Пълен протокол на разискванията

Вторник, 9 юни 2015 г. - Страсбург

12. Пакет „Интелигентни граници“ (разискване)

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana komission julkilausuma "Älykkäät rajat -paketti" (2015/2614(RSP)).

  Dimitris Avramopoulos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, first of all I would like to thank you for a further opportunity to reflect with you on smart borders and, in a more general way, the need to modernise EU border management. The Commission’s Smart Borders Package of 2013 has already been discussed with Parliament and the Council. As announced in the Agenda on Security that we adopted, as you will remember, on 28 April 2015, and in the Agenda on Migration presented on 13 May, it is now our intention to present, by the beginning of 2016, a revised proposal on smart borders.

Today’s reality is that Member States face difficulties in managing the growing traveller flows at borders and in fulfilling the obligations set by the Schengen Border Code. There were an estimated 200 million border crossings by third country nationals last year, and a 50% increase is expected in the next decade. Borders must benefit from technology. The smart borders system will automatically record all incoming and outgoing third country nationals and will support border guards in their tasks. It will also enable the automation or semi-automation of the border controls for travellers already known by the system. This will allow us to face the increases in traveller flows.

Smart borders will also help us in making our policy against irregular migration more effective. How? By systematically recording all incoming and outgoing third country nationals, the system will automatically identify the travellers who stay longer than the authorised period. Smart borders will also help in identifying undocumented persons present in the Schengen area. Lastly, the system will support an informed visa policy decision-making process, taking into account the actual overstayer figures provided by the system.

Possible law-enforcement access will be a key issue to be addressed in the impact assessment for the new proposal. The Commission has already acknowledged, in the impact assessment for the 2013 proposal, that the data generated at entry/exit could be of use to law-enforcement authorities in the fight against terrorist offences and serious crime in specific cases – both as an identity verification tool and as a criminal intelligence tool. But any decision to allow law-enforcement access from the outset will need to be based on the demonstrated necessity and proportionality of the measure. Strict, specific substantive and procedural safeguards would need to be laid down, taking into account, inter alia, the rulings of the European Court of Justice on data protection.

Let me now share with you some of the emerging ideas on how we could increase the efficiency and effectiveness of border management. These are, of course, not yet conclusive, as discussions are still ongoing and the testing phase is still under way. These issues will all be covered in depth in the updated impact assessment the Commission is undertaking in order to inform its revised proposal. The initial findings of the technical study seem to point to potential advantages of a single piece of legislation. As in 2013, this would be accompanied by a technical modification of the Schengen Border Code.

Let me give you an idea of the questions which, in my view, need to be answered in the context of our impact assessment, in addition to the already-mentioned issue of law-enforcement access and, of course, the financial implications and efficiency questions. As regards the architecture of the system: should smart borders rely on a single system rather than separate systems for entry/exit recording and registered traveller management? Can we further reduce the number of data items about each traveller while still achieving our objectives? How long should the data retention periods be for entry/exit and for registered travellers, in full compliance with data protection rules? Can we introduce a ‘lighter’ form of biometric identifiers while maintaining the effectiveness of the system? How can we facilitate border crossings for the very large majority of travellers who do not pose any problem or risk? How can we benefit from the experience and solutions found in the existing large-scale systems, in order to reduce costs? While preparing the revised proposal, the Commission will continue to listen carefully to the opinions expressed by the European Parliament.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora Presidenta, señor Comisario, Señorías, gracias a la señora Fajon por su buen trabajo. Como se ha dicho, se espera que en el año 2025 se alcancen 300 millones de cruces fronterizos, producidos aproximadamente por 76 millones de nacionales de terceros Estados, previsiones que nos obligan a mejorar la gestión del tráfico de pasajeros, dada la insuficiencia acreditada del SIS II y del VIS. Como diputados, ante un paquete legislativo todavía tan impreciso —a pesar de que nació en febrero de 2013—, estamos determinados a que la voz del Parlamento sea tenida en cuenta a lo largo de toda la tramitación legislativa y ante la nueva propuesta revisada de 2016.

En cuanto a la arquitectura del sistema, lo que queremos saber, señor Comisario, es claramente cuáles son sus ideas al respecto: ¿un sistema de entradas y salidas y un RTP?; ¿los dos?; ¿uno u otro?; ¿mezclados? Porque esta es una cuestión esencial y es esencial también para el presupuesto, claro. Por otra parte, la Comisión tiene que clarificar y comprometerse con el objetivo principal y los posibles secundarios. Por ejemplo, la lucha contra las mafias migratorias y contra otros delitos graves como el terrorismo.

Hablamos de tecnología, y de tecnología para darle a esta un valor añadido. Todo lo que digo, naturalmente, debe tener el envoltorio legal y primario, con las máximas garantías, en lo que concierne a derechos fundamentales, para cumplir bien con el artículo 77 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea. Y solo a partir de tener claro este marco general podremos hablar de biometría, interoperabilidad, aceleradores, sistemas de información a los pasajeros o del rol de las compañías de transporte.

El informe técnico y la conclusión de los proyectos piloto o fases de prueba —dieciséis en doce Estados miembros— aportarán la información necesaria para el lanzamiento de la nueva propuesta legislativa en las fronteras aéreas, terrestres y marítimas. Por otra parte, señor Comisario, es necesario fortalecer el diálogo interinstitucional para reforzar la protección de datos, el acceso al sistema por parte de las fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad o las consecuencias de la eliminación de estampados en los pasaportes.

Le recuerdo que todos los Parlamentos nacionales menos uno estuvieron a favor del acceso de las fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad, como usted dice: teniendo en cuenta la proporcionalidad y la necesidad.

  Tanja Fajon, v imenu skupine S&D. – Hvala lepa spoštovani komisar, hvala tudi kolegi De Mera za dobro sodelovanje.

Kaj je namen pametnih meja? Narediti Evropo bolj privlačno ali zgraditi nove zidove?

Trenutno se razprava odvija v napačno smer.

Zapravljanje denarja za nov sistem, nove tehnologije je vse kaj drugega kot pametno. Še posebej, če Komisija ne bo upoštevala naših skrbi glede varstva podatkov in stroškov – skoraj 800 milijonov evrov.

Preveč se osredotočamo na varnost, nesorazmerno s tveganjem, ki obstaja. Še posebej me pri prenovi predloga skrbi obseg dostopa pravosodnih organov do podatkov.

Gre za zelo resno vprašanje, kdo bo hranil in obdeloval podatke, in kako bo to vplivalo na temeljne pravice potnikov. Tu resno opozarjam, da imamo socialisti in demokrati zelo jasno rdečo črto, in veseli me, komisar, da se tega zavedate.

Moja naslednja skrb: v Parlamentu nikoli nismo slišali podrobnega odgovora: bodo stroški, ki jih bomo Evropejci namenili za nove tehnologije, nov sistem upravičili namen projekta? Priznam, da sem zelo skeptična.

Poznavalci in stroka opozarjajo na drugačne rešitve. Boljše upravljanje meja in lažji prehod potnikov bi lahko dosegli z nadgradnjo obstoječega VIS sistema, kjer že zbiramo biometrične podatke o imetnikih vizumov za vstop v Unijo. S preprosto operacijo bi ta sistem lahko razširili še na tiste potnike, ki za vstop ne potrebujejo vizumov. Zakaj ne izkoristiti teh sistemov, kot je tudi SIS2?

