REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 as regards the rules applicable to the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders
29.10.2018 - (COM(2017)0571 – C8‑0326/2017 – 2017/0245(COD)) - ***I
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Rapporteur: Tanja Fajon
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 as regards the rules applicable to the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders
(COM(2017)0571 – C8‑0326/2017 – 2017/0245(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2017)0571),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 77(2)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0326/2017),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the contributions submitted by the Czech Chamber of Deputies, the Czech Senate, the Greek Parliament, the Spanish Parliament and the Portuguese Parliament on the draft legislative act,
– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0356/2018),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation Recital -1 (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(-1) The creation of an area in which the free movement of persons across internal borders is ensured is one of the main achievements of the Union. The normal functioning and strengthening of such an area, which is based on trust and solidarity, should be a common objective of the Union and the Member States which have agreed to take part in it. At the same time, it is necessary to have a common response to situations seriously affecting the public policy or internal security of that area, or parts thereof, by allowing for the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort, while strengthening cooperation between the Member States concerned. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1) In an area where persons may move freely, the reintroduction of border control at internal borders should remain an exception. The reintroduction of internal border control should be decided only as a measure of last resort, for a limited period of time and to the extent that controls are necessary and proportionate to the identified serious threats to public policy or internal security. |
(1) In an area where persons may move freely, the reintroduction of border control at internal borders should remain an exception. As the free movement of persons is affected by the temporary reintroduction of internal border control, it should be reintroduced only as a measure of last resort, for a limited period of time and to the extent that controls are necessary and proportionate to the identified serious threats to public policy or internal security. Any such measure should be withdrawn as soon as the underlying grounds for it cease to exist. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(1a) Migration and the crossing of external borders by a large number of third-country nationals should not, per se, be considered to be a threat to public policy or internal security. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2) The identified serious threats can be addressed by different measures, depending on their nature and scale. The Member States have at their disposal also police powers, as referred to in Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)8 , which, subject to some conditions, can be used in the border areas. The Commission Recommendation on proportionate police checks and police cooperation in the Schengen area9 provides guidelines to the Member States to that end. |
(2) The identified serious threats can be addressed by different measures depending on their nature and scale. While it remains clear that police powers are different in their nature and purpose from border control, the Member States have at their disposal those police powers, as referred to in Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)8 which, subject to some conditions, can be used in border areas. The Commission Recommendation on proportionate police checks and police cooperation in the Schengen area9 provides guidelines to the Member States to that end. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p.1. |
8 OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p.1. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 C(2017) 3349 final of 12.05.2017. |
9 C(2017) 3349 final of 12.05.2017. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(2a) Before resorting to the reintroduction of border control at internal borders, Member States should give precedence to alternative measures. In particular, the Member State concerned should, where necessary and justified, consider using more effectively or intensifying police checks within its territory, including in border areas and main transport routes, on the basis of a risk assessment, while ensuring that those police checks do not have border control as an objective. Modern technologies are instrumental in addressing threats to public policy or internal security. Member States should assess whether the situation could be adequately addressed by way of increased cross-border cooperation, both from an operational point of view and from that of information exchange between police and intelligence services. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(4) However, experience has shown that certain serious threats to public policy or internal security, such as cross-border terrorist threats or specific cases of secondary movements of irregular migrants within the Union that justified the reintroduction of border controls, may persist well beyond the above periods. It is therefore needed and justified to adjust the time limits applicable to the temporary reintroduction of border control to the current needs, while ensuring that this measure is not abused and remains an exception, to be used only as a last resort. To that end, the general deadline applicable under Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code should be extended to one year. |
(4) However, experience has shown that there is rarely a need to reintroduce border control at internal borders for periods of longer than two months. In exceptional circumstances only, certain serious threats to public policy or internal security might persist beyond the maximum periods of six months currently authorised for the reintroduction of border control at internal borders. It is therefore necessary to adjust the time limits applicable to the temporary reintroduction of border control, while ensuring that this measure is not abused and remains an exception, to be used only as a last resort. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(4 a) Any derogation from the fundamental principle of free movement of persons should be interpreted strictly and the concept of public policy presupposes the existence of a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(5) In order to guarantee that these internal border controls remain an exception, Member States should submit a risk assessment concerning the intended reintroduction of border control or prolongation thereof. The risk assessment should, in particular, assess for how long the identified threat is expected to persist and which sections of the internal borders are affected, demonstrate that the prolongation of border controls is a last resort measure and explain how border control would help in addressing the identified threat. In case of internal border control going beyond six months, the risk assessment should also demonstrate retrospectively the efficiency of the reintroduced border control in addressing the identified threat and explain in detail how each neighbouring Member State affected by such prolongation was consulted and involved in determining the least burdensome operational arrangements. |
