On Wednesday 20 September, the members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties adopted (39 votes to 13 with 12 abstentions) the draft report by Sylvie Guillaume (S&D, French) on the reform of the Schengen Borders Code, as well as the mandate (49 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions) to begin negotiations with the EU Council. This mandate will be submitted for confirmation during the first plenary session in October.
As advocated from the outset by the French MEP, the reform approved by MEPs on Wednesday morning leaves out of the Schengen Borders Code the dimension of the instrumentalisation of migration, which the Commission had nevertheless included in its December 2021 revision proposal following the events with Belarus (see EUROPE 12851/1).
However, the instrumentalisation of migration is still covered in the EU Council by the so-called ‘Crisis’ regulation, and is also the subject of a separate report by Patryk Jaki (ECR) from Poland.
One of the aims of revising the Schengen Borders Code was to respond to the chaos between Member States during the Covid-19 crisis and the disorderly reintroduction of internal border controls. It also wanted to respond to the increase in internal controls applied by a handful of Member States in the wake of the terrorist attacks and the migration crisis of 2015-2016, to the detriment of their neighbours. The reform was also intended to address the issue of secondary movements of migrants within the EU and to introduce the possibility for Member States to send back to each other illegal migrants apprehended in their border areas during joint police patrols.
Although limited in scope, the reform has nevertheless given rise to wide divergences of opinion in the European Parliament, particularly on the issue of transfers of migrants from one country to another and on the arrangements for extending internal border controls in the event of exceptional circumstances, such as terrorism or a migratory crisis.
Contrary to Mrs Guillaume’s initial intention, the text adopted on Wednesday maintains the possibility for neighbouring Member States to send illegal immigrants back to each other, but not asylum seekers, persons with refugee status or holders of other legal residence permits. Unaccompanied minors and families with minors will also not be eligible for these transfers.
On the other sensitive issue of extending internal border controls in the event of a serious threat to public order or internal security, such as terrorism, it has been agreed that Member States will have the right to re-establish controls for a total period of 18 months. Beyond these 18 months, they may, by virtue of a Council decision, extend these measures three times for a further 3 months. This provision has been proposed to the EPP Group in recent days, in particular so that it can support the report.
The amendment adopted states:“Where a Member State considers that there are exceptional situations justifying the continued need for internal border control in excess of the maximum period of 18 months based on the same foreseeable serious threat, it should be able to request the Commission to propose to the Council an implementing decision authorising the prolongation of internal border control for a period of 3 months. If the Council adopts such an implementing decision, and at the end of that three-month period, the Member State in question still considers that the exceptional situation remains, it may make a maximum of two further requests to the Commission for a prolongation of a further 3 months”.
Member States will first have to check that there are no other alternative measures and types of control before extending these measures and assess the need for these measures. After 9 months, the Commission will have to issue its own opinion on the relevance of these internal controls.
With regard to the coordinated reintroduction of internal border controls when a threat affects several Member States, as was the case with the pandemic, the report adopted on Wednesday also provides for the reintroduction of border controls in several countries when the Commission receives notifications of a particularly serious threat affecting a majority of countries simultaneously, for a period of up to 2 years.
The majority of the EPP abstained
The majority of the EPP group chose to abstain during the vote on the report, with only 4 EPP MEPs supporting the text, including Paulo Rangel (Portuguese). The ID and ECR groups voted against.
However, only two EPP MEPs abstained on the mandate, with the rest of the group supporting the opening of negotiations with the EU Council.
Link to the adopted report: https://aeur.eu/f/8o2 (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)