been removed accidentally, of course it can be re-added. But that's not a reason to replace existing, accurate content referring to something different. Rob984 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In summary: no human who is not otherwise lawfully detained, needs any documentation whatsoever to leave any country (including his own) that is a signatory - providing they have a competent lawyer and are (endlessly) patient (obviously this theoretically legally enforceable right will present insurmountable difficulties if the exit country is landlocked since there is no corresponding universal right of entry). On a practical level, passports and ID cards will speed up internal checks in the Schengen and Common Travel Areas but are neither legally nor practically essential. BushelCandle (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is legal to cross the border into another EU country without a passport of ID card. If you cannot legally be in the country you are crossing into without an ID card or passport, then you are breaking the law by travelling to that country. For example, if you enter Belgium without and ID card or passport, you are breaking Belgium law as you do not have a ID card or passport on you while on Belgium territory; therefore it is illegal to travel to Belgium without a ID card or passport. This is the case for the many EU countries. Rob984 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is really ridiculous. Two weeks ago I was arguing with another editor whether passports and ID cards are always required to travel within Schengen Area. Now you are arguing that they are never required? BushelCandle, I completely agree that in practice, you do not need an ID card or passport to travel within the Schengen Area. I have personal travelled with only a French driver's licence between many EU countries that "require all persons to have an ID card or passport". Of course authorities are not going to require a British citizen to carry a passport everywhere. But there is no source for this so it cannot be added to the article. However the legal situation is very clear because we can simply look at the law. That is what is currently conveyed OK? Rob984 (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Article 5 (1) of EU directive 2004/38/EC states that EU/EEA citizens have the right to enter other EU/EEA countries if they are in possession of a valid passport or national identity card. The article does not seem to forbid member states to grant admission to a country if a person is not in possession of any such document. One example is the Nordic Passport Union, which has the effect that Nordic citizens also can use a bunch of other identity cards when entering Nordic countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

BushelCandle, in Sweden, for instance, Swedish citizens are required to carry a passport when leaving the country, otherwise you are not allowed to leave Sweden according to the Swedish passport law. The only exception is when you travel to another EU/Schengen country (until July 1, 2015 we were not even allowed to go to non-Schengen EU countries without carrying a passport). So no, there is no general right to leave a country without documents. --Glentamara (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Gallery of EEA national identity cards now redundant?

Now that we have space in the table above it for images of "EEA national identity cards", is the section entitled "Gallery of EEA national identity cards" redundant? BushelCandle (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Sorry for the confusing rhetorical tone of my question above but, since all the images in the gallery were duplicated in the section above it (usually in a larger thumbnail), I've now gone ahead and deleted this section BushelCandle (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Irish passport card

Some editor claimed that the Irish passport card are not identity cards but passports looking like identity cards. According to the Identity document article an identity card is an identity document in the form of a small card. If the Irish card is not an identity card, because of the name, then the Austrian and German cards are not, since the name of them, Personalausweis actually means Personal badge. And the Polish card is called Dowód osobisty meaning approximately the same. We should not be so strict about the formal name. The Irish passport card is an identity card. They are not passports since they do not fulfil the requirements for passports. I think that the Irish government wanted to avoid the name "Natinal identity card" to avoid the controversy in the UK 2006. One problem is the language in Ireland, same as in this Wikipedia, which triggers more strictness on definitions.--BIL (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your translations are inaccurate. The Austrian, German and Polish identity cards all carry the official government approved translations into English on the face of each card: IDENTITY CARD OF THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, IDENTITY CARD and Identity card respectively. Ireland's passport card is labelled in the two official languages of Ireland and French: "PAS/PASSPORT/PASSEPORT". Personally I place more reliance on the Irish government's designation of their own Machine Readable Official Travel Document (MROTD) than your erroneous original research. BushelCandle (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The Irish Department of Foreign Affairs also said it could be used as a generic form of identification. It's an ID card. Rob984 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure it'll be biometric btw? If it will, I have something to report to the border police in Moldova and Kosovo as well as IATA. 178.83.201.96 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ireland's passport card

It is a passport in card form. It may be used as ID, so can social welfare cards, Garda IDs, and ID issued by Intreo. I see any adjustment is usually met with "it is a national ID card". So before it is re-add, please as with this encyclopedia add a source. Murry1975 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ireland's passport cards are not passports. Passports are standardized and have to be 125 × 88 mm (4.921 × 3.465 in) and have several pages. Ireland's passport cards have a name similar to "passport", but that does not mean they are passports. They are travel documents which follow the European Union standard for national identity cards, and are designed to be usable as national identity cards, at least outside Ireland and UK. The term "national identity cards" is obviously too controversial in Ireland to be used there, but that is the EU term. The reason for this article is to show the identity cards which can be used as travel documents in the EU. We can write that they are locally called "passport cards" but not delete them.--BIL (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Murry, provide a source that there is a difference in anything but name. Also that these are actually passports... which they are not. Rob984 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

BIL, where's the source that they can be used "as passports" in the EU? What does that even mean? Within the EU, there is no distinction between passport and ID card use. Rob984 (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not claimed that they can be used "as passports" in the EU, I claimed that they can be used as national identity cards. The justification is: They are not passports since those are governed by ICAO and have to be booklets of 88 × 125 mm with specified characteristics to be accepted as such outside Ireland (since Ireland is not expected to be able to introduce a new type of passport and get it accepted just like that). The Free Movement of Citizens Directive says that EU citizens need identity card or passport to enjoy free movement.DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC. If they aren't passports and can be used as EU travel documents, they have to be identity cards, at least outside Ireland. So far no one has provided a source on the main issue we discuss, if they are defined as passports or identity cards by EU and by Ireland.--BIL (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The new card is in no way a passport, it is not even called passport but passport card, which is just another name for national id card. Importantly, the passport card does not fulfill international standards for passports, for instance the format 88 x 125 mm, regulated by ICAO Doc 9303, Part 4, Point 2.2. There's no room for entrance or exit stamps in the card since it only consists of one single page. The card is not valid for travelling outside the EU/EEA. However, the card fulfills all criteria that national id cards fulfill. For instance it can be used as a travel document within the EU/EEA in accordance with directive 2004/38/EC. The name of a thing does not determine its nature. What is called passport card in Ireland is undoubtedly the same as what is called national id card in the rest of the EU. --Glentamara (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And I wonder what is the controversy with national id cards? Must be guilt by association. If they are voluntary, people who don't like them don't need to get them. It is written in Irish Passport that they contain all information from the passport data page. That means they contain birth city which can be seen on photos of them. But Sweden also has the same, voluntary travel documents in card size, and they are called National identity cards, and they do not contain birth city, which would be kind of controversial in Sweden to show and is not needed for EU travel. That means Swedish national id cards are de facto less controversial by design than Irish passport cards. It's the name only. So Irish people, relax somewhat.--BIL (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In the UK, the controversy was largely over the national identity database, not the ID cards themselves. Although they must have a database of everyone who has owned a passport? Sweden and Austria's identity cards are similar to Ireland's—essentially just card-form travel document, entirely optional. The cards alone are not really more controversial than passports, although I can understand the skepticism with policies making them compulsory, and storing information such as finger prints, iris scans, etc—as proposed in the British scheme. Personally, I think it would be nice to have the option of a ID card for travel, but I haven't actually had any issues traveling with solely my drivers licence in the Schengen Area, even in Belgium, Spain and Portugal. Anyway, I think the only unique thing about the Irish card is that you must have a passport with at least 30 days validity when you apply, however the card is still valid after your passport has expired and can be replaced without a valid passport. Rob984 (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Then what is the controversy here about? Anyway I found that the first letter in the machine-readable zone is I for the Irish passport card, which means identity card, while P would be passport. Read about Machine-readable_passports.--BIL (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is simply untrue and your understanding is defective. BushelCandle (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

BushelCandle, discuss, don't edit war. Rob984 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

What an interesting stance! Perhaps it's better I do not respond fully until on or after 24 November 2015 since Annex 9 of ICAO's Facilitation Standard 3.10.1 reads as follows: ‘[f]or passports issued after 24 November 2005 and which are not machine readable, Contracting States shall ensure the expiration date falls before 24 November 2015’. This effectively means that all non-machine readable passports should be out of circulation by tomorrow, 24 November 2015.