(5) In order to guarantee that these internal border controls are a measure of last resort and remain an exception, Member States should submit a risk assessment concerning the intended prolongation of border control beyond two months. The risk assessment should, in particular, assess for how long the identified threat is expected to persist and which sections of the internal borders are affected, demonstrate that the prolongation of border controls is a measure of last resort, in particular by showing that any alternative measures have proven or are deemed insufficient, and explain how border control would help in addressing the identified threat. The risk assessment should also demonstrate retrospectively the efficiency and effectiveness of the reintroduced border control in addressing the identified threat and explain in detail how each neighbouring Member State affected by such prolongation was consulted and involved in determining the least burdensome operational arrangements. The Member States should retain the possibility to classify, where necessary, all or parts of the information provided. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5a) Whenever the reintroduction of internal border control is proposed for specific planned events of an exceptional nature and duration, such as sporting activities, the duration of such control should be very precise, circumscribed and linked to the actual duration of the event. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(6) The quality of the risk assessment submitted by the Member State will be very important for the assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the intended reintroduction or prolongation of border control. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency and Europol should be involved in that assessment. |
(6) The quality of the risk assessment submitted by the Member State will be very important for the assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the intended reintroduction or prolongation of border control. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Europol, the European Asylum Support Office, the European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights should be involved in that assessment. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(7) The power of the Commission to issue an opinion under Article 27(4) of the Schengen Borders Code should be modified to reflect the new obligations on the Member States related to the risk assessment, including the cooperation with Member States concerned. When border control at internal borders is carried out for more than six months, the Commission should be obliged to issue an opinion. Also the consultation procedure as provided for in Article 27(5) of the Schengen Borders Code should be modified in order to reflect the role of the Agencies (European Border and Coast Guard Agency and Europol) and focus on the practical implementation of different aspects of cooperation between the Member States, including the coordination, where appropriate, of different measures on both sides of the border. |
(7) The consultation procedure as provided for in Article 27(5) of the Schengen Borders Code should be modified in order to reflect the role of the Union Agencies and focus on the practical implementation of different aspects of cooperation between the Member States. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(8) In order to make the revised rules better adapted to the challenges related to persistent serious threats to public policy or internal security, a specific possibility should be provided to prolong internal border controls beyond one year. Such prolongation should accompany commensurate exceptional national measures also taken within the territory to address the threat, such as a state of emergency. In any case, such a possibility should not lead to the further prolongation of temporary internal border controls beyond two years. |
(8) In order to make the revised rules better adapted to the challenges related to persistent serious threats to public policy or internal security, a specific possibility should be provided to prolong internal border controls beyond six months on an exceptional basis. Such prolongation should accompany commensurate exceptional national measures also taken within the territory to address the threat, such as a state of emergency. In any case, such a possibility should not lead to the further prolongation of temporary internal border controls beyond one year. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(8a) The necessity and proportionality of reintroducing internal border control should be balanced against the threat to public policy or internal security triggering the need for such reintroduction, as should alternative measures which could be taken at national or Union level, or both, and the impact of such control on the free movement of persons within the area without internal border control. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(9) The reference to Article 29 in Article 25(4) should be modified with a view of clarifying the relation between the time periods applicable under Article 29 and Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code. |
deleted | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(10) The possibility to carry out temporary internal border controls in response to a specific threat to public policy or internal security which persists beyond a year should be subject to a specific procedure. |
(10) The possibility to carry out temporary internal border controls in response to a specific threat to public policy or internal security which persists beyond six months should be subject to a specific procedure requiring a Council recommendation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(11) To that end, the Commission should issue an opinion on the necessity and proportionality of such prolongation and, where appropriate, on the cooperation with the neighbouring Member States. |
