Elnök. − A következő pont együttes vita a következő jelentésekről:

a Carlos Coelho által az Állampolgári Jogi, Bel- és Igazságügyi Bizottság nevében készített, a schengeni vívmányok alkalmazását ellenőrző értékelés mechanizmus létrehozásáról szóló jelentés (10273/2013 – C7-0160/2013 – 2010/0312/NLE)) - (A7-0226/2012),

valamint

a Renate Weber által az Állampolgári Jogi, Bel- és Igazságügyi Bizottság nevében készített, a belső határokon történő határellenőrzés ideiglenes visszaállításáról szóló jelentés (COM(2011)0560 - C7-0248/2011 - 2011/0242(COD)) - (A7-0200/2012)

  Carlos Coelho, relator. − Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Senhoras e Senhores Deputados, alcançamos um acordo em relação ao pacote da Governação de Schengen. Um acordo que não é exatamente o que o Parlamento Europeu desejou (porque nos foi negada a legítima codecisão), mas um acordo que representa um progresso substancial em relação às atuais regras reforçando a governança de Schengen. Um acordo que protege o direito dos cidadãos de circularem livremente e que reforça a segurança com que o fazem.

Permitam-me sublinhar seis pontos:

Primeiro, optámos por um sistema europeu. O mecanismo de avaliação deixará de ser puramente intergovernamental para passar a ter uma natureza europeia. A Comissão Europeia deixará de ter um papel de mero observador e passará a ser responsável pela coordenação geral no âmbito do processo de avaliação e de seguimento. Será responsável pela maioria das decisões no âmbito do processo de avaliação: em relação ao programa anual e plurianual, à preparação e realização de visitas in loco e à elaboração dos relatórios de avaliação e recomendações. Caber-lhe-á, na sequência de uma avaliação, aprovar o relatório e propor recomendações para ações corretivas, que deverão ser aprovadas pelo Conselho. Passarão ainda a estar envolvidas várias agências e instituições da União Europeia.

Em segundo lugar, não ignorámos as fronteiras internas. Está prevista explicitamente a possibilidade de avaliar se estão ou não a ser efetuados controlos ilegais nas fronteiras internas. Sabemos o quão atual isso é face às situações com que nos deparámos nos últimos anos nalguns Estados-Membros, muitas vezes inspiradas por agendas nacionais populistas impostas por partidos de extrema-direita.

Em terceiro lugar, eliminámos os double standards. Sempre discordámos dos dois pesos, duas medidas que atualmente existe. A partir de agora os países candidatos e os países já membros de Schengen deverão ser avaliados da mesma forma e de acordo com as mesmas regras. O acervo de Schengen deverá ser respeitado de forma rigorosa, não só no momento da adesão, mas também após essa adesão.

Em quarto lugar, acabaram as inspeções preparadas. A falta de rigor do atual mecanismo resultava também do facto de as visitas de inspeção serem anunciadas com exagerada antecedência. Uma das inovações mais úteis do novo sistema de avaliação consiste exatamente na possibilidade de serem feitas visitas in loco, sem qualquer aviso prévio, às fronteiras internas e às fronteiras externas apenas com 24 horas de antecedência.

Em quinto lugar, damos consequência e utilidade à avaliação. Ao contrário do atual sistema que não é juridicamente vinculativo e onde existe apenas uma mera avaliação entre pares, o novo sistema dispõe de mecanismos com maior eficácia e força dissuasora. Permitirá uma avaliação precisa em relação ao grau de cumprimento das regras de Schengen e permite uma reação imediata corretiva, de forma a dissipar qualquer sentimento de impunidade. Os Estados-Membros serão obrigados a resolver os problemas detetados.

Em sexto lugar, reforçámos o controlo democrático do Parlamento Europeu e garantimos o acesso aos documentos. O Parlamento será mantido informado durante todo o processo e terá acesso a todos os documentos relevantes, onde se inclui a análise de risco da FRONTEX, o programa de avaliação plurianual e anual, os relatórios de avaliação, as recomendações para ações corretivas e os planos de ação para fazer face às deficiências detetadas. Terá acesso às respostas dos Estados-Membros aos questionários. Trata-se de um enorme progresso em termos de transparência e do direito de informação do Parlamento Europeu, que não tinha acesso a quaisquer documentos no âmbito das avaliações de Schengen.

Senhor Presidente, o Parlamento assegurou o seu envolvimento quer no atual procedimento, quer no que diz respeito a futuras iniciativas nesta área. Este compromisso é assumido não só numa declaração conjunta entre as três instituições, mas também no texto de lei que vamos aprovar.

Agradeço à Comissária Malmström e à Presidência irlandesa todo o empenho e colaboração. Este compromisso representa um enorme passo em frente em relação ao presente status quo, ao criar um novo mecanismo de avaliação com um cariz mais europeu, mais transparente eficiente e rigoroso.

Por tudo isto solicito o vosso apoio para este compromisso que só foi possível graças à posição unida e forte que o Parlamento manteve ao longo das negociações. Agradeço a colaboração dos relatores-sombra e de todos os grupos políticos que nunca me negaram apoio, mesmo aos que, por diferentes razões, não consideram dar o seu voto favorável à versão final acordada.

  Renate Weber, rapporteur. − Mr President, colleagues, each year a survey is carried out on how European citizens see the European Union. Each and every time, more than 50 % say that the biggest achievement of the EU is free movement. There are good reasons for this answer. In a Europe where for decades people, even families, were separated by borders and horrendous controls, finding ourselves all together in an area where movement is free gives us the feeling of living in one big house. It is also very easy to notice the economic benefits for our businesses.

Then why hesitate for more than a year and a half to reach an agreement on something so much wanted and appreciated by European citizens? The answer is as simple as it is complicated. A populist approach has taken over several EU Member States and the ongoing elections here and there have determined a switch in the approach of some governments – but here we are.

The text on the Schengen Border Code, for which I am the rapporteur, sets clear rules and checks and balances for last-resort situations involving the introduction of border controls at internal borders, to avoid any misuse or abuse. I admit I would have loved a 100 % Community decision on the reintroduction of border controls, but apparently that time has not yet come. However, it is fair to say that we succeeded in introducing a degree of Community dimension and additional guarantees to ensure that the mechanism would not be misused.

The current possibilities for reintroducing border controls have been clarified, and among the safeguards we should note a proportionality test of the impact of the measures and, where appropriate, consultations and meetings among the Member States affected by the reintroduction of border controls, and opinions by the Commission.

A new option of reintroducing border controls, which was in fact the request, or rather the demand, addressed by the Council to the Commission two years ago, will be used only as a last resort in exceptional circumstances, as a result of persistent, serious deficiencies related to external border controls. But, in that case, the proposal will come from the Commission after thorough evaluation.

Among other additional checks and balances, we should mention that a recital was introduced so as to keep our 2011 commitment. Migration and the crossing of external borders by a large number of third country nationals should not per se be considered to be a threat to public policy or to internal security. The total period during which border controls are reintroduced on the basis of a serious threat to public policy or internal security cannot exceed two months.

The Commission will present to the European Parliament and the Council, at least annually, a report on the functioning of the area without internal border controls. This report is to include a list of all decisions to reintroduce internal border controls taken during the relevant year.

I would like to say a few words also on Mr Coelho’s report, for which I am a shadow. The true achievement here is the role of the Commission. If today it is a mere observer and the mechanism is based on a peer-to-peer review, in future the Commission will be responsible for most decisions to be taken either in comitology, in cooperation with Member States, or acting alone. The Council can adopt recommendations only upon proposals from the Commission.

It is also interesting to note that in relation to the decision-making process, a joint statement from the three institutions has been adopted, and it provides that any future Commission proposal amending the evaluation mechanism should be submitted to Parliament for consultation.

If adopted – and I hope it will be adopted – it will set a precedent, as it interprets Article 70, whereby Parliament should only be informed in a creative way, namely a commitment to consult.

  Lucinda Creighton, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, on behalf of the Irish Presidency, I would like to say how pleased I am that we have been able to reach agreement on the Schengen governance legislative package.

The agreement responds fully to the request from the European Council in June 2011 for the existing evaluation mechanism to be improved and deepened, and for the introduction of a mechanism to respond to exceptional circumstances which could put the overall functioning of Schengen cooperation at risk.

The European Council was equally clear that this should not jeopardise the principle of free movement of persons. We have therefore been guided in our work on these two legislative proposals by the need to protect and strengthen free movement.

This is one of the most obvious and practical achievements of European integration over recent decades. Free movement is highly valued, and is a daily reality for the 500 million citizens within the European Union, as well as the nationals of third countries who are legally present in the Schengen area as residents or visitors.

Those citizens and visitors make more than a billon journeys within the EU every year and consider freedom to travel as amongst the most concrete and important benefits of the Union. That is why it is important that we have been able to strengthen arrangements for ensuring the proper functioning of the Schengen area.

The new reinforced Schengen evaluation mechanism, combined with an EU-based mechanism for responding to exceptional threats, will contribute significantly to that goal, as well as improve the transparency of its operation.

I am of course fully aware that the negotiations on these measures have not been easy. We started out with a fundamental difference of view on the issue of the legal base of the Schengen evaluation proposal. But this has now been successfully addressed.

I welcome the fact that we have been able to build on the work of earlier presidencies and find a way forward together. The difficulties have been overcome, and your views have been taken into account to the fullest extent possible on both measures.

The overall agreement also comprises a Joint Declaration by Parliament, the Council and the Commission which makes it clear that any future proposals from the Commission for amending the Schengen evaluation system will be submitted to Parliament for consultative purposes, so that your opinion can be taken into account to the fullest extent possible before the adoption of a final text, as was the case with the current proposal. I would like to thank this Parliament sincerely for the way in which it has cooperated and worked with us to reach agreement.

I understand that your opinion on the Schengen evaluation proposal was adopted yesterday in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and that this opens the way for Parliament to vote on the full Schengen governance package during tomorrow’s plenary session.

I would like to close by expressing my particular thanks to the rapporteurs for the two legislative proposals – Mrs Renate Weber and Mr Carlos Coelho – whose commitment and hard work on these legislative proposals has been absolutely crucial to ensuring that an agreement was possible, so your contribution is very much appreciated by our Presidency and by the Council, as I know it is by all Members in this Chamber.

I am very much looking forward to the debate and listening to the contributions from a range of Members of the European Parliament. I do have to beg your forgiveness, however, because I will have to depart early, unfortunately, on this occasion because we have a trialogue on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) this evening, which I have to participate in.

So thank you in advance for your indulgence and thank you again for the cooperation of Parliament, the Council and the Commission, throughout this process.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, exactly a year ago, in this very Chamber, we found ourselves in a very difficult situation. There were strong, very emotional tensions between the three institutions. Today, a lot of time has passed. Thanks to intensive negotiations between Parliament – where you played a very strong and constructive role – the Cyprus Presidency and the Irish Presidency, we have reached a satisfactory agreement on the Schengen governance. We now have instruments at hand which will allow us to strengthen Schengen, and therefore the Commission can fully support the compromise reached.

I would like to thank the rapporteurs, Carlos Coelho and Renate Weber. I know how hard you worked with your different shadow rapporteurs and collaborators. You have been fantastic on this long road. The compromise reached will – as you have both said – bring a major improvement compared to the current system.

As you know, there is already a mechanism in place to evaluate Member States’ implementation of the Schengen acquis. It has, however, been clear that this is not the mechanism that we need. We need a new one that ensures that the area without internal border controls is better protected, a system that is better equipped to identify deficiencies at an early stage and that ensures that there are appropriate measures and follow-ups. The revised mechanism will serve this purpose, while at the same time allowing more transparency and openness.

In the new system, the Commission is given a central and coordinating role. Evaluation will be carried out by the Commission, together with experts from the Member States. If serious deficiencies emerge, the proposed new mechanism provides for specific measures that could be taken, for instance, the deployment of Frontex European border guard teams.

Although it is very unlikely that these will occur, the new system also provides for a system to respond to situations where recommendations for remedial action are not sufficient. To ensure that persistent, serious deficiencies in a Member State’s control of its external borders are adequately remedied, a new system allows for a coordinated decision to be taken on the temporary reintroduction of controls at internal borders. It is, however, clearly stated that this can only be an exceptional measure as a last resort in a truly critical situation. This would only be used to ensure that the problems can be resolved, while minimising the impact on free movement.

The new system brings many advantages for Parliament. Parliament will have increased possibilities to influence the functioning of the Schengen area. It will receive all relevant information, and both the Commission and the Council have expressed their political will to consult Parliament on the Schengen evaluation mechanism. The joint statement that will accompany the decision clearly states that any future proposal from the Commission to amend the evaluation system will be submitted to Parliament and that its opinion will be taken into consideration to the fullest extent possible before adopting the final text.

I think that, with this clarification and this strengthening of both tools, we can be proud of the compromise that we have achieved. Once again, as in the previous debate – I know many of you were there as well – it shows that, when we really sit together, the three institutions can cooperate for the benefit of the European citizens.

  Manfred Weber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, Frau Ministerin! Die irische Präsidentschaft hat diese Woche im Innenbereich zwei große Dossiers zum Abschluss gebracht. Die dürfen wir heute diskutieren: Asyl und Schengen. Insofern ist die irische Präsidentschaft in unserem Arbeitsbereich auch eine sehr erfolgreiche Präsidentschaft. Gratulation noch einmal dazu! Wir drücken Ihnen die Daumen, dass das beim MFF jetzt auch gelingt, dass dort auch große Erfolge zu erzielen sind, damit wir auch mit der Finanzausstattung vorankommen, Frau Ministerin.

Die Europäische Volkspartei hat den Schengen-Raum als einen der größten Erfolge Europas immer verteidigt, und wir wollten ihn stärken. Unsere Berichterstatter, Renate Weber und Carlos Coelho, haben hervorragende Arbeit geleistet. Herzlichen Dank!

Wir müssen Klartext reden, weil die Demagogen, die in Europa unterwegs sind – in Frankreich Le Pen, in den Niederlanden Wilders, in Ungarn Jobbik und in Bulgarien die Partei Ataka –, als Rechtspopulisten, die den Menschen weis machen wollen, dass wir diesen Schengen-Raum eigentlich nicht bräuchten, dass die Sicherheit in Gefahr sei. Denen müssen wir entschlossen entgegentreten! Diesen parteipolitischen Populisten dürfen wir nicht die politische Arena überlassen. Schengen bringt nicht weniger, sondern mehr Sicherheit. Das ist die zentrale Botschaft, und durch die heutige Veränderung des Rechts werden wir diese Entwicklung auch noch stärken. Diese Populisten würden Europa in eine dunkle Vergangenheit zurückführen.

Die Evaluation macht Fortschritte. Das wurde von unseren Berichterstattern beschrieben. Frau Kommissarin, ich freue mich schon auf die ersten Berichte, die von neutraler Seite vorgelegt werden. Ich hoffe, dass kritisch geprüft wird, damit wir dann auch neutrale Berichte auf dem Tisch haben, wo vielleicht mancher Innenminister nicht mehr so erfreut ist, dass er die Evaluation jetzt an FRONTEX und an die Kommission abgegeben hat. Das wird aber das System insgesamt stärken.

Zum Schluss möchte ich noch sagen: Negativ ist sicher, dass die Mitentscheidung des Europäischen Parlaments bei der Evaluation nicht anerkannt worden ist. Ich verstehe immer noch nicht, warum der Rat hier nach wie vor blockiert. Bei dem Prinzip, hier so verbissen die Kompetenzen des Rates zu verteidigen, entsteht eher der Eindruck, dass man im Hinterzimmer des Rates weiter alleine entscheiden will und keine Transparenz will. Ich kann das nicht nachvollziehen, und deswegen wird das Europäische Parlament auch in Zukunft verbissen für die Rechte der Parlamentarier kämpfen. Wir hoffen, dass wir in der Zukunft damit mehr Erfolg haben.

  Ioan Enciu, în numele grupului S&D. – În primul rând, vreau să îi felicit pe cei doi raportori pentru munca şi tenacitatea de care au dat dovadă timp de doi ani pentru a ajunge la acest moment. Vreau să încep prin a spune că acest acord cu privire la guvernanţa Schengen este relativ departe de ceea ce Comisia Europeană a propus în urmă cu doi ani; cu toate acestea, eu cred că reprezintă un progres faţă de situaţia de până în prezent.

Vechiul model de guvernanţă interguvernamentală a dat naştere la abuzuri şi la limitări ale libertăţii de circulaţie în interiorul Schengen. Trebuie să avem în vedere că aceste abuzuri sunt probabil doar vârful aisbergului şi că multe alte probleme în gestionarea frontierelor au fost pur şi simplu ignorate, din cauza modului amical de evaluare.

Adaug faptul că, până în prezent, existau două sisteme de evaluare: unul foarte relaxat şi aplicabil tuturor statelor Schengen şi altul mai dur, pentru statele candidate. Acest dublu standard, dar şi modul de guvernanţă interguvernamental a dus la situaţii de-a dreptul absurde, în care unor state candidate, precum România şi Bulgaria, li se interzice accesul în Schengen, cu toate că este unanim acceptat că cele două ţări aplică cele mai înalte standarde de gestiune a frontierelor din întreaga Uniune Europeană. Noul acord duce la îmbunătăţiri considerabile, prin faptul că aceleaşi reguli se vor aplica tuturor, iar procesul de evaluare va fi europenizat şi mult mai eficient.

Comisia Europeană va avea rolul central în noua guvernanţă Schengen, întrucât va coordona întreg procesul de evaluare şi va avea un cuvânt de spus în ceea ce priveşte posibilele reintroduceri ale controalelor la frontierele interne. Noul mecanism de evaluare va fi bazat pe date obiective şi pe analize de risc FRONTEX şi prevede posibilitatea efectuării de vizite neanunţate, inclusiv la frontierele interne, lucruri care nu au existat până în prezent.

Începând de acum, va exista un plan de follow-up, coordonat de Comisia Europeană, de fiecare dată când se constată deficienţe în aplicarea acquis-ului. Acest lucru înseamnă, în primul rând, măsuri de sprijin şi de asistenţă, dar şi un sistem disuasiv, prin care Comisia poate propune reintroducerea temporară a controalelor la frontierele interne, în cazul existenţei unor deficienţe foarte grave şi persistente.

În acelaşi timp, Parlamentul European va juca un rol mult mai important, prin faptul că va avea acces la toate datele şi va supraveghea întreg procesul de evaluare şi va fi consultat în cazul modificării mecanismului.

În încheiere, vreau să subliniez că, pentru ţara mea şi pentru celelalte ţări membre din afara spaţiului Schengen, toate acestea nu vor fi suficiente, dacă europenizarea guvernanţei nu va fi aplicată şi modului de admitere de noi membri în spaţiul Schengen. Acest lucru este cu atât mai evident, cu cât aderarea României şi Bulgariei este blocată de mai mult de doi ani, din cauza unor considerente care nu au nimic de a face regulile şi cu spiritul european al bunei cooperări. De aceea, eu am în minte să propun Parlamentului spre dezbatere o nouă posibilă modalitate europeană de acceptare de noi membri Schengen şi sper că pot conta pe sprijinul dumneavoastră.

  Renate Weber (ALDE). - Mr President, I will speak again at the end. But I can take advantage of this and thank the Irish Presidency very much, since the Minister will have to leave. Yes, Minister, I thank you deeply for all your efforts in coming to the conclusion of this report.

  Tatjana Ždanoka, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Minister, colleagues, first of all I would like to thank our rapporteurs, Mr Coelho and Mrs Weber for their long-lasting efforts to maintain Parliament’s position as it was approved by the vote in the LIBE committee one year ago, and it is very regrettable that these efforts were not crowned with success.

In the Greens/ALE Group from the very beginning we backed the proposed EU-based mechanism on the temporary reintroduction of border controls and on the evaluation of Schengen. We also strongly opposed the revision of the legal basis for the Schengen-related legislation, thus excluding Parliament from the decision-making process. Even if the Commission failed to defend the Union’s approach properly, Parliament had to proceed with this, and voluntary consultation is hardly a good compromise.