Standard 3.10.1 is best understood in conjunction with Standard 3.10, which stipulated the 1 April 2010 deadline for the issuance of ICAO-compliant machine readable passports (MRPs). As Standard 3.10 has been generally implemented universally, the Standard 3.10.1 deadline for removing non-MRPs from circulation by 24 November 2015 presents the next important universal deadline for MRTD compliance.

Meanwhile, please note the distinction between the set of specifications for Size 1 (TD1) Machine Readable Official Travel Documents (MROTD), and and Size 3 (TD3) Machine Readable Travel Documents (MRTD).

Do you think that is accidental?

Have you editors really failed to grasp that ICAO specifies different characteristics for their MRZs?

[TD1 sized Official Documents (typically Identity Cards, Crew Member Certificates and Passport Cards) have 3 lines of 30 characters while TD3 sized Documents (typically Passport Books) only have 2 lines of 44] ?

Or have some editors just not bothered to read the whole document and its associated working party reports and analyses?

Ireland's Passport Card is a passport in card format, and should not be confused with national ID cards elsewhere in the EEA, which, although they are usable as travel documents in Europe (except for Belarus, Russia and Ukraine), Georgia and French overseas territories, had entirely different and separate domestic purposes at introduction. Even if recent events mean that not all EEA national ID cards can continue to be used for international travel, their domestic utility will not be affected.

Ireland's Passport Card has a relatively high initial cost (because it can only be issued to those who have an Irish Passport Booklet) and can't be issued to anyone under 18 and it's stated primary purpose is for international travel rather than domestic use.

Although they are both TD1 size, recent EEA national identity cards typically use the designation "ID" in their machine readable zone; the Irish passport card is unique in using the designation "IP" reserved for passports. Although ICAO began preparatory work on machine readable passport cards as early as 1968, the Irish minister for foreign affairs and trade, Charles Flanagan, highlighted the novelty and utility of Ireland's Passport Card at its introduction.) BushelCandle (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

But "IP" is not reserved for passports. Passports have "P" as first letter. "I" is for identity cards. What the second letter is, is less relevant since it is chosen by the issuing nation and would have less meaning for a visit country that shall assess the document. I need to know what the international status of the Irish passport card is. The fact that the Irish minister says it is a nice novelty, maybe is good to get it accepted in a country not liking identity cards, using the name change trick. That won't make it a passport when going through a foreign passport check.--BIL (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please, please, please go and read the sources I've provided!

Now that all non machine-readable passports have expired, those authorities who are signatories to the ICAO conventions should only (other than for emergency issue - eg where a lost or stolen passport is replaced with a temporary or restricted document for homeward return) have passports that conform to ICAO doc 9303.

Compliant passports will only have "P" as the first letter in their 2 lines of 44 characters in the MRZ if they are in TD3 size/format - what is more pedantically known as a passport book/booklet. If they are in the much smaller credit card sized TD1 size/format then these MROTDs (more colloquially known as a passport card) are not allowed to have P as the first letter (note k applies whether they are called passports, id cards or magic travel spell books)! Consequently, they will have "IP" as the first two letters in their 3 lines of 33 characters in their MRZ. If they are identity cards, they will have "ID", if they are crew member certificates they will have "AC".

If the first letter of two is an "I" for India it does not mean that it is a national identity card! If you had actually read the documents I cited in another article when you asked for sources, you could have read at Part 5. Specifications for TD1 Size Machine Readable Official Travel Documents (MROTDs), Page 17, note k: "The first character shall be A, C or I. Historically these three characters were chosen for their ease of recognition in the OCR-B character set. The second character shall be at the discretion of the issuing State or organization except that V shall not be used, and C shall not be used after A except in the crew member certificate."

http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/9303_p5_cons_en.pdf

That is why IP denotes passport card, ID denotes a national identity card and AC denotes a crew member certificate. Do you really think you know better than the US and Irish governments? Please provide sources for your quaint notion - sorry, original synthesis - that the Irish government is trying to perpetrate a gigantic fraud on the world community of travelers by wrongly labeling its passport card as a PASSPORT in 3 different languages.

Incidentally, when you combine this with the text in Part 1 at Page 1, which reads "These specifications are not intended to be a standard for national identity documents. However, a State whose identity documents are recognized by other States as valid travel documents shall design its identity documents such that they conform to the specifications of Doc 9303-3 and Doc 9303-4, Doc 9303-5 or Doc 9303-6."

"Although the specifications in Doc 9303-4 are intended for particular application to the passport, these specifications apply equally to other TD3 size identity documents, for example, the laissez-passer, the seafarer’s identity document and refugee travel documents..." the nett effect is that, because of its continuing international treaty obligations, the Irish DFAT could only have issued a bit of credit card sized plastic emblazoned "PAS/PASSPORT/PASSEPORT" if it was NOT intended to be a "valid travel document" (!) but rather only as a "national identity document" (or novelty Christmas stocking filler perhaps...).

In summary, the designers of the Irish Passport Card were only allowed by treaty (if they wanted the efforts of their labours to result in an MROTD acceptable by other nations for international travel) to use the following pairs of characters as the first pair of its MRZ: AA, AB, - , AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, A-, AW, AX, AY, AZ, CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CF, CG, CH, CI, CJ, CK, CL, CM, CN, CO, CP, CQ, CR, CS, CT, CU, C-, CW, CX, CY, CZ, IA, IB, IC, ID, IE, IF, IG, IH, II, IJ, IK, IL, IM, IN, IO, IP, IQ, IR, IS, IT, IU, I-, IW, IX, IY, IZ. Rather wisely they chose to follow the recommendations and consensus of the various working parties and colloquia and chose IP.

You wrote above: "I need to know what the international status of the Irish passport card is." It's what it says on the tin, a passport. Officially it's a TD1 format, Machine Readable Official Travel Document conforming to all the specifications agreed at ICAO. It's the world's first biometric e-Passport Card issued by a sovereign state (as opposed to an international organisation like Interpol) that has not been formally restricted by the issuing authority as to mode or geographical area of travel (unlike the US Passport Card). BushelCandle (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Special ID cards for Jihadists

Should we mention the German proposal to issue specially distinctive cards for Jihadists now or wait until the proposals are actually implemented?

(Despite seizing their passports, Germany is increasingly discovering that Jihadists have still been able to leave the Schengen free travel area to fight and train abroad by using their Federal identity cards. Consequently, the Bundesrepublik has proposed to replace them with specially designed 'Jihadi' cards. [ID has been obligatory for many Germans since 1938 when papers for adult men and all Jews was introduced.] Germany notes that a number of suspected terrorists who have already had their passports revoked have availed of the border agreement with Turkey and then slipped from Turkey into Iraq or Syria after making travel arrangements with a border smuggler for a small fee.

