La Présidente. - L'ordre du jour appelle la déclaration de la Commission sur les modifications du système Schengen (2011/2753(RSP)).

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, this is a very important subject, so we have a prepared statement in which we would like clearly to announce that free movement is a defining principle of the European Union. It is one of the most tangible and successful achievements of the European project. An area without internal border controls is central to the success of the single market and Europe’s continued efforts to boost growth.

We must ensure that the reintroduction of internal border controls by Member States does not erode the freedom of movement and impede the realisation of the European Union’s greatest achievements. Attacking free movement jeopardises the internal market, solidarity among Europeans and ultimately the European project.

The European Council agreed that there is a need for an EU-based mechanism to respond to exceptional circumstances which might put at risk the overall functioning of Schengen cooperation. We are studying this idea, but let me be very clear: any such mechanism would need to operate in a way which does not endanger the principle of the free movement of persons.

Beyond such a mechanism, a series of measures could be envisaged at EU level to assist a Member State facing heavy pressure at the external borders. These would include inspection visits and technical and financial support, including the participation of Frontex. The Commission is looking into how these support measures can be put forward. In the framework of this EU-based mechanism, a safeguard clause could be envisaged as a very last resort, allowing the exceptional reintroduction of internal border controls in a truly critical situation for a strictly limited period, geographically limited and for a minimal period of time where a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Schengen rules.

The European Union works on the basis of mutual trust, solidarity and responsibility. As such, establishing a coordinated, EU-based response would allow all European interests to be taken into account and limit unilateral initiatives by Member States to reintroduce internal borders.

The Commission intends to take up the invitation from the European Council to submit a proposal for such a mechanism together with the updated proposal on the Schengen evaluation in September. Given the crucial importance of free movement for the EU and its future, the Commission strongly believes that the proposal for the mechanism should be based on Article 77 of the TFEU. In this way, proposals will be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure, thus ensuring the full involvement of Parliament, on an equal footing with the Council.

Finally, a word on the topical issue of controls at the Danish borders. The Commission has conveyed to Denmark its grave concerns concerning the respect of Treaty freedoms and of the Schengen acquis. Since then, intensive and constructive contacts between the Commission services and Denmark have been taking place on a daily basis and at different levels. We will assess in detail the recent measures introduced by the Danish authorities. Indeed, the Commission needs to know how the Danish authorities will conduct checks at the border so that it can assess whether they are in compliance with the EU rules on free movement of goods, services and persons.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the free movement of people, goods and services is a central piece of the European construction and is guaranteed by the Treaties that Member States have ratified. The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will do its outmost to ensure that this is respected all over Europe.

  Carlos Coelho, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, caros Colegas, queria saudar a declaração da Comissão, que vem na linha da recomendação do Parlamento Europeu. Gostaria de sublinhar a circunstância do Comissário nos ter dito que, para a Comissão, Schengen é uma das conquistas mais importantes da construção europeia. Assim é, Schengen significa liberdade de circulação, mas Schengen significa também mais segurança, com o reforço das fronteiras externas, com a cooperação policial, aduaneira e judicial e com a criação do Sistema de Informação de Schengen e a política comum de vistos.

Schengen pressupõe a confiança mútua entre os Estados-Membros do espaço Schengen, porque a sua segurança depende do rigor e de eficácia com que cada Estado-Membro controla as suas fronteiras. Schengen também pressupõe a solidariedade e, sejamos sinceros, a solidariedade não tem sido evidente na forma como temos reagido ao fluxo de imigração proveniente do Norte de África, que tem posto os temas de recepção e acolhimento de diversos Estados-Membros debaixo de uma grande pressão.

Reconheço que atravessamos um período conturbado mas, em caso algum, isso pode servir como desculpa para fragilizar a grande conquista que é Schengen. Schengen é sinónimo de liberdade e esta realidade não pode nem deve ser pervertida, nem diminuída, pelo contrário, deve ser protegida, reforçada e desenvolvida. Pretender reintroduzir unilateralmente controlos fronteiriços como solução fácil é uma cedência ao populismo e uma ameaça ao património comum.

Com esta resolução, o Parlamento Europeu deixa uma mensagem forte, a salientar a necessidade dos Estados-Membros respeitarem e implementarem de forma correcta as regras de Schengen e a reclamar uma maior solidariedade e partilha de responsabilidades, bem como o reforço das competências da FRONTEX e dos seus meios e um verdadeiro mecanismo de avaliação de Schengen que verifique o cumprimento das regras e dos controlos das fronteiras externas e que, em último recurso, possa aplicar sanções aos Estados-Membros em caso de incumprimento.

Finalmente, Senhora Presidente, registo as palavras encorajadoras da Comissão, mas lamento a ausência do Conselho. A aprovação desta resolução é também um teste à credibilidade do Conselho. O Conselho tem de provar que, também no mecanismo de avaliação de Schengen, está disposto a trabalhar com lealdade com este Parlamento.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora Presidenta, señor Comisario, todos sabemos que, si estamos debatiendo una iniciativa de modificación de Schengen, es porque ha habido un flujo migratorio, procedente del norte de África, como consecuencia de los movimientos democráticos que allí han tenido lugar. Y ese es un contexto en el que hablar de modificar Schengen inevitablemente debe ser leído como una señal equivocada, en la dirección equivocada.

Por tanto, en el tiempo de que dispongo, quiero reafirmar que el trabajo de este Parlamento debe pasar primero por asegurar que no se trata de rebajar ni de recortar Schengen, sino de reforzarlo. En segundo lugar, que el problema en Europa no consiste en restablecer las fronteras interiores, sino en asegurar la gestión común de las fronteras exteriores, que es lo que quiere el Tratado de Lisboa. En tercer lugar, que el trabajo de este Parlamento debe completar el paquete de asilo y el paquete de inmigración, y llenar de contenido, con el Consejo, la cláusula de solidaridad en el interior de la Unión Europea, que también está contemplada en el Tratado de Lisboa. Y, por supuesto, debemos asegurar la plena involucración y participación del Parlamento Europeo, de acuerdo con el procedimiento de codecisión contemplado en el artículo 77 del Tratado de Lisboa.

Esa será la mejor forma de honrar el espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia y los objetivos del Tratado de Lisboa, y de asegurar que no damos ni un solo paso atrás en la garantía y en la mejora de la libre circulación de personas.

  Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, over the last few months the European Union has been confronted with several challenges. As if the economic crisis and the efforts to overcome it were not enough, some Member States have added another sensitive point to the agenda.

Instead of welcoming the switch to democratic regimes in some countries in northern Africa, and instead of putting more energy and imagination into assisting the peoples there, a couple of governments – ironically, EU founder-members – afraid that 25 000 people entering the EU would affect their stability, considered that the best way to protect their own borders would be to close them. They had the idea that a new mechanism, profoundly affecting the Schengen area and free movement, should be allowed.

Other governments consider that reinstating border controls is an efficient way to fight organised crime, as if criminals follow rules. The ALDE Group has been very firm and vocal from the very beginning. We do not want – and we will not accept – any new mechanism that may affect the Schengen acquis, the very spirit of EU integration.

Instead, we are ready and have already started working towards better Schengen governance for better protection of the EU external borders – while fully respecting the human rights of those trying to reach them – and towards full implementation of the principle of solidarity among Member States.

Politicians who believe that European citizens will like them as a result of this initiative are very wrong. They may get some votes in their own countries in the next elections as politicians, but they will not be forgiven for not acting as great statesmen in the interest of all European citizens, including their own. Only the preservation of Schengen and its acquis is a win-win situation.

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, this House has had many debates lately on how the Union deals with the pressures of migration and borders and we welcome another opportunity to expand the discussion. These discussions are long overdue, and so is reform of the Schengen system. Providing free movement is no longer the only issue that Schengen has to face. Twenty-six years has heralded change, growth and unfortunately some new and very big problems.

The world is changing, Europe is changing, and the Union’s response to new challenges needs to change too. Events in North Africa, increased migration, increased trafficking of drugs and people, unemployment, organised crime and terrorism are all issues that need to be addressed by a new and improved Schengen system. I hope that the response which the European Union delivers is one that is thoughtful and measured and not just over-speedy or reactionary.

The system should be made better and serve the people of Europe better. Member States need clear and strong support from the agencies of the EU – like Frontex, Europol and Eurojust – and there needs to be a strengthened evaluation mechanism for Member States who join the Schengen area, including a much greater focus on the prevention of corruption, the combating of organised crime and the establishment of independent judiciaries. We need to seriously consider the benefits of an evaluation mechanism which includes a support regime as well as a sanctions regime.

Member States need more say regarding their own borders, not less. Member States and the European Union should be partners, not master and slave. We must listen to Member States and listen to the needs of European citizens. Whilst doing so, we must always protect fundamental rights and freedoms. Only then will we be able to build faith and longevity once again into the Schengen system.

  Judith Sargentini, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, als een kind tijdens een spel het spel dreigt te verliezen, verandert het de spelregels "Oh, zei ik dat de bal in het rode doel moest? Nee, de bal moest in het blauwe doel."

Als een president in Afrika zijn tijd dreigt uit te zitten en zich niet meer herkiesbaar mag stellen, verandert hij de grondwet, dan mag hij nog wat langer blijven. Als lidstaten in de Europese Unie hun zin niet krijgen bij het invoeren van nieuwe binnengrenscontroles, veranderen ze de juridische basis. Dat lijkt mij toch een zeer onvolwassen manier van met elkaar samenwerken en een probleem oplossen. Het enige wat ons dan ook nog rest, is die lidstaten duidelijk te maken dat wij, als ze dat doen, naar de rechter stappen, dat het Europees Parlement het niet laat gebeuren dat er zomaar een andere juridische basis wordt vastgelegd.

Waarom doen die lidstaten dat nou? Denken we nou dat het gevaar van buiten komt? Dat we die mensen die in vrijheid willen leven, moeten weren omdat zij het gevaar zijn? De economische crisis komt niet uit Noord-Afrika. Wij maken de Europeanen wijs, of lidstaten maken de Europeanen wijs dat het beschermen van onze binnengrenzen iets oplost, een gevaar wegneemt, en dat is niet zo. Als we de mensen dat blijven wijsmaken, hoe kunnen we ze dan ooit nog eerlijk vertellen dat een crisis zoals in Griekenland, opgelost moet worden door lidstaten samen en hoe kunnen we ze dan eerlijk vertellen dat er eigenlijk een enorme noodzaak is aan arbeidsmigranten om in Europa de banen te vullen?

Deze lidstaten - en onder deze lidstaten is ook mijn eigen land, Nederland - laten zien dat ze niet vooruitkijken, dat ze bezig zijn de eerste verkiezingen te winnen, maar niet een sustainable, een duurzaam Europa op te bouwen.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Madame la Présidente, que de voix pour saluer les acquis de Schengen! On ne peut parler de la liberté de circulation à l'intérieur de l'Union européenne sans parler des conséquences de sa fermeture à l'extérieur.

Cessons de nous faire peur avec quelques dizaines de milliers de Tunisiens. Cessons les amalgames, et parlons des dizaines d'hommes et de femmes enfermés dans des centres de rétention aux frontières de l'Europe, de part et d'autre des frontières de celle-ci. Des dizaines d'entre eux sont renvoyés dans leur pays d'origine, sans même avoir pu mettre en œuvre leur droit d'asile. D'autres sont privés de leur droit de vivre en famille. Où sont les droits fondamentaux de ces hommes, de ces femmes et de ces enfants? Qu'en est-il de leur liberté de circulation? Qu'en est-il de la solidarité entre pays de l'Union et vis-à-vis des pays tiers, quand on conditionne les accords de partenariat à la réadmission de leurs ressortissants? Comment peut-on laisser des dizaines de personnes mourir en Méditerranée sans tout mettre en œuvre pour sauver ces vies humaines?

Je suis désolée, mais je ne crois pas que nous ayons tant de raisons d'être fiers des acquis de Schengen.

  Mario Borghezio, a nome del gruppo EFD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa discussione avviene in un momento molto opportuno, un momento che segue un'emergenza che non sarebbe giusto né intelligente sottovalutare, se vogliamo pensare a quello che sta succedendo e continuerà purtroppo forse a succedere in Libia.

Con questi scenari nel Nord Africa, vogliamo trascurare l'ipotesi che vi possa essere un'emergenza magari due volte, dieci volte, Dio lo voglia, cento volte maggiore? Lo aveva previsto un grande scrittore francese, Jean Raspail, molti decenni fa, e oggi ci siamo trovati molto vicini a questa situazione. Allora pensiamoci bene prima di criminalizzare un piccolo paese liberale come la Danimarca che decide di difendere i propri confini.

Io sono disposto a fare un elogio dei confini, non è che dobbiamo criminalizzare l'esistenza dei confini. Quando ci vogliono dei controlli e quando un paese ritiene di dare priorità alla sicurezza dei propri cittadini, bisogna rispettare questa decisione e questa dovrebbe essere democrazia secondo regole condivise da tutti i paesi europei. Quindi facciamo molta attenzione e pensiamo con grande preoccupazione al pericolo di un esodo biblico dall'Africa. Questo pericolo esiste ed è molto prossimo, molto vicino, sicuramente ...

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratore).