Ne nazadnje – predlog programa za registrirane potnike, katerega poročevalka sem. Če v novem predlogu tega ne bo, bomo izgubili še tisti kanček upanja, da je bil namen sporne zakonodaje, lajšati prehod meje za tretje državljane, iskren.

Spoštovani komisar, vem, da si želimo isto: privlačno, svobodno in varno Evropo. Pozivam vas, da v pripravi prenove predloga upoštevate vse omenjene skrbi. Skoraj 800 milijonov evrov ali vsaj del tega denarja bi lahko uporabili veliko bolj smiselno. Denimo za nujno reševanje in pomoč beguncem, ki danes umirajo v Sredozemlju.

Česar ne želimo narediti je, da vzpostavimo sistem, nove pametne meje, ki bi pomenilo v praksi dvoje: potrato denarja in nove nepotrebne ovire za potnike. To bi bilo vse kaj drugega kot pametne meje oziroma kot pametno.

Hvala lepa.

  Jussi Halla-aho, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, the free movement of persons is often mentioned as one of the greatest achievements of European integration from the point of view of an ordinary European citizen.

However, the absence of internal borders benefits not only bona-fide travellers. It is vital for the credibility and acceptability of the Schengen area that we effectively control our common external border. Third-country nationals that cross the external border should be reliably identified and their right to enter the Schengen area verified. The collected data should be stored in shared databases and be available to all relevant authorities. Also, the same standards should apply to all border-crossing points. The manual checking of travel documents is both slow and unreliable, which leads to long queues and more mistakes at the borders.

The Smart Borders Package aims to address such challenges. The objective is to facilitate smooth and easy travel for the vast majority of travellers and, at the same time, make life more difficult for those who seek to abuse free movement inside the Union. The ECR supports these objectives.

My question to the Commissioner is this: given the very large and ever-growing number of travellers into the European Union, how do you see the future if we do not create a common EU-wide solution, such as smart borders?

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), blue-card question. – You said that information has to be available to all relevant authorities. Do you believe that access to the system for law—enforcement purposes should be granted, or not?

  Jussi Halla-aho (ECR), blue-card answer. – This is a political decision and has to be decided by us in the future. We have a national entry-exit system and we have law—enforcement access in my country, which works well. I believe it serves a legitimate purpose, so my answer is yes.

  Филиз Хюсменова, от името на групата ALDE. – Благодаря, г-жо Председател. Едни от най-важните въпроси по пакета „Интелигентни граници“ остават очертаването на ясни цели на проекта и пропорционалността на предложените мерки спрямо необходимостта от законодателно решение.

Съществуват множество неясноти във връзка със сега съществуващите законодателни предложения. Изтъкнато бе, че сред целите им са справянето с увеличаващия се поток от пътници, събирането на статистически данни, проследяване на незаконно пребиваващите и осигуряването на по-висока степен на сигурност за европейските граждани. В същото време обаче правозащитните органи в държавите членки продължават да не си сътрудничат пълноценно и да не обменят информация с цел превенция и борба с международната престъпност.

Освен това в техническото изследване на законодателните предложения беше посочено, че лицевото разпознаване като изолирано геометрично разпознаване за идентифицирането на пътници също се разглежда като възможност. То е обект на анализ и по време на изпитателния етап, който тече в момента. Вярно е, че допълнителните методи като събирането на пръстови отпечатъци предоставят по-голяма точност, но големият брой пръстови отпечатъци забавя процеса. Продължителното им съхранение води до допълнителни разходи, а твърде краткото съхранение не улеснява управлението на пътническия трафик. Възниква въпросът доколко то е оправдано спрямо допълнителните средства, които държавите членки ще трябва да инвестират, и спрямо неприкосновеността на личността.

На второ място, в качеството си на докладчик в сянка по доклада за измененията на Шенгенския кодекс, бих искала да се обърна и към представителя на Съвета и отново да припомня на латвийското председателство, че България и Румъния осъществяват задълженията си по опазване на европейските външни граници, изпълнили са изискванията за прием и ще поемат тежестта по въвеждането на всички стандарти, изисквания и системи за сигурност, наравно със страните от Шенгенското пространство, което е и още един аргумент за приемането ни в Шенген.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Madame la Présidente, "smart borders", "frontières intelligentes"... Passons sur le vocabulaire utilisé. Ce système au coût exorbitant, même s'il a été revu à la baisse, est un paradoxe en soi. On prétend rendre l'Union européenne plus attractive, faciliter la libre circulation, améliorer le contrôle aux frontières et mieux lutter contre l'immigration irrégulière. Pour cela, on veut ficher tous ceux qui entrent sur le territoire de l'Union européenne, soit 500 millions de personnes par an, l'équivalent de la population de l'Union.

Les États-Unis ont mis en place un programme similaire, qui a coûté un milliard et demi, pour bloquer 1 300 personnes, soit plus d'un million par refus. On va donc mettre en place une usine à gaz qui créera plus de problèmes qu'elle n'en résoudra. La fluidité n'est pas pour demain.

La Commission a retiré son projet, tant mieux. Mais elle veut s'appuyer sur un projet pilote mené par eu-LISA et nous en présenter un nouveau. C'est une validation purement technique qui est loin de tenir compte de l'ampleur des problèmes. Passons sur les conditions de mise en place de ce test, qui n'est qu'un écran de fumée pour forcer la main du Parlement européen, une façon de reprendre les obsessions des États membres – contrôle des frontières et fichage des migrants – après Eurodac, SIS et SIS II, qui coûtaient déjà très cher. Ces instruments sont déjà contestables, mais au moins qu'on en fasse de réels bilans.

Rien ne justifie ce projet, sauf le dogme sécuritaire et l'obsession de la chasse aux migrants. C'est quoi un "voyageur à risque", Monsieur le Commissaire? Cessons la fuite en avant liberticide, loin de toute efficacité.

(L'oratrice accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu" (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))

  Jussi Halla-aho (ECR), blue-card question. – Ms Vergiat, you say that Europe should be an attractive destination, and I fully agree with you. But one of the objectives of this Smart Borders Package is to facilitate smoother and swifter border crossing for the vast majority of third-country nationals who cross the external borders of the European Union. Creating longer queues at border-crossing points hardly makes Europe a more attractive destination for anyone. Do you not agree?

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), réponse "carton bleu". – Mon cher collègue, ce n'est pas moi qui ai établi les quatre objectifs que j'ai cités, c'est la Commission elle-même. Je pense qu'avant qu'il y ait fluidité – comme je l'ai dit dans mon intervention, il faudra attendre longtemps que tous les citoyens soient fichés avant de passer librement la frontière.

Selon moi, il ne s'agit pas des moyens ad hoc. Il faut établir des principes de proportionnalité et de nécessité. Là, on dépense un argent colossal – aucun problème financier en la matière – pour un résultat qui sera avant tout liberticide pour tous ceux qui rentreront dans l'Union européenne, sans avoir pour autant la moindre efficacité.

  Ska Keller, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Mit smart borders würden wir eine der größten Fingerabdruck-Datenbanken weltweit schaffen. Alle Ein- und Ausreisenden in die EU und aus der EU heraus müssten sich dort erfassen lassen. Das ist ja schon alarmierend genug. Aber es gibt noch nicht mal einen ordentlichen Zweck, wozu das eigentlich dienen soll. Denn laut der Kommission soll die Datenbank dazu dienen, dass overstayer nicht mehr länger zu lange bleiben. Aber wie das genau passieren soll, ist völlig unklar. Zum Schluss haben wir die Datenbank nur noch für statistische Zwecke.

