The draft report by Sylvie Guillaume (S&D, French) on the reform of the Schengen Borders Code received a mixed reception in the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (see EUROPE 13063/10) on Thursday 17 November.
The groups on the right of the political spectrum want the proposal to reinstate the instrumentalisation element of migration and internal return procedures (article 23-a), while the left-wing groups welcomed a report that returns to the original spirit of the Schengen area, i.e. without internal border controls.
Ms Guillaume herself acknowledged that the subject was “complex”. “But I wanted to go back to the very foundations of the Schengen area and not to the pre-Schengen era”, she explained, while several EU countries have been carrying out internal controls continuously since 2015.
The French Socialist also explained to her colleagues that she rejected the creation of new migration-related criteria in the Commission’s proposal, as the Schengen Borders Code was not intended to address the loopholes created by the lack of progress on the Migration and Asylum Pact (see EUROPE 13050/6).
Concerning the instrumentalisation of migration, the subject is already dealt with in a specific draft regulation and therefore has no place in the Borders Code either.
In the opinion of the EPP group, however, these changes are problematic. While we should indeed support Schengen, which is part of our DNA, said German Christian Democrat Lena Düpont, “there are undoubtedly reasons for reintroducing” internal border controls and challenges to be met. The pertinent point for the EPP is precisely the measures on instrumentalisation and the geopolitical reasons for this phenomenon. “This should therefore remain in the text, in our opinion”, said the German MEP speaking on behalf of the Swedish shadow rapporteur, Sara Skyttedal.
The EPP also opposes the abolition of internal return procedures and the possibility for Member States to enter into new bilateral return agreements. The Group will therefore table amendments to revert to the Commission’s original proposal, trying to strike a balance between protecting free movement and the right of Member States to re-establish controls.
For the Renew Europe Group, the Commission’s original proposal should also be returned to. The Dutchman Malik Azmani said he was surprised that the draft ‘Guillaume’ report diverged so much from the original text. He also hoped that the European Parliament would agree quickly so that discussions with the EU Council could begin.
In the Greens/EFA Group, however, the report was well received. Dutch MEP Tineke Strik, rapporteur on the reform of the Returns Directive, welcomed the removal of provisions on internal returns and bilateral agreements between Member States, even though the aim of the reform is to harmonise the rules.
The French MEP also received the support of the Commission on a number of points, and even to some extent on instrumentalisation. The Commission would prefer that the definition of instrumentalisation remains in the text, but is also prepared to accept that it be found in other legislation.
Nevertheless, the Commission continues to advocate for the maintenance of country-to-country internal return procedures for migrants and for those bilateral agreements which, according to the Commission, are intended to improve cooperation between Member States in their fight against secondary movements.
The deadline for tabling of amendments is Friday 2 December. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)