REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (revision of the suspension mechanism)
18.7.2016 - (COM(2016)0290 – C8‑0176/2016 – 2016/0142(COD)) - ***I
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Rapporteur: Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (revision of the suspension mechanism)
(COM(2016)0290 – C8‑0176/2016 – 2016/0142(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0290),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 77(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0176/2016),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to Rules 59, 39 and 40 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0235/2016),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(3) In particular, the use of the mechanism should be facilitated by shortening reference periods and deadlines allowing for a faster procedure and by extending the possible grounds of suspension, which should include a substantial increase in the number of rejected readmission applications for third-country nationals having transited through the third country concerned, where a readmission agreement concluded between the Union or a Member State and that third country provides for such a readmission obligation. The Commission should also be able to trigger the mechanism in case the third country fails to cooperate on readmission, in particular where a readmission agreement has been concluded between the third country concerned and the Union. |
(3) In particular, the use of the mechanism should be facilitated by shortening reference periods and deadlines allowing for a faster procedure and by extending the possible grounds of suspension, which should include a substantial increase in the number of rejected readmission applications for third-country nationals having transited through the third country concerned, where a readmission agreement concluded between the Union or a Member State and that third country provides for such a readmission obligation, and a substantial increase of risks to the public policy or to the internal security of Member States. The Commission should also be able to trigger the mechanism in case the third country fails to cooperate on readmission, in particular where a readmission agreement has been concluded between the third country concerned and the Union. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 c (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 Article 1a – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 Article 1a – paragraph 2 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 Article 1a – paragraph 2 – point c a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 Article 1a – paragraph 2 a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 Article 1a – paragraph 2 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 Article 1a – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 Article 1a – paragraph 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 Article 1a – paragraph 4 - second subparagraph | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 b (new) Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 Article 1a – paragraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1– point 5 c (new) Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 Article 1a – paragraph 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 2 (new) Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 Article 4b – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Visa policy is a crucial matter for the European Union, with repercussions for both external action and internal security. It is because of its importance that it is clearly regulated as an area of shared competence between the co-legislators through the ordinary procedure.
The regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 11 December 2013 introduced substantial aspects such as the ‘suspension mechanism’, which is now itself to be amended. It also modified the reciprocity mechanism as a counterweight to the suspension mechanism, in an agreement between the institutions whose legality was confirmed by the Court of Justice of the EU on 16 July 2015. That ruling became case law and provided the basis for the correct use of delegated and implementing acts, thus guaranteeing equality among the institutions.
Developments in the political and migratory situation, particularly in the light of successive visa liberalisation processes, makes it necessary to revise the suspension mechanism to make it faster and more flexible. There is no doubt that we need to provide ourselves with the tools that will enable the EU to respond to circumstances, which all have their own specific features, arising from:
• substantial and sudden increases in the number of third-country nationals residing irregularly in EU territory;
• unfounded asylum applications from nationals of that third country;
• rejected readmission applications;
• threats to security in European territory.
This increased flexibility must nevertheless be accompanied by a robust set of guarantees and measures to protect human rights, along with reports and statistics supplied by the European agencies and the competent law enforcement authorities. This is the only way of guaranteeing the rights of third-country citizens and safeguarding the principles of the Community visa policy.
It is both necessary and legally appropriate for the European Parliament to be involved in the decision making, since we should not forget that reimposing visa requirements for third-country nationals is one of the harshest political measures that can be taken. In keeping with the case referred to above, the suspension mechanism should be amended as regards the use of delegated acts and brought into line with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2015, by which the Court has already ruled on this matter with regard to the reciprocity mechanism. These mechanisms are two sides of the same coin, representing legislative and political counterweights with similar effects, and the corresponding procedures should therefore be brought into line.
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
Title |
List of the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (review of the suspension mechanism) |
||||
References |
COM(2016)0290 – C8-0176/2016 – 2016/0142(COD) |
||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
LIBE 12.5.2016 |
|
|
|
|
Committees asked for opinions Date announced in plenary |
AFET 12.5.2016 |
|
|
|
|
Not delivering opinions Date of decision |
AFET 1.7.2016 |
|
|
|
|
Rapporteurs Date appointed |
Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra 23.5.2016 |
|
|
|
|
Discussed in committee |
26.5.2016 |
15.6.2016 |
|
|
|
Date adopted |
7.7.2016 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
42 9 1 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Jan Philipp Albrecht, Heinz K. Becker, Michał Boni, Caterina Chinnici, Rachida Dati, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Frank Engel, Cornelia Ernst, Tanja Fajon, Laura Ferrara, Monika Flašíková Beňová, Lorenzo Fontana, Mariya Gabriel, Kinga Gál, Ana Gomes, Nathalie Griesbeck, Sylvie Guillaume, Jussi Halla-aho, Monika Hohlmeier, Brice Hortefeux, Filiz Hyusmenova, Iliana Iotova, Eva Joly, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Barbara Kudrycka, Marju Lauristin, Monica Macovei, Barbara Matera, Roberta Metsola, Louis Michel, Claude Moraes, József Nagy, Judith Sargentini, Birgit Sippel, Branislav Škripek, Csaba Sógor, Helga Stevens, Traian Ungureanu, Kristina Winberg |
||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Dennis de Jong, Gérard Deprez, Anna Hedh, Petr Ježek, Petra Kammerevert, Jean Lambert, Gilles Lebreton, Andrejs Mamikins, Salvatore Domenico Pogliese, Christine Revault D’Allonnes Bonnefoy, Barbara Spinelli |
||||
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote |
Georg Mayer |
||||
Date tabled |
18.7.2016 |
||||
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
42 |
+ |
|
ALDE |
Gérard Deprez, Nathalie Griesbeck, Filiz Hyusmenova, Petr Ježek, Louis Michel |
|
ECR |
Jussi Halla-aho, Monica Macovei, Branislav Škripek, Helga Stevens |
|
ENF |
Lorenzo Fontana |
|
GUE/NGL |
Dennis de Jong |
|
PPE |
Heinz K. Becker, Michał Boni, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Rachida Dati, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Frank Engel, Mariya Gabriel, Kinga Gál, Monika Hohlmeier, Brice Hortefeux, Barbara Kudrycka, Barbara Matera, Roberta Metsola, József Nagy, Salvatore Domenico Pogliese, Csaba Sógor, Traian Ungureanu |
|
S&D |
Caterina Chinnici, Tanja Fajon, Monika Flašíková Beňová, Ana Gomes, Sylvie Guillaume, Anna Hedh, Iliana Iotova, Petra Kammerevert, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Marju Lauristin, Andrejs Mamikins, Claude Moraes, Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Birgit Sippel |
|
9 |
- |
|
EFDD |
Laura Ferrara, Kristina Winberg |
|
ENF |
Gilles Lebreton |
|
GUE/NGL |
Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli |
|
VERTS/ALE |
Jan Philipp Albrecht, Eva Joly, Jean Lambert, Judith Sargentini |
|
1 |
0 |
|
ENF |
Georg Mayer |
|
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention