The Mice that Roared: the EU’s list of known fantasy and camouflage passports

 

Jacques BELLEZIT (University of Strasbourg)    

Photo credit: Syced, via Wikimedia Commons

Since the Grzelczyk judgment, the European Court of Justice has held that «  Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States », prioritizing the freedom of movement used by EU citizens over other EU fundamental freedoms.

This prominence has driven the Court to condemn the Maltese investor citizenship scheme which “amounts to the commercialisation of the granting of the status of national of a Member State and, by extension, Union citizenship, which is incompatible with the conception of that fundamental status that stems from the Treaties” (point 100 of the  ECJ Grand Chamber “Commission v Malta” judgment of 29 April 2025).           

In conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation outlined in TEU Article 4, one can better understand the importance of a good understanding of EU member States' passports by national immigration and customs authorities.        

To enforce this understanding, several legal tools are established within the EU legal system. Among them Decision No 1105/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011  establishes a “list of travel documents which entitle the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa and on setting up a mechanism for establishing this list”.          

The said EU list of travel documents is divided into three parts (Article 1 of the Decision 1105/2011/EU), which are:

Part I : Travel documents issued by third countries and territorial entities.          
Part II:  Travel documents issued by Member States.

Part III: Travel documents issued by international organisations.    

However, this list has a “doppelgänger,” a “mischievous” twin.      

Indeed, under article 6 of the Decision N°1105/2011/EU “The Commission shall also draw up and update a non-exhaustive list of known fantasy and camouflage passports on the basis of information received from the Member States.” (hereafter « the EU list of known fantasy and camouflage passports » or « the List »).

This List, available on the website of the Public Register of Authentic identity and travel Documents Online (PRADO, being itself a section of the Council’s website), which is the topic of the present study, was lastly updated on 31.08.2025 and displays 3 categories of “passports”  on which Member States' authorities are forbidden to endorse an EU-Schengen visa :

·       Fantasy passports (‘Passports’ issued by minorities, sects and population groups and identity documents, etc. issued by private organisations and individuals.

·       Camouflage passports (Passports of former states no longer in existence).

·       Documents of territories which are not internationally recognised.

If the issue of “former states non longer in existence” is a known object of international law (cf. The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties - Vienna, 23 August 1978 United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1946, p. 3.  C.N.354.2008.TREATIES-1 of 6 May 2008) as well as the conundrum of “territories which are not internationally recognised” (cf. for instance the Western Sahara, dealt by the Luxembourg Court in the  “Front Polisario” judgments of October 4th 2024  (C‑778/21 P and C‑798/21 P ; C‑779/21 P and C‑799/21 P, C-399/22), the issue of “fantasy passports” is more nebulous.        

If States (and, to a lesser extent, international organizations) have the privilege to issue passports on their behalf, the EU Member States have, furthermore,  the obligation to respect EU law while withdrawing their nationality, especially regarding the impact on EU citizenship and the access to the Schengen Area (cf. CJEU Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2010. Janko Rottman v Freistaat Bayern Case C-135/08 p.54-55).

Under these circumstances, it is understandable that third actors can be tempted to apply for an EU-Schengen visa to obtain open access to the Schengen area at all costs, even though the emission of such fantasy and camouflage passports.     

However, the use of “State Emblems, Official Hallmarks, and Emblems of Intergovernmental Organizations” as trademarks is by itself prohibited under IP law (cf. Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of March 20, 1883 and, in EU law, Article 7 h) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark ), and such use can also lead to criminal prosecution not only under IP law, but under other security fields.    

For instance, the “Principality of Sealand” (occurring on the List and among the most well-known micronations) is a small platform of 0.0004 km² within the British territorial waters. The Principality's “authorities” participated in the 2000s money laundering scandal about “Sealand passports” (cf. Gooch, Adela (12 April 2000). "Police swoop on Sealand crime ring". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.; Boggan, Steve (23 September 1997). "Money Laundering: Global fraudsters use sea fortress as passport to". The Independent.). Today, it offers a “E-Citzenship” program which allow such E-Citizen the use     of a “Free & Secure VPN access”, as well as the “protection from Sealand authorities”, or several discounts on merchandising related to Sealand. James Grimmelmann theorized that the platform was also a potential data haven through its company HavenCo Limited. (cf. Grimmelmann, James (27 March 2012). "Death of a data haven: cypherpunks, WikiLeaks, and the world's smallest nation". Ars Technica.)

Under this consideration, one can easily understand the use of the EU List on security, fight against money-laundering and other offences.           

After a quick overview of the first two categories of passports and documents (I) we will focus specifically on the fantasy passports as they aim, on various scales of Genuity, imitate official, regular State-issued documents (II). Such fantasy passports are an interesting funhouse mirror, allowing reflections on what a State is today, under the prism of a European Union which is itself not a sovereign State (III).

 

I)              Camouflage passports and non-recognized territories under the EU List

A 1989 Soviet Passport, symbol of an actual camouflage passport.     
(File:Soviet Passport Cover HiRes.jpg. (2025, June 1). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved December 9, 2025, from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Soviet_Passport_Cover_HiRes.jpg&oldid=1038965939.)

The 27 “Former states no longer in existence,” are familiar to any history and/or international relations enthusiast: One can think about the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”- whose succession has been treated by the Badinter Commission (Radan, P. (1997). The Badinter arbitration commission and the partition of Yugoslavia. Nationalities Papers, 25(3), 537-557.) or the USSR, divided following the 1990 Minsk Declaration (cf. Hamant Hélène. La succession d'États de l'URSS en matière militaire. In: Annuaire français de droit international, volume 50, 2004. pp. 213-230.)

However, beyond these two former major independent States, the list primarily mentions former European colonies and assimilated territories, along with their current names and sovereignty.

We can mention “ Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)”, “Ceylon (now Sri Lanka)” or  Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia) as well as  “Bophuthatswana” and “Transkei”,  former South African Bantustans which have been theoretically independent during the apartheid era, but are now part of the South African territory (Hattingh, P. S. (1977). Bophuthatswana at a Glance. Africa Insight, 7(2), 213-219; Drummond, J. (1991). Reincorporating the Bantustans into South Africa: the question of Bophuthatswana. Geography, 76(4), 369-373.)

Within territories which are not internationally recognised, one can find only four territories which are, namely, “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, “ Saharwei, Arab Democratic Republic (own name for ‘Western Sahara’)”, “ Temporary Government of Serbia at Kosovo”, and “Republic of Somaliland”.         

About “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, the List qualifies this territory as “Illegal under UN Security Council Resolutions 541/83 and 550/84”, but it is silent about the other territories: for “Temporary Government of Serbia at Kosovo”, one can relate it to the fact that the situation of Kosovo still sparks controversies: for instance the Mandate of the European Union Special Representative for Kosovo warns that the “Kosovo” denomination is “ without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence”.           

The situation of Western Sahara may evolve following the aforementioned “Front Polisario” judgements, but we doubt the “Saharwei, Arab Democratic Republic” will soon be struck off the List.

About Somaliland, the instability of this separatist region of Sudan (being a hot point of pluri-ethnic tensions and Jihadism) seems to prohibit this “Republic” from succeeding in gaining international recognition (cf. Matt Bryden “Somalia at Risk of Becoming a Jihadist State” Africa Security Brief No. 45 Africa Center for Strategic Studies, November 17, 2025).

Beyond these States (extinct or claimed), the List mentions fantasy passports and documents issued “by minorities, sects and population groups [and] by private organisations and individuals”.(hereafter “third actors”).

II) Fantasy passports as a step toward criminal offence or international recognition.

The List gathers, in a non-exhaustive way, 152 sources of fantasy passports and documents that we can subdivide into four categories of passports and documents, which are non-mutually exclusive.

-       Pseudo-diplomatic documents.

-       Pseudo-religious documents.

-       Nationalists' documents.

-       Cargo-cultist documents. 

If counterfeit documents and identity documents forgery can be a tool for various offences (such as terrorism cf. Molnár, Á. (2019). Travel Documents in use by Terrorists. Internal Security, 11, 133-145; Rudner, M. (2008). Misuse of passports: identity fraud, the propensity to travel, and international terrorism. Studies in conflict & terrorism, 31(2), 95-110.), it can also be a way to obtain recognition from micro-nations (cf. Hobbs H, Williams G. Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty. Cambridge University Press; 2022.), religious or Indigenous minorities on an international plan.        