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). - Voorzitter, ten eerste wil ik het prachtige land Denemarken feliciteren met de geweldige beslissing om opnieuw grenscontroles in te voeren. Het toont de daadkracht van een soevereine staat binnen een al maar bemoeizuchtiger Europese Unie die niet accepteert dat een vreemde pseudo-mogendheid bepaalt met welke gevaren haar burgers worden geconfronteerd.

Criminaliteit overstijgt grenzen. Het is een illusie om die te bevechten door grenzen te verwijderen. Het verwijderen van grenzen zorgt namelijk voor een olievlekeffect waarbij criminaliteit van Oost-Europese lidstaten naar de rijke West-Europese landen vloeit.

Het herinvoeren van grenscontroles is een probaat middel van een soevereine staat om te voorkomen dat ongewenste elementen de landsgrenzen overschrijden. Een soeverein land is te allen tijde aan zichzelf verplicht om op de best mogelijke manier op te komen voor de belangen van zijn eigen volk. Een regering die haar volk verwaarloost ten koste van bandieten en klaplopers, miskent haar eigen geschiedenis en verloochent de belangen van haar burgers.

Of landen effectieve grenscontroles willen invoeren, dient hun eigen keuze te zijn. De Europese bureaucraten verbieden effectieve grenscontroles momenteel. Zo wordt aan Nederlandse douaniers de eis opgelegd dat zij van binnenkomende treinen per traject slechts twee treinen per dag mogen controleren en per trein slechts twee treinstellen.

Natuurlijk neemt het enthousiasme voor het vrij verkeer van personen in de lidstaten van de EU gestaag af. Geef onze douaniers en marechaussees de ruimte om te controleren zoals zij dat willen, gebaseerd op jarenlange ervaring, empirisch onderzoek en gevoel voor urgentie.

Als het Europese project echt zo perfect is als de Europese elite ons wil doen geloven, dan zullen wij dat niet eens nodig hebben.

(De spreker stemt ermee in een "blauwe kaart"-vraag te beantwoorden (artikel 149, lid 8, van het Reglement))

  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). - Voorzitter, mijnheer Van der Stoep, die controles op die treinen tussen België en Nederland vinden momenteel plaats. Twee van mijn medewerkers ondervinden dat. De ene is van Nederlands-Turkse afkomst, de ander is van Nederlands-Surinaamse afkomst. Ze hebben allebei een kleurtje en ze worden allebei meerdere keren om hun paspoort gevraagd. Zij hebben ook van de marechaussee begrepen dat de marechaussee die wagons waar alleen maar blonde mensen in zitten, laten gaan en de wagons uitzoekt waar de mensen in zitten die niet blond zijn, zoals ik. Is dat de vorm die u voorstaat of had u graag gewild dat we Nederlanders aan de grens naar Nederland, laten wachten totdat ze de grens mogen passeren?

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). - Voorzitter, ik ben het eens met mevrouw Sargentini dat dergelijke situaties niet kunnen, maar het probleem ligt nu juist in het feit dat er per trein inderdaad maar twee treinstellen kunnen worden gecontroleerd, dus wat doet de marechaussee? Die loopt even aan de buitenkant langs en helaas kiezen ze dan toch het treinstel uit waarvan zij denken dat er de meeste kans is om illegalen te vinden.

Deze specifieke situaties ken ik niet, maar ik keur het absoluut niet goed. Dat ben ik volledig met u eens, maar het probleem ligt nu juist in het feit dat er dus inderdaad beperking in zit. Als de hele trein wordt gecontroleerd, dan doet dit probleem zich helemaal niet voor. Dus als u het met mij eens bent - en dat hoop ik natuurlijk - dan kunnen we dit voorkomen door inderdaad gewoon volledige openheid te garanderen.

  Manfred Weber (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Vor zwei Wochen fand eine Tagung des Europäischen Rates statt. Und nach dieser Tagung sind die Staats- und Regierungschefs vor die Medien getreten und haben den europäischen Bürgern erklärt, wie stolz sie auf Schengen sind und dass sie Schengen gegen die Angriffe verteidigen werden. Als ich diese Statements unserer führenden Politiker in der Europäischen Union gehört habe, habe ich mir gedacht: Wie weit sind wir mittlerweile gekommen, dass es ein Erfolg ist, wenn man Schengen verteidigt? Eine Selbstverständlichkeit, die wir in Europa erarbeitet haben, steht plötzlich wieder zur Disposition.

Die zentrale Frage ist: Wie gehen wir mit dem Populismus um, den wir von der rechten Seite spüren? Ich glaube, wir müssen zwei Ansätze wählen: Der eine Ansatz ist, wir müssen die Menschen wieder davon überzeugen, dass das Projekt richtig ist. Auf die Behauptung, die Sicherheit sei besser, wenn man Grenzkontrollen einführt, müssen wir antworten, dass erst durch die Einführung des Schengener Informationssystems, durch Partnerschaft und Zusammenarbeit die Sicherheit besser geworden ist.

Ich lebe im bayerisch-tschechischen Grenzgebiet. Dort ist die Sicherheit gestiegen, seitdem wir die Grenzkontrollen abgeschafft haben, weil wir mit den tschechischen Behörden zusammenarbeiten. Schon ohne Abschaffung der Grenzkontrollen haben wir in Rumänien und Bulgarien allein aufgrund des Datenaustauschs im Rahmen des Schengener Informationssystems heute mehr Erfolge beim Kampf gegen Verbrechen. Wir müssen die Menschen überzeugen und wieder für das Projekt gewinnen. Wir müssen die Herzen gewinnen. Da würde ich mir wünschen, dass die Kommission härter vorgeht. Die Kommissarin Malmström hat gestern öffentlich erklärt, dass bisher in Dänemark kein Problem vorliegt. Dabei hat sie zwar juristisch korrekt, aber zu wenig politisch argumentiert. Wir kämpfen in dieser Angelegenheit nicht um die Herzen der Menschen!

Wir können als Parlament den Bürgern zusichern, dass wir den Vertrag von Lissabon ernst nehmen. Alle Angriffe, die es gegen den Schengen-Vertrag gibt, werden wir mit der Macht, die wir als Parlamentarier haben, verteidigen. Wenn es zur Änderung des Schengener Besitzstands kommt, dann werden wir dafür sorgen, dass Schengen nachher stärker und nicht schwächer ist.

  Claude Moraes (S&D). - Madam President, at the outset, the Commissioner started to say the positive things we wanted to hear, but the pre-emptive strike contained in this resolution is here for a reason. The reason is that we, in wanting to convince the people of the value of Schengen – the genuine value of Schengen, the economic value of Schengen, the social value of Schengen – have to make that case. But we have to do that from this Parliament, not on the sidelines of consultation but in the centre of the situation, with codecision. So, first of all, regarding Article 77, this is something we ask for and we expect to see from the Commission in the autumn.

