Brussels, 04/10/2011 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament (EP) civil liberties committee was relatively positive on Monday in welcoming the proposals made by the Commission on 16 September on strengthening Schengen rules. Some reservations were, nevertheless, expressed. Some MEPs wondered about the comitology procedure suggested by the Commission with regard to decisions to re-establish controls at the internal borders of Schengen states, others about the potential loss of member states' sovereignty.
The Commission proposed that, in the event of threats to national security or public order or of failure on the part of a member state properly to manage its part of common borders, member states should be able to re-establish controls at their internal borders, though only as a last resort and with prior European authorisation, for renewable periods of 30 days; even in emergencies, Schengen states would only be allowed to take unilateral action for periods of five days, after which time Commission permission would have to be sought.
Rapporteur Carlos Coelho (EPP, Portugal) welcomed the Commission's approach but expressed “doubts” over the comitilogy procedure it had gone for. He also wondered if taking decisions on national border controls at EU level was the right way to go: “I don't know if we should accept that it is the whole of the European Community that should tackle a problem encountered by one member state”, he said, pointing out that “public order is a matter for domestic jurisdiction”. Simon Busuttil (EPP, Malta) asked the Commission to provide assurances that “decisions taken at European level will be more effective and transparent” than national decisions. He placed great emphasis on the guarantees to be given to the member state concerned that the threat to it will be well managed.
Repeating the position held by her country, Véronique Mathieu (EPP, France) rejected the proposal which, she said, “removes a large part of member states' sovereignty”. She criticised the Commission for “overstepping its powers”. She wanted to know how long the comitology procedure would take “at the very moment when we find ourselves in an emergency”. The S&D and ALDE Groups said that, on the whole, the proposals were on the right track. Cecilia Wikström (ALDE, Sweden) pointed out that, for controls at internal borders and for the assessment of the application of Schengen rules, “the Commission must play a key role” and “it is essential that it decide”. The S&D Group called for proper definitions of the “threats” that would allow Schengen countries to re-establish border controls, rejecting any link to flows of migrants.
Several MEPs asked how it could be ensured that there would be no double standards between the Schengen member states and the countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania, which would like to join Schengen. These two were denied membership of the Schengen area on 22 September. Coelho wanted it to be said “clearly that there are no double rules” between countries, particularly on how they are assessed. The recasting of the Schengen rules must not mean new demands on applicant countries, which have already been assessed through specific mechanisms, such as the cooperation and verification mechanism, other MEPs said. (SP/transl.rt)