(11) To that end, the Commission should issue an opinion on the necessity and proportionality of such prolongation. The European Parliament should immediately be informed about the proposed prolongation. The Member States affected should have the possibility to make observations to the Commission before it issues its opinion. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(13) The Council, taking account of the Commission's opinion, may recommend such extraordinary further prolongation and where appropriate determine the conditions for cooperation between the Member States concerned, with a view to ensuring that it is an exceptional measure, in place only for as long as necessary and justified, and consistent with the measures also taken at the national level within the territory to address the same specific threat to public policy or internal security. The Council recommendation should be a prerequisite for any further prolongation beyond the period of one year and hence be of the same nature as the one already provided for in Article 29. |
(13) The Council, taking account of the Commission's opinion, may recommend such extraordinary further prolongation and where appropriate lay down the conditions for cooperation between the Member States concerned, with a view to ensuring that it is an exceptional measure, in place only for as long as necessary and justified, and consistent with the measures also taken at the national level within the territory to address the same specific threat to public policy or internal security. The Council recommendation should be a prerequisite for any further prolongation beyond the period of six months. The Council recommendation should be immediately forwarded to the European Parliament. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(13a) Measures taken under the specific procedure where exceptional circumstances put the overall functioning of the area without internal border control at risk should not be prolonged by virtue of, or combined with, measures taken under another procedure for the reintroduction or prolongation of internal border control as provided for in Regulation (EU) 2016/399. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(13b) Where it considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaties, the Commission should, as the guardian of the Treaties that oversees the application of Union law, take appropriate measures in accordance with Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, including by bringing the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 25 – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 25 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 25 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 25 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point -i (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – title | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The title of the Article 27 should be in line with the content of the article. This is not to confuse measures adopted under article 28 (measures requiring immediate action) and under 29 (exceptional circumstances putting the overall functioning of the area without internal borders at risk). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point -i a (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph -1 (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 27 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point -i b (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 1 – introductory part | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point i Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point aa | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point i a (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point ii Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point e | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point iii Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 1 – last sentence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point iii a (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 1 a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point iii b (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 1 b (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point iii c (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point iii d (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point iv Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point iv Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point iv Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point v Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27 – paragraph 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27a – title | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27a – paragraph 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27a – paragraph 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27a – paragraph 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 27a – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 28 – paragraph 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consequential amendment due to proposed changes in other articles. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 28a (new) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 c (new) Regulation (EU) 2016/399 Article 29 – paragraph 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
The Schengen Area is one of the greatest achievements of European integration where not just people move freely, but also goods and services and which has brought significant benefits to the European citizens and the economy. European citizens can travel easily across 26 countries for pleasure, work, and study, to exchange cultural and social ties and share ideas. With Schengen once divided and war-torn European continent has been again united.
However free movement area has never been more fragile than it is today due to challenges the Union has faced in recent years, however none so big a family of 28 could not face if united. Due to the huge lack of mutual trust, regretfully, several Member States have reintroduced internal border controls in recent years putting at risk the future process of political integration of the Union as well as our economies.
The suspension of Schengen and re-establishment of permanent border controls would severely hamper the four fundamental freedoms and would have a dire negative economic impact. Estimates show that the costs of non-Schengen would – depending on region, sector and alternative trade channels – be between €5 billion and €18 billion per year. This is simply a price no EU Member State alone, not the EU can afford. Schengen simply must be preserved!
Against all hopes of the Commission for the temporary border controls reintroduced since September 2015 to be eventually abolished, they are still persisting today. Looking for a way out an impossible situation the Commission proposed on 27 September 2017 to amend the Schengen Borders Code as regards the internal border controls. According to the new rules Member States could reintroduce internal border controls where there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security in a Member State, for a period of possibly even up to five years.
As the current rules only allow Member States to reintroduce internal border controls for a maximum period of two years, it is evident that this proposal of the Commission was made to legalise existing practices of Member States which are not anymore in line with the current provisions of the Schengen Borders Code.