Wir Grüne lehnen es auch mit aller Entschiedenheit ab, den Zweck dann einfach auszudehnen und auch der Polizei Zugriff auf diese Fingerabdrücke zu geben. Die Kommission darf da dem Drängen der Mitgliedsstaaten auf keinen Fall nachgeben, denn damit würden wir europäische Grund- und Datenschutzrechte einfach nur noch mit Füßen treten.

Und auch aus finanzieller Sicht ist smart borders kein besonders smartes Projekt, denn die Kosten werden auf jeden Fall erheblich höher sein, als sie jetzt in der Studie ausgerechnet worden sind. Denn alles, was die Mitgliedstaaten an Geräten, Scannern, ABC-Gates, Kiosken und all dem Drum und Dran anschaffen müssen, das ist nicht mit einberechnet. Und wie wollen Sie Ländern wie Griechenland sagen, dass sie zwar die Renten kürzen sollen, dass sie zwar Leute entlassen sollen, aber auf jeden Fall Geld da sein muss, um solche teuren Geräte anzuschaffen, die zu nichts dienen außer einem statistischen Zweck.

Ich sehe nicht, wie die intelligenten Grenzen irgendwie intelligent sein sollen. Ich denke, sie sind eine große Geldverschwendungsmaschine, auf die wir viel zu viel Geld und Zeit verschwenden. Wir sollten uns endlich wieder mit den echten Problemen beschäftigen und erst gucken, wo die Probleme sind, und dann gucken, welche Lösung darauf passt. Nicht gucken, was die Lösung ist, und dann, ob uns auch noch ein Problem dazu einfällt.

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

PRESIDE: RAMÓN LUIS VALCÁRCEL SISO
Vicepresidente

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE), otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Pane předsedající, Vaším prostřednictvím bych měl na kolegyni dotaz, zda opravdu se domnívá, že je natolik fundovaným bezpečnostním expertem, který může hodnotit přínosy tohoto balíčku, který má za účel bezpečnost občanů EU.

Jak pak zodpoví občanům EU, kteří byli obětí nějakého atentátu, že jsme prováhali teď tu dobu se zavedením tohoto balíčku, který doporučují bezpečnostní experti?

  Ska Keller (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Thank you for calling my qualification into question: that is always very much appreciated. However, I am not sure that you have fully appreciated the proposal, because it is in no way going to make Europeans more secure – in no way whatsoever.

The only advantages it might bring are in relation to increased automation at borders, but we actually have studies that show it is going to make queues and waiting times longer. So there is no benefit in this system. If you want to look into it further, we can surely talk about that: it is an issue I have been working on for a couple of years. The proposal has been around for some time and has not really improved, and there has never been a substantive answer from the Commission on what this is actually good for.

  Diane James, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, the smart approach, which the Commission needs to understand, is that continental Europe will never have an effective external border strategy until it has a smarter internal one. Schengen is now 30 years old, but this approach will not be smart until European countries within the Schengen area stop illegal or irregular migrants traversing Europe, be it to enter the United Kingdom unlawfully or otherwise. People traffickers, illegal migrants and invalid asylum seekers are not going to be deterred by the so-called smart measures. EU purpose, intent and cost are all open to question here.

This response has been overtaken by external circumstances and events, and a major rethink is required. A rethink of the cause is paramount, because an overly complex technology application which fails to address the problem areas but which penalises, inconveniences and deters lawful movements is not the right approach to take.

  Vicky Maeijer (NI). – Toen ik voor het eerst de term Smart Borders Package tegenkwam moest ik eigenlijk wel lachen. Want over welke grenzen heeft de Commissie het hier? Onze binnengrenzen zijn al opgegeven in 1995 en de buitengrenzen die we nu nog hebben zijn dankzij shuttle service Frontex zo lek als een mandje. De EU heeft helemaal geen grenzen meer.

Slimme grenzen in de ogen van de Europese Unie betekent vooral zwakke grenzen. Miljoenen illegale immigranten struinen nu al rond door de Europese Unie en honderdduizenden staan klaar om deze kant op te komen. Mensen die duizenden kilometers afleggen om de EU binnen te komen laten zich heus niet tegenhouden door een nieuw elektronisch systeem. Daar hebben we boten voor nodig om ze terug te sturen.

Mijn partij, de Partij voor de Vrijheid, heeft geen behoefte aan 791 miljoen aan gebakken lucht. Laten we simpelweg onze oude grenzen herstellen. Dat zou pas echt slim zijn.

  Alessandra Mussolini (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io finora ho sentito delle critiche, ma non delle proposte alternative a questo pacchetto sulle frontiere intelligenti che ha un duplice scopo. Prima di tutto, esaltare il fatto che la libera circolazione è una risorsa ed è anche una sfida per l'Unione europea. Io credo che in questo Parlamento tutti si debba essere d'accordo sul fatto che si debba superare il controllo manuale, anche per una questione di sicurezza, a fronte di tutte le persone, e in aumento che attraverseranno le nostre frontiere. Quindi credo che chi può pensare che la posizione dei timbri sui documenti di viaggio sui passaporti che possono essere smarriti distrutti, che non tengono conto di soggiorni prolungati oltre il termine possa essere migliore di un'automatizzazione, quindi da una parte, facilita gli ingressi, dall'altra parte agevola i controlli.

Quindi questa è una risposta che si sta dando, mi sembra di sentire ancora il dibattito sul PNR. Il Parlamento era spaccato su quelli a favore e su quelli contro. Quindi ci sarà certamente una raccolta di dati, un registro. Ecco, la sfida anche importante sarà quella di concentrare gli sforzi sul fatto che debbono essere tutti questi dati immessi in rete, messi insieme, perché ci sono i dati Schengen, i dati per il sistema di informazione dei visti, il SIS e quindi questi dati poi devono essere raccolti e soprattutto ben utilizzati, sia per le forze dell'ordine che per quanto riguarda la sicurezza.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, ne faut-il pas se montrer prudent vis-à-vis de quelque chose ou de quelqu'un qui se réclame d'emblée comme intelligent? Le paquet "Frontières intelligentes" ne semble malheureusement pas échapper à cette règle de précaution.

Prudence, tout d'abord, à l'égard de son objectif: l'accès des services répressifs aux données à caractère personnel collectées est aujourd'hui en discussion. Ce débat ne concerne évidemment pas le seul paquet "Frontières intelligentes". Les services répressifs ont de plus en plus accès à des données de personnes qui ne sont, en principe, soupçonnées d'aucun délit. Il s'agit donc de savoir de quoi il est question. D'un système de gestion des frontières ou d'un énième outil de sécurité?

Prudence, ensuite, vis-à-vis de son impact en matière de droits fondamentaux. D'un côté, le dispositif propose de faciliter le périple de certains voyageurs privilégiés et, de l'autre, il veut lutter contre le dépassement de la durée de séjour de voyageurs un peu moins chanceux. Cette différenciation entre les voyageurs ne conduira-t-elle pas à une forme de discrimination? Sur quelle base se ferait l'évaluation des critères d'accès ou de refus d'accès au programme pour voyageurs enregistrés?