Pseudo – diplomatic documents

About “Pseudo-diplomatic documents”, the List mentions groups of organisations that counterfeit or corrupt the names of genuine international organisations in a parasitic way, aiming to “mislead the public” (in a similar way to cases aimed by article 58 c) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) 

We can mention so-called organizations such as the  ‘Baltic Trade Mission’,  ‘Diplomatic passport of ‘Comité International pour la Protection des Droits de Hommes’ (CIPDH) ; ‘EU Senator Pass’, ‘IIMSAM’ (Inter-Governmental Observer to the United nations Economic and Social Council) - Diplomatic Laissez passer (DE)” or ‘Intergovernmental Institution for the Use of Micro-Algae Spirulina Against Malnutrition'. Some organisations can be confusing, such as “Arab International Organisation” (cf. the real world League of Arab States) or the “Organisation of African Unity” (disbanded in 2002 and replaced by the African Union.  

However, claiming to belong to such an “international organization” does not grant as such privileges which are similar to those granted to genuine international relations: for instance, in case ECJ (Full Court) 30^th September 2021 (C-130/19) Pinxten, it is recalled that “[…] excise goods are exempt from payment thereof where they are intended to be used in the context of diplomatic or consular relations or by international organisations recognised as such by the public authorities of the host Member State, and by members of such organisations, within the limits and under the conditions laid down by the international conventions establishing such organisations or by headquarters agreements.”

Indeed, as stated by Thomas MENRAH “The need for a Headquarters Agreement arises from the fact that there are specific aspects of the relations between an organization and its host State that may not easily be resolved by reference to general principles of international law or even the provisions of general conventions on privileges and immunities.” (Mensah, T. A. (2012). "Headquarters Agreements and the Law of International Organizations". In Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill | Niehoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004214828_071)

But as the List’s “international organizations” do not exist, the privileges, allegedly “laid down by […] international conventions establishing such organisations or by headquarters agreements” of their self-claimed agents are also non-existent.        

Pseudo-religious organizations

On pseudo-religious organizations, we can quote the “‘Hare Krishna Sect’ (Krishna-Consciousness) labelled as a cult (cf. Melton, J. Gordon. "Hare Krishna". Encyclopaedia Britannica, 27 Oct. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hare-Krishna. Accessed 24 November 2025 ).

The ‘Sovereign Military Order of St. John of Jerusalem’ is a mixing of the (catholic) Sovereign Military order of Malta (with a sui generis statute in international law, cf. UN General Assembly Resolution  A/RES/48/265 of August 30 1994) and of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, which do not benefit from such status. One can also mention the “ ‘Knights of Malta’ (‘UN diplomatic passport’) ‘Cosmopolitan Passport.’      

Finally, we can think about marginal groups relating themselves to Orthodox Eastern religious organisations such as the  “Ecumenial World Patriarchate” the “‘Byzantine Empire’ (‘passport’ issued by the ‘Holy Roman Empire of the East’)” or the “‘Patriarchate of Antiochia” that hope to benefit in a parasitic way of privileges granted to Vatican State, or the Mount Athos communities. This latter question have been deal by the 1979 “Joint Declaration concerning Mount Athos” (cf. Papastathis, C.-K. (2004). Le statut du Mont Athos. L'Année canonique, Tome XLVI(1), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.3917/cano.046.0145.)   

Nationalist documents

Within the point of “Nationalists documents,” we can put together the case of micronations (cf. Hobbs H, Williams G. supra) such as the “Principality of Sealand” or the ‘Hutt River Principality”, as well as documents issued, allegedly, by Native populations, whether they are from Northern America (e.g. ‘Empire Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah’ , ‘Hadenosaunee’,  ‘HOPI Indians’) or from other locations ( ‘Hawaiian Kingdom’ ; ‘Republic of Chechen’ or the ‘Republic Malaku Selatan’ (South Moluccas)”).

The reference to such Native populations aims to use the issue of such populations’ decline or even demise. It may be in line with a legitimate desire to live in accordance with their traditional lifestyle, and even, to speak with international law language, to use their rights to self-determination to exclude any jurisdiction, except their own.           

The exclusion of regular States’ jurisdiction is also a feature of what is known as “sovereign citizen movements”  which use pseudo-legal rhetoric and facts: it is the case with, for instance, the “‘Baltic States’ (‘passports’ issued by the government in exile)”, or for the  “‘Notverwaltung Deutscher Osten’ (Emergency Administration of the German East) – Diplomatic passport” as well as “Vereinigte Länder des Deutschen Ostens im Deutschen Reich’ (United Countries of the German East in the German Empire)”.         