The Socialists and Democrats are clear that we will work and vote with colleagues across this House who believe in the value of Schengen. Our group is saying very clearly that manipulation of Schengen comes at the greatest social and economic cost.

To the Council, we say that the flexibility already exists for Member States to alter the Schengen rules. It already exists, so we want a mechanism which provides safeguards and makes the Member States think twice if they want to abuse the rules that they themselves have put together.

We say clearly that we will oppose any new Schengen mechanism that has any other objective than enhancing freedom of movement and reinforcing EU governance of the Schengen area. We say to the Commission: do your job as guardian of the Treaties and provide the clear oversight which will make those Member States think twice about inflicting damage on a key freedom that our citizens enjoy.

The bigger picture is vital. There is a problem with the external border. Not since Tampere have we made rules on asylum and immigration, a fact that is now putting Schengen and the Schengen area under pressure. That is happening; it happened in Italy and France.

But what is at stake here, if the Commission does not get it right, is that you will irretrievably damage the Schengen area, which would then irretrievably damage one of the most positive and tangible benefits of the European Union. Our group will take the higher ground with all other colleagues in this Chamber and remain firm in the defence of Schengen.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, in the Green/EFA Group we also believe that free movement of people within the Schengen area has been one of the biggest achievements of European integration. Therefore only real threats could be a reason for the reintroduction of border checks, as a last resort. Such threats must be immediate, not merely hypothetical.

As regards the procedure, it should be European in nature. By the Schengen Borders Code the EU has exercised its competence concerning the reintroduction of border checks. This means that the Member States cannot legislate on it any more. Also we deplore the fact that the current procedure is de facto unilateral; this matter is already within the framework of EU law, not national law. Therefore, Commissioner, we suggest that the Commission takes one step further and proposes a mechanism whereby the European Union institutions will decide on the reintroduction of border checks.

  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). - Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Was ist das für ein Anachronismus, wenn im 22. Jahr nach dem historischen Mauerfall ein EU-Mitgliedstaat wie Dänemark wieder Grenzkontrollen einführt? Das ist eine fatale Botschaft für die gesamte Europäische Union. Wir alle wissen doch, dass es nach dem Schengen-Vertrag sehr wohl möglich ist, in Ausnahmefällen temporäre Grenzkontrollen einzuführen, siehe Fußball WM. Das Schengen-System braucht keinen zusätzlichen Mechanismus. Und wenn die dänische Regierung wieder permanente Grenzkontrollen zu Deutschland und Schweden einführt, dann ist das Vertragsbruch! Ich erwarte von der Kommission, dass sie nichts anderes macht, als dies auch so zu werten – als Vertragsbruch! Dieser Spuk muss beendet werden! Denn Freiheit und Freizügigkeit sind keine Verhandlungsmasse, sondern konstituierende Grundwerte der EU. Die darf man nicht nationalen Eitelkeiten und der extremen Rechten opfern.

Wir brauchen keine Änderung des Schengen-Vertrags, sondern eine Humanisierung des Asyl- und Migrationsrechts. Wir brauchen keine zusätzlichen Zöllner an der deutsch-dänischen Grenze, sondern Schutzmaßnahmen für Flüchtlinge und vom Bürgerkrieg verfolgte Menschen.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono passati più di vent'anni dalla firma degli accordi di Schengen.

Nessuno mette in dubbio i vantaggi della libera circolazione, ma bisogna pur riconoscere che l'attuale assetto non è più adeguato alle necessità attuali e future. Per questo gli Stati membri e l'UE tutta devono impegnarsi per rivedere i meccanismi di funzionamento di Schengen, affinché la libertà di movimento non vada a discapito della giusta esigenza di sicurezza da parte dei nostri cittadini.

Per quanto sappiamo finora, gli orientamenti della Commissione possono anche essere in parte condivisibili, soprattutto per quanto riguarda l'introduzione di un meccanismo che consenta agli Stati di ripristinare temporaneamente i controlli alle frontiere in caso di emergenza. Bisogna vedere però come ciò avverrà e se alle dichiarazioni seguiranno i fatti, soprattutto i risultati concreti.

Sicuramente occorrerà anche mettere mano a una riforma generale del sistema di protezione europeo delle frontiere, soprattutto quelle esterne su cui occorre che Frontex diventi al più presto un'Agenzia con poteri reali d'intervento e di supporto alle autorità nazionali. Dobbiamo proteggere le nostre frontiere esterne se vogliamo continuare con questo Schengen.

IN THE CHAIR: GILES CHICHESTER
Vice-President

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR). - Mr President, I rise on a – I am not sure under what rule really, but merely on a point of information to welcome you to the chair, for what I believe is your first session as Vice-President of Parliament, and wish you all the very best in that role.

(Applause)

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). - Señor Presidente, Schengen constituye un hito en la construcción del espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia.

La libertad de tránsito es, además, un pilar fundamental de la Unión, consagrado en el artículo 45 de nuestra Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales, y debe ser preservado y protegido.

Necesitamos más Europa y no menos Europa. Limitar el Acuerdo de Schengen no es la solución. Lo que debemos hacer es, de una vez por todas, superar las reticencias de algunos Estados para avanzar en el ámbito de la inmigración. La Unión Europea cuenta con los medios para ello, pero falta voluntad política.

Podemos y debemos reforzar los mecanismos de control de las fronteras exteriores, mejorar y dotar las capacidades y medios de Frontex, promover la creación y puesta en marcha de Eurosur, impulsar la implementación del Sistema de Información Schengen de segunda generación y del Sistema de Información de Visados, fomentar la cooperación y el intercambio de información entre los servicios fronterizos, policiales, judiciales y aduaneros, y avanzar decididamente hacia la construcción de una política común en materia de inmigración, asilo y visados en la que se preste especial consideración a los acuerdos de cooperación con los terceros países.

La actuación de los Estados en el ámbito de la inmigración debe inspirarse en el artículo 80 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea, ayudando solidariamente a aquellos otros que, en virtud de su situación geográfica, se ven obligados a afrontar flujos extraordinarios de inmigrantes irregulares o de peticionarios de protección internacional. La responsabilidad, en este sentido, debe ser compartida, señor Presidente.

Debo recordar que la reintroducción de controles fronterizos e internos por circunstancias no previstas en los artículos 23, 24 y 25 del Código Schengen es ilegal y vulnera gravemente las disposiciones del artículo 77 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea.