Enfin, s'agissant de son coût, une frontière intelligente semble être une frontière qui coûte beaucoup d'argent, ce qui n'est sans doute pas passé inaperçu du côté des acteurs industriels. Outre le lobbying intense que ce dispositif doit susciter, n'y a-t-il pas lieu de s'interroger sur son rapport coût-efficacité? Comme cela a déjà été indiqué, l'expérience des États-Unis a largement remis en cause ce rapport: plus de 1,5 milliard de dollars d'investissement pour seulement 1 300 refus d'entrée.

Alors que l'Union européenne et ses États membres peinent à débloquer un budget pour sauver des vies en Méditerranée, on peut se demander si le jeu en vaut vraiment la chandelle.

  Helga Stevens (ECR). – Ik verwelkom de Slimme Grenzen-voorstellen van de Commissie, vooral het in- en uitreissysteem dat de tijd en plaats van de in- en uitreis van derdelanders die de EU-buitengrenzen oversteken registreert, aldus de duurtijd van hun verblijf berekent en een melding geeft wanneer de toegestane periode van dat verblijf wordt overschreden. Dat pakket zal zorgen voor een betere inschatting en controle van irreguliere migratie en ook zal de EU-buitengrens beter beschermd zijn tegen veiligheidsbedreigingen. Daarom ben ik zeer geïnteresseerd in de resultaten van het pilootproject waarmee de opties voor de implementatie van het genoemde pakket zullen worden onderzocht.

Maar om de kosten van de twee nieuwe systemen te rechtvaardigen moeten wij biometrische gegevens meenemen en toegang verlenen tot politionele en veiligheidsdiensten vanaf de operationele start van dat systeem. Momenteel is het zo dat de mogelijkheid daartoe slechts zal worden besproken twee jaar ná de lancering van dat systeem. Het is hoog tijd om onze gemeenschappelijke veiligheid ernstig te nemen.

  Angelika Mlinar (ALDE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner very much for being with us today, because we are in urgent need of clarification. What we need is a debate on the fundamental questions of how we got to this point and where we want to go from here. We should start by questioning the process by which the increased use of information technology in border controls has become the norm and the policy trend in Europe. We also need to discuss where the limits could and should be drawn for a fundamental rights perspective. Therefore, before proceeding, we have the duty to examine the fundamental rights implications of collecting, storing and using biometric data for immigration, asylum, visa processing and border control purposes, thus bridging the topics of migration and data protection.

The smart border system should not be put in place at any cost. We need to make sure that the system is really needed and that it will be an asset, without undermining the fundamental rights of EU and non-EU citizens. I am particularly concerned, in this respect, about access for law enforcement bodies. So should we not first of all explore the possibilities of using existing systems before building a new one, considering both budgetary and data protection aspects?

As you have already mentioned, Mr Commissioner, the second key point is the data retention period. The ruling of the European Court of Justice does not leave any room for interpretation and we cannot ignore it. Where interferences with fundamental rights are at stake, the extent of the EU legislators’ discretion may prove to be limited. And the question that remains is: how can we make sure that the principles of necessity and proportionality are respected?

  Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL). – Señor Presidente, nos quieren vender el proyecto de fronteras inteligentes como un proyecto para acelerar y facilitar los procedimientos de inspección fronteriza, pero lo que en realidad se esconde detrás de este proyecto es la creación de un registro policial que convierte en sospechosa a toda persona que entra en la Unión Europea; un registro con datos a disposición de las autoridades policiales.

Un sistema, además, que divide a las personas en tres clases: los de primera, los ciudadanos y ciudadanas de la Unión Europea; los de segunda, los que consideran legítimos, los que no molestan porque vienen aquí por negocios; y los de tercera, los pobres, a los que va dirigido el sistema de entradas y salidas, criminalizando, una vez más, y señalando como enemigos a los migrantes, tratados como delincuentes simplemente porque se les haya caducado el visado.

El sistema de entradas y salidas pretende cerrar aún más las fronteras; un sistema de alerta, un sistema de búsqueda y captura para quienes se hayan atrevido a penetrar en la «Europa fortaleza».

  Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, bene in attesa della proposta legislativa da parte della Commissione, a me sembra che ci sia molta confusione su questo tema delle frontiere intelligenti. L'unico dato certo è, come diceva la collega Fajon, che sono stati stanziati 791 milioni di euro nel 2013, e uno studio successivo ci ha detto che ne bastano probabilmente la metà.

Allora, ci chiediamo se dobbiamo continuare a mantenere una cifra così alta per un progetto di cui non si capisce ancora bene la portata e l'utilità: uno, perché abbiamo delle emergenze più gravi, l'esempio dell'emergenza del Mediterraneo penso che sia abbastanza valido su cui andrebbero destinate risorse; in secondo luogo, perché non si capisce bene in che modo queste frontiere intelligenti dovevano andare a interagire con il sistema di informazione di Shengen, che è comunque si occupa più o meno della stessa cosa. Quindi in attesa di dati certi sui limiti e sui costi, è difficile fare delle valutazioni.

  Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης ( NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το μεταναστευτικό πρόβλημα οξύνεται όλο και περισσότερο λόγω της κλιμάκωσης της ιμπεριαλιστικής επιθετικότητας. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, με την ενεργό συμμετοχή και της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης, με πρόσχημα την αντιμετώπιση των διακινητών, συγκροτούν ναυτική στρατιωτική δύναμη για επεμβάσεις σε τρίτες χώρες.

Τα λεγόμενα έξυπνα σύνορα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης δεν είναι τίποτα άλλο από το άνοιγμα και το κλείσιμο της κάνουλας της ροής των μεταναστών, κατʼ όπως ορίζουν τα συμφέροντα των επιχειρηματικών ομίλων για πάμφθηνο εργατικό δυναμικό. Τα μόνα που είναι δεδομένα είναι τα σιδερόφρακτα συστήματα καταστολής, το φακέλωμα τα δακτυλικά αποτυπώματα, τα στρατόπεδα συγκέντρωσης, η Frontex, η Σένγκεν, λόγω των οποίων ξεψυχούν στα νερά της Μεσογείου χιλιάδες πρόσφυγες και μετανάστες κάθε χρόνο.

Οι προτάσεις της Επιτροπής για επανεγκατάσταση αποτελούν κοροϊδία, δεδομένου ότι πέραν από ότι αποτελούν σταγόνα στον ωκεανό, το Δουβλίνο και άλλοι κανονισμοί της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι σε ισχύ κι αυτή είναι η ουσία. Εδώ και τώρα λοιπόν να ληφθούν μέτρα για την αντιμετώπιση των προβλημάτων των προσφύγων, τη γρήγορη και αξιόπιστη παροχή ασύλου ή επικουρικής προστασίας, τη δημιουργία κρατικών και αξιοπρεπών δομών φιλοξενίας.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das Paket für intelligentes Grenzmanagement an den EU-Außengrenzen für Drittstaatsangehörige, also Nicht-EU-Bürger, hat als Hintergrund die Zahl von 200 bis 300 Millionen Grenzübertritten pro Jahr sowie die Tatsache, dass sich derzeit zwei bis geschätzt vier Millionen Personen mit abgelaufener Aufenthaltsbewilligung illegal in Europa befinden. Zugleich erhalten aber untadelige, ordentliche Vielreisende keine Erleichterungen beim Grenzübertritt. Das rechtfertigt das Projekt vollkommen. Das Parlament hat ja einen Anteil daran geleistet, dass die Kommission nun in Pilotprojekten die Realität dieser geplanten zwei Verordnungen an den Grenzstellen wie Flughäfen, Autobahn- und Bahnhofsgrenzstellen überprüft, um uns Ende des Jahres aus der Praxis genaue Kenntnis über das Funktionieren anzubieten und darüber hinaus den sehr wichtigen Kosten-Nutzen-Faktor zu prüfen. Das ist gut so. Gerade der Kostenfaktor wurde betont und muss betont werden.