Although EU Co-legislators agreed that “migration and the crossing of external borders by a large number of third-country nationals should not, per se, be considered to be a threat to public policy or internal security”, current controls have largely been justified based on the risk of secondary movement following the irregular cross-border movements since 2015, which is very concerning.
Undoubtedly there is a strong case to be made that irregular migration into the Union - and the knock-on effects on the Schengen area without internal border controls - is the result of a failed Common European Asylum System for dealing with those seeking international protection and a failure to reform that system.
The current practice of some Member States maintaining their internal border controls, in the view of the Rapporteur, may be therefore disproportionate, unjustified and inadvertent and may even amount to abuse.
The Rapporteur also regrets that no impact assessment has been produced to accompany the changes to this proposal. As part of better law-making legislative acts should be preceded by an impact assessment and, given the difficulties experienced in maintaining the current rules, such an assessment would have been very welcomed.
The Rapporteur therefore strongly rejects the attempts of the Commission to legalise currently illegal practice of Member States as regards internal border controls. The main objective of any changes to the Schengen Borders Code, concerning the rules on the reintroduction of internal border controls, should be to render the legal framework clearer. Those should ensure that the use of internal border controls responds to actual needs, are proportionate and limited in time, while guaranteeing Member States the flexibility they need to face genuine threats. The new rules should not provide incentives for the introduction of internal border controls without a clear and objective need, nor for periods longer than necessary.
The Rapporteur would like to clarify and streamline the applicable rules to ensure improved transparency and make possible misuses of those rules more obvious. In that respect, clear-cut rules should better enable the Commission to exercise its powers as “guardian of the Treaty”, in particular when considering possible infringement procedures against Member States not complying with their obligations.
Suggested amendments
The existing structure of chapter II of the Schengen Borders Code does not allow for a straightforward reading of the applicable rules. The Rapporteur proposes revisiting the current layout to ensure coherence, clarity and better implementation of the rules in practice.
Unlike at present, the structure of the articles should follow a certain rationale of complete and separate parts with logical components. The actual content of Article 25 should be brought more in line with the title “general framework” and should set out the main horizontal principles governing temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal boarder for foreseeable events.
The content of Article 26 setting out criteria for the assessment of the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls should be appropriately expanded in order to ensure that the Member States must demonstrate that the reintroduction of border control is in fact a last resort measure.
Articles governing the procedures for the temporary introduction of border controls for foreseeable events should follow, laying down specific rules and safeguards for the initial introduction of controls and their prolongations.
In that spirit, Article 27 should provide for the procedure of initial reintroduction of border controls of up to 2 months, with a possibility of a prolongation of up to an additional four months. Article 27a should set out the procedure and additional safeguards for further prolongation of border controls for a maximum period of up to six months. The Rapporteur believes that the total maximum period of border controls for foreseeable events under both articles should not exceed one year.
In the opinion of the Rapporteur, extending those periods for the reintroduction of internal border control - as proposed by the Commission - would not encourage Member States to limit the envisaged measures to what is strictly necessary and proportionate to the threat.
Furthermore, the Rapporteur proposes the introduction of a sliding scale of obligations with additional procedural safeguards each time the border controls are prolonged. The requirements for the first-time prolongation beyond the initial two months - similarly to what the Commission proposed - should include an obligation for Member States to provide a detailed risk assessment, and an enhanced involvement of the Member States affected by the possible reintroduction of internal border controls.
For the subsequent prolongation of border controls beyond six months, no prolongation should be possible without a formal Council procedure “authorising” the extension. It is the view of the Rapporteur that prolonged controls at internal borders might have heavy repercussions on the right to free movement set out in the Treaties, therefore the EU has an overriding interest in being involved in any “limitations” of that right by individual Member States. In addition, unannounced checks, should be at the disposal of the Commission in order to verify the application of the rules in practice, in particular in cases of prolongation of controls for longer periods.
No possible misunderstanding should continue to persist in the regulation as to the fact that the procedure established under Article 29 applies in very specific circumstances, which are clearly distinct from the grounds considered in Articles 25, 27 and 28. Therefore, it should not be possible to invoke Articles 25, 27 and 28 to arbitrarily prolong border controls reintroduced under Article 29 once all possibilities provided for by the latter provisions are exhausted.