El mecanismo de evaluación de corte comunitario, propuesto por la Comisión, deberá ser el único instrumento, extraordinario y temporal.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - Pán komisár Šefčovič na jednej strane veľmi jasne zdôraznil, že voľný pohyb osôb je obrovským úspechom, o ktorý by sme sa nemali pripraviť, ale v tomto zmysle pôsobí nepochopiteľne návrh Komisie na riadenie imigračných tokov, konkrétne tá časť, ktorá umožňuje opätovné zavedenie hraničných kontrol v rámci Únie, hoci len výnimočne a dočasne. Predsa podmienky pre dočasné a výnimočné zavedenie kontrol na vnútorných hraniciach v prípade vážnej hrozby verejnej politiky či vnútornej bezpečnosti jasne stanovuje nariadenie schengenského kódexu, konkrétne články 23, 24 a 25. Ani aktuálne problémy s prílevom prisťahovalcov by nemali slúžiť ako dôvod pre ďalšie výnimky, pretože by znamenali významné ohrozenie schengenskej myšlienky, a to, že o takomto opatrení nemôže rozhodnúť samostatný ....

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). - Mr President, the former British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, was once asked by a journalist what he, as a politician, feared the most. He replied ‘Events, dear boy, events’. He was one hundred per cent right. Events are what is overwhelming the foundations of the supposed European superstate.

It is said that the Schengen Agreement is one of the great achievements of the EU Commission. What we are all witnessing is the unravelling of Schengen. When nation states believe that their national interests and those of their own citizens are threatened, they simply throw out EU solidarity – understandably so, and rightly so. That is what Denmark – and let us not forget France – is doing now, and there will soon be others.

It is not just Schengen. We are also witnessing the falling apart of the euro zone. I can mention the euro zone in this debate because Schengen, the euro zone and the euro are linked. The common threat is the inadequacy of those running the EU.

If the German MEP would care to listen, he might learn something. If he wants to talk, he should do it outside the House.

It is the nation states who are the best able to govern themselves. The EU nomenclatura have demonstrated that they are congenitally unfit to do so.

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, συνιστά γεγονός βαθιά ανησυχητικό το ότι έχουν επανέλθει στην ατζέντα οι συζητήσεις για τους εσωτερικούς συνοριακούς ελέγχους στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Επί χρόνια έγιναν προσπάθειες οι νέες γενιές να γαλουχηθούν με την ιδέα, και οι παλαιότερες να τη συνηθίσουν, ότι δεν υπάρχουν εσωτερικά σύνορα στην Ευρώπη. Και είναι ανεπίτρεπτο, κατά τη γνώμη μου, να χρησιμοποιείται το κύμα μεταναστευτικών ροών από τη Βόρειο Αφρική και όχι μόνο –αύριο μπορεί να έχουμε το ίδιο από τη Συρία– ως πρόφαση για την επαναφορά ζωνών ελέγχου εντός της ενωμένης Ευρώπης, ιδιαίτερα, σε πολλές περιπτώσεις, υπό την πίεση των δημοσκοπήσεων σε διάφορες χώρες. Το επόμενο βήμα ποιο θα είναι; Αν κάποιος δηλαδή θέσει το ζήτημα της επαναφοράς τελωνειακών ελέγχων, θα ανοίξουμε και μια τέτοια συζήτηση στην Ευρώπη; Είμαστε σε αυτό το επίπεδο την περίοδο αυτή;

Το ζητούμενο δεν είναι να γυρίσουμε τριάντα χρόνια πίσω, όταν κάποιοι που κάθονταν σ’ αυτά τα έδρανα, σ’ αυτά που και εμείς οι ίδιοι βρισκόμαστε σήμερα, συζητούσαν για μια Ευρώπη χωρίς σύνορα, χωρίς διαβατήρια, χωρίς ελέγχους, μια αληθινά ενωμένη ήπειρο, προνοώντας μάλιστα να προβλέψουν επαναφορά ελέγχων για εξαιρετικές περιπτώσεις.

Τι εξυπηρετεί άραγε η συζήτηση για την επιβολή νέων συνοριακών ελέγχων, όταν υπάρχει πρόβλεψη στα άρθρα 23 και 26 του κώδικα συνόρων Σένγκεν; Στο υψηλότατο μάλιστα επίπεδο των συζητήσεων, τι εξυπηρετεί η έλλειψη αναφοράς στο ρόλο που αναγνωρίζει η ίδια η Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας για το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο ως συνδιαμορφωτή στα ζητήματα συνοριακών ελέγχων;

Αυτά τα ζητήματα έχουν λυθεί και απαντηθεί. Το ζητούμενο σήμερα είναι η ενίσχυση του Σένγκεν, η διασφάλιση της ελευθερίας μετακίνησης, η βελτίωση της συνεργασίας μεταξύ των κρατών μελών. Αυτό που χρειάζεται είναι η μεταρρύθμιση του «Δουβλίνο ΙΙ» και ο αυστηρός και διαρκής έλεγχος των συνόρων, ιδίως των νοτίων· είναι η ενίσχυση της FRONTEX και προς το παρόν, βεβαίως, όσο η συζήτηση αυτή συνεχίζεται, πρέπει να δοθεί αμέσως απάντηση στα ερωτήματα ποιος ακριβώς θα έχει το δικαίωμα μιας απόφασης για επαναφορά ελέγχων και υπό ποιες ακριβώς συνθήκες θα επανέρχονται οι συνοριακοί έλεγχοι με τη νέα συζήτηση που είναι σε εξέλιξη;

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). - Egyetértek Šefčovič biztos úrral. Az euró mellett valóban Schengen a legfontosabb vívmánya az Európai Uniónak. Szimbolikus jelentősége is van, és sok ember számára ez a legláthatóbb jele az Európai Unió létének. Az Európai Unió hatékony működéséhez bizalom kell, és ennek a bizalomnak a fenntartásához a problémákra megfelelő, a tényleges okokat kezelő megoldásokat kell találnunk. A határőrizet egyoldalú bevezetése nem ilyen. A migrációs hullámra a megfelelő válasz a külső határok megerősítése, a közös migrációs és menekültpolitika kidolgozása. A bűnözés elleni harcot pedig kifejezetten segíti a schengeni együttműködés. A határőrizet időleges visszaállítása csak közösségi döntéssel elfogadható, és ennek szabályozása pedig csak a szerződés 77-es cikkelye alapján, együttdöntési eljárás keretében, az Európai Parlament teljes bevonásával történhet.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, je voudrais insister sur quatre points qui me paraissent essentiels dans la discussion qui nous occupe aujourd'hui.

Pour commencer, les changements que nous apporterons à Schengen devront absolument respecter l'esprit européen dans lequel cet acquis communautaire a été pensé et conçu. Il ne s'agit pas de remodeler Schengen pour l'appauvrir, mais bien de le renforcer.

En fait, ce débat nous pose la question suivante: sommes–nous convaincus de défendre l'intérêt de tous les citoyens européens ou bien sommes–nous soumis à la volonté des États membres?