The proposal being discussed is not to just confiscate Jihadist's cards completely but instead to issue them with distinctively marked cards. This should avoid litigation about purported breaches of Germany's identity card laws. They will be printed with warnings about the nature of the holder in multiple languages to prevent unauthorised border crossings with the cards being issued once the cabinet has parliamentary support. Thanks to recent events, such support in the Bundestag is looking increasingly likely...) BushelCandle (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Most countries have alternative identification cards for non-citizen residents that are not national identity cards and therefore cannot be used for travel. Presumably, the cards the suspected to-be foreign fighters would be issued would not be national identity cards. Worth keeping in mind this isn't a general article about identification cards of EEA countries. For example Iceland's identification card is omitted. It is about the (unique) use of national identity cards as travel documentation in the EEA. Under Germany's "Validity" section in the table, it could be maybe noted that citizens who are terror suspects can have there national identity cards revoked. But anything more I think would be both out of scope and undue weight. Rob984 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The mentioned source is from 14 January 2015, and we should have a newer source if writing about it. There are too many suggestions in Wikipedia. It seems from the article that they wanted to replace the travel document "personalausweis" which is valid all over EU and in Turkey, with one which does not allow EU travel. It does not mention writing a "J" on the id card or similar. Except for the headline, which is doubtful. Headlines are often made or adjusted by a special person who adopts it to the size and shape of the article.--BIL (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may have misunderstood again, Rob984. My understanding is that this proposal only concerns German nationals (rather than "non-citizen residents") who currently have the same right to a standard German national identity card or Personalausweis (ie one acceptable under the EEA free movement agreements) as any other German citizen. The proposal as I understand it is to have some (otherwise standard) German national identity cards specially marked in the way I have described above. And the proposal is not to revoke them since cancellation, withdrawal or revocation would all fall foul of German citizen's rights under Germany's current identity card laws. Consequently, I believe that your assumption that "the cards the suspected to-be foreign fighters would be issued would not be national identity cards" is not well founded.

Incidentally, I do not agree that this article is (or should be) just about "use of national identity cards as travel documentation in the EEA". It used to be (and should be) about National identity cards in the European Economic Area. That means that this article should make clear that the primary purpose (and certainly historically) was for identification and domestic purposes such as prevention of crime and entitlement to government and commercial services. It is only relatively recently that EEA citizens have been in the happy position that they're able to leave their passports at home when they travel internationally to the "near abroad". However, international travel is still a secondary (if very important) purpose of most EEA national identity cards (and there is a strong possibility that increasing fear of international terrorism will increasingly restrict rather than expand that secondary use). BushelCandle (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the points you make, BIL, and especially the one about newer sources and headline grabbing - I do have newer and more authoritative sources but I wished to canvass other editors' opinions before adding a "Controversies" sub-section. BushelCandle (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I maybe wasn't clear, but I was referring to German citizens, and simply drawing a comparison with non-citizens who posses non-travel compliant identification cards. Probably should wait until there is official information on the specification of the cards, rather than speculating however. Identification is definitely not the primary purpose of national identity cards in all countries (Sweden, Finland, etc). And by usage alone, a driver's licence could be considered to be general identification as a "primary purpose". The title refers to national identity cards, as recognised under EU law as a travel documentation, not identification documents in general. The reason there is even an article about these cards is because of their unique use as travel documentation. Otherwise, it would include Icelandic cards and non-travel complaint ID cards issued by EEA countries to non-citizens. Also the article would be redundant to Identity document, which refers to state-issued identification cards generally for every country. Rob984 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Previously, the majority of the content on this article has always referred to use as travel documentation. The revision you cited barely mentions use as identification documentation? Rob984 (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that neglect of the primary purpose of national identity cards certainly is a deficiency that I have been trying to correct. It would be a bit strange to have an article about Shoes in the European Economic Area that wrote only about the usefulness of some types of shoes for hammering in nails and not about their functions for bodily protection and fashionable display. I chose a revision that was exactly 3 months from first creation of this article (a remarkable amount of work was done during the very first day of this article - 15 December 2012 - but since then it has deteriorated in many ways - for example the restoration of a "Gallery" of identity cards that I have only recently deleted again). Personally I think that Identity document should become a disambiguation page and we should have a separate article on national identity cards like we do on passports. And yes, I do think that Iceland's national identity card(s) should not be excluded from this article.

EEA national cards are not unique in their use as travel documentation! The member states of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) do not require passports for their citizens traveling within that community; National ID cards are sufficient. (Member states are Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.) Indians can travel in Bhutan without a passport, while Bhutanese must travel with their citizenship identity cards. Citizens of Syria and Lebanon did not used to require passports when traveling in either country if they were carrying ID cards - now they require a great deal of courage and weaponry. Citizens and permanent residents of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates need only national ID cards to cross their mutual borders. Many Central American and South American nationals can travel within their respective regional economic zones, such as Mercosur and the Andean Community of Nations, or on a bilateral basis (eg: between Chile and Peru, or Brazil and Chile), without passports, presenting instead their national ID cards, or, for short stays, their voter-registration cards. In some cases this travel must be done overland rather than by air (echoes of the castrated US Passport Card). There are plans to extend these rights to all of South America under a Union of South American Nations, but again the upsurge in terrorism may delay/prevent this...

The primary purpose of a driver's license is the identification of individuals' entitlement and competence to drive different classes of vehicles (with or without restrictions such as wearing eyeglasses, being accompanied by a supervisor, not during the hours of darkness, not on superhighways, not above 50 mph, etc). General identification is a secondary (but very important) purpose (eg opening bank accounts, buying booze, talking to the cops).

Now I really don't wish to divert you from unfinished business.

Have you a better idea now as to when you think you will have time to discuss the edits I want to make to your article, Rob984?

How can I get your permission to contribute?

This remains the direction of editing that I want to move towards: User:BushelCandle/sandbox/National identity cards in the European Economic Area. I'd personally prefer an article that is helpful, informative and clear for our readers and that does not push unsourced opinions or egregiously mislead - an article that has authoritative inline citations for anything contentious or disputed. So perhaps you could (in the sub-section immediately above) make some concrete critique of the huge series of edits you peremptorily reverted because you couldn't be "bothered to look through" edits. BushelCandle (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter is they are unique. Being national identity cards usable as travel documentation within the EEA is the common factor amongst these cards.The EEA obviously isn't just some arbitrary choice of area. While yes, some have a significant use as identification (and may even be required for this purpose), as well as other purposes (for example the Portuguese Citizen Card), many have no other predominate use than as travel documentation, just like a passport. Maybe you could provide a source for the primary use of the Swedish identity card? I agree, if a card is compulsory, and issued to every citizen, it is clear its main purpose is as identification. BTW, I did look though your edits (I looked at the overall diff for all 12), but I don't have the time to manually revert the contentious changes individually. I have done this previously, but you are doing this so persistently that you are likely in breach of WP:3RR. The only reason I don't report you is because I can see many of your edits are in good faith and you have contributed substantial amounts of valuable sourced information to the article. If you want to change the scope of this article as you have proposed with your draft, you will need consensus. I am definitely opposed to that for the reasons I have outlined. Rob984 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Irish passport card, continued