Der Ersatz der alten Reisestempel ist eine außerordentlich logische Konsequenz. Wir haben hier selbstverständlich die Vernetzung mit Visa- und Schengen-System vorzunehmen. Illegaler Aufenthalt in der EU muss wirkungsvoll verfolgt werden und Vielreisende müssen entsprechende Erleichterungen bekommen.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Ska Keller (Verts/ALE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Vielen Dank, Herr Becker, dass ich die Frage stellen kann. Angenommen, die Problemlage ist so, wie Sie es beschrieben haben. Wie erläutern Sie mir dann bitte, dass das smart-borders-System auf das Problem passt? Sie haben gesagt, der irreguläre Aufenthalt muss begrenzt werden. Aber wie wollen Sie das tun, wenn smart borders Ihnen ja nur sagt, dass eine Person sich zwar länger dort befindet, aber nicht, wo diese Person sich aufhält? Also, wie wollen Sie das lösen? Die Person kriegen Sie mit smart borders ja nicht aus dem europäischen Gebiet.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Gerne gehe ich darauf ein und muss Sie vielleicht enttäuschen, weil ich zwei Aspekte anspreche, die Ihnen auch nicht gefallen. Das eine ist der Aspekt, dass ich selbstverständlich hoffe, dass wir die Überprüfung von Personen, die sich illegal aufhalten, ebenfalls einer Reform unterziehen, was natürlich nicht bedeuten darf, dass wir jetzt einen Generalverdacht aussprechen. Aber wir wissen, dass Menschen sich auch mit anderen Visa wirklich fast frei dort bewegen, wo angeblich Europa ist, und dabei haben sie das Visum nur für ein Mitgliedsland gelöst. Auch da haben wir natürlich Nachholbedarf, wobei ich vermute, dass diese Regelungen in der Folge Umsetzungen auch nach sich ziehen. Die können wir jetzt nicht besprechen, dazu fehlt die Zeit.

Der zweite und letzte Punkt, auf den ich mir erlaube hinzuweisen, was sicher auch nicht gefällt, ist, dass ich selbstverständlich hoffe, dass in der Folge auch die Daten zur Strafverfolgung genutzt werden können, was einen enormen Mehrwert bringt.

  Soraya Post (S&D). – Herr talman! Herr kommissionär. Kommissionens förslag har föranlett viktiga invändningar både när det gäller kostnader och när det gäller personlig säkerhet och integritet och grundläggande rättigheter. Det är bra att kommissionen överväger att lägga fram reviderade förslag, för det ger ju oss möjlighet att verkligen ha grundläggande diskussioner om det här, om behovet och det nya systemet för gränsövergångarna.

Jag anser att utgångspunkten för ett nytt system för att reglera gränsövergången måste vara syftet att göra det enklare för alla som vill komma till EU att korsa gränserna. Om förslaget inte tjänar det syftet så kan jag inte se att det har ett relevant mervärde. Vi kan inte ha en ordning med första och andra klassens migranter, där några får gå igenom svängdörrar och andra måste genomgå en integritetskränkande granskning.

Det stämmer inte överens med den människosyn som borde vara vägledande då vi bygger vår politik, varken på nationell nivå eller på EU nivå. Jag anser därtill inte att det är försvarbart att lägga ner pengar på att öka kontrollen av människor på bekostnad av deras personliga integritet. Samtidigt finns ett akut behov av resurser för att rädda liv i EU:s gränser och skapa säkra vägar till EU för dem som flyr från krig och fattigdom.

En liten personlig del: I Sverige hade man en databank hos polisen. Jag var en av dem som stod där, av 5 000 – jag, mina fyra barn och mina åtta barnbarn. Jag har aldrig varit tilltalad av polisen. Tusen döda människor var med i registret och tusen barn. Det är människor som har hand om de här databankerna, vi vet ännu inte i Sverige vilka som kommer att kunna ta del av de här uppgifterna. Så vi behöver vara rädda för vissa saker, annars ska vi inte driva politik av rädsla, utan vi ska vara innovativa ...

(Talaren avbröts av talmannen)

  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR). – W przeciwieństwie do kolegów i koleżanek z grupy Socjalistów i Zielonych nie jestem podejrzliwy. Nie zakładam z góry, że system inteligentnych granic stanowi zagrożenie dla praw podstawowych. Jednak prawdę powiedziawszy piłka jest na boisku Komisji Europejskiej, a szczególnie komisarza Avramopoulosa. Oczekiwać należy zdecydowanie większej klarowności ze strony Komisji, precyzyjnego wyjaśnienia wartości dodanej, przedstawienia kalendarza prac, powiedzenia już dzisiaj, w jakim terminie kolejne, odnowione akty prawne będą przedstawione. Gdyby w tej sprawie było więcej przejrzystości i precyzji ze strony komisarza, być może dyskusja nie byłaby tak ogólna i nie byłaby naznaczona, wręcz obciążona, podejrzliwością.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I have a number of concerns with the smart borders proposal. In particular, I am dismayed that the EU feels it is appropriate to invest colossal amounts of funding on biometric and technological smart borders rather than investing in saving lives, as required by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Thousands of migrants continue to try to reach the EU in overcrowded boats, risking their lives to escape poverty and violence. I commend the crew of the Irish naval vessel, the LÉ Eithne, which has now rescued over 1 000 people since it left Ireland. This illustrates the need for increased search and rescue activities.

The smart borders proposal appears more concerned with the mass collection of data than with addressing this humanitarian crisis. It is imperative that the Commission prioritises the saving of lives, in line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and forgets this smart borders proposal. ‘Expensive borders’ would be more accurate – serving multinational interests with the imposition of expensive machines.

  Gilles Lebreton (NI). – Monsieur le Président, depuis 2013, la Commission veut mettre en place ce qu'elle appelle des "frontières intelligentes". Il s'agit, d'une part, d'enregistrer les étrangers qui viennent fréquemment dans l'Union, afin d'en accélérer le contrôle aux frontières, et, d'autre part, de vérifier les données biométriques de tous les étrangers qui veulent entrer sur le territoire de l'Union. Ce projet m'apparaît critiquable pour deux raisons.

Premièrement, il s'agit d'un projet dangereux pour les libertés, car il entend procéder au fichage informatique des données personnelles de millions de personnes; c'est la même logique liberticide que celle du projet PNR sur l'utilisation de données des dossiers passagers.

Deuxièmement, ces "frontières intelligentes" sont un habillage destiné à renforcer le système Schengen. Or, Schengen est un échec terrible puisque, tous les jours, des migrants parviennent à entrer illégalement dans l'Union, notamment en Grèce ou en Italie.