Il s'agit en quelque sorte d'un test d'européanité, et je fais partie de ceux qui préfèrent garder des acquis précieux, plutôt que de les laisser être consommés par des intérêts nationaux à courte vue.

Cela me conduit à mon deuxième point. Renforcer Schengen ne peut se faire que par le biais d'une modification intelligente et équilibrée du mécanisme d'évaluation. On connaît ses lacunes actuelles; il nous faut le repenser pour garantir à la fois la liberté de circulation des personnes, la confiance mutuelle entre les États membres et la sécurité de tous.

Les sanctions et la possibilité de réintroduire temporairement le contrôle aux frontières d'un État membre ne devront être envisagées qu'en dernier recours, mais elles devront exister car, sans garde–fou, cela ne sert à rien de faire des évaluations qui tombent aux oubliettes.

C'est pourquoi je crois que la position équilibrée que nous devrons adopter doit consister à reconnaître que des mesures de rétorsion sont nécessaires, mais dans un cadre très strict, celui du mécanisme d'évaluation contrôlé par la Commission européenne.

J'en viens à mon troisième point. Si l'on décide d'introduire la possibilité de sanctions et de contrôles temporaires, alors les critères devront être très précis et définis à l'avance.

Enfin, je rappelle que le Parlement a toujours défendu ses droits et qu'il ne pourra tolérer que les États membres remettent en question la base juridique sur laquelle se fonde le mécanisme d'évaluation de Schengen. Nous serons intransigeants comme nous avons su l'être à plusieurs reprises, lorsque le Conseil décidait de passer outre la procédure de codécision.

  President. − Colleagues, by special request of the Earl of Dartmouth, I am asked to request the honourable colleagues in the second row facing me not to interrupt him while he is speaking. I am most grateful to you for your attention.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, suite au Conseil européen de juin dernier, la Commission va donc se résoudre à proposer en septembre de nouveaux mécanismes d'exception dans l'espace Schengen. Malgré toutes les précautions oratoires empruntées, chacun pourra voir toutefois combien cela ressemble à s'y méprendre à un début de démantèlement de la libre circulation des personnes en Europe.

D'ailleurs, certaines déclarations ne trompent pas, comme celle qui justifie ce nouveau mécanisme comme nécessaire, je cite "pour pouvoir contrôler la liberté de circulation". Est–il besoin de pointer la contradiction manifeste entre cette formule et l'opportunisme politique qu'elle traduit? Rappelons une nouvelle fois que des mécanismes de sauvegarde existent déjà et qu'ils ont fonctionné à plusieurs reprises déjà; il n'est nul besoin d'en créer un nouveau.

En fait, ce qui doit nous alerter avec la remise en cause de ce qui est un acquis fondateur et historique de la construction européenne, c'est qu'elle est le stigmate de la contamination du repli sur soi et du refus de la solidarité.

Ce n'est pas un hasard si la libre circulation est attaquée aujourd'hui; c'est un nouveau symptôme du délitement de la cohésion européenne et de la progression du virus nationaliste. On le voit aussi bien pour la crise de l'euro que pour de nombreux autres sujets. La devise de l'Union s'éloigne du "Unie dans la diversité", pour se rapprocher dangereusement du "chacun pour soi".

(Applaudissements)

  Anna Hedh (S&D). - Herr talman! Schengen är en stor framgång för Europasamarbetet. Därför borde rådets och kommissionens naturliga reaktion vara att förbättra systemet för fri rörlighet ytterligare. Ett exempel på detta skulle kunna vara det utvärderingssystem som nu diskuteras i LIBE-utskottet, och som skulle kunna göra det lättare att bedöma om medlemsstater begår överträdelser av reglerna. I det meddelande om migration som kom från kommissionen den 4 maj fanns i stället en hel del dåliga förslag. En av de saker som diskuterades var att ändra reglerna för tillfälliga gränskontroller. Det finns ju redan idag möjligheter att göra detta under speciella omständigheter. Att föreslå ytterligare förändringar är bara en flirt med högerextrema krafter. Det begränsande inflöde av migranter till Europa efter händelserna i Nordafrika kan aldrig bli en ursäkt för att begränsa den fria rörligheten i EU. I stället för att diskutera inskränkningar i den fria rörligheten borde vi fokusera på de verkliga problemen. Hur kan EU skapa en solidarisk asyl- och migrationspolitik?

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). - Schimbările propuse recent în Consiliul european pentru o aşa- zisă ameliorare a guvernanţei Schengen sunt incoerente şi pun în pericol libera circulaţie a cetăţenilor europeni. Propunerea este un atac grav la integritatea spaţiului Schengen, acesta trebuind să se bazeze pe încrederea reciprocă şi solidaritatea între statele membre. Nu putem accepta ca situaţiile definite în prezent ca fiind excepţionale să fie multiplicate printr-un nou mecanism, întrucât am da posibilitatea guvernelor cu tente naţionalist populiste să folosească acest lucru pentru a-şi promova politicele antiunioniste. Avem deja exemplul Danemarcei, care încalcă sub ochii închişi ai Comisiei, garantul tratatelor, atât acquis-ul Schengen, cât şi principiile pieţei unice.

În final, vreau să atrag atenţia Consiliului că lipsa de transparenţă şi intenţia sa de a exclude Parlamentul de la adoptarea noului mecanism sau a oricărei alte propuneri legislative nu poate fi acceptată şi reprezintă o încălcare gravă a tratatelor.

  Илияна Малинова Йотова (S&D). - Всъщност Комисията отстъпи под натиска на Съвета, и то по-точно на няколко лидера, да създаде нов механизъм за наблюдение и оценка. И аз искам да попитам каква ще бъде съдбата на предишния документ на Комисията, по който работим успешно вече няколко месеца. Проблемът не е в новия механизъм, а в успешното прилагане на Шенгенското споразумение и в желанието на държавите-членки да го спазват.

В шенгенската реформа днес като че ли има повече политическа интрига, отколкото грижа за опазване на пространството за свободно движение и за неговото укрепване. Струва ми се, че има тенденция чрез новия механизъм да се вземат едностранни решения, които биха могли да създадат опасни прецеденти за ограничаване на шенгенските достижения. Иначе нямаше как да стигнем до датското решение, взето под популистки натиск.

Какви ще бъдат критериите за оценка? Как ще сложим точен измерител за корупцията и борбата с престъпността? Знаете, че тези критерии именно отложиха членството на България и Румъния, въпреки изпълнението на техническите изисквания. В коя точно графа от новия механизъм ще поставите двете страни, след като Съветът смесва шенгенските критерии с Механизма за сътрудничество и проверка на Европейската комисия? Даже има идеи и за частично членство в Шенген. Предложението на Съвета за нов механизъм не би реформирало, а би обезсмислило идеята на Шенген, на което ние категорично ще се противопоставим като пратеници на европейските граждани.