For the purpose of transparency and accountability the public should be more aware of what is happening. While respecting the requirements of confidentiality linked to public policy or internal security, more opportunities should be provided to have open discussions, at national or European level, on the implications of controls at internal borders within the Schengen area. These considerations are directly linked to the analysis of the role that the European Parliament could play in the process.
The Rapporteur also considers that improved information to and involvement of the European Parliament are highly desirable, including by ensuring that it receives all documents relevant for democratic scrutiny of the decisions impacting on the area without internal border controls. In that regard, the Parliament could also use hearings and/or a structured dialogue with the EU Institutions and the Member States concerned in order to achieve that goal.
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
Title |
Temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders |
||||
References |
COM(2017)0571 – C8-0326/2017 – 2017/0245(COD) |
||||
Date submitted to Parliament |
27.9.2017 |
|
|
|
|
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
LIBE 26.10.2017 |
|
|
|
|
Rapporteurs Date appointed |
Tanja Fajon 20.11.2017 |
|
|
|
|
Discussed in committee |
25.4.2018 |
21.6.2018 |
22.10.2018 |
|
|
Date adopted |
22.10.2018 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
30 13 12 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Asim Ademov, Heinz K. Becker, Monika Beňová, Michał Boni, Caterina Chinnici, Cornelia Ernst, Tanja Fajon, Laura Ferrara, Raymond Finch, Romeo Franz, Nathalie Griesbeck, Jussi Halla-aho, Monika Hohlmeier, Brice Hortefeux, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Dietmar Köster, Barbara Kudrycka, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Barbara Matera, Roberta Metsola, Claude Moraes, József Nagy, Judith Sargentini, Giancarlo Scottà, Birgit Sippel, Csaba Sógor, Helga Stevens, Bodil Valero, Marie-Christine Vergiat, Harald Vilimsky, Cecilia Wikström, Kristina Winberg, Tomáš Zdechovský |
||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Ignazio Corrao, Miriam Dalli, Maria Grapini, Marek Jurek, Gilles Lebreton, Jeroen Lenaers, Innocenzo Leontini, Angelika Mlinar, Nadine Morano, Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz, Emilian Pavel, Christine Revault d’Allonnes Bonnefoy, Barbara Spinelli, Josep-Maria Terricabras |
||||
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote |
Françoise Grossetête, Arndt Kohn, Marlene Mizzi, Tonino Picula, Julia Pitera, Dennis Radtke, Martin Schirdewan, Julie Ward |
||||
Date tabled |
29.10.2018 |
||||
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
30 |
+ |
|
ALDE |
Nathalie Griesbeck, Sophia in 't Veld, Angelika Mlinar, Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz, Cecilia Wikström |
|
EFDD |
Ignazio Corrao, Laura Ferrara |
|
GUE/NGL |
Cornelia Ernst, Martin Schirdewan, Barbara Spinelli, Marie-Christine Vergiat |
|
S&D |
Monika Beňová, Caterina Chinnici, Miriam Dalli, Tanja Fajon, Maria Grapini, Arndt Kohn, Dietmar Köster, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Marlene Mizzi, Claude Moraes, Emilian Pavel, Tonino Picula, Christine Revault d'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Birgit Sippel, Julie Ward |
|
VERTS/ALE |
Romeo Franz, Judith Sargentini, Josep-Maria Terricabras, Bodil Valero |
|
13 |
- |
|
ECR |
Jussi Halla-aho, Marek Jurek, Helga Stevens, Kristina Winberg |
|
EFDD |
Raymond Finch |
|
ENF |
Gilles Lebreton, Giancarlo Scottà, Harald Vilimsky |
|
PPE |
Françoise Grossetête, Monika Hohlmeier, Brice Hortefeux, Nadine Morano, Tomáš Zdechovský |
|
12 |
0 |
|
PPE |
Asim Ademov, Heinz K. Becker, Michał Boni, Barbara Kudrycka, Jeroen Lenaers, Innocenzo Leontini, Barbara Matera, Roberta Metsola, József Nagy, Julia Pitera, Dennis Radtke, Csaba Sógor |
|
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention