Brussels, 16/09/2011 (Agence Europe) - Whether France, Germany or Spain like it or not (see EUROPE 10451), the European Commission proposed on Friday 16 September that the states of the Schengen Area should no longer be allowed to decide for themselves to reintroduce border controls. It in fact suggests a European control and decision system in order to ensure freedom of movement for EU citizens.
Has the Commission learned anything from the Franco-Italian quarrel over the arrival in France of Tunisian migrants carrying Italian residence permits, and the unilateral decision taken by Denmark to restore border controls? At present, the countries of the Schengen Area can decide, alone, to bring in temporary controls in the case of terrorist threat or major events such as summit meetings or major sporting events. In order to meet the request put forward by several countries, the Commission suggests allowing governments to ask for borders to be restored during a massive wave of immigration or when there are failings on the part of a Schengen Area country to survey its borders.
The Commission has adopted a communication entitled “Schengen Governance - strengthening the area without internal border control”, as well as two proposals: - a proposal to strengthen the Schengen evaluation mechanism (revising the proposal made last year); - and a proposal to establish a mechanism for the coordinated reintroduction of controls at internal borders in exceptional circumstances (amending the Schengen Border Code).
Cecilia Malmström, European Home Affairs Commissioner, said that Schengen is a success, but that a number of shortcomings must be swiftly remedied. Most of these failings spring from the governmental approach and the decision-making system, she said. If one wants Schengen to be ready to raise future challenges, then one must change from the intergovernmental approach to a European system in order to strengthen and safeguard citizens' rights, the commissioner argued. She admits that, to make such a change, it will take courage, especially now in this time of crisis, when member states are more involved in protecting their national interests. However, the commissioner is convinced that a truly European approach will benefit all citizens. Both proposals aim to strengthen the management of the Schengen Area, and define a European decision-making mechanism that protects the common interest.
Strengthening Schengen Area management. Current instruments for identifying and correcting weaknesses are insufficient. The proposal (based on the revised Schengen evaluation mechanism proposed by the Commission in November 2010) would transform the current intergovernmental peer review approach into an EU-based Schengen governance. Announced and unannounced monitoring visits to a given member state by Commission-led teams with experts from other member states and Frontex will verify the application of the Schengen rules. A report drawn up following each visit would identify any shortcomings and make clear proposals for remedial action, with a deadline for implementing them. As a follow-up, the member state in question would have to establish an action plan setting out how it intends to address these recommendations. Another important innovation is the “Schengen health check”, that will take place twice a year with a debate in the Council and in the European Parliament on the functioning of Schengen.
EU-level decision-making process. The current rules, which foresee passport-free travel in 25 European countries, allow national authorities to exceptionally and temporarily reintroduce border controls in case of a serious threat to public policy and internal security. Malmström explained that the decision to reintroduce border controls was incumbent upon member states. However, she said, free movement is in the common interest and it is felt that the decision to reintroduce border controls should therefore be taken at European level. The Commission proposes a mechanism for a coordinated EU response to protect the functioning and the integrity of the Schengen Area. As part of the new system, a decision on the reintroduction of internal border controls for foreseeable events (such as an important sporting event or a major political meeting) would be taken at the European level on the basis of a proposal by the European Commission backed by a qualified majority of member state experts. The grounds on which such a decision could be taken will remain the same as today - that the measure be necessary in order to offset a serious threat to public policy and internal security. As a general rule, controls could then be allowed at designated borders for a renewable period of 30 days.
Member states could still take unilateral action to reintroduce controls when they are faced with unforeseen emergencies requiring immediate action, but only for a period not exceeding five days, after which an EU-level decision would be taken allowing for any extension (decision in comitology, at a Commission proposal).
In the event of serous deficiencies in application of the Schengen rules, for example if a member state fails to adequately protect a part of the EU's external border, support measures including technical and financial support from the Commission, from member states, from Frontex, or other agencies such as Europol or the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) may be taken. If, however, notwithstanding these support measures, serious deficiencies persist, a decision to allow a temporary reintroduction of internal border controls can be taken. Any such last resort measure would be taken at the EU level, thereby avoiding unilateral decisions by individual member states and establishing a collective approach to protect the EU's common interests.
Cecilia Malmström took the view that this system would allow unilateral measures by countries to be avoided, thus preventing the situation arising when member states discover in the media that a neighbouring country has brought controls back into use. This is a mechanism that will strengthen mutual trust between member states, she asserted, saying it would prevent the whole system from being upset if one country does not meet its obligations. “We are not taking power away from states, we are giving power to all states”, she said. (LC/transl.jl)