  Tanja Fajon (S&D). - V moji državi Sloveniji in še devetih članicah Unije, tudi pri vas gospod komisar, smo decembra lani upihnili tretjo svečko, odkar smo vstopili v Schengen. Še vedno imamo zelo živ spomin, kako so padale meje po Evropi. Bil je zgodovinski trenutek, poseben dan za nas in za Evropo, ki se je za ljudi odprla na najbolj viden in možen način.

Volja je bila takrat povezovanje in združevanje. Danes pa nekatere države, Danska posebej, uničujejo takratne sanje mnogih Evropejcev. Schengenski sistem danes ne rabi sprememb. Ne smemo dovoliti, da bi na mejah vnovič vzpostavljali nadzor. Če ima sistem pomanjkljivosti, jih odpravimo. Vendar pa to, kar delajo nekatere vlade, ki grozijo z vnovično uvedbo nadzora na mejah in zahtevajo nova pravila, sporočajo, da ne rabijo Evrope.

Milijoni Evropejcev ne smejo postati orodje populističnih politik. Svoboda gibanja je bila eden od idealov evropskih politikov desetletja, zato od Komisije in držav članic jeseni pričakujemo, da boste to podprli in poslušali Evropski parlament.

Naši državljani bodo močno razočarani, če bomo Evropo brez meja praznovali le nekaj let. Potem nam ne bo ostalo veliko. Bojim se, da se bo potem naša Evropa zrušila kot hišica iz kart.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). - Ceea ce se întâmplă acuma cu controalele la frontierele interne nu cred că poate fi acceptat. Credibilitatea Schengen este subminată de faptul că Uniunea nu dispune de un mecanism care să poată fi declanşat în cazul în care un stat membru nu reuşeşte să îndeplinească corespunzător responsabilităţile referitoare la graniţa externă a Uniunii. Soluţia este de a schimba abordarea interguvernamentală într-un mecanism coordonat la nivelul Uniunii.

În situaţia în care se creează probleme la graniţele externe, trebuie să se ia măsuri pentru sprijinirea statelor membre în cauză, în special prin intervenţia Frontex. Reintroducerea controalelor trebuie să se aplice în ultimă instanţă, şi numai în cazul în care, chiar şi după acordarea sprijinului, statul membru nu este în măsură să remedieze deficienţa în 6 luni. În acest caz, cred că este corect să se stabilească măsuri financiare compensatorii pentru a sprijini statele membre afectate de reintroducerea controalelor la frontierele interne. Un asemenea mecanism ar evita situaţiile în care un stat membru introduce unilateral controale la frontierele sale.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). - Pravidlá si nesmieme prispôsobovať, ako sa nám chce. Odobrenie zavedenia colných kontrol na hraniciach Dánska s Nemeckom a Švédskom zo strany Európskej únie môže mať priamy účinok na celý schengenský systém. Ak by si každý jeden štát nárokoval zavedenie podobných kontrol, schengenská dohoda o slobode pohybu by stratila význam. Je preto potrebné zaviesť rovnocenné pravidlá v oblasti migrácie, platné pre všetky krajiny Európskej únie, a presne vymedziť, za akých okolností je možné hranice „Schengenu“ uzavrieť. Obavám sa, že Dánsko otvorilo Pandorinu skrinku. Na jednej strane stoja členské štáty, ktoré sa obávajú nárastu nelegálnej migrácie a medzinárodného zločinu po konflikte v Afrike, a na druhej strane stoja migranti, ktorých práva na slobodný pohyb môžeme považovať za ohrozené. Navrhujem však, aby sme riešili aktuálny problém v aktuálnej dobe, a tým stále zostáva nedostatočná pripravenosť Európskej únie voči krízovým situáciám a ich dôsledkom, ktorým v súčasnosti čelí nejeden členský štát.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). - Mr President, welcome to your chair.

There is this idea of reintroducing internal Schengen borders because of migratory flows. This is not a good idea. If you want to control migratory flows, you protect the external borders and do not reintroduce internal borders. If you do so, you will be sealing off Member States that are dealing with high migratory pressure and leaving them to deal on their own with problems that are in fact common problems. This is not the answer to common challenges, and it will jeopardise one of the best achievements of Europe.

Those Member States that think that closing Schengen borders will solve problems must also explain to their own people that, once you shut the door, you may well keep others out but you will also keep your own people locked in. It works both ways.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - Idea schengenského priestoru nie je iba ideou voľného pohybu v uvedenom priestore, ale aj ideou jednotného politického celku ohraničeného schengenskými hranicami. Preto snahy o zmeny zavedených pravidiel je potrebné posudzovať veľmi citlivo a zamýšľať sa nad tým, aký má byť skutočný cieľ navrhovaných zmien.

Aj súčasné pravidlá totiž umožňujú jednotlivým štátom v prípade mimoriadnych situácií na obmedzený čas prijať výnimočné opatrenia a obmedziť voľný pohyb v rámci vnútorného priestoru.

Som presvedčený, že len dlhodobým vyhodnotím platných pravidiel môžme získať seriózne námety na vylepšenie systému. Preto som si nie istý, či už pri prvom probléme je potrebné meniť pravidlá doposiaľ fungujúceho mechanizmu.

V každom prípade zmeny pravidiel sa dotknú všetkých 27 krajín Únie a iste nebude jednoduché hľadať potrebnú zhodu. Možno však, že Komisia po dohode s Radou predsa len nájde nové pravidlo, ktoré súčasný mechanizmu ešte vylepší, ale možno iba otvorí nový okruh nových problémov.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). - Herr Präsident! Auch von meiner Seite ein herzliches Willkommen in Ihrer neuen Position! Schengen ist meiner Meinung nach eine der Errungenschaften, die von unseren Bürgern und Bürgerinnen wirklich sehr geschätzt werden. Es ist wichtig, unsere Außengrenzen zu schützen, und wenn wir jetzt in diesem Abkommen tatsächlich Mängel feststellen, dann müssen wir sie beheben. Das heißt für mich aber auch, Änderungen gemeinsam in Abstimmung mit wirklich allen beteiligten Gesprächspartnern zu beschließen. Alles andere ist meiner Meinung nach ein Schritt in die entgegengesetzte Richtung. Ich denke, Europa soll in eine gute Zukunft gehen.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, on behalf of the Commission I would also like to congratulate you and I wish you lots of success in your new position. As you will see, you will often have your hands full handling debates as lively and important as today’s. I would also like to thank all the Members of the European Parliament who supported Schengen and who made it absolutely clear that Schengen represents freedom and reunification of Europe, openness and also togetherness of European nations and European citizens in the European Union.