The latter two references to the “German East” can be related to German sovereign citizen movements (a.k.a “Reichbürger” or “Citizens of the Reich”) which refuse the legality of the current German Federal Republic (GRF): in the eyes of these movements, neither the German Empire, nor the German Democratic Republic have legally disappeared following the two World Wars. Therefore, the GRF being illegitimate, its authorities can be overthrown.

A “Reichbürger passport” among other German sovereign citizen movements items.

(Source : https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/EN/topics/reichsbuerger-and-selbstverwalter/reichsbuerger-and-selbstverwalter_node.html)

However, as the International Court of Justice stated in its 1995 “East-Timor” (Portugal v Australia) judgement (§29) “The principle of self-determination of peoples has been recognized by the United Nations Charter and in the jurisprudence of the Court […] it is one of the essential principles of contemporary international law. However, the Court considers that the erga omnes character of a norm and the rule of consent to jurisdiction are two different things”.

What is true before the Hague Court floor is still true before any authority: invoking the erga omnes character of a norm does not deprive “magically” and per se customs and immigration authorities of their jurisdiction over an individual, and that is especially true if the said person carries a fantasy document which has no recognition anywhere.

The magic way of thinking is a characteristic of the last category of documents: the Cargo-cultist, which is an interesting funmirror of what a State is.        

III) Fantasy passports : an interesting funmirror of the 21st Century State

According to Claudine CASSAR, such cults stems from contacts between Melanesian and Western populations since the 19^th Century : as she writes “Members of the cult believe that the Western material goods they desire are not simply produced by human labour, but rather come from supernatural sources. The rituals and practices that Cargo Cults employ often involve imitating the behaviour of Westerners, such as building runways, using radios to communicate with the spirits, or wearing clothing resembling military uniforms.” to benefit from Western goods.

From the abundant literature on the topic (cf. inter alia Lindstrom, Lamont. (2018) 2023. “Cargo cults.” In The Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology, edited by Felix Stein. Facsimile of the first edition in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Online: http://doi.org/10.29164/18cargo), these “imitations” are crafted by cultists without the knowledge of the logistic chain and/or the political arcane, allowing Westerners to bring their material goods  to remote Melanesian islands (cf. Billings, D. K. (2002). Cargo cult as theater: Political performance in the Pacific. Lexington Books.)

In the case of fantasy passports, some of their bearers may naively think that showing their “documents” issued by State-like entities (e.g. ‘Pas Valasheko Kralovsztvia / Passport of the Wallachian kingdom’ ;  ‘United Nations of America, State of Delaware’ ;  ‘Free and Independent State of Vera Cruz’ ) or pseudo-international organisations (e.g.“ ‘International Parliament for Safety and Peace’; ‘Kingdom of Dutch World Citizens’ ) may open up to them international borders and gain them the respect and deference of local authorities.

However, it is loud and in clear in international law that “Notification to the receiving State of appointments, arrivals and departures” (Article 24 of the Vienna Convention on consular relationships) of diplomatic staff must be done, which is difficult if the sending State or entity doesn’t exist.

This feeling can be reinforced in the mind of “cargo-cultists” by the continuous thrive of the Internet and IA technologies,  which see the birth of so-called “numeric nations” or “e-nations” living away from a located physical territory (e.g. the “First Space Nation” of ASGARDIA); Alshamsi, H., Balleste, R., & Hanlon, M. L. (2018). Space station Asgardia 2117: From theoretical science to a new nation in outer space. Santa Clara J. Int'l L., 16, 37.; Putra, M. R. (2023). Juridical Analysis of the Kingdom of Asgardia Space from the Terms of a State According to International Law. Siber International Journal of Advanced Law (SIJAL), 1(1), 9-15.).

The “Principality of Sealand,” while offering an E-Citizenship program, forbids “any right of abode or physical residency within the Principality of Sealand (…) primarily confers digital rights and privileges, as outlined in the Sealand E-Citizenship program details”. On this point, one has to notice that the Terms & Conditions of this program are “ governed by and construed in accordance with the Law of England and Wales and Sealand” (sic). However, if there is an exclusive electio fori clause granting “exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales. 95A Prince Ave, Sounthen-on-Sea, Essex, SS2 6RL.”, one can also notice that, in case of an arbitration proceeding, this latter will be conducted “in accordance with the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The arbitration will take place in Sealand, and the language of the arbitration will be English.” An arbitration procedure on a former military platform would be unheard of, to any sense of the terms (!).

Moreover, paragraph 363 of the “Obligations of States in respect of the climate change” ICJ’s advisory opinion of July 23^rd 2025 may also nourish cultic fringe views on traveling documents: as the World Court stated that “once a State is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood”, we might expect a rise of known fantasy and camouflage passports going along with a possible rise of micronations or numeric nations.

But what is the difference between authentic state-issued documents and these known fantasy and camouflage passports?

In our view, it is the recognition of a subject of international law: we can say that the List is a common list of unrecognized and mostly unrecognizable countries, those that do not have the “critical mass” or fulfil the conditions to claim/obtain recognition.      

In EU asylum law, one can find a similar momentum with the “Procedures” Directive  2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013. Article 38 of this Directive states the concept of “safe third countries” allowing, inter alia, the use of accelerated procedures. If the safe-third country concept is defined by the criteria laid in this article,  the EU list of known fantasy and camouflage passports is based on one fact: notoriety.

Issuing « authorities » of such documents are « known » publicly to act fraudulently and/or without the required sovereignty to emit valid travel documents. It may probably amount to self-evidence or common sense that documents  “issued by minorities, sects and population groups “ or “ issued by private organisations and individuals” are and have to be , per se, invalid.

So we can wonder why EU Member States do to regularly share information on the topic? due to the lack of CJEU case-law on the “fantasy and camouflage” documents, there is no autonomous notion of such documents (comp. with the notion of “traveller” under  Directive (EU) 2015/2302, CJEU (W)onderweg, C‑445/24, 13 November 2025 §34).

One can find a dead end as the recognition of other States is an acta de jus imperii, interlinked with the Common Foreign and Security Policy, highly strategic and (nearly) immune to judicial review by the European Court of Justice (Article 24 TEU).

But, if third States have access to EU Courts (cf.Kassoti* and Carrozzini**A Curia Mundi? The CJEU’s Judgment in Case C‑872/19 P Venezuela v Council), can these non-state actors discuss their inscription on the List ?     

The Luxembourg Court case law has several cases of minorities, sects (cf. for the member of a “Bhagwan community” CJEU Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 October 1988 Udo Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie. 196/87) and population groups (cf. CJEU (Grand Chamber), 3 October 2013, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union) which may seize the EU Court if they fulfil the relevant conditions, or are the subject of a reference for a preliminary ruling from a national court.

If is admitted that third States and EU Members States can, inter alia, seize the European Court of justice under conditions of TFEU Section 5; we might expect, one day, the question of these fantasy passports to land before the Luxembourg Court’s floor (directly or by the way of a preliminary ruling).

 

Conclusion

If the EU List is enshrined in a larger “ list of travel documents which entitle the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa “ established by Decision No 1105/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011, it is nevertheless rich of teachings on the crisis of the Westphalian State, seen through the lens international and EU law.

Other actors, more or less organized,  aim to compete with States for the obtention of international recognition, embodied and symbolized by these passports and documents mentioned in the List.

These actors may be voluntarily or not driven by mischievous or naïve feelings, but their imagination and the versatility of tools at their disposal, as well as their pseudo-State discourse, have to warn public authorities and the general public of risks linked to these practices.

The play on words and the confusion around diplomatic and legal vocabulary may deceive the public (and, to a lesser extent, public authorities) and lay a favourable ground for further, complex offences, in an example of real-life,  social engineering technique.    

Beyond security and cooperation issues, one must mention that some passports are purposely issued as souvenirs or marks of regional and or artistic identities without any will to harm anyone. For instance, the “Passeport Alsacien” (Alsatian passport) is a fantasy passport aimed for entertainment and the promotion of this Eastern France’s specific identity, without any grounds to claim international recognition of any kind.   

Indeed, Alsace’s main city, Strasbourg, is known to be the siege of the European Parliament as well as hosting the Council of Europe’s institutions. As such, this sole fact might exclude the latter passport from being part of the EU List.