Ce sont de vraies frontières étatiques qu'il nous faut et non ces pseudo-frontières intelligentes.

  Емил Радев (PPE). – Благодаря, г-н Председател, сегашната ситуация на увеличена терористична заплаха над Европа и на нелегален миграционен натиск по външните граници изисква взимането на ясни и конкретни мерки, които да гарантират европейската сигурност, като в същото време не нарушават основните човешки права. Предложението за „Интелигентни граници“ са такава мярка.

Граничните служители и правоохранителните органи на Европейския съюз трябва да знаят кой, кога и как преминава през европейските граници. Само по този начин ще намалим нелегалната миграция, ще се борим с трафика на хора, ще предотвратим терористични атаки в европейските градове. В същото време европейската икономика ще бъде подпомагана чрез улесняване на пътуването на граждани на трети държави, идващи често в Европейския съюз с цел бизнес или туризъм.

Вярвам, че ще срещна подкрепа от страна на много мои колеги, като заявя, че пакетът „Интелигентни граници“ не трябва да бъде изпълняван независимо от цената, а трябва да бъде обезпечен с разумни финансови средства. В период, когато ЕС трябва да дава пример с внимателно харчене на европейски средства, не трябва да се плаща за свръхскъп проект. Също така не трябва да се прави компромис  с безопасността на личните данни, особено в контекста на решението на Съда на Европейския съюз за съхранението на лични данни.

Затова призовавам Европейската комисия да направи внимателен анализ на най-ефективния от финансова гледна точка проект за „Интелигентни граници“, както и на правното основание и съвместимост на пакета със съществуващото европейско законодателство за опазване на личните данни.

(Ораторът приема да отговори на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта (член 162, параграф 8 от Правилника за дейността)).

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD), blue-card question. – You say that knowing who is in the European Union at any given time would assist in the fight against terrorism. However, all the different countries have their own different legal systems, different police forces and so on, and Europe is such a vast continent. Surely the only way that this would make a serious difference is if we actually knew who was in each individual country at the same time? Therefore this hugely expensive project – carried out with taxpayers’ money – is not going to make the kind of difference you suggest.

  Емил Радев (PPE), отговор на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта. – В момент, когато има техническа възможност за наблюдение кой минава през външните европейски граници, оттам нататък при желание на всяка една държава членка могат да се постигнат нужните механизми за локализиране на потенциалните терористични заплахи, хора, свързани с организираната престъпност, и при съдействие на службите за сигурност да се вземат подходящите мерки във всяка една държава членка в Европа.

  Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'assenza di controlli alle frontiere interne e il numero crescente di viaggiatori che arrivano dai paesi terzi richiedono una gestione efficace ed efficiente delle frontiere esterne dell'Unione europea. Anche il Consiglio, negli orientamenti strategici per lo spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia adottati a giugno 2014, ha chiesto misure più moderne nel settore della gestione delle frontiere e tali nuove misure sono infine state ricomprese all'interno del cosiddetto pacchetto frontiere intelligenti.

Tuttavia, non posso non sottolineare come tali proposte sollevino alcuni problemi collegati al rispetto dei diritti fondamentali: i nuovi controlli alle frontiere sono infatti incentrati sull'utilizzo di un nuovo sistema informatizzato di ingressi e uscite. A tale proposito, la mia principale preoccupazione riguarda la tenuta dei registri contenenti una quantità sostanziale di dati personali e biometrici. Non bisogna infatti farsi prendere dalla fretta di approvare i testi legislativi che non siano pienamente in linea con la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea.

D'altronde la necessità di una valutazione approfondita circa la compatibilità della proposta legislativa con gli articoli 7-8 della Carta è stata ribadita dal Garante europeo della protezione dei dati, in un parere di qualche tempo fa. E tale valutazione, e questo lo ribadisco anch'io, dovrà essere fatta alla luce anche della sentenza resa dalla Corte di giustizia in materia di conservazione dei dati.

Chiedo quindi che la Commissione valuti attentamente la compatibilità della proposta legislativa con la Carta dei diritti fondamentali, oltre che con il profilo dei costi, benefici, tenendo in considerazione anche i risultati del progetto pilota in corso.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedniče, usvajanje ovakvog paketa predstavljalo bi tehnološki pomak u upravljanju vanjskim granicama Unije, no smatram da nam primarni cilj ipak nije da sustav kontrole bude moderan, nego prije svega učinkovit, siguran i racionalan što se tiče troškova.

Ovaj paket pada na sva tri navedena kriterija. Postavlja se pitanje koliko bi učinkovit bio predviđeni sustav ulaska i izlaska kad identifikacija osoba koje nisu na vrijeme izašle iz Europske unije ne bi bila moguća do trenutka njihovog izlaska. Skladištenje velike količine podataka o migrantima i redovitim putnicima predstavlja pak sigurnosni problem, a predviđeni trošak od 2017. do 2020. premašuje očekivane koristi u tako kratkom razdoblju.

Smatram kako se pritisak na vanjske granice primarno mora smanjivati promjenom migracijske politike i politike azila, a ne pukom primjenom skupih tehnoloških rješenja. Dok tim politikama potičemo priljev ilegalnih migranata, pametne granice nam neće previše pomoći.

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, zalažem se za sigurne vanjske granice Unije koje ćemo osigurati korištenjem, ipak, novih tehnologija, ali i jačanjem suradnje s trećim zemljama, tako da se porast trgovine ljudima, krijumčarenje i smrtni slučajevi u Sredozemlju drastično smanje, pa i eliminiraju.

Poduprijet ću ovaj paket pametnih granica, jer danas, 25 godina nakon pada Berlinskog zida, ne trebamo zatvorenu Europu, nego otvorenu s dobro kontroliranim granicama. Naravno, pojavljuju se sumnje oko novih tehnologija, oko digitalizacije, ali istovremeno moramo vjerovati u to.

Imam jedan drugi problem koji želim ovdje istaći, a to su rezultati petog izvješća o postliberalizaciji viznog režima za nadzor zemalja zapadnog Balkana kojeg obavlja Europska komisija, u kojemu se navodi kako Europska unija ne isključuje mogućnost ponovnog uvođenja viza za građane Bosne i Hercegovine, Makedonije, Albanije, Crne Gore i Srbije, a sve zbog velikog porasta broja građana tih država u državama Europske unije.

Mislim da trebamo uzeti u obzir da se radi o državama koje žele postati dio europske obitelji, a dodatne kontrole mogu samo dodatno narušiti povjerenje u Uniju. Stoga se zalažem za digitalizaciju, zalažem se za inteligentnu kontrolu granica, ali istovremeno da Europa nakon 25 godina od pada Berlinskog zida bude kontrolirana, ali istovremeno otvorena.

To nije jednostavno, ali je na Komisiji da napravi dubinsku analizu i da nam kaže sve aspekte, i ekonomske i pravne, a posebno kompatibilnost s propisima u državama članicama. Smatram da se države članice moraju u ovaj projekt uključiti.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, κύριε Αβραμόπουλε, χαιρετίζω την αποφασιστική στάση της Επιτροπής στην εμπέδωση της αρχής της αλληλεγγύης στον τομέα των προσφυγικών ροών. Είχαμε θέσει το εν λόγω ζήτημα συχνά στην αίθουσα αυτή, και τα κριτήρια για την κατανομή των προσφυγικών ροών, δηλαδή το ΑΕΠ, η έκταση, ο πληθυσμός των κρατών μελών, αλλά και το ύψος της ανεργίας συμπίπτουν πλήρως με τις σκέψεις που εκφράσαμε στο ζήτημα αυτό. Έτσι θεωρούμε σημαντικό ότι 16.000 πρόσφυγες από τη Συρία που φιλοξενούνται στην Ελλάδα θα ανακατανεμηθούν με βάση την παραπάνω κλείδα κατανομής εντός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Όμως, αυτή η έμπρακτη εφαρμογή της κοινοτικής αλληλεγγύης πρέπει να επεκταθεί και στις μεταναστευτικές ροές. Η Ελλάδα δεν αντέχει άλλους παράνομους μετανάστες και αυτό πρέπει να το αντιληφθούν τα κράτη μέλη της Ένωσης. Πρέπει να προχωρήσουμε στην κατάργηση του Δουβλίνο ΙΙΙ και να αντικαταστήσουμε το σύστημα του Δουβλίνου με ένα πραγματικό σύστημα ευρωπαϊκής αλληλεγγύης και συνευθύνης. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, το σύστημα των ευφυών συνόρων αποτελεί σημαντικό εργαλείο, που όμως θα πρέπει να σέβεται τα προσωπικά δεδομένα και τα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα, όπως και εσείς αναφέρατε.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane komisaři, začátkem bych Vám chtěl pogratulovat a říci, že jsem velice rád, že mezi nás chodíte se stále více a více kontroverzními tématy. Osobně bych doporučil změnit PR manažera, protože je potřeba o těchto tématech s námi velmi komunikovat.

Z této diskuse mám pocit, že někteří kolegové nejsou o těchto tématech dostatečně dobře informováni. Zazněla tady řada mýtů právě spojených s tímto balíčkem. Já osobně považuji balíček za zásadní pro celkovou bezpečnost Evropy a evropských občanů.

Věřím, že dosáhneme větší kontroly našich vnějších hranic. Především v době, kdy čelíme vzrůstajícím hrozbám terorismu, musíme být schopni monitorovat osoby, které se na území EU pohybují. Bezpochyby navržená opatření přispějí ke snížení počtu osob, které žijí na území EU nelegálně. To si musíme říct. Podle mě v dnešní době není možné ani udržitelné, aby s narůstajícím počtem osob překračujících hranice existovaly i nadále papírové verze dokumentů, kam se budou dávat razítka.

Uvědomme si, že žijeme v 21. století, a nemůžeme se přeci spoléhat na to, zda někdo správně orazítkuje nebo neorazítkuje pas. Osobně si myslím, že se zavedením inteligentních hranic bylo pozdě již dneska.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caras e caros Colegas, com os ataques a Paris relançou-se o debate sobre o acesso das forças policiais às bases de dados. Com as tragédias no Mediterrâneo, a gestão das fronteiras passou para as primeiras páginas dos jornais. E, de repente, um sistema de entrada e saída e um programa de viajantes registados apareceu como solução para ambos os problemas. Parece que esquecemos o seu objetivo inicial: facilitar o controlo nas fronteiras e saber quantos overstayers temos na União Europeia.

Continuamos a ignorar o impacto do julgamento do Tribunal de Justiça da União que anulou a Diretiva sobre a conservação de dados, apesar de vários responsáveis terem assegurado, por repetidas vezes, que esse impacto não seria ignorado. E persistimos em avançar com mais, e cada vez mais abrangentes, instrumentos de recolha e tratamento de dados.

Não tenho nenhuma dúvida de que a segurança dos cidadãos deve ser uma prioridade e que necessitamos de agir. Mas não podemos ignorar o trabalho que tinha vindo a ser desenvolvido, não devemos desvalorizar os instrumentos que temos no terreno e cujo potencial ainda não explorámos totalmente, nem devemos desistir de identificar falhas e corrigir lacunas nos sistemas que possuímos, antes de propor novos e dispendiosos sistemas.

Há, pois, necessidade de esclarecimentos urgentes, como os pedidos pelos colegas Días de Mera e Tanja Fajon. Impõe-se sobretudo à Comissão que reaja perante estas alterações e cumpra o compromisso do Vice-Presidente Timmermans de assegurar controlos sistemáticos dos direitos fundamentais ao longo do processo legislativo, que defina claramente o propósito dos sistemas e que apresente uma avaliação de impacto que demonstre de forma cabal a sua necessidade.

  József Nagy (PPE). – Az Unió egysége és biztonsága, valamint az égető népvándorlással felérő illegális migráció miatt fontos külső határaink védelme. A Bizottság 2013-as javaslata alapján gyorsabb és hatékonyabb ellenőrzésre van szükség az Unió külső határain a mobilitás és a biztonság javítása érdekében. Azonban ezeknek az intézkedéseknek a migrációs helyzetet és a gazdasági fellendülést is figyelembe kell venniük.

Az intelligens határregisztrációs rendszer megkönnyítené a gyakran az Unióba utazók ellenőrzését, ami nem csak számukra, de az uniós szervek számára is komoly idő- és energiaspórolást is jelentene. Ráadásul az elektronikus rendszerrel való munkavégzés hatékonyabbá is teszi az esetleges visszaélések felderítését az Unióban való tartózkodással kapcsolatban, illetve az úti dokumentumokkal való visszaéléseket is csökkenthetné. Az állítólagos elvesztett uniós útlevelek illegális beutazásra való akár ismételt felhasználását is meg lehetne állítani ezzel a rendszerrel.

Úgy gondolom, hogy a mostani rendszer nem alkalmas arra, hogy a tagállamok megbirkózzanak az utasok EU-ba való belépéséből és onnan való távozásából eredő egyre fokozódó terheléssel, hiszen a becslések szerint 2030-ra az utasok száma csak a légi határátkelőhelyeken 80%-kal, 400 millióról 720 millióra növekszik majd, és nekem két nagy elvárásom van a határregisztrációs rendszerrel kapcsolatban: legyen egyszerű és legyen biztonságos! Köszönöm szépen!

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Mr President, the solution to irregular migration lies in regular migration. In order to keep the European Union open, we need to convince our citizens that there are strong control and safeguard systems in place, which, besides ensuring easy access for travellers, also allow for the detection of irregular situations.

I am confident that the proposed use of a common platform for an entry/exit system and a registered traveller programme, as well as the efficient monitoring of traveller flows, will form a large part of the solution in proactively fighting against irregular migration. I hope that the pilot programme started at Lisbon Airport will be helpful in this regard, and I think we are all looking forward to learning more about the outcomes of the first trials of the proposed system.

Intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, naravno da je potrebno Europskoj uniji utvrditi pametne granice i naravno da trebamo iskoristiti novu tehnologiju i sve ono što nove tehnologije omogućavaju da bismo imali sigurniji život u Europskoj uniji i nije sporno da trebamo imati pametne granice i zbog problema terorizma, migranata, svega onoga što doživljavamo zadnjih mjeseci i godina.

Međutim, inzistiram na fleksibilnom sustavu, inzistiram na sustavu koji će štititi osobne podatke, inzistiram na sustavu koji neće dovoditi u pitanje turističko gospodarstvo Europske unije kao danas najveće destinacije turizma u svijetu. I inzistiram na tome da se vrlo dobro napravi cost-benefit analiza, jer je cijena koja se očekuje od ovog sustava izvanredno visoka.