A suggestion for settlement of the conflict, how to write: We don't claim that Irish passport card are passports. We list them in the table but don't directly call the Irish passport card "national identity card" or "identity card" anywhere in the article. But we should be able to use the term "identity card" for the EU cards in general and let that indirectly include the Irish card. Because even if they are not considered "identity cards" in Ireland (or probably the UK), they are considered to be identity cards in formal EU terminology. For example the Free Movement of Citizens Directive requires member countries to accept "valid identity card or passport" as proof of citizenship. Source:DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC. So if they are not real passports by the ICAO convention, and they shall be accepted by all EU countries, they must on paper be identity cards unless Ireland makes a treaty with the EU or all member countries about a new type of card (which would need a source). Even if we don't directly call the Irish card an "identity card".--BIL (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We're an encyclodpedia. We don't need to claim anything. We just strive to make a clear and informative and fair distillation of authoritative sources on a particular topic. We call the Irish Passport Card exactly what the Irish Government calls it - neither more nor less. And we give it a mention here because that's useful and helpful to our readers. What isn't helpful or useful is to obfuscate or confuse by pretending that it can be issued to anyone that doesn't already hold a valid Irish Passport Booklet or is under 18 years or that the largest airline in Europe (Ryanair) doesn't accept it for what it is - a passport in handy card format. That's why when you're trying to cross the land frontier between Ghana and Burkina Faso clutching something labeled as "SVERIGE SWEDEN SUÈDE" "Nationellt identitetskort National identity card Carte nationale d'identité" and, by contrast, your Irish travel companion is clutching something labeled

"Éire/Ireland/Irlande" "PAS/PASSPORT/PASSEPORT", you are going to have to pay a hell of a lot more dash to the ignorant but avaricious border guard to cross than she will...

PS: Where is the authoritative source for your weird idea that "So if they are not real passports by the ICAO convention" ? BushelCandle (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

But you're just talking rubbish. Ryanair doesn't accept it? How have you determined this? They probably haven't update information to reflect the introduction however I am certain they will accept it like any other national identity card. Other countries also have an age requirement for ID cards (eg 14 in Bulgaria). Additionally, if a citizens passport is lost or stolen, the card is still valid. "a passport in handy card format" is exactly what the Swedish or Finnish cards are. And there is no source for "IP" being an internationally recognised designation. Rob984 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I know that you write below that you are currently time-poor, Rob984, but I think that you need to read again all that I wrote above since I fear that you have failed to understand it. As one trivial example, I have tried to convey that Ryanair, the largest airline in Europe, accepts the recently issued Irish Passport Card for what it is - a passport in handy card format. BushelCandle (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly sure what you mean't. But anyway, I don't see how it is relevant at all. Ryanair also has to accept other national identity cards. Using the local name doesn't infer anything. EU directives and regulations make no mention of "passport cards". Neither do the laws of the other EEA member states. According to EU and French law, persons must have a passport or national identity card to enter France from outside the Schengen area, yet Irish cards are also accepted. Is this not implicit enough? And regardless, even if there was some practical distinction between Irish passports cards, and other national identity cards, this article is fundamentally about the non-passport book travel document that can be used to travel within the EEA per Directive 2004/38/EC. The vast majority of the information on this page refers to these cards as travel documents. There is nothing about the use as national identity cards within states, and it is not relevant here either considering many cards are not used for this purpose (Sweden, Finland, etc.). Rob984 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No one has pretended that Ryanair doesn't accept the Passport Card. But Ryanair doesn't call it a passport, they call it a passport card. Passport cards are not passports in the eyes of Ryanair, otherwise they would accept the United States Passport card, which they don't. But they accept national identity card from EU countries. This is the source on what Ryanair demands. Their competitor Aer Lingus accepts Passports and Identity Cards (source) but don't mention Passport cards. If they accept the Irish passport card as a passport, they would accept the US passport card, which they don't. Or they accept it as an identity card, which BushelCandle says it's not. Or they don't accept the Irish passport card. You should answer my demand for a source that the EU has accepted a new type of travel document because you have claimed that the Irish government has invented this novelty. And you BushelCandle often behave like something from this article.--BIL (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I have asked the Swedish border police if the new Irish Passport card is valid for entry. I described that they are in Ireland seen as small passports. The answer is translated: "Provided that the Irish document is a national ID that is issued by a competent authority, it is valid for entry into Sweden, Utlänningsförordningen/Immigration Ordinance 2 chapter 17§. We have not received any information about the new Irish document in question, so we can in substance not comment if it meets the requirements for entry."

So I recommend Irish people to bring their passport on EU travel, and especially to Sweden, for the time being (like in Sweden, when the NID card was new, people weren't let on aircraft from Sweden with it, worked better in Southern Europe).--BIL (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits by BushelCandle

BushelCandle, I just want to clarify, I am indiscriminately reverting your edits per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, because you are persistently redoing changes I, and other editors, have disputed. I don't have the time to look through your edits individually, so you will need to change your editing behaviour if you want to contribute. See WP:BRD also. Rob984 (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion.

When do you think you will have time to discuss the edits I want to make to your article, Rob984?

How can I get your permission to contribute?

This is the direction of editing that I want to move towards: User:BushelCandle/sandbox/National identity cards in the European Economic Area. I'd personally prefer an article that is helpful, informative and clear for our readers and that does not push unsourced opinions or egregiously mislead - an article that has authoritative inline citations for anything contentious or disputed. BushelCandle (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Your editing behaviour is in violation of WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DISRUPT. Maybe you should actually read WP:BOLD fully: "after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war". Blanket reverting persistent disruptive edits is certainly not in violation of WP:OWN; I am fully justified in doing so and have explained my reasoning clearly. Rob984 (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm very serious and I don't wish either my time or anyone else's to be wasted.

I will concede that you may genuinely believe that my edits are "disruptive" in your terms - but that may be because you seem unwilling to spare the time or effort to specify exactly why. If you ever found the time or inclination to actually carefully and comprehensively examine every one of my edits, (rather than have a spasm of autonomic muscle activity in automatically reaching for a revert), you might make a different judgment.

To give you every chance to be productive, I alerted you (both above, at 06:47, 26 November 2015 and again in the talk sub-section below) to my concrete proposals for the direction I wished this article to take more than 10 days ago now! I asked you then to

...make some concrete critique of the huge series of edits you peremptorily reverted because you couldn't be "bothered to look through" edits

(in your reply to that same post you seemed to admit that you frequently reverted edits without taking the time to sort the wheat from the chaff.)

Now I am unwilling to grant you a permanent veto on any improvements to this article just because you keep saying you haven't got time.

I would much prefer that you discuss (perhaps at User talk:BushelCandle/sandbox/National identity cards in the European Economic Area) exactly why you consider my proposals so disruptive. However, it is now more than 10 days and counting and if you continue to make no effort to discuss your concerns, I shall make all the necessary changes here that I have clearly signaled in my Sandbox.

Do you think there should be no "History" section? Do you think the article should not be more fully sourced? Do you think the subsection entitled "Difficulties" should be scrapped. Do you think I should not have compressed the table of national cards both horizontally and vertically? Do you think images are inappropriate? BushelCandle (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

ID Card in San Marino

Hello, I know this is a bit off-topic, but need somewhere where people actually read and so can give feedback.

Does anyone know if San Marino has ID cards (stating nationality)? Monaco does, Andorra doesn't (I think) but what about San Marino?

PRADO indicates it doesn't, but when googling "carta d'identità Sammarinese" I do get four results.

This is important because I'm trying to adjust visa policy articles accordingly.

Thanks for any help. André Devecserii (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Timatic web, which is accessed from e.g. klm.com says that National Id Card is enough for San Marino citizens if choosing a random EU country as destination [1]. This link mentions that San Marino id cards can be issued. It would be a good idea for San Marino to issue such cards, since Italy demands them or passports on the street.--BIL (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

New column in table—type of identity card?

I think we should consider adding a new column to the table for the type of identity card. A compulsory card is distinct from a optional card which in many countries is mainly just a travel document.

Member state	Front	Reverse	Type	Compulsory/optional	Cost	Validity	Issuing authority	Latest version
Austria			Optional national identity card	Optional
Belgium			Compulsory national identity card	National identity card compulsory for Belgian citizens aged 15 or over
France			Optional national identity card	Government-issued identity documentation compulsory for all persons
Iceland	Icelandic state-issued identity cards do not state nationality and therefore are not usable as travel documentation outside of the Nordic countries.
			None	Government-issued identity documentation compulsory for all persons
Ireland			Optional passport card	Optional
UK	National identity cards abolished 2011 by UK Identity Documents Act 2010, although national identity cards can be issued to residents of Gibraltar.
			None	Optional

We could also then split the general identity requirements section into a separate table:

Member state	Front	Reverse	Type	Cost	Validity	Issuing authority	Latest version
Austria			Optional national identity card
Belgium			Compulsory national identity card
France			Optional national identity card
Iceland	Icelandic state-issued identity cards do not state nationality and therefore are not usable as travel documentation outside of the Nordic countries.
			None
Ireland			Optional passport card
UK	National identity cards abolished 2011 by UK Identity Documents Act 2010, although national identity cards can be issued to residents of Gibraltar.
			None

Member state	Identity documentation requirements
Austria	Optional
Belgium	National identity card compulsory for Belgian citizens aged 15 or over
France	Government-issued identity documentation compulsory for all persons
Iceland	Government-issued identity documentation compulsory for all persons
Ireland	Optional
UK	Optional

Thoughts?

Rob984 (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thoroughly opposed to both the general idea and your specific implementation. If anything, attempts should be made to contract the table horizontally. This is especially important now that an increasing number of our readers are using small screens. BushelCandle (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

My later suggestion would contract the table. Right now the "Compulsory/optional" column is specifying both whether the identity card is compulsory, and weather some form of identity documentation is compulsory. The latter information—not being directly relevant to the cards—should be moved out, don't you think? I suppose some columns are unnecessary; "issuing authority" and "latest version" don't seem very relevant to this article. About as relevant as any other general information about the cards, of which conveying isn't really the purpose of this article. Rob984 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a special kind of identity card which is known as a 'national identity card' with the special feature that the card can be used internationally, whereas a card which is not of the type known as a 'national identity card' only can be used nationally. Iceland doesn't seem issue identity cards of the model 'national identity card' but only other identity cards and should therefore not appear in this article. In Sweden, you can get an identity card of the type 'national identity card' (issued by the police and embassies, includes citizenship, can be used internationally), or you can get a normal identity card which is not of the type 'national identity card' (issued by the tax authority and various companies, doesn't include citizenship, can only be used nationally and within the Nordic countries), but this article should only mention cards of the type 'national identity card'. If you want to find information about normal identity cards, then I suppose that you should check some other article (to which this article should include a link, I suppose). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you're right to define the topic of this article so narrowly, Stefan.

The "special thing" about these identity cards is not that they can be used for international travel, but rather that they are issued and certified by authorities at the national (or sub-national, in the case of Gibraltar) level. (As opposed to a local or commercial authority such as a bank, educational institution or military unit.)

National identity cards are available for issue to all their citizens above a certain age from the governments of all European Economic Area (EEA) member states except Denmark, Ireland Norway and the United Kingdom (Gibraltar residents can be issued a biometric identity card).
These national identity cards have considerable domestic utility in the surveillance of criminals and detection and prevention of crimes such as identity fraud, and under age drinking. For adults who do not have a driving licence they are particularly useful since other definitive state-issued identity documentation such as passports are usually both cumbersome to carry and considerably more expensive. EEA ID cards are often accepted in other parts of the world for similar unofficial identification purposes and sometimes also for official purposes such as proof of identity and nationality.
Although Switzerland is not formally part of the EEA, citizens holding an EEA or Swiss national identity card that states they have EEA or Swiss citizenship, can not only use it as an identity document within their home country, but also as a travel document to exercise the right of free movement in the EEA and Switzerland. Identity cards that do not state EEA or Swiss citizenship, including national identity cards issued to residents who are not citizens, are not valid as a travel document within the EEA and Switzerland.

BushelCandle (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Stefan, you've digressed. My suggestion would only move information out of the table and instead only refer to whether the cards are optional or compulsory, not identity documentation in general which is another matter. Possibly using a "Type" heading is not ideal, but simply keeping the current "Compulsory/optional" column and repurposing it solely to refer to the cards would also be preferable, while having a separate table for identity documentation requirements in general. I think BushelCandle is right on what is a technically a national identity card, but this article is really about the biometric cards used for travel purposes, hence its scope—the EEA, and exclusion of the Icelandic card. Maybe we should consider a new article at Identity cards in Europe, if there is enough content to justify its own article separate from List of national identity card policies by country and Identity document. Rob984 (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The "special thing" about these identity cards is [...] that they are issued and certified by authorities at the national (or sub-national, in the case of Gibraltar) level. Not true. The ID card issued by the Swedish police and the ID card issued by the Swedish tax authority are both issued at the national level, but it is only the ID card which is issued by the police which is of the type 'national identity card'. Also, the Italian cards seem to be issued at municipal level, not national level. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

duty to carry identity cards?

It would be nice to have some discussion about national-law requirements on whether citizens or foreigners need to carry identity cards with them. See for example [2] – Kaihsu (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be an unnecessary overlap with our List of national identity card policies by country article? BushelCandle (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That one concentrates on whether the state’s own citizens has the obligation to get a card. I would like more specific information about foreigners’ obligation to carry a card with them while in the state. – Kaihsu (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

France and compulsory ID

What's the source for the *Government-issued identity documentation compulsory for all persons* regarding France? This is, to the best of my knowledge, incorrect (unless that changed very recently). GL (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Just means French authorities require persons to be in possession of official identification. See https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F1036. Rob984 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's what I suspected and you simply misinterpreted the page in question. What it says is that the police can ask you about your identity, you can present anything (“une autre pièce […] voire un témoignage”) and if they are not satisfied, they can keep you for up to 4 hours to ascertain who you are and ask the public prosecutor for permission to take a photograph and fingerprints. The misconception is so common that even police officers will sometimes tell you otherwise but there is simply no form of ID that's mandatory *per se* in France and you can't be punished for not having one. GL (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If you need more details, I wrote a longer discussion of all this on another website: http://expatriates.stackexchange.com/questions/994/if-asked-for-id-in-france-by-the-police-as-an-eu-national-what-is-considered-va GL (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I misinterpreted it. You can present anything that is, to an extent, proof of identity. You can present nothing, and simply tell them your identity. However only if you provide official photo ID, can your identity legally be considered as sufficiently proven. This means, without further grounds of suspicion (such as the ID being fake), the authorities cannot request a "vérification d'identité" if you provide official photo ID. Ofcourse, the authorities can use their own discretion during an identity check. This is the same in every country with compulsory identification checks for any person. "Compulsory" doesn't mean it is an offence not to provide identification documentation. It means there is a legal requirement and failure to do so can result in you being detained. For example, I have been subject to an identity check in Belgium, where only a passport or national identity card is legally considered sufficient proof of identity. I presented my French drivers licence, and the officers, using their own discretion, considered this to be sufficient. However, as I had neither a passport or national identity card, I could have been detained. That a drivers licence can be accepted, and that is isn't an offence to not posses a passport or national identity card, does not change the fact that, under Belgian law, any person can be subject to an identity check regardless of their behaviour, and a national identity card or passport can be required as proof of identity. It is quite possible in Belgium or France, during an identity check you could simply provide your name and nationality and they would be satisfied. This doesn't make identity documentation optional. In countries where identity documentation is optional, you are not required to provide identification documentation to authorities unless they have reasonable grounds of suspicion. In the UK, you can't even be subject to an identity check without reasonable grounds of suspicion, meaning you don't need to tell an officer your name unless you are suspected of involvement in criminal behaviour. Rob984 (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Where does all that come from? You haven't presented any source and the page you cited earlier certainly does not support this theory. There is no notion of “identity legally considered as sufficiently proven”. The law explicitly says “par tout moyen” and does not state specifically that a “vérification d'identité” is impossible if you present an “official ID” (because there is no such concept). The page you cited to support your claim even mentions “witness testimony”, how do you account for that? It also says “Un officier de police judiciaire peut retenir, sur place ou dans ses locaux, une personne dont il cherche à établir l'identité” (absolutely nothing about not having a specific document being a condition for that) and “Si la personne contrôlée ne peut pas présenter de documents ou s'ils paraissent insuffisants pour établir l'identité (document sans photo) […]” (no mention of any “official” Government-issued ID).

That's *not* the same in every country with compulsory identification for any person. In Germany, not having ID (in practice: being able to present either a passport or national ID card or, in specific cases, a residence permit – and nothing else – within 24 hours) carries a fine. In the Netherlands, not *carrying* ID on your person carries a fine (i.e. not detention for technical reasons but an actual punishment). That's precisely what compulsory identification (should) mean. Now, if you mean that the police can carry random checks without any justification, that's also technically not true (even if they have many ways around the restrictions and they do it regularly) but that's an entirely different question. All that can reasonably be said is that the legal standard allowing the police to ask a person for their identity is lower than in the UK but that's an extraordinarily complicated topic and can certainly not be reduced to the notion that holding Government-ID is compulsory. It is not. GL (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I will say, the source I provided seems to infer a national identity card, passport or driving license (what I am referring to when I say "official photo ID") is sufficient:

"Elle peut présenter

• un titre d'identité (carte nationale d'identité, passeport ou permis de conduire)"

"Si la personne contrôlée ne peut pas présenter de documents ou s'ils paraissent insuffisants pour établir l'identité (document sans photo), une vérification d'identité peut être demandée"

And that only if you provide insufficient documentation can you be detained "Un officier de police judiciaire peut retenir, sur place ou dans ses locaux, une personne dont il cherche à établir l'identité". It doesn't mention any form of photo ID as being sufficient. So from my interpretation, it seems to infer unless you provide a national identity card, passport, or drivers licence, you could possibly be detained without any other grounds of suspicion. I am not familiar with the law itself however, and I accept the source isn't entirely clear on the matter of what ID is sufficient beyond reasonable doubt. I don't see how they could perform an identity verification if you provide one of those three documents, aside from cross-checking with the national database. And they would only want to verify this documentation if they suspected your ID was fake or fraudulent, which would amount to further grounds of suspicion. I admit, this is joining up the dots, but it seems pretty obvious and has always been my understanding. Nonetheless, I do not object to changing it from "valid government-issued identity documentation is compulsory for all persons" to "identity documentation is compulsory for all persons". If I had more time, I would look into the law and other sources. I'm moving apartment at the moment, but I might have a look a some point in the future.

On the second matter, I disagree. If a person can be detained for failing to provide ID, "quel que soit son comportement", for up to four hours, then possessing ID is compulsory. According to the source I provided, French police can carry out these random checks without justification ("Il peut avoir lieu dans une rue ou une gare et concerner toute personne, quel que soit son comportement"), unlike in the UK. At the very least, that makes identity documentation compulsory. To resolve this issue, we might need a request for comment.

Rob984 (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The most important point is that there is a fundamental difference between being able to detain someone to establish their identity (which is presumably also the case in the UK, if the police has cause?) and ID documentation being compulsory in itself. That detention is not a punishment, in principle it's a technical measure to give them time to call the prosecutor and take your photograph and the law actually states “La personne qui fait l'objet d'une vérification ne peut être retenue que pendant le temps strictement exigé par l'établissement de son identité.” The fact that the standard required from the police to check someone's identity and set the whole process in motion is appallingly low in the first place and does not require any suspicious behaviour on the part of the person being checked does not erase that difference. By contrast, there are a great many countries where either carrying or holding some officially-sanctioned form of ID is explicitly mandated by the law. In fact, in some of these countries (like the Netherlands), the police cannot ask to see it without cause and has much less freedom than the French police to do so! But in the Netherlands, unlike France, you can be punished (by a fine) merely for not having your Government-issued ID document on you, even if you are able to present it very soon afterwards and have done nothing else. The UK is pretty liberal on both counts but those two things (compulsory ID and police powers to check for it) are, theoretically and practically, independent from each other.

As far as service-public.fr is concerned, “un titre d'identité” is only one item out of three and the second one also mentions some “documents”. So the note at the end does not clearly state that any specific form of ID document is legally sufficient (because technically it isn't!). What you have to understand is that the police likes to see that and regularly needs to be reminded that it's not mandatory (I vaguely remember the ministry issuing some official instructions after some kid who could only present a library card got briefly detained for no reason at all). The person who wrote this page knows it and wants to give helpful advice. But they can't state that any ID document is compulsory, because that's not true and it would be illegal to require it (the law actually states “par tout moyen”!!) Hence this very odd way to dance around the problem, explicitly writing that “witness testimony” (i.e. no documentation at all) is in principle fine but that a “vérification” is possible if no documents are presented (when in fact a “vérification” is technically always possible, the law imposes no specific conditions on it beyond the fact that an OPJ has doubts). In practice, it's obviously very unlikely that you would be detained if you immediately present a national ID card and the page strongly suggests that you should at least present some document, stopping just short of actually stating that. But why even mention “witness testimony” if some sort of documentation was actually compulsory? And how can the fact that your source does not mention any type of ID as being sufficient lead to the conclusion that ID documentation is compulsory and that they really mean that you should present an ID card, passport or driving license!? The fact is that it's the exact opposite: The law does not list any specific document as being either necessary or sufficient and that's why service-public.fr doesn't either (even the example of a document “without photo” is an attempt at making sense of the whole mess, the law does not specific that either).

And the conditions under which ID checks can be performed are also supposed to be restrictive. Here again, the page is very broad because that's how it works in practice and this is site designed to be helpful to citizens, not to mislead them with technicalities. But in theory the police cannot perform checks without any reason whatsoever. They can do it (1) close to the border, (2) if protecting the public order requires it (e.g. there is a protest or trouble of some kind), (3) if the public prosecutor orders it, and (4) if a crime has been committed in the vicinity and you are either a suspect or “there is a chance you would provide information useful for an investigation”. Now, the reality is that public prosecutors routinely issue broad orders like “ID checks on metro line such and such between Friday and Monday to fight drug trafficking“ and then the police can in practice do whatever they want with that document (including ask for ID with no specific grounds to check a given person, arrest people for completely unrelated offenses, etc.) That gives them legal cover and if you are on the receiving end there is nothing you can do about it. But formally they are not allowed to check ID whenever they see fit and it's not compulsory to carry ID documentation.

In any case, it's fine not to be familiar with the law, but not to obstruct changes from someone who is, especially if you are not available to discuss them. I will write another version. It's up to you to provide other sources here in the talk page, do a request for comment, etc. I will remain available for that but in the meantime, do not revert my changes. GL (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are familiar with the law, then cite the relevant part of the law and so I can verify. You are contradicting the source I provided which states clearly "Il peut avoir lieu dans une rue ou une gare et concerner toute personne, quel que soit son comportement". If you don't cite the source here, you are justifying your edit with original research, even if it is correct. I have plenty time to verify a correctly cited source.

You correctly point out that the situation is different from that in the Netherlands. It would seem to me that all of these require more explantion then simply "compulsory" or "optional". The source I provided infers that unless you can prove your identity with some for of identification, you can be detained. This is not the same as identity documentation being optional. In the UK, citizens are not advised to carry ID. In France citizens are because of the possibility of being detained for failing to prove their identity. In the Netherlands, citizens are legally required to posses carry ID, even if random checks are not permitted. While the circumstances in France and the Netherlands differ greatly, both have implemented measures which make the possession of identity documentation non-optional. This means they should both be yellow, in contrast to the UK where no identity documentation is practically or legally required.

To give you an analogy, it is not illegal to cross the border from the UK into Ireland with no identity documentation. And practically speaking, in most cases you wont be stopped since there are no systematic border checks. However you can be refused entry into Ireland at the border if you do not have identity documentation. Therefore, identity documentation is clearly not optional when entering Ireland.

Even through it is unlikely you will be randomly stopped by French authorities and asked to provide proof of identity, the fact is that this is possible and failing to provide proof of identity could result in up to four-hours of detainment. This is a practical inconvenience, and to say identity documentation is optional in this situation is far-fetched.

Rob984 (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

On your editing behaviour, since I will be unable to revert your edits any longer without breaching the WP:3RR myself, I will be left with no option but to report you. See policies WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR. Rob984 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is the relevant part of the law allowing for the checks of practically any person:

• alinea 3 : alors que si l'identité de toute personne, quel que soit son comportement, peut être contrôlée pour prévenir une atteinte à l'ordre public, c'est à la condition qu'un risque effectif d'atteinte à la sécurité des personnes ou des biens existe à l'endroit et au moment où le contrôle d'identité préventif est effectué.

Rob984 (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Rob, I gave you a link to a page where I cite the law and explain it a long time ago. Here it is again: http://expatriates.stackexchange.com/questions/994/if-asked-for-id-in-france-by-the-police-as-an-eu-national-what-is-considered-va Have you read it? We can discuss the issue of police checks until the end of times, the relevant law (articles 78-2 and 78-3 of the code de procédure pénale) unambiguously states "par tout moyen" and makes no mention of any ID documentation whatsoever, government-issued or otherwise (except, incidentally, in the context of border checks, which implies a contrario that no specific document is required elsewhere, exactly as in your UK/Ireland example). This cannot be reasonably summarized in any other way than identity documentation being optional.

Also, are you sure you understand the text you just cited? Documentation would not be compulsory even if the police could check ID without any reason but in fact it's exactly as I explained before: A check is in principle only possible “pour prévenir une atteinte à l'ordre public“ if there is “un risque effectif d'atteinte à la sécurité des personnes ou des biens […]“ (my emphasis). These words have a specific meaning in French law, this just confirms that the police needs a reason to check people's ID in a specific place (but not more than that and in particular no other reason than being in that specific place). Besides, this is not the "relevant part of the law", this is a paraphrase inside a court decision. This is bound to feel like a personal attack but I can't help but notice that this type of confusion indicates that you are clearly out of your depth here and that should perhaps give you pause before reverting everything I suggest.

If you read my earlier comments carefully, you should however realise that I already acknowledged all this and do not dispute any of the stuff about the police being able to perform and create serious inconvenience easily compared to other countries (note that it's actually worse than what your quote suggests: the police has many ways around these restrictions and can even detain foreign nationals for up to 24 hours; and how are they supposed to reliably determine whether you are a foreign national or not without ID?). So why even quote that part of the law? That's not in dispute but simply not relevant to the points I have been making! For that's not what “compulsory” identification means, no official source unambiguously states that holding ID is legally required and anything else than “optional” is plainly wrong. I tried to add some text to mention the other issues (extensive police powers), maybe we can work on that part of the sentence (although I am not even sure it really belongs in this article at all) but the basic fact is that ID documentation is not compulsory and your attempts to argue otherwise leads to all the contradictions I pointed out above.

Regarding the procedural aspect: Right now, you reverted to reinstate a version you yourself admitted was incorrect (you fell back on far-fetched and ultimately incoherent arguments to try to infer that some ID documentation is compulsory but it's definitely not “government-issued” as we established yesterday) and you are acting as if you owned this page and any change needed to be approved by you personally beforehand, even though you also said you were not fully available at the moment. There is a reason why you should not be able to revert: That's not how Wikipedia works. Incidentally, I did not revert a single time, even took the time to check by commenting here before fixing what is a clear mistake and repeatedly made new suggestions in the face of constant obstruction. There is no reason why editing Wikipedia should be so difficult or why a specific version should stay up while we try to improve the article. You don't need your version to be online to make suggestions and work towards a consensus and I remain available for that. In the meantime, it's disingenuous to suggest that you have “no option” but to report me, you could stop arguing from ignorance and try to be constructive for example. À bon entendeur… GL (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we are disagreeing on much, aside from one key aspect: what "compulsory" and "optional" mean. From my perspective, this means any requirement to have documentation by the authorities. In the UK, you can go about life without ever needing to provide proof of identity to the authorities, unless you want to leave the country. This is not the case in France, hence identity documentation is not optional. I think it would be misleading to state that in France, identity documentation is optional.

Yes, I am very time short at the moment which results in delayed, rushed responses. This is a complex issue, rather more so than my usual activity on Wikipedia. And I'm obviously not a lawyer. But what you should do when an issue is contentious is propose the change you want to make clearly, here on the talk page. You should not make a contentious edit without consultation once another editor has objected. It doesn't have consensus, regardless as to whether it is correct. This is clear in policy. You can however remove incorrect content if it is not directly supported by reliable sources, which the former wording was.

I think we need to make clear if we are reffing to the legal requirement to posses ID cards, whether for France or any other country. I do think your wording was misleading in this respect. I have worded most of those statements and I did not only consider legal requirements as you have done for France. I also think the "yellow" colour should probably be removed, since its such a broad catogry, Instead, "red" for official ID card or passport required, and green for anything less. Also more explanation is needed for all countries, but that's going to take some time.

Leaving your wording puts myself in a weaker position to contest it at a later date (content that isn't contested is assumed to have consensus), hence I have no choice but to revert if I disagree. And since I can only revert twice without breaching 3RR myself, it does mean I have to report. Editing an article while discussion is ongoing is disruptive. Even if I agreed with most of what you said, until we have come to an agreement on the change to be made, you should not edit the article. It doesn't matter is the material is different each time you edit, you are still reverting my actions three times:

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."

WP:3RR

So yes, I could report you for breaching the 3RR.

Regardless, that editing behaviour is rude. It's certainly not how you gain consensus for an edit.

Since the former wording is not directly supported by reliable sources, you could simply have removed it and left the section blank, per WP:NOR. Anyway, with "legal" clarification, I don't have a problem with it remaining as is for now. If you can't accept that small calcification I will just report you and revert back to the status quo.

Rob984 (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

“Leaving your wording puts myself in a weaker position to contest it at a later date” That's the crux of the matter: You regard this as a kind of competition in which you need to maneuver and (ab)use the rules to “win”. Given this, you have no business speaking about consensus, rudeness, etc. And, whatever the letter of the WP:3RR page, it does matter that I am trying to improve the article while you're just obsessing on how you can use arcane details of the rules to gain a tactical advantage as if we could not simply work together. Like I said, that's not constructive (seriously, how can you use the words “weaker position” and still pretend to be seeking consensus?) and you do have many other choices. (And I do not agree that you had raised an objection before I edited the article the first time, from my perspective you had just confirmed that you made a mistake and did not know what the law actually said. Consequently, my second comment was a simple explanation, not an argument, as I expected you would immediately recognize your mistake and move on. At this point, you chose the most hostile way to react: namely reverting to reinstate an incorrect version, rather than start an honest discussion.)

Now, on the substance, the current wording seems OK, removing the intermediate category might also make sense (but then Germany should clearly be red for example). But your reasoning above still doesn't fully make sense. You're jumping back and forth between ID documentation and having to prove your identity, without explaining why. You can of course be forced to do the latter in the UK too (what if the police arrests you while committing a crime?) It's more common in France but the fact is that the law does not mention documentation at all. (Incidentally, it's actually entirely possible to live happily without identity documentation, it's not like these checks happen randomly, there are places and people who face them much more frequently and that's a big problem.)

So, if from your perspective, compulsory “means any requirement to have documentation by the authorities” then there is no ambiguity that this is not the case in France. And I don't know that “mandatory” or “compulsory” can refer to anything else than an explicit legal requirement. If you want to speak about something else, you need to use another adjective like “recommended”, “expected”, “common“, “unavoidable”, “necessary”, “indispensable” while still clearly indicating that ID documentation is formally optional. GL (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone wrote a summary of this in the article Obligation of identification. It is very Germany-centred.--BIL (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National identity cards in the European Economic Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.visitfaroeislands.com/Default.aspx?ID=8951
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712010258/https://www.airgreenland.com/help/at-the-airport/check-in to https://www.airgreenland.com/help/at-the-airport/check-in
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121103410/http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/paspoort-en-identificatie/nieuws/2012/09/28/paspoort-wordt-tien-jaar-geldig.html to http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/paspoort-en-identificatie/nieuws/2012/09/28/paspoort-wordt-tien-jaar-geldig.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National identity cards in the European Economic Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806143506/http://www.mfa.ba/konzularne_informacije/vize/Default.aspx to http://www.mfa.ba/konzularne_informacije/vize/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518111217/http://www.gambiaembassy.be/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=43 to http://www.gambiaembassy.be/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=43
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308092916/http://www.mup.hr/91.aspx to http://mup.hr/91.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222130336/http://www.denhaag.nl/home/bewoners/loket/to/Paspoort-en-identiteitskaart-voor-Nederlanders-in-het-buitenland.htm to http://denhaag.nl/home/bewoners/loket/to/Paspoort-en-identiteitskaart-voor-Nederlanders-in-het-buitenland.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Montserrat and EU ID cards

OK, so, I've found that EU ID cards other than French can only be used for Montserrat if in transit to a third country.

How to we express this in the article? André Devecserii (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Picture of Slovenian identity card

The picture used on this page is not a picture of Slovenian identity card, but a picture of (new, older are different) driver's licence (which is also a valid identity document).109.182.251.247 (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Rob984 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• DNIe3.0 Spanish ID Card.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

New designs for 2021 revealed yet?

So since Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 was passed, have any EEA countries revealed their new designs yet? Are they supposed to look similar to the driver's license design in place since 2013? -- sion8 ^{talk page} 03:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

They shall have the EU flag with the country code inside the stars. Otherwise I think they would look more or less like before. They shall follow Icao 9303 but most do already.--BIL (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Cause of ID card being more widespread

"As national identity cards are less bulky and usually cheaper than passports, ID card ownership in the EEA and Switzerland is much more widespread than passport ownership."

It's not because it's "less bulky". It's because in 15 of the 27 member states it's compulsory to have an ID card (and usually free). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:36B7:4900:0:0:0:3 (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

and the 12 out of 27 other states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.229 (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• New Dutch ID Card (2021).jpg
• New Dutch ID Card (Back) (2021).png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The renewed hungarian ID.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The image was kept, so the issue was solved some time ago. Cheers. Kroby36 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Slovenian ID Card 2022 - Front.jpg
• Slovenian ID Card 2022 - Rear.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

No current deletion requests, so the issue was solved a long time ago. Cheers Kroby36 (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Malta ID can be found here

http://www.vehicle-documents.it/archivio_schede/EuropaOvest/Malta/MALTA%20CI3.pdf

This includes the back side that is missing from the wiki page !! Ladnerg310 (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt these images are usable because I guess they are not copyright-free.

Cheers. Kroby36 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on issuance to citizens

Some EEA countries issue ID cards to citizens as well as residents (e.g. Italy), however some are only issued to citizens of their country (e.g. Norway). I think it would be useful to include this in the Overview tables. Drumstick21 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice idea but not so useful I guess, because very very few countries issue the ID card to all residents (Italy) or some residents (Portugal). How many more? Kroby36 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, I was not sure how many countries actually issued it to non-citizens but maybe it's only Italy. Maybe Belgium, but I suppose they issue it as a separate ID type? Drumstick21 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Update the back side of the german id card, please

Actual back side of the german id card is old. Please update it. You can find it here: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/DEU-BO-02004/image-344552.html Catasere (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Irish passport card

Should Ireland's passport card be included in the overview table? Under the List of national identity card policies by country page it is listed as a non-compulsory ID card, the same as the US passport card. Other countries have different names for their ID documents, such as Portugal which it is referred to as an "Citizen Card". For all intents and purposes it serves an almost identical purpose to other voluntary national identity cards. It can be used both domestically as ID as well as in the EEA/EU as a travel doc.

On the other hand it is specifically excluded under the 2019 EU regulations.

I think it would be a useful addition. It is already included in the table, but without images or other information. Drumstick21 (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

No way. It is only an "extension" of the passport. No passport booklet = no passport card. It's not just a matter of name like the citizen card in Portugal, that is not linked to Portuguese passport. More generally, Anglo-saxon countries have no id cards. At the beginning of the article and inside the overview table, it is specified the existence of this document that must be considered a passport and that's it. Cheers. Kroby36 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It is probably enough for it to be mentioned in the table with a link to an article. It seems to be a politically sensitive subject in Ireland. Similar to ESTA/ETA/ETIAS, authorities introduce politically sensitive stuff by renaming and redefining them to something else with similar practical function. Since the main idea behind Wikipedia is to give information about stuff, and for the reason of avoiding endless discussions about formalities, as long as it mentioned and information is findable and not wrong, we can have it like this.--BIL (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

True, although as was discussed on the List of national identity card policies by country regarding th US passport card, it is considered a form of an identity card. Is an identity card defined by the prerequisite possesion of a passport booklet? It functions the same as any other ID card: domestic identification and travel. The ICAO defines the Irish passport card as an identity card - the MRZ begins with 'I', assigned to identity cards.

Regardless, I agree that the form it is in now is fine, but I think including its other attributes (price, validity, current v.) is a useful addition. Drumstick21 (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Motorcycles and cars are both vehicles and have the same purpose to move from A to B. Would you include a motorbike in an overview table of cars? Kroby36 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The Irish passport card functions as a national identity card in all but name. In fact, it is not officially classified as a passport according to the EU's document database PRADO. Additionally, unlike a standard passport, it does not permit travel outside the EU/EEA/Switzerland, along with a few other selected countries. Based on its features, it shares many similarities with a national identity card than with an ordinary passprort. By the way, some countries include "democratic republic" in their official names, but that does not necessarily mean they are democracies (in fact, it is often the contrary). Same thing with the Irish passport card I would say, it has passport in its name, but that's where the similarties with a passport ends. --Nablicus (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove/reduce 2006 standards?

I think we should remove or at least considerably reduce the 2006 EU standards section. It was never an enforced EU law, is outdated and not useful in the overall article. I think it should be reduced to e.g. a single paragraph. What is the consensus? Drumstick21 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)