This debate also confirmed that it is true that the Schengen system has come under pressure recently. We must do everything possible to upgrade it and make it stronger than before. We need to start by restoring trust. We need to maintain mutual trust in our capacity, the capacity of us all, to fully comply with the obligations imposed on us to preserve an area without internal border controls. Therefore Schengen needs a stronger monitoring and evaluation system. The Commission is looking into the possibilities for further strengthening this new mechanism aiming to bring an adequate response to a situation where a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations at the external borders.

A series of measures could be envisaged at EU level to assist a Member State facing heavy pressure at the external borders. It would include inspection visits, technical and financial support, including the participation of Frontex. I think we all agree that we need a complex and comprehensive approach to this problem. We are therefore talking about a complete set of measures including an EU-based mechanism, strengthened Schengen governance, evaluation and reinforcement of Frontex and further guidelines and recommendations to better explain the existing rules.

This has to be seen in parallel with the completion of a common asylum system in 2012, where – as we know – we also very often have big divergences in how the asylum system is applied and how asylum status is granted to refugees.

I would reiterate once again that we are fully aware in the Commission of the crucial importance of free movement for the EU and its future. Therefore the Commission strongly believes that the proposal for the mechanism should be based on Article 77 of the TFEU. This means that the proposal will be subject to ordinary legislative procedure, thus ensuring full involvement of Parliament on an equal footing with the Council.

If you allow me, I should like to conclude on Denmark, because several of you have referred to the recent and current developments in Denmark. I would like to inform you that on 28 June the Commission received a reply from Denmark to our questions. The reply is now being carefully evaluated by all the Commission services concerned in order to decide if all the Commission questions have been answered and if all relevant information has been provided. As I said in my introductory remarks, we are fully aware of our important role as a guardian of the treaties, and we will do our utmost to ensure that all rules, all acquis, and the Schengen acquis in this particular context, are fully respected.

  President. − The debate is closed.

I have received six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 7 July 2011.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), în scris. – Propunerea de modificare a Sistemului Schengen vine într-un moment în care UE se confruntă un val de imigrație fără precedent. Mesajul pe care trebuie să îl transmitem, și anume mesajul unei Europe Unite, este confruntat cu o realitate care nu ne poate lăsa indiferenți. Soluțiile la care trebuie să recurgem sunt unele care trebuie să reconcilieze valorile europene și provocările actuale. Așadar, nu putem încuraja reintroducerea de controale de frontieră, în special pentru că exista riscul ca anumite state să folosească acest prilej pentru a exacerba tendințele xenofobe, dar nici nu putem rămâne pasivi. Putem accepta reintroducerea de controale la frontiere doar cu criterii clare de condiționalitate, care să nu aducă atingere acquis-ului Schengen și care sunt deja prevăzute în Regulamentul 562/2006. Problemele cauzate de afluxul de imigranți trebuiesc soluționate prin partajarea responsabilității între statele semnatare ale acquis-ului.

În plus, nu trebuie să uitam că aceste probleme își au originea în reticența de a pune în aplicare politici europene comune în alte domenii, în primul rând un sistem comun european în materie de azil și imigrație (care să includă o abordare a imigrației ilegale și să combată crima organizată). Acest impas nu trebuie însă consolidat de măsuri și mai drastice și care lezează valorile de bază ale UE.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), par écrit. – Je n'ai pas soutenu la résolution sur l'espace Schengen car j'estime qu'il n'est pas opportun d'avoir une résolution qui refuserait par principe tout élargissement des critères permettant d'établir un contrôle aux frontières intérieures et qui irait ainsi contre les conclusions du Conseil européen et contre les propositions de la Commission. Si on se limite aux critères existant aujourd'hui "d'ordre public et de sécurité publique", les Etats continueront d'agir de manière unilatérale en interprétant largement ces critères en cas de pressions migratoires fortes et, se faisant, nous risquons de pousser à assimiler immigration et insécurité quand il faudra réagir à des pressions migratoires. Le dispositif proposé vise au contraire à créer un mécanisme permettant la réintroduction de contrôles aux frontières de façon exceptionnelle, en dernier recours et dans le cadre d'un mécanisme européen. Il nous faut aujourd'hui renforcer la gouvernance de l’espace Schengen. Cette initiative vise précisément à pouvoir apporter des réponses à la situation de crise que connait actuellement l’espace Schengen, liée en particulier au fait que certains Etats membres ne sont plus en mesure d’assurer le respect de leurs obligations au titre de l’acquis Schengen s’agissant du contrôle effectif de leur portion de frontière extérieure

  Csanád Szegedi (NI), írásban. – Tisztelt képviselőtársaim! Az elhangzottak alapján sokakban felháborodást okoz, hogy bizonyos Európai Uniós országok ideiglenesen visszaállították határellenőrzésüket. Úgy érzik, hogy ezzel sérül az Európai Unió egyik legfőbb alapelve. Azonban az, hogy így cselekedtek, nem ezen tagállamok hibája, hanem az Unió vezetéséé. Ez a lépés egy következmény. Annak következménye, hogy az EU külső határa igen gyenge, nem képes a bevándorlók özönét megállítani. Meg kell állítani a bevándorlóhullámot, visszaszorítani a bűnözést, hogy az európai emberek újra biztonságban érezhessék magukat saját országukban! Köszönöm a figyelmet!

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. – Calitatea de membru Schengen aduce cu sine asigurarea libertății depline de circulație a cetățenilor unui stat membru în interiorul acestui spațiu și eliminarea totală a controalelor la frontierele dintre statele membre. Siguranța spațiului Schengen depinde de rigoarea și eficacitatea cu care fiecare stat membru al spațiului Schengen efectuează controalele la frontierele externe ale UE.

Libera circulație a persoanelor este unul dintre principiile fundamentale ale Uniunii, iar realizarea pieței interne se bazează pe libera circulație a bunurilor, serviciilor și persoanelor. Spațiul Schengen este una dintre realizările principale ale UE și de aceea este important să promovam și să apăram principiile care îl guvernează. Criza economică și financiară nu trebuie invocată ca justificare pentru introducerea de către anumite state membre de restricții pentru libera circulație a persoanelor. Îmi reafirm opoziția fermă față de orice nou mecanism Schengen, având alte obiective decât consolidarea liberei circulații a persoanelor. Nu putem avea standarde duble privind spațiul Schengen și regret tentativa unor state membre de a reintroduce, în mod unilateral, controalele la frontierele interne ale Uniunii.

Solicit Comisiei să evalueze, cu caracter de urgență, respectarea acquis-ului comunitar și a acquis-ului Schengen în cazul deciziei adoptate de către Regatul Unit al Danemarcei de a reintroduce controale la frontierele sale.