Dakle, očekujem od Komisije zaista pravi odgovor kada govorimo o ovom projektu pametnih granica.

(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))

  Dimitris Avramopoulos, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all I would like to express my thanks to all of you for this very fruitful exchange of views. Let me start by telling you that I took note of all your remarks and concerns. They are substantial concerns, and you can be sure that we are not going to repeat past mistakes, as happened with the Schengen Information System II. We are going to assess carefully the costs and the architecture, as well as fundamental rights and safeguards, which are very important. And proportionality and necessity will be our compass in any future discussion. The ruling on data retention will also guide us.

Today’s debate confirms the vital importance of Parliament’s input into our joint efforts to create a smart border system that meets its objectives and offers genuine value for money.

Since we know that traveller flows will continue to grow, we need a better and smarter border management system. If we do nothing, we will either have to face much longer queues at the borders or we shall be obliged to employ more border guards in the near future. Neither of these options seems acceptable or feasible.

As you understand, we are going to meet many times in the future in order, first of all, to discuss the results of the testing phase and the impact assessment. I want to assure you that the Commission is looking forward to working closely with Parliament in this very important fight and that it is counting on your support and cooperation in achieving the final balance.

  El Presidente. – Se cierra el debate.

  Kinga Gál (PPE), in writing. – Free movement of persons is one of the most important achievements of the European Union since its foundation. The absence of internal borders makes it therefore crucially important that our common external borders are controlled reliably and consistently. In order to better manage the growing flow of travellers, we need to modernise the European border control system, by increasing its efficiency and effectiveness. The result should be smooth and easy travel for the majority of third-country travellers who cross the EU borders yearly on the one hand, and an impossible mission for those who abuse free movement, such as organised crime and terrorist organisations, on the other. We look forward to the findings of the Commission’s impact assessment and the pilot projects currently being carried out, to understand what new architecture will be implemented, what the single system for entry-exit should look like, what biometric identification should be applied, how data retention and protection would be handled. The recent dramatic increase in migrants through the Mediterranean and the Balkans makes it even more urgent to adopt the Smart Borders Package, in order to strengthen border control and guarantee the protection of our citizens.

  Elena Gentile (S&D), per iscritto. – Se l'obiettivo della Commissione europea è quello di rendere moderna ed efficiente la gestione delle frontiere non si può che essere d'accordo. Tuttavia, la riforma in materia di "Frontiere intelligenti", proposta dalla CE, anche a seguito dell'adozione dell'Agenda sulla sicurezza e all'Agenda sulla migrazione richiede una profonda riflessione per fugare le reali preoccupazioni esistenti per l'eccessiva attenzione alle questioni legate alla sicurezza, non commisurata rispetto all'attuale livello di rischio esistente. Il dilemma fra quali e quanti dati dei passeggeri dovranno esser adoperati e stoccati e quali saranno gli effetti di quest'utilizzo sui diritti fondamentali viaggiatori resta aperto.

Condivido, pertanto, la posizione molto scettica espressa dai colleghi socialisti impegnati in prima linea in queste materie, perché ritengo che non sia necessario un nuovo sistema, oltretutto costoso, quanto basterebbe far funzionare meglio, aggiornando e irrobustendo, quello esistente, basato sul VIS e sul sistema d'informazione di Schengen (SIS II). Urge prudenza rispetto all'impatto che il pacchetto "Frontiere intelligenti" potrebbe avere in materia di diritti fondamentali, e prudenza verso la creazione di una differenziazione fra viaggiatori privilegiati, che dovrebbero essere facilitati nei loro spostamenti e, viaggiatori meno fortunati, che potrebbero andare oltre la durata del soggiorno. Questa distinzione potrebbe causare una vera discriminazione.

  Barbara Kudrycka (PPE), na piśmie. – Pełne wykorzystanie potencjału pakietu dotyczącego inteligentnych granic może przynieść wymierne korzyści w zarządzaniu granicami poprzez zwiększenie zdolności Europy do ograniczania nielegalnej migracji, zapewnienia powrotów nielegalnych migrantów oraz walki z terroryzmem. Wiodącym priorytetem pakietu dotyczącego inteligentnych granic powinno być bezpieczeństwo i walka z terroryzmem, co wiąże się z rozważeniem możliwości udostępnienia systemu służbom bezpieczeństwa uwzględniając zasady proporcjonalności. W tym kontekście powinniśmy zagwarantować odpowiednią ochronę danych zarówno na szczeblu krajowym jak i wspólnotowym.

Kolejnym aspektem jest optymalizacja budżetu przeznaczonego na stworzenie systemu, przy założeniu większej interoperacyjności z istniejącymi już systemami krajowymi. Należy tutaj wziąć pod uwagę warunki klimatyczne i specyfikę różnych kontroli granicznych: warunki klimatyczne, różne długości granic, liczbę przejść granicznych oraz wielkość przepływu pasażerów, infrastrukturę itp. Przykładowo w przypadku Polski będzie to wymagało według wstępnych szacunków zatrudnienie 60 dodatkowych urzędników konsularnych, a koszt takiego urzędnika to 100 tys. euro rocznie. Musimy także odpowiedzieć na pytanie czy efektywnie wykorzystujemy potencjał obecnie funkcjonujących systemów np. SIS II, i czy poprawnie zostały oszacowane koszty. Nie możemy sobie pozwolić na przyjęcie projektu, który finalnie będzie droższy, a teraz nie wiadomo jeszcze czy efekt będzie zgodny z początkowymi założeniami.

  Sophie Montel (NI), par écrit. – Cette déclaration de la Commission n'apporte évidemment rien de nouveau. L'Union européenne, confite dans sa bien-pensance mondialiste, se félicite là encore de la suppression des frontières nationales des États membres et de la libre circulation des biens et des personnes. Quant aux frontières de l'Union européenne, elles s'avèrent, elles, être de véritables passoires.

L'Union européenne s'émeut du sort des clandestins et réfléchit même à imposer des quotas aux États membres. Des États membres qui subissent déjà de plein fouet les mesures d'austérité mises en place par Bruxelles, qui voient le taux de chômage des jeunes de moins de 25 ans exploser et le nombre de personnes vivant en dessous du seuil de pauvreté grimper en flèche.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D), în scris. – În prezent, în cadrul Parlamentului European, are loc o dezbatere amplă despre sistemul frontierelor inteligente prin care statele membre doresc să creeze mecanismele prin care sistemul de interconectare și de protecție a frontierelor să fie întărit. Acest lucru presupune o mai bună corelare între statele membre și o evidență a cetățenilor care intră sau traversează Europa.

Chiar dacă acest lucru aduce multe avantaje, profit de ocazie pentru a reitera că orice discuție despre siguranța frontierelor trebuie să includă și România, chiar dacă nu se află în prezent în spațiul Schengen.

Consider un abuz tendințele unor state sau colegi care doresc să excludă țara mea din acest sistem integrat de gestiune a frontierelor creând premizele unei bariere suplimentare la dreptul la mobilitate în spațiul european.

Nu putem crea o frontieră în Uniunea Europeană și consider că România, dat fiind reușita programelor sale de protecție a frontierelor, dar și prin îndeplinirea criteriilor de aderare la spațiul Schengen, trebuie și poate fi inclusă în acest sistem al frontierelor inteligente.