Note In My Passport

[Maestro]

Especially when they always have the power to say "take or leave".

To be fair to the Immigration officers, they do seem to try and give a tourist his 90 days’ worth. It’s just that their efforts do not always come up with the correct addition of days.

--

Maestro

[tropo]

Tropo, would you please read what I write one time?

Interesting you should say that as I thought it was you who didn't read.

Anyway, thanks for the volume of information on Schengen visas. It will come in handy next time I visit Europe.

I can see now exactly where you obtained the concept of "semesters" as it would seem that's they way Shengen are planning to proceed.

Right now we are in the very fist "semester" in Thailand i.e. 1 October to 1 April. There has been no concern as yet for rolling periods and the resultant complications and calculations are still simple.

The fact that they (Schengen nations) are discussing these problems in the Highest court in Europe indicates how complicated rolling periods can be, and it seems that the main reason they are considering using "semesters" is to make the calculations easier and fair i.e. to be sure to give everyone their exact allowance....exactly what is NOT happening here in Thailand even now and will get far worse after April 1.

It's not enough that only one group (eg. Immigration officials) can do the calculations accurately. The tourists need to know in order to plan their vacations, the embassies and consulates need to know in order to fairly issue visas and the airlines need to know in order to correctly determine if passengers can board flights to Thailand.

Easy calculations are really a necessity....and this is what Schengen nations are struggling with.

After April 1 we may see some major adjustments to Thailand's policy.

I agree with you that semesters will be the easiest way to proceed. At the end of a year the results will be the same, but it would allow tourists a straight 6 months in followed by 6 months out.

Edited February 10, 2007 by tropo

[ciooni]

Sorry to disappoint you tropo, but "my" notion of "semester" and my opinion (or better knowledge) about calculating periods in Europe existed even before I knew anything about the ruling of the Court of Justice above, which actually I've found out only 2 days ago after many of my posts in this thread.

Anyway it's been nice to learn that the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU has my same "confusion".

As I stated in a previous post, I knew also that the interpretation of the rule wasn't always uniform in Europe either, as you have pointed out.

I invite you again to read the arguments of the Court, whose logical grounds can be applied to the Thai rule as well.

Royal Thai Police Order No. 608/2549

"3. Passport holder...shall be permitted for multiple entry into Thailand, by permission of which must not exceed thirty days per entry wit a

total period of stay not exceeding ninety days within six months from the date of the first entry

into the Kingdom..."

Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement

Article 20: 1. "Aliens not subject to a visa requirement may move freely within the territories of the Contracting Parties for a

maximum period of three months during the six months following the date of first entry

..."

The wordings of Thai rule and European rule are practically the same.

The EU Court of Justice ruled that fixed (not rolling) periods must be considered and forward calculation must be used, not only because they're easier and more certain (both for officials and above all for interested individuals), but mainly because:

"[interpretations based on backward calculation] overlook the fact that

the provision is framed around the very notion of "first entry"

in order to replace it with date of laste entry, which is not to be found in that provision"

(par. 40 of judgment

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gett...p;seance=ARRET)

This is the real legal and also logical ground of the decision.

Both Thai and European provisions are "framed around the very notion of first entry"

These are good arguments to reconsider the possibility that Thai authorities could also adopt a forward calculation.

Possibility that many of you discarded a little bit too quickly.

Forward calculation (unlike backward calculation and rolling periods):

1. conforms to the wording of the provision (both European and Thai);

2. it's much easier

3. it's more certain for both officers and interested tourists

it would allow tourists a straight 6 months in followed by 6 months out.

This concern was taken into consideration by the European Court, which however gave no answer to it, stating that it's up to the European Community legislature to amend the provision if necessary (see par. 42 http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gett...p;seance=ARRET)

One simple practice Thai authorities could adopt, if they don't want people stay more than 90 (almost) consecutive days, is the following (and I know by experience that this same practice has been implemented by european consulate and immigration officers):

- When a tourist reaches his 90 days (or three months) quota during a six months period from the "first entry", he must wait 3 months before coming back without visa.

Maybe we will see new kind of notes in passports.

Hypothetically, as usual...

P.S. Can anybody explain the number 44 of the OP with a backward calculation?

Edited February 10, 2007 by ciooni

[tropo]

P.S. Can anybody explain the number 44 of the OP with a backward calculation?

It doesn't need to be explained by a "backward calculation". There is only one period to consider right now i.e. The very FIRST 6-month period starting on October 1. There will not be any new 6-month periods to consider until the end of this first period, afterwhich there will be a new 6-month period everyday.

It's only after the FIRST 6-months that rolling, and backward calculations will come into play. This will be the real test of what is to come, as calculations will no longer be straight forward and they're (Thai Immigration) are even getting the simple straight forward calculations wrong.

[ciooni]

I was actually referring to maestro's way of counting at the beginning of the thread, which is inconsistent with the number 44 in the "note". Actually he omitted to count the day(s) of entry.

Let's go back to the OP case:

Arrived September 13th '06

Got 7 day extension at immigration, extending my stay to 19th oct.

Exited thailand on the 14th Oct.

Entered back into thailand on the 14th Oct.

Exited thailand on the 29th oct.

Entered thailand on nov 1st (with tourist visa)

Got 30 day extension at immigration, extending my stay to 29th Jan 07.

Exited thailand on 28th jan, re-entered thailand the same day, admitted until 26th feb 07.

Note in the passport:

"44 days remaining"

Actual visa exempt entries/stays:

13 Sep 06 - 14 Oct 06 = 32 days (1-14 October = 14 days)

14 Oct 06 - 29 Oct 06 = 16 days

28 Jan 07 admitted until 26 Feb 07 = 30 days

Do you count the period 1-14 October 2006, or even before, as maestro did?

This way you will never get the number 44, as remaining days.

If you don't count those days, unlike maestro, I agree that until April counting forwards or backwards doesn't make any difference.

[tropo]

I'm assuming that they only start counting from the first new entry after October 1 which in this case was October 14. How this relates to the first 6-month period is anyone's guess, but this example is well within the first period, so it doesn't present a calculation problem.

Edited February 13, 2007 by tropo

[keenok]

i find it hard to believe that threads that deteriorate to this sort of "this is how it is/ no it isnt" continue on and on. they serve no useful purpose as they are expressing opinions only, and NOBODY KNOWS YET how these things will play out. they only serve to confuse .

[ciooni]

Expressing (argumented) opinions is actually what a forum is made for, among other things, isn't it?

There's no "this is how it is" attitude anywhere.

As to me, I've just advanced some good legal, logical and practical arguments to support an interpretation of the law which is formally correct as well as easy and handy to implement.

Obviously I don't know if thai immigration officers will share those arguments and what they are going to do in practice.

[bkkandrew]

Update:

Landed Suvinaphumi yesterday, with usual 'stamped all over' passport. Chatted up the bird (in thai) at the desk for 30 secs, a cursory glance, looked at two pages that contained 3 out of the 5 yellow/green highlighter pen marks, bang bang went the stamp and I was on my way.

Guess it depends on who you get...