Last but not least, the reference to illegal immigration is not acceptable for us at all. Taking the above into account, we cannot support the deal of 29 May confirming the scaling-back of the EU’s border-free system at the whim of the European Union governments. This outcome is clearly at odds with the integrity of Schengen.

  Peter van Dalen, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, het akkoord over de Schengenwetgeving laat enige ruimte voor grenscontroles. Maar de toon is eigenlijk dat grenscontroles niet meer thuis horen in de Europese Unie. Dat vrij verkeer van personen en goederen is heilig, zo klinkt het eigenlijk. Beperkingen in de vorm van grenscontroles mogen alleen worden toegestaan bij allerhoogste uitzondering, bijvoorbeeld bij terroristische dreiging.

Deze opstelling, Voorzitter, gaat mij te ver. Het afschaffen van grenscontroles heeft namelijk duidelijk een schaduwzijde. Mensenhandelaren hebben binnen het Schengengebied bijna vrij spel. Iedere dag worden er vrouwen door Europa vervoerd en ergens gedwongen tot prostitutie. Onze politiediensten zien het gebeuren, maar mogen niet ingrijpen, omdat het Europese Hof heeft bepaald dat de Nederlandse marechaussee niet meer dan negentig uur per maand gebruik mag maken van videobeelden bij grensposten. Ik vind dat echt absurd.

Vrij verkeer van goederen en personen is belangrijk. En het afschaffen van grenscontroles heeft bijgedragen aan dat vrije verkeer. Maar een lidstaat bepaalt uiteindelijk zelf hoe hij de openbare orde wil handhaven en de criminaliteit bestrijden. Vrij verkeer binnen Europa is mooi, maar laten we niet naïef zijn. Criminelen zijn dat ook niet. Die maken graag gebruik van elke opening die Europa ze geeft. Schengen OK, maar altijd Europese ópen grenzen, nee.

  Lorenzo Fontana, a nome del gruppo EFD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, devo dire che abbiamo delle perplessità sull'accordo raggiunto per Schengen, perché ci troviamo veramente ad affrontare una situazione difficile nei nostri paesi e non riesco a capire perché non si possa ripristinare i controlli alle frontiere quando vi sono dei flussi migratori cospicui e sembra una situazione di emergenza anche questo. È sicuramente una situazione che talvolta si è anche realizzata.

Ho letto che in caso di emergenza si possono avere dei controlli alle frontiere, l'emergenza può quantificare in un certo periodo di mesi, se son due mesi, sei mesi e se magari è più lunga, cosa si fa? Si fa finta di nulla! Purtroppo teniamo conto che anche questa direttiva deve essere applicata per quei paesi che hanno un'uniformità economica e sociale, perché non sono rari i casi purtroppo di persone che magari vanno in altri paesi solo per tentare di sfruttare lo Stato sociale. Purtroppo l'Europa non è fatta solo da cittadini buoni, è fatta anche di persone che magari non hanno buone intenzioni e sulla criminalità, è molto più difficile contrastare la criminalità se non ci sono adeguati controlli alle frontiere.

E pensate solo che per esempio nel mio paese, in Veneto, talvolta si è tentato di rimpatriare delle persone, dei comunitari perché si comportavano male, perché magari commettevano dei reati, però queste dopo un po' tornavano tranquillamente. E riteniamo che quindi Schengen, la libera circolazione va bene, se però c’è anche un controbilancio, se si possono rimpatriare le persone e se si possono fare effettivamente dei controlli alle frontiere.

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die Abschaffung der Binnengrenzen, der Wegfall der Grenzkontrollen gehört zu den höchsten Werten der EU. Sie sind Gemeinschaftsgut der Union und dürfen nicht einfach der Willkür der Regierungen überlassen werden. Sie sind verbunden mit einem Grundrecht innerhalb der EU, nämlich der Freizügigkeit. Wenn jetzt sogenannte schwerwiegende Defizite vorliegen, – und das sollten wir doch einmal klar ansprechen – wenn jetzt die sogenannte neue Notfallklausel bei der Umsetzung von Schengen wirksam wird, weil die Mitgliedstaaten zu den Defiziten selbstverständlich auch die Migrationsströme zählen, wenn jetzt also eine solche Regelung einsetzt, dann bedeutet das, dass Migranten sehr wohl ein Grund dafür sind, Grenzkontrollen wieder einzuführen. Damit wird also die Wiedereinführung gewissermaßen gerechtfertigt. Insofern werden Migranten zu Sündenböcken europäischer Politik. Und das finden wir inakzeptabel.

Wenn man sich das Konstrukt anschaut, dann können nun auf Empfehlung des Rates die Grenzkontrollen bis zu zwei Jahren weiterbestehen. Die Kommission ist lediglich so eine Art Ausputzer, ein Kontrolleur bei dem Verfahren. Das Parlament hat nicht einmal am Katzentisch Platz nehmen können, ist also ganz aus der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe entlassen. Wir haben uns, wenn man so will, verabschiedet. Das sage ich, obwohl ich beiden Berichterstattern meinen großen Dank aussprechen möchte und Respekt zolle. Sie haben wirklich zwei Jahre lang kräftig gekämpft. Das ist richtig. Ich bin froh, dass wenigstens ein Evaluationsmechanismus zustande gekommen ist, der Gerechtigkeit zwischen Beitrittsländern und Mitgliedstaaten und mehr Transparenz schafft. Aber dennoch: Wir haben verloren! Ich hoffe nur, dass das kein Präzedenzfall wird für die freiwillige Ausbootung des Parlaments und die Aufgabe unserer eigenen Rechte.

Schengen darf nicht politisches Faustpfand von Regierungen oder politischen Kräften werden! Insofern ist das für uns leider kein Kompromiss.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). - Voorzitter, ik heb me al vaker verzet tegen Schengen. Het opheffen van de binnengrenzen was wellicht een aardig idee op papier, maar in de praktijk zien we dat de nadelen vele malen groter zijn dan de voordelen.

Schengen faciliteert criminelen en om dát dan weer te bestrijden komen we weer met nieuwe wetgeving uit Brussel, die Brussel sterker maakt en de lidstaten zwakker. Terwijl die criminaliteit zo gemakkelijk is te bestrijden, namelijk door de herintroductie van grenscontroles dáár waar de lidstaten dat van belang vinden. Welke goedwillende burger wil er niet even zijn paspoort laten zien, zodat het gastland niet wordt overlopen door criminelen en landlopers?

Ook tast paspoortcontrole het principe van vrij verkeer van personen totaal niet aan.

Waarom is iedereen heer zo allergisch voor controles aan de grens. Schengen is een typisch voorbeeld van een Europees beleid dat hopeloos ontspoord is. Ik roep de lidstaten dus opnieuw op om te kiezen vóór het belang van hun eigen burgers en te stoppen met Schengen.

  Véronique Mathieu Houillon (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, grâce à l'implication de nos deux rapporteurs, M. Coelho et Mme Weber, qui ont fait un travail remarquable sur ce dossier, nous avons gagné à deux titres avec la présente réforme de la gouvernance Schengen.

Tout d'abord, la libre circulation des citoyens est préservée et cette libre circulation est une liberté fondamentale. Elle cimente les peuples européens et représente pour beaucoup une manifestation tangible de la citoyenneté européenne. L'espace Schengen et la libre circulation sont, à juste titre, cités par nombre de nos citoyens comme la plus belle réussite de la construction européenne. C'est une liberté essentielle que nos peurs ou querelles ne sauraient remettre en cause.

Tout rétablissement de contrôle aux frontières intérieures doit toujours être une mesure de dernier recours, limitée et proportionnée. Cette réforme nous permet également de renforcer la sécurité de l'espace Schengen et donc, des citoyens européens. Désormais, nous avons un mécanisme européen efficace d'évaluation de l'espace. Nous pouvons exercer de façon objective un contrôle à nos frontières grâce à des évaluations européennes menées par de petits groupes d'experts et des visites de terrain.

Nous nous sommes donné aussi les moyens de réagir et de renforcer le contrôle à nos frontières extérieures, si nécessaire, pour que les citoyens n'aient pas à assumer le prix de frontières poreuses. Si une défaillance de nos frontières est constatée, il y sera remédié. L'État membre concerné devra aussitôt agir et mettre en place un plan d'action pour renforcer le contrôle aux frontières en question. Si une telle défaillance perdurait et que les frontières cédaient, il serait alors possible de réintroduire temporairement les contrôles aux frontières intérieures, afin de protéger nos citoyens européens de flux incontrôlés. Mais il ne faut pas être naïfs, des situations bien particulières exigent un rétablissement temporaire et circonspect des frontières.

C'est pourquoi les États membres restent également libres de rétablir temporairement des frontières intérieures pour des raisons de sécurité et d'ordre public, car la sécurité des citoyens européens doit passer avant tout.

Ainsi, j'en suis persuadée, cette réforme de la gouvernance Schengen est un grand pas en avant et nous dote de mécanismes européens nécessaires pour mieux contrôler nos frontières. Grâce à cette réforme, nous assurons aux citoyens européens un espace Schengen dans lequel ils peuvent librement circuler et échanger, et cela en toute sécurité.

Ce paquet, nous l'avons gagné de haute lutte, grâce à la ténacité de nos rapporteurs et de la Commission européenne. Malheureusement, le Conseil, dans cette évolution, n'a pas eu, et je le déplore, une attitude très démocratique.

PRESIDE: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vicepresidente

  Robert Goebbels (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, en 1985, j'étais celui qui invitait à la signature du premier accord de Schengen, à l'origine de la suppression des contrôles aux frontières intérieures, tellement appréciée par les Européens et par les détenteurs d'un visa Schengen.

Pour de basses raisons de politique intérieure, certains États veulent des clauses de sauvegarde, arguant de la lutte contre l'immigration clandestine. S'il convient de renforcer la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains aux frontières extérieures de l'Europe, il ne faut cependant pas céder à cette logique de la peur, née du contentieux franco-italien sur les réfugiés tunisiens en 2011.

Le traité est clair. Selon l'article 77, l'Union développe une politique visant à assurer l'absence de tout contrôle des personnes, quelle que soit leur nationalité, lorsqu'elles franchissent les frontières intérieures. Les articles 78 et 79 en règlent les conditions. L'article 78, paragraphe 3, impose que, devant une situation d'urgence caractérisée par un afflux soudain de ressortissants de pays tiers, le Conseil, sur proposition de la Commission, peut adopter des mesures provisoires. Cela est plus que suffisant pour faire face à des situations exceptionnelles.

À travers l'accord dont nous discutons, certains États cherchent à imposer une renationalisation de Schengen en restant en dehors de la procédure législative ordinaire.

Certes, l'accord trouvé au sein du trilogue comporte quelques garde-fous appréciables. D'aucuns disent qu'en fait, ces dispositions permettraient à la Commission de bloquer toute dérive populiste contre les migrants, mais le fait que le Parlement européen ne soit pas informé dévoile les arrière-pensées de certains ministres de l'intérieur.

Je reste hostile à cette mascarade. 1,5 milliard de nos concitoyens traversent chaque année les frontières intérieures de l'espace Schengen. Qui peut les contrôler? Qui veut arrêter les dizaines de millions de touristes qui visiteront, par exemple, cet été la France ou l'Italie? Qui veut contrôler chaque jour le million de frontaliers qui travaillent dans un pays voisin? Je ne suis pas satisfait. Je dis qu'il faut dire "non" à la logique de la peur qui anime certains de nos gouvernements.

  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). - Voorzitter, na een jaar debatteren over het evaluatiemechanisme en de mogelijkheid om tijdelijk grenzen te sluiten, ligt er nu besluitvorming voor.

Maar wie maakt wie nu wat wijs? Wat is de uitkomst na een jaar? Lidstaten mogen het zelf weten en lidstaten durven niet te laten zien op welke gronden ze een besluit nemen om een grens tijdelijk te sluiten. Ze willen er in ieder geval niet dat de Europese Commissie of het Europees Parlement echt bij de besluitvorming betrokken zijn.

Dat laat zien dat het volgens mij vooral bedoeld is om je eigen burgers te vertellen 'oh, we hebben de grenzen nog in eigen handen', terwijl dat verder niet het geval is. De Nederlandse overheid doet een paar uur per maand checks op nummerborden van Oost-Europese busjes. Daarmee doen ze volgens hun zeggen aan criminaliteitsbestrijding. Met andere woorden, Oost-Europese nummerborden duiden op gevaarlijke mensen in gevaarlijke auto's, en dát is criminaliteitsbestrijding. Dames en heren, de lidstaten maken elkaar en hun mensen wat wijs.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). - Pane předsedající, o novele pravidel schengenského prostoru a systému se mezi Evropským parlamentem a Evropskou komisí a členskými státy hovoří déle než jeden rok.

Dosažený kompromis, podle kterého by mělo být znovuzavedení kontrol na vnitřních hranicích jen krajním řešením, a to v případě ohrožení vnitřní bezpečnosti daného státu a po vyčerpání všech ostatních prostředků, a hlavně po konzultacích s ostatními členskými státy a Evropskou komisí, je podle mého názoru vyvážený.

V souvislosti s novými pravidly také oceňuji možnost sledovat, zda se na vnitřních hranicích neprovádějí nepovolené kontroly. Čeští občané mají v tomto ohledu negativní zkušenosti, zejména s kontrolami na německé straně hranic a nově tak bude existovat praktický nástroj jak to kontrolovat a jak se bránit.

Schengenský prostor bez kontrol na vnitřních hranicích představuje podle mého názoru jeden z největších úspěchů evropské integrace. Naším společným zájmem proto musí být funkční schengenská spolupráce založená na odpovědném dodržování stanovených pravidel.

  Gerard Batten (EFD). - Mr President, last year we saw the Schengen system buckle under the strain of mass migration, and some Member States sought to introduce unilateral controls. The revision of the rules is an attempt to keep the lid on a boiling pot, but it is too little and too late. It only allows some controls in very exceptional circumstances for a limited period of time. It is too little, too late.

An open-borders policy could only work between countries with very similar and stable economic and cultural natures. The EU’s open-borders policy is a disaster for ordinary people, and has created enormous social problems. This has all been done in pursuit of a political ideology not shared by the people of Europe. That ideology is that the continent of Europe is a single country, a United States of Europe, which obviously it is not.

The EU is out of touch with reality and in a contest between reality and ideology, reality always wins in the end.

(The speaker agreed to reply to two blue-card questions from Robert Goebbels and Krisztina Morvai under Rule 149(8))

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), question "carton bleu". – Monsieur Batten, vous venez de nous dire que la politique européenne en matière de contrôle des frontières est une grande catastrophe. Nous savons que la Grande-Bretagne ne fait pas partie de l'espace Schengen. Pourriez-vous m'expliquer, Monsieur Batten, pourquoi il y a tant d'immigrés clandestins en Grande-Bretagne et pourquoi votre pays, qui ne fait pas partie de ce damné Schengen, a tant de problèmes avec l'immigration?

  Krisztina Morvai (NI), blue-card question. – With all due respect to Mr Batten and our other Western European friends, as an East European let me ask you if you want to reconsider basically the whole idea of the free movement of workers and free movement of people within the European Union?

Would you kindly reconsider the free movement of capital as well? In that case, we East Europeans are more than happy to close our borders to Western capital and get our own economy back.

  Gerard Batten (EFD), blue-card answers. – Mr Goebbels, you asked about border controls. Yes, Britain is not in the Schengen system, but we still suffer from the effects of it because it is very much easier for people to get to Calais and make that final hop over to Britain.

You are quite right: even though we are supposed to have border controls, immigration policy is a disaster in my country. This is not just because of the European Union, it is because of the complete inability and lack of will on the part of British governments to actually put in proper immigration controls and carry them out. So I agree with you that this is a disaster in my country that is not entirely of the making of the EU.

In answer to Ms Morvai’s question regarding the free movement of people: no, we do not believe in the free movement of peoples in my party. We believe in controlled immigration and controlled border policy. We do not want to stop immigrants; we do not want to stop people coming. But we want this to be controlled by our government in the interests of the British people, and not in the interests of a political ideology which they do not share.

If you are going to control people, it is a lot easier to do that than capital, which is often numbers on a computer, so I understand the problems there. We want to see policies in a whole range of areas that are in the interests of the British people, and then ultimately in the interests of everybody else.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). - Herr Präsident! Ich kann dem Jubel zum vorliegenden Schengen-Bericht nicht zustimmen. Zwar bringt die Kommission teilweise Positives, wie den Vorschlag, die EU-Außengrenze, die mit ihren Schlupflöchern ohnedies eher an einen Schweizer Käse erinnert als an eine sichere Grenze, besser zu sichern. Das ist ein Positivum. Doch absolut falsch finde ich, dass die Entscheidung zur Wiedereinführung von Kontrollen an den Binnengrenzen nun total bürokratisiert werden soll und das Recht zur Einführung dieser Kontrollen den Mitgliedstaaten weitgehend entzogen wird. Das ist ein Anschlag auf die Souveränität der Mitgliedstaaten. Im Rahmen eines bürokratischen Verfahrens muss nun bei der Kommission angesucht werden, man muss mit den Nachbarstaaten in den sogenannten Dialog eintreten etc.. Das wird entweder zu gar nichts führen, oder es wird zu spät sein, denn illegale Einwanderer warten sicherlich nicht geduldig an der Grenze, bis sich Brüssel zum Handeln entscheidet.

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δεν υπάρχει καμία αμφιβολία ότι η τελική συμφωνία για το πακέτο Σένγκεν, συνιστά μια πολύ σημαντική εξέλιξη. Θέλω να συγχαρώ τον κ. Coelho και την κ. Weber για την προσπάθειά τους και να σας πω αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, ότι παρακολούθησα από κοντά και εγώ την όλη προσπάθεια ως εισηγητής για μια τρίτη έκθεση για την τροποποίηση και αναθεώρηση του κώδικα και της Συνθήκης Σένγκεν σε άλλα σημεία, τα οποία ολοκληρώσαμε με τους συναδέλφους σε πρώτη ανάγνωση χωρίς κανέναν πρόβλημα και την οποία ψηφίζουμε αύριο.

Ο χώρος Σένγκεν και η ελεύθερη κυκλοφορία εντός του χώρου, παραμένει μια από τις πλέον προωθημένες μορφές συνεργασίας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, διέπεται από πολύ συγκεκριμένους κανόνες λειτουργίας, πολύ δε περισσότερο απαιτεί τον σεβασμό του απ' όλα τα κράτη μέλη. Με δυο λόγια: η ορθή διακυβέρνησή του, η επιτυχία του εξαρτάται από την προσήλωση όλων των κρατών μελών. Και είναι προφανές πως μονομερείς ενέργειες υπονομεύουν τη συνολική προσπάθεια, τραυματίζουν το αίσθημα αλληλεγγύης ανάμεσα στα κράτη που απαρτίζουν συνολικά τον χώρο Σένγκεν.

Επομένως, ανεύθυνες δηλώσεις ή ακόμη και πολιτικές διακηρύξεις φανερώνουν απλώς άγνοια της λειτουργίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Άγνοια των δικαιωμάτων και των υποχρεώσεων όσων συμμετέχουν στις πιο προωθημένες ευρωπαϊκές πολιτικές. Και αναφέρομαι συγκεκριμένα: εκείνοι που για παράδειγμα πιστεύουν, ότι δίνοντας ταξιδιωτικά έγγραφα σε παράνομους μετανάστες, λύνουν το πρόβλημα του μεγάλου αριθμού παράνομων μεταναστών σε μια χώρα, δεν γνωρίζω αν έχουν αντίληψη της πραγματικότητας, σίγουρα πάντως δεν έχουν καμία απολύτως γνώση και αντίληψη του πνεύματος και του τρόπου λειτουργίας του χώρου Σένγκεν. Δεν έχουν προφανώς καμία αντίληψη σε σχέση με τα αποτελέσματα σ' αυτόν τους τον λόγο.

Κυρία Επίτροπε θα ήθελα παρακαλώ -εάν είναι εφικτό - να έχω μια απάντηση σε σχέση με το σημείο αυτό από την πλευρά σας.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, este Pleno del Parlamento Europeo está presenciando el desbloqueo del paquete de asilo, pero también del paquete Schengen, en sus dos piezas principales: la evaluación del sistema Schengen y el marco legal para la reinstauración de fronteras en la Unión Europea.

Por tanto, hay que felicitar a los ponentes que han conducido estos expedientes, pero también hay razones para poner en valor el refuerzo que esto supone para los Estados miembros en su confianza mutua; para la Comisión y el Parlamento Europeo, que ven reforzados los poderes de información y de evaluación de este paquete tan importante para el acervo de la libre circulación de personas; y, sobre todo, para los propios ciudadanos europeos, porque este paquete ha conocido un año y medio de negociaciones precisamente como consecuencia de las pulsiones populistas que propenden a la renacionalización de una política que el Tratado de Lisboa quiere definitivamente europea: la política de libre circulación de personas.

El cambio operado unilateralmente por el Consejo ha estado en el origen de este año y medio de negociaciones que ahora conocen un desbloqueo. Se trata, por tanto, de transmitir a los ciudadanos el mensaje de que el Parlamento Europeo va a ocuparse de que cualquier eventual modificación, en el futuro, de esta importante pieza de legislación asegure la representación de la ciudadanía europea, que aprecia en la libre circulación de personas uno de los mejores tesoros, uno de los mejores componentes del acervo europeo, de lo que Europa representa para 500 millones de ciudadanos.

  Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident! Ich kann leider nicht sehen, dass diese Schengen-Reform Vorteile für die Menschen in Europa bringt. Die Reform etabliert einen weiteren Grund, warum Binnengrenzen geschlossen werden können. Defizite an den Außengrenzen, das kann alles heißen oder auch nichts. Auch, dass ein Land viele Migrantinnen oder Migranten hereinlässt: Ist das ein Grund, die Binnengrenzen zu schließen? Ich denke, damit wird die Reisefreiheit in Europa weiter unterhöhlt. Die Entscheidung darüber bleibt letztendlich in nationaler Hand, obwohl die Freiheit der Binnengrenzen alle Europäerinnen und Europäer betrifft. Auch das Parlament bekommt bei der Schengen-Evaluierung nicht die Rolle, die ihm eigentlich zusteht.

Ich danke den Berichterstattenden ausdrücklich für ihren Einsatz. Aber letztendlich muss ich feststellen, dass eine europäische und demokratische Reform von Schengen nicht gelungen ist. Das ist sehr schade, denn Schengen ist schließlich ein Grundpfeiler der Europäischen Union.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Nie ulega chyba wątpliwości, że swobodny przepływ osób jest jedną z największych zdobyczy Unii Europejskiej. Nabyte uprawnienia pozwalają obywatelom w sposób nieskrępowany przemieszczać się, osiedlać się i podejmować pracę w dowolnym kraju.

Czasowe ograniczenia nie wzbudzają zastrzeżeń w sytuacjach zagrożenia bezpieczeństwa np. atakiem terrorystycznym. Decyzja odnośnie ich wprowadzania powinna jednak pozostać w gestii państw członkowskich.

Niestety pojawiają się również postulaty zaostrzenia przepisów dotyczących kontroli wewnętrznej wynikające z pobudek ekonomicznych. Wyrażają konieczność powstrzymania wewnętrznej migracji zarobkowej.

Propozycje te wydają się bezpodstawne i pozostają w wyraźnej sprzeczności z zasadami funkcjonowania Wspólnoty. Oceniam je jako ewidentnie rozmijające się z interesem europejskich obywateli. Jest to tym bardziej niezrozumiałe, że pracownicy napływowi nierzadko wydatnie przyczynili się do poprawy sytuacji gospodarczej danego państwa.

Na poparcie zasługuje natomiast propozycja wzmocnienia ochrony nieszczelnych granic zewnętrznych. Regularnie odnotowujemy bowiem przypadki nielegalnej imigracji, często z wykorzystaniem metod wręcz zagrażających życiu.

  Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος (EFD). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αποτελεί σίγουρα κατάκτηση το σύστημα Σένγκεν για την ελεύθερη διακίνηση των πολιτών στην Ευρώπη, έχει όμως και παρενέργειες. Είμαι από εκείνους που πιστεύουν στην αναγκαιότητα ασφάλειας των συνόρων των κρατών μελών που διασφαλίζεται, βέβαια, αποκλειστικά από την τήρηση και εφαρμογή των εσωτερικών κανόνων χωρίς την παρέμβαση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Υποτίθεται ότι επιχειρούμε να εξασφαλίσουμε την δίκαιη κατανομή του βάρους που ασκούν στις εθνικές κοινωνίες τα προσφυγικά ρεύματα. Πως όμως εξασφαλίζεται αυτό κύριε Πρόεδρε και κύριοι συνάδελφοι; Από τα 26 ευρωπαϊκά κράτη της περιοχής Σένγκεν, μόλις τα 6 δέχονται όλη την μεταναστευτική πίεση, ως χώρες των εξωτερικών συνόρων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Οι βόρειες χώρες, οι χώρες που δεν έχουν θαλάσσια σύνορα στη Μεσόγειο, δεν αντιλαμβάνονται το πρόβλημα που υφίσταται η Ελλάδα, πολύ περισσότερο από οποιαδήποτε άλλη χώρα, σε σχέση με τον πληθυσμό της. Η οικονομία της χώρας μας και οι κοινωνικές δομές της έχουν κατακρεουργηθεί και η ανεργία καλπάζει.

Δυστυχώς, στην ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική για την μετανάστευση δεν εμπεριέχεται καλόπιστος διαμερισμός ευθυνών ανάμεσα στα κράτη μέλη. Αρκεί να σημειώσω το εξής: για την περίοδο 2007 έως 2011 διατέθηκαν σχεδόν 1 δις ευρώ, μόνο στα έξι αυτά κράτη, για την αντιμετώπιση των μεταναστευτικών ροών. Το κόστος για την Ελλάδα ανέρχεται σε περισσότερο από 30 δις.

  Kinga Gál (PPE). - Az előző hetekben körvonalazódott egyezség legfontosabb üzenete az, hogy sikerült megőrizni és megerősíteni az Unió legkézzelfoghatóbb vívmányát, a személyek akadálytalan mozgását biztosító schengeni rendszert, miközben reményeink szerint átláthatóbbá és hatékonyabbá is tettük e rendszert.

Szeretnék gratulálni Carlos Coelho kollégámnak és Weber asszonynak kiemelkedő munkájukhoz ebben a csöppet sem egyszerű tárgyalási folyamatban, melynek végére mindhárom uniós intézmény eredménynek tartja a kialakult kompromisszumot. A schengeni értékelési mechanizmus hatékonyságának javítása, illetve a schengeni kormányzás további erősítése pozitív, és mindenképpen támogatandó.

A polgárok számára egyértelmű előnyöket jelentő vívmány megerősödött szerintem, hiszen csakis rendkívüli helyzetben, komoly indok esetében vezetheti be egy adott tagállam ideiglenesen a határellenőrzést, de bevezetheti, ha polgárainak biztonsága ezt megkívánja. Ugyanakkor lehetővé válik, hogy végső esetben a Bizottság aktívan lépjen fel alapos vizsgálódás után, ha adott külső határokon egy tagállam nem tudja teljesíteni az elvárt feltételeket.

Üdvözlöm továbbá a kettős mérce megszüntetése érdekében elért eredményt is, amely a jövőben egyenlő bánásmódot ír elő az értékelési mechanizmus alkalmazásának összefüggésében a tagállamok között. Ez azért is kiemelendő, mert ez hozzájárul a tagállamok közötti bizalom további növeléséhez, amelyre úgy érzem, nagy szükségünk van.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, la solidarité et la confiance mutuelle incarnées par l'acquis Schengen ont sérieusement été mises à mal ces dernières années. La liberté de circulation a encore été récemment mise en cause par plusieurs États membres qui, pourtant, ne savent toujours pas apporter les preuves qui justifient leurs accusations de fraude aux prestations sociales.

Face à des réflexes purement nationalistes, nous avons pu enfin aboutir à un compromis qui renforce l'approche communautaire et préserve cet acquis fondamental de la construction européenne. Certes, sur ce sujet aussi, nous aurions souhaité aller plus loin encore et surtout préserver les prérogatives du Parlement européen dans une matière qui touche directement les droits des citoyens, c'est-à-dire ceux qu'il représente.

L'enjeu, désormais, est de mettre fin à cette méfiance mutuelle qui habite les esprits afin de retrouver la confiance mutuelle initiale qui présidait au tout début de l'espace Schengen. Il nous faut également un espace où on arrête de croire que tous les problèmes sont de la faute de l'État membre voisin, forcément incompétent d'ailleurs, et un espace où les questions de migration irrégulière peuvent être mieux gérées au niveau européen et non plus au regard des agendas politiques nationaux.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). - Mr President, the ability to control one’s own borders is fundamental to national sovereignty, and whilst the UK is not part of the Schengen area, I do still support the Council’s view that ultimate decision-making on border control should lie with national governments. However, all of our authorities must be able to identify those who pose a risk to our citizens and there have been some shocking cases of individuals who have been known to pose a risk in one Member State then being able to commit crimes because they relocated to another country where they were less well known.

The freedom of movement of people is a very valued freedom, but we also need to protect citizens, so it must be coupled with full and accurate exchange of information. Tackling risks posed by potentially dangerous individuals is critically important and stricter border controls can help to achieve this.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Susţin cele trei rapoarte din pachetul Schengen, pentru că apără dreptul la liberă circulaţie în Uniunea Europeană, unul din bunurile cele mai de preţ pe care le are Uniunea. Aş vrea să mă refer la câteva îmbunătăţiri aduse de aceste rapoarte.

1 - Standardele pentru statele membre Schengen sunt mai relaxate decât pentru statele candidate, cum ar fi România şi Bulgaria. Prin aceste rapoarte, standardele devin egale pentru toată lumea: şi pentru statele candidate, şi pentru statele membre, adică se vor ridica standardele şi în statele deja membre Schengen.

În al doilea rând, monitorizarea controalelor interne la frontiere, monitorizarea controalelor ilegale la frontierele interne va fi posibile, ceea ce astăzi nu se poate face. De pildă, echipe de experţi se pot sui în autocare care pleacă cu turişti din diverse ţări în alte state ale Uniunii, să vadă, să constate cu ochii lor dacă sunt sau nu aceşti oameni supuşi unor controale ilegale.

O a treia îmbunătăţire se referă la faptul că posibilitatea de a reintroduce controalele la frontiere se poate face mult mai restrictiv decât până acum, şi anume numai cu acordul Comisiei Europene, iar decizia se ia de către Consiliul Uniunii, cu aprobarea Comisiei Europene. Şi iarăşi, pe baza unor criterii bine stabilite dinainte şi numai pentru a proteja ordinea publică.

Deci toate acestea vor duce la un transport, la o călătorie, la o liberă circulaţie în Uniunea Europeană în mod egal pentru toţi cetăţenii.

  Claude Moraes (S&D). - Mr President, coming from a Member State which is not in Schengen, and having a perspective which values the free movement within the Schengen area, if we cast our minds back to the opportunism which caused this situation, we can really appreciate the progress which has been made by the two rapporteurs, Ms Weber and Mr Coelho.

We understand the objections in respect of Parliament’s role, the lack of codecision and the difficulties, but we have to make an assessment about what the rapporteurs have achieved and the jump that we have made from those opportunistic situations to where we are now. I could make an assessment as a citizen who does not enjoy that free movement from Schengen, from the United Kingdom: this is something that created progress, democratic accountability and transparency. It is not a perfect situation but it is real progress and that is why my Group values the agreement.

  Marco Scurria (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi permetta prima di tutto di ringraziare i nostri relatori, i colleghi Coelho e Weber, che hanno lavorato assiduamente per raggiungere il risultato di cui oggi parliamo. Plaudiamo prima di tutto al meccanismo di valutazione e monitoraggio di cui la Commissione europea, insieme agli Stati membri e alle agenzie, diventa protagonista, ma anche alla capacità di capire che qualcosa doveva essere cambiato: parlo della reintroduzione dei controlli alle frontiere interne in casi di eccezionali circostanze.

Non si aliena certo il principio della libera circolazione delle persone che è una delle basi su cui si fonda la nostra Unione, ma la si adegua ad una serie di necessità che nel corso del tempo si sono manifestate. Abbiamo vissuto anche momenti di tensione tra alcuni dei nostri Stati membri – momenti difficili come quelli per esempio conseguenti alla cosiddetta primavera araba – ed era opportuno intervenire e regolare perché troppe differenze ci sono ancora tra le nostre società e dove scelte unilaterali ed improvvise possono mettere davvero in crisi le ragioni stesse del nostro stare insieme.

Ma vedere oggi che tutti i nostri cittadini possono tranquillamente circolare tra i nostri Stati, senza polizia, senza esibire documenti, è senza dubbio motivo di orgoglio e dimostrazione che la nostra Unione vive e cresce con il passare degli anni. Perché alcuni, magari dei visitatori che stanno ascoltando questo dibattito dalle tribune, si stanno chiedendo se davvero vogliamo inspiegabilmente tornare indietro a un mondo che non esiste più e noi questo non lo vogliamo.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Możliwość poruszania się bez paszportu po Europie bez granic jest jednym z najważniejszych dla obywateli Unii dowodów na sens budowy zjednoczonej Europy. Nie mam co do tego najmniejszych wątpliwości. W dzisiejszej debacie omawiamy dwa rozporządzenia, z których jedno wprowadza nowy tryb określonego przywracania kontroli na granicach wewnętrznych między państwami Schengen. Oba rozporządzenia dotyczą zatem tej ważnej swobody, jaką jest przepływ ludzi w ramach Unii Europejskiej.

Chcę z tego miejsca uczciwie powiedzieć, że ten kierunek zmian, który jest wprowadzany w prawie do swobodnego przepływu osób wewnątrz Unii, uważam za ryzykowny, jednak rozumiem powody, dla których został on zaproponowany. I dlatego mimo swojej sceptycznej oceny będę głosował za przyjęciem sprawozdania zarówno pani poseł Weber, jak i sprawozdania pana posła Coelho. Uczynię tak również dlatego, że w sprawach, jakimi są przywracanie granic wewnętrznych w ramach strefy Schengen, oraz oceny, czy państwo członkowskie spełnia wymogi i zobowiązania wynikające ze wspólnej odpowiedzialności za bezpieczeństwo, a także za ochronę granic zewnętrznych Unii, decyzje będą podejmowane wspólnie i pod nadzorem Komisji Europejskiej. Wierzę, że ta kluczowa rola Komisji jako strażnika traktatów i płynących z nich praw obywatelskich zapewni, że te nowe możliwości przywracania granic nie będą nadużywane, a ich stosowanie ograniczy się tylko do najbardziej wyjątkowych sytuacji.

Chcę dobitnie podkreślić, że przepływy migracyjne nie mogą być bowiem pretekstem do przywracania granic w Europie. Reakcja Komisji na list czterech ministrów spraw wewnętrznych w sprawie zapobieżenia nadużyciom narodowych systemów opieki społecznej dowodzi, że zasługuje ona na kredyt zaufania.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - Zavedenie schengenského priestoru patrí medzi najväčšie úspechy Európskej únie. Podľa prieskumu považuje Schengen za najpozitívnejší výsledok európskej integrácie až 62 % našich obyvateľov. Voľný pohyb je základnou slobodou Európskej únie a my ju musíme dodržiavať. Je preto nevyhnutné nájsť primeranú rovnováhu medzi právom na voľný pohyb a právom na bezpečnosť, ktoré by mal každý jeden členský štát svojim obyvateľom garantovať.

Minulý rok nastali udalosti, ktoré garancie voľného cestovania a slobody pohybu výrazne ohrozili. Všetky členské štáty sú však povinné riadiť hranice takým spôsobom, ktorý nebude narúšať voľný pohyb osôb v rámci schengenského priestoru. Znovuzavedenie hraničných kontrol by malo byť prípustné iba za skutočne mimoriadnych okolností. Každé jedno opatrenie súvisiace s obnovením kontrol na vnútorných hraniciach musí byť dôsledne zvážené, primerané a zavedené iba ako skutočne krajné riešenie. Takéto rozhodnutie nemôže byť však v žiadnom prípade individuálnym rozhodnutím jedného členského štátu. Rozhodnúť o ňom je kompetentná jedine Európska únia ako celok. Európsky parlament nemôže byť z tohto procesu v žiadnom prípade vylúčený.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). - Úgy politikai, mint állampolgári szempontból is a schengeni dokumentumok az uniós vívmányok egyik legfontosabbikai. Éppen ezért ezt az eddig elért és kimunkált európai rendszert fenn kell tartani, és tovább finomítani. Úgy gondolom, a parlamenti álláspont a közös bizalom és együttműködés elveit próbálja megőrizni a schengeni csomagban.

A belső határellenőrzések rendszeresebbé válásának gondolata azonban az európai együttműködést és együttélést gátló elképzelés. Nem kell a múltban messzire mennünk, sokunkban él még az élmény a határátkelőkön történő állandó ellenőrzésekről. A belső határellenőrzéseknek a jövőben is csak kivételes és indokolt esetekben szabad megvalósulniuk. Ez az eljárás nem válhat rendszeressé. A bevándorlás és elvándorlás természetes folyamatok, a gazdasági és globális változások következményei. Ezért ezekre nem adhat választ egy újabb vasfüggöny. A tagállamoknak máshogy, megerősített uniós eszközökkel kell elérniük a hatékony problémakezelést.

A személyek szabad mozgása azon alapelvek egyike, amelyekre közösségünk épül, és ez egyedülálló a világon. Ennek további javítására, és a jogok szilárdítására van szükség, nem visszalépésre a múltba. Schengen sok régiót, népet összeköt, ugyanakkor a külső határok megszilárdítása több olyan országot távolabb vitt az EU-tól, amelyek az európai vérkeringés részei lehetnének.

A szilárd, bizalmi alapokon fekvő belső rendszer fejlesztése mellett megfelelő garanciákat kell biztosítani a Schengenen kívüli országokkal történő együttműködéshez is. A parlament fő feladata ebben a folyamatban véleményem szerint a biztonság szavatolása mellett az európaiság, az átláthatóság és az uniós polgárok szabadságérzetének megerősítése.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, first may I thank the Commissioner for her statement that she wants to have Parliament involved more in this area; that is important. I would also compliment her and other speakers on the role the Irish Presidency has played in moving this dossier forward and also the one on asylum.

That is something I greatly appreciate because our minister, who has had to leave, told me at the beginning of the Presidency that she was going to be in attendance at every single part-session that she was invited to attend. I just want to put it on the record that once or twice it has been mentioned here that the Council was not present. The reason they were not present was that they were not invited. Minister Creighton has been present on all occasions.

Now, regarding this measure, I think a lot of practical, sensible measures are here which I would support. Schengen is a great part of the European Union. We talk about the freedom of movement, of goods, capital, etc., but freedom does not mean uncontrolled. There have to be controls in everything and particularly at times of exceptional circumstances, The measures proposed here, measures of last resort, for limited periods, do make sense and I think unilateral action for a maximum of five days is a sensible approach as well.

So by and large, I think that this is a step in the right direction which will give a lot of consolation to citizens and also to Member States, and so I welcome these measures.

  Frank Engel (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, je trouve que nous sommes devant une contradiction fort intéressante. L'intérêt et l'engouement pour Schengen sont énormes, tant à l'intérieur qu'à l'extérieur de l'Union et, en même temps, nous assistons à une remise en question constante de son essence, qui est simplement l'absence de frontières intérieures au sein de l'Union européenne et de l'espace plus vaste.

La raison se trouve dans une imperfection majeure de la construction européenne qui est simple à formuler. Nous n'avons pas intériorisé, surtout au niveau du Conseil et des États membres, le fait que nous ne constituons plus qu'un seul espace et que nous ne devrions constituer plus qu'un seul espace. Voilà la raison pour laquelle nous ne fournissons pas assez de soutien à tous ceux qui gardent nos frontières extérieures. Que l'on aille se promener en Grèce ou à Malte pour voir la réalité de ces propos. Voilà, également, pourquoi les États préfèrent verrouiller leur territoire au lieu de protéger et de gérer l'espace de libre circulation qui doit être celui de toute l'Union.

Si le Parlement a eu raison de s'opposer à ce qui était proposé, ce que nous avons obtenu est loin de ce que nous souhaiterions. Le collègue Goebbels et d'autres l'ont mentionné de façon éloquente. Nous en sommes très loin. Parce que nous croyons toujours que nos policiers sont les meilleurs, que nos forces de sécurité sont les meilleures et que le voisin n'est pas capable de fournir le même degré de sécurité que celui qu'un autre État membre serait en droit d'exiger.

Arrêtons cela. Venons-en à une conscience européenne de la gestion de cet espace. Sans cela Schengen restera ce qu'il est actuellement, à savoir un terrain de bataille entre des États qui restent nationaux et un Parlement européen qui voudrait un espace continental.

(Applaudissements)

  Моника Панайотова (PPE). - Бих искала да поздравя докладчика г-н Коелю за постигнатото споразумение със Съвета и Комисията по правилата за управление на механизма за Шенген, както и за това, че успя да защити позицията на Европейския парламент в тези дълги и трудни преговори. Приветствам, че механизмът за оценка и наблюдение на прилагането на правото от Шенген вече ще бъде европейски, а не само междуправителствен инструмент. Фактът, че Европейската комисия ще има централна роля и че Парламентът ще бъде консултиран за всяка евентуална промяна ще допринесе за по-ясни и прозрачни правила и по-ефективна система.

Вярвам, че новите разпоредби ще засилят координацията и сигурността между държавите членки, защото Шенген е зона преди всичко на доверие. Винаги колективният отговор на външни предизвикателства е по-ефективен.

Вярвам, че това споразумение ще сложи край на появата на допълнителни критерии и двойни стандарти, които в момента се прилагат към България и Румъния и ще бъде крачка напред към присъединяването им към Шенген. Убедена съм, че това ще придаде геополитическа добавена стойност към сигурността в региона.

И в момента България прилага високи стандарти за сигурността на границите си. Като част от Шенген, България ще бъде гарант за сигурността и надеждността на външната граница на Европейския съюз и респективно за сигурността на европейските граждани. Надявам се, че решението за разширяването на Шенген няма да се отлага продължително, защото това може да предизвика съмнения в способността на Европейския съюз да спазва собствените си правила и решения. Може, също така, да подхрани евроскептицизма в момент, когато повече от всякога се нуждаем от повече Европа.

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

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). - Señor Presidente, gracias a Carlos y a Renate hoy avanzamos considerablemente en la dimensión comunitaria de Schengen y en la libertad de tránsito de los ciudadanos. Voy a ser telegráfico: ustedes han hecho un trabajo meritorio, intenso y constante. Se lo agradecemos.

Resumidamente: el Parlamento, bien, y el Consejo, mal. El Consejo ha estado inflexible y miope en el proceso. El Parlamento, gracias a ustedes, va a tener acceso a información relevante en procesos de evaluación y seguimiento, pero ¿realmente tenemos que creernos que vamos a ser consultados sobre cualquier reforma que afecte de manera sustantiva al espacio Schengen? Me fío de la señora Malmström, me callo con referencia a lo que espero del Consejo; el Parlamento estará vigilante.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). - Este îmbucurător faptul că, prin aceste două regulamente, se urmăreşte îmbunătăţirea mecanismului de evaluare Schengen vizând abordarea situaţiilor de criză în regiunile comune, mai ales la graniţele ţărilor din Uniunea Europeană.

Cu toate acestea, este îngrijorător faptul că nu se face nimic la nivel european pentru soluţionarea problemei referitoare la aderarea Bulgariei şi a României la spaţiul Schengen. Menţinerea opoziţiei manifestate de către anumite state membre este un abuz ce contravine principiilor şi obiectivelor pe termen lung ale Uniunii Europene. Poziţia acestor state a arătat, încă o dată, faptul că, deşi toate statele membre se bucură de responsabilităţi comune, totuşi, din nefericire, unele state nu se bucură de aceleaşi beneficii.

Stimaţi colegi, aceste ambiţii populiste nu vor face decât să slăbească puterea Uniunii Europene şi să reducă credibilitatea noastră pe plan global. Având în vedere că au fost îndeplinite toate condiţiile pentru aderare, solicit pe această cale tuturor instituţiilor responsabile să identifice şi să propună pentru a pune în aplicare toate măsurile necesare care să contribuie la extinderea cu succes a spaţiului Schengen şi la eliminarea acestei nedreptăţi.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). - Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałbym podkreślić z całą mocą, że działalność strefy Schengen jest dzisiaj jednym z najmocniejszych argumentów na rzecz integracji europejskiej, co ma znaczenie szczególne w czasach, gdy narastają nastroje antyunijne. Obywatele Unii cenią i doceniają swobodę przemieszczania się i fakt, że kontrole mają charakter wyjątkowy, przede wszystkim na zewnętrznych granicach Unii. Dlatego też myślę, że dzisiaj najważniejsze znaczenie ma właśnie ta skuteczność kontroli dokonywanych przez państwa graniczne. Państwa te czynią to bowiem nie tylko w interesie swoim, lecz i w imieniu i na rzecz wszystkich członków Unii. Chciałbym poprzeć w związku z tym w szczególności wszystkie te rozwiązania, które powinny poprawić efektywność tej kontroli na zewnątrz, bo jeśli chodzi o wewnętrzne rozwiązania, to jest tu niestety sporo wątpliwości.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Przygotowany przez Komisję Europejską wniosek legislacyjny wyraźnie pokazuje, że ugięła się ona pod żądaniami niektórych państw członkowskich. Zaproponowane rozwiązania nie tylko bardzo wpłynęłyby na funkcjonowanie strefy Schengen, ale przede wszystkim podważyłyby jeden z fundamentów Unii – swobodę przepływu osób.

Ostatnie lata pokazały, że państwa członkowskie dla wewnętrznych celów politycznych są w stanie naruszać wspólne dla Unii wartości, w tym wprowadzać nieuzasadnione kontrole na granicach wewnętrznych. Jeżeli zaakceptujemy taką praktykę, z czasem rozprzestrzeni się ona na całą Wspólnotę. W pełni zatem zgadzam się ze sprawozdawczynią, że należy umożliwić Komisji i Parlamentowi monitorowanie przypadków przywracania kontroli na granicach wewnętrznych. Nie można dopuścić, aby państwa członkowskie dokonywały tego w pełni swobodnie i uznaniowo.

Popieram więc wniosek o to, aby Komisja przygotowała wytyczne dotyczące przywracania kontroli, tak aby zapewnić spójną interpretację istniejących przepisów. Powinna również przygotowywać coroczne raporty z funkcjonowania strefy Schengen dla Parlamentu i Rady. Nie mam bowiem wątpliwości, że w tym przypadku jedynie instytucje unijne gwarantują racjonalne i uzasadnione stosowanie wyjątków pozwalających na tymczasowe przywracanie kontroli na granicach wewnętrznych.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! Es mag sich ja um ein Missverständnis oder um eine großzügige Interpretation der Visa für touristische Zwecke oder auch um eine bewusste Provokation handeln, die regelwidrige Ausstellung von Aufenthaltstiteln, welche Italien ja nicht zum ersten Mal einsetzt, muss jedoch endlich ein Ende haben. Denn Massenamnestien von illegalen Migranten oder der Bruch des Schengen-Vertrags mittels Touristenvisa ziehen unweigerlich weiter Zehntausende Flüchtlinge nach sich. Damit droht auch das Scheitern des Schengen-Systems insgesamt.

Nach wie vor gelingt es Griechenland, Italien und Malta offenbar nicht, eine ausreichende Sicherung der EU-Außengrenzen herzustellen. Und die EU will sich hinsichtlich des Sozialtourismus eben auch nicht die Hände schmutzig machen. Kein Wunder also, dass Schengen-Neulinge nach ihrer Aufnahme häufig in ihren Bemühungen nachlassen oder erlahmen.

Aber auch im Inneren haben wir in vielen Regionen Europas gerade angesichts der im Rahmen der Eurokrise verstärkten sozialen Ungleichgewichte mit steigender Kriminalität zu kämpfen. Insofern könnten also temporäre Kontrollen an den Binnengrenzen meines Erachtens durchaus hilfreich sein.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Jest mi przykro, że dzisiaj, zamiast mówić o przystąpieniu Bułgarii i Rumunii do strefy Schengen, staramy się uzasadnić i wytłumaczyć i rozmawiać o kontrolach, które chciało wprowadzić kilka krajów, bo idziemy w Unii Europejskiej dwa kroki do przodu, a potem cofamy się. Wydaje mi się, że w tej chwili jest najwyższy czas, żeby właśnie zacząć mówić jak najszybciej o otwarciu strefy Schengen, a nie o jej zamykaniu. Jest mi też przykro, że w całej tej procedurze Parlament został odsunięty, jego rola nie została doceniona, i obawiam się, że później przy tego typu ustaleniach, jakie osiągnięto, tak samo nie będzie dostatecznie brana pod uwagę opinia Parlamentu. Będę więc popierała to sprawozdanie, ale z bardzo dużą rezerwą.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). - Úgy tűnik, hogy kivételes körülmények között felfüggeszthető az Európai Unió egyik fő, úgymond vívmánya, szabadsága: a munkaerő, illetőleg a polgárok szabad áramlásának szabadsága, hiszen a schengeni területen belül is – holnap megszavazza a Parlament minden valószínűség szerint – visszaállítható lesz a határok ellenőrzése. Nem is titkolták itt nyugat-európai barátaink, hogy erre azért van szükség szerintük, mert mi kelet-európaiak veszélyesek vagyunk.

Kérdésem: hogyha kivételes körülmények között a polgárok szabad áramlása és a munkaerő szabad áramlása felfüggeszthető, akkor lehet-e esélyünk arra – és kérjük is, hogy így legyen –, hogy a tőke szabad áramlása is felfüggeszthető legyen kivételes körülmények között? Ezek a kivételes körülmények például az én hazámban, Magyarországon adottak, hiszen óriási a szegénység, sorra mennek tönkre a magyar kis- és középvállalkozók, tekintettel arra, hogy nem tudnak versenyt tartani a beáramló nyugati tőkével.

Lehetséges-e tehát felfüggeszteni azt, hogy egyenlő elbánásban kell őket részesítsük, és lehet-e, hogy preferenciális, tehát kedvezőbb megítélést kapjanak a hazai vállalkozók mostantól, hiszen kivételes körülmények állnak fent?

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

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first on Romania and Bulgaria: this is not the subject of today’s debate but, as you know – I do not have to repeat it – the Commission has said on several occasions that we do think that Romania and Bulgaria are ready to join Schengen and do fulfil all the technical criteria, which have to be the same for all countries. However, the Council has still not yet been in a position to make that decision. I hope they will do so very soon.

The creation of Schengen – as many of you have said – is the most tangible and valued achievement of the European Union. Four hundred and twenty million people residing in the area move freely across the internal borders, making some 1.25 billion journeys within the EU every year, and that is rising. The fact that they can travel from Lapland in northern Finland to Malta without a passport is truly something very tangible and good for the citizen. It has of course had a huge impact on the internal market.

On the negotiations, I am aware that some of you would have liked to take a little longer. It is also not 100% what I wanted, but I think that this compromise is the only one possible today. We can be proud of it. It will give us better possibilities to remedy deficiencies at the external borders.

The Commission will also have greater possibilities to make sure that Member States do not have unauthorised border controls at the internal borders. Through these regular evaluation dialogues and reports we will hopefully build trust, because trust was what was lacking when we had this huge political debate a year and a half ago.

With this agreement, the freedom to travel around Europe without border controls should continue to be granted for many years to come. Therefore I very much encourage you to vote for the proposals that have been prepared by your two rapporteurs, Mrs Weber and Mr Coelho. I would once again like to thank them very much for their hard work in concluding this file, together of course with the Irish Presidency.

  Carlos Coelho, relator. − Felicito Cecilia Malmström. Quem ganha sobretudo neste processo é a Comissão e isso é o sinal de que passamos a ter um mecanismo comunitário como o Parlamento sempre defendeu.

Senhor Presidente, quatro correções a coisas que foram ditas no plenário, agradecendo todas as palavras simpáticas que me foram dirigidas.

Primeiro, não é verdade que haja um exagero na reintrodução de fronteiras. A reintrodução de controlos nas fronteiras será a título excecional, será proposto pela Comissão Europeia caso seja mesmo necessário, será decidida pelo Conselho, com o envolvimento dos Estados-Membros. Não há aqui nenhum perigo.

Segundo, não é verdade que se vá enfraquecer a livre circulação dos cidadãos. Pelo contrário, vamos reforçar a livre circulação porque a partir deste momento tudo o que sejam tentativas de reintrodução ilegal dos controlos nas fronteiras internas serão objeto de fiscalização por este mecanismo.

Terceiro lugar, não é verdade que a imigração possa ser causa para a reintrodução de fronteiras. Explicitamente, recusamos essa previsão na lei que vamos aprovar.

Como a Senhora Comissária já disse, este debate não é sobre a Bulgária e sobre a Roménia, que já deveriam ser membros integrantes do Espaço Schengen. Mas, é uma forma de responder àqueles que têm medo da Bulgária e da Roménia, dizendo que eles podem preencher as condições no momento da adesão e não preencher as condições depois. A partir do momento que temos este mecanismo de avaliação, todos os Estados-Membros têm de, permanentemente, responder a todas as condições, o que significa que esse pretexto deixa de existir contra a Bulgária e contra a Roménia.

Finalmente, Senhor Presidente, uma vez mais agradecer toda a colaboração dos relatores sombra, mesmo daqueles que vão votar contra mas que nos deram toda a força durante o processo negocial. Recordar, sobretudo, a colaboração do colega Enciu que deu muitas sugestões, e, particularmente, a colaboração sempre estreita com a colega Renate Weber, a quem agradeço muito.

  Renate Weber, Raportoare. − Voi folosi aceste ultime minute ca să transmit doar două mesaje. Primul este acela de a mulţumi, realmente din tot sufletul, prietenului şi colegului meu, Carlos Coelho, dar şi celorlalţi colegi care au fost shadow în aceste rapoarte, precum şi asitenţilor noştri şi staffului Parlamentului, care ne-a ajutat atât de mult.

Cel de-al doilea mesaj pe care vreau să îl transmit este că pentru mine, o proeuropeană convinsă, nu este o supriză că un deputat care provine dintr-o ţară din afara spaţiului Schengen, a putut să lucreze, se pare foarte bine, dar, în orice caz, cu multă hotărâre, pentru ceva care aparţine tuturor cetăţenilor europeni.

Mărturisesc, însă, că, în acelaşi timp, am făcut-o gândindu-mă şi la ţara pe care o reprezint aici, la România, gândindu-mă că această nouă guvernanţă Schengen va netezi calea aderării României la spaţiul Schengen, o ţară care este pregătită şi tehnic şi care îşi doreşte foarte mult să facă parte din acest spaţiu. Suntem cetăţeni europeni şi, evident, dorim să ne bucurăm cu toţii de aceleaşi drepturi, aşa cum este şi firesc.

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana a las 11.30 horas.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), în scris. – Libera circulaţie a persoanelor este una dintre realizările cele mai concrete ale Europei unite, fiind totodată şi dreptul cel mai apreciat de cetăţenii Uniunii, aşa cum se arată într-un studiu al Comisiei Europene. Cu toate acestea, am constatat cu stupoare că anumite guverne au reuşit, timp de mai bine de doi ani, să impună standarde duble şi să ridice bariere în calea aplicării unui drept fundamental. Astfel, România şi Bulgaria s-au confruntat în repetate rânduri cu schimbarea regulilor în timpul jocului. Vreau să mulţumesc Comisiei şi colegilor din Parlament pentru eforturile depuse în vederea impunerii unor criterii uniforme în privinţa acquis-ului Schengen. Acestea vor fi valabile atât pentru statele care se bucură deja de apartenenţa la spaţiul de liberă circulaţie, cât şi pentru cele care nu au aderat încă şi vor face referire la principii tehnice şi nu la sistemul de justiţie, punând capăt discriminării şi consolidând încrederea reciprocă între membrii UE. Salut acest mecanism de evaluare Schengen care va fi bazat pe reguli clare şi transparente şi va fi mai riguros şi, în acelaşi timp, mai corect decât sistemul în vigoare până în prezent.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), în scris. – Noul Mecanism de Evaluare Schengen, aşa cum a fost modificat acesta prin amendamentele Parlamentului, va duce la consolidarea spaţiului Schengen. Prin acest mecanism, introducerea controalelor la frontieră nu va mai fi o decizie pe care un stat membru să o poată lua fără a cere aprobare la nivelul UE. Reintroducerea controalelor la frontieră trebuie să se întâmple doar în ultimă instanţă şi dacă, în urma evaluării pe teren şi a ajutorului acordat de Frontex, Statul Membru nu poate să remedieze deficienţa în termen de şase luni. Subliniez importanţa consolidării rolului Frontex şi a operabilităţii recent propusului Corp European de Poliţişti de Frontieră. Comisia trebuie să asigure coordonarea programelor de evaluare. Procesul de evaluare Schengen trebuie să fie realizat în cooperare cu experţii statelor membre şi cu reprezentanţi ai Parlamentului European. Este important să se stabilească măsuri financiare compensatorii, pentru a sprijini statele membre afectate de reintroducerea controalelor la frontierele interne. Schimbarea abordării interguvernamentale a evaluării Schengen într-un mecanism coordonat la nivelul UE sub controlul Comisiei este un lucru foarte bun. Subliniez că România şi Bulgaria au îndeplinit toate criteriile de evaluare Schengen şi acest nou mecanism va reconfirma acest lucru în momentul în care va intra în vigoare.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), na piśmie. – Osiągnięcie płynności przepływu obywateli UE w obrębie strefy Schengen jest jednym z fundamentalnych osiągnięć UE. Sprawdzanie pasażerów na granicach powinno odbywać się jedynie w sytuacji, gdy istnieją jakiekolwiek podejrzenia wobec podróżującego. Miałoby się to odbywać w celu zapewnienia obywatelom bezpieczeństwa. Ponowne wprowadzenie kontroli granicznych i utrudnienie obywatelom przemieszczania się w granicach strefy Schengen w moim przekonaniu podyktowane jest obecnie bardziej względami gospodarczymi i ekonomicznymi niż bezpieczeństwem.

Podobnie jak część posłów, jestem za podtrzymaniem płynności przemieszczania się między krajami UE oraz za wzmocnieniem granic zewnętrznych w celu uniknięcia napływu ludności krajów niezrzeszonych. Pozbawienie obywateli UE prawa do swobodnego przemieszczania się między krajami członkowskimi mogłoby podważyć autorytet, wiarygodność i sens istnienia Unii wśród obywateli.

Ponadto takie podejście wspiera myślenie lokalne, a nie globalne będące sensem istnienia UE. Każdy kraj członkowski ma swój własny pogląd na kwestię strefy Schengen, lecz nie możemy zapomnieć o tym, że jako państwa członkowskie tworzymy Unię i dążymy do wspólnego dla nas wszystkich dobra i korzyści. Powinniśmy wspierać podejście, którego podstawą jest jedna wspólna przestrzeń i wspierać ludzi, którzy chcą z tego korzystać.

Uważam, że ponowne ograniczenie obecnych przywilejów obywateli UE będzie dużym krokiem wstecz, a przecież podstawą funkcjonowania Unii jest ciągły rozwój w celu usprawniania współpracy międzynarodowej.