Sylvie Guillaume (S&D, French) is the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the reform of the Schengen Borders Code; her report was adopted fairly comfortably on 20 September by the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (see EUROPE 13254/7), as was her mandate to negotiate with the Council of the EU, which will have to be confirmed in October in Strasbourg. She talks to EUROPE about the advances brought about by this reform, which will be one of her last major projects as an MEP. (Interview by Solenn Paulic)
Agence Europe - Your report was adopted after tough negotiations. What concrete improvements does it include for European citizens who want to take full advantage of free movement within Schengen?
Sylvie Guillaume - Wednesday’s vote was far more subtle than the results would suggest at first glance. I was able to rely on a very solid bloc, made up of my group, Renew Europe, the Greens/EFA and The Left. The EPP came back a little later in the game, with a political option from the shadow rapporteur that may not reflect the whole of her group.
The general thrust of my report is to limit uncoordinated, incoherent and indefinitely prolonged initiatives to re-establish internal border controls.
We must put an end to these erratic decisions, which the Commission never sanctions. We have managed to limit the length of these checks in the various cases of foreseeable or unforeseeable threats or in exceptional circumstances.
[The report provides, for example, for controls of between 1 and 3 months at most in the case of an unforeseeable threat, and of 3 months renewable by periods of 3 months over a total period of 18 months in the case of a foreseeable threat, with the possibility here, in exceptional circumstances, of extending them by a further 3 months, when the Member States currently have no such restrictions. In fact, since 2015, they have been carrying out individual checks on the basis of these exceptional threats. Six-month controls, renewable over a maximum period of 2 years, are also possible when several Member States face the same threat - editor’s note.]
In this way, we have managed to comply with the ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU in April 2023, even though the EPP, ECR and ID were not in favour.
The Commission’s role in the procedures for re-establishing these controls and their duration also seems to me to be more precise, with automatic notification of measures to Parliament and the Commission and an assessment of proportionality. I think that this could now spur the Commission into action.
We have also ruled out the instrumentalisation of migration and established safeguards in the provisions allowing migrants to be transferred from one country to another without this amounting to pushback! These guarantees were necessary for the other groups.
As far as the instrumentalisation of migration is concerned, you were very quick to do away with this dimension. We can now see that the Council of the EU, which deals with this issue in its ‘Crisis’ regulation, is also struggling to reach an agreement on this issue...
That makes sense, because this text - and I’ve said this from the start - is opportunistic, poorly calibrated, and targets the victims of instrumentalisation rather than the perpetrators. It’s an inappropriate text, and one that will have difficulty finding its place, in my opinion.
Nor does it address the different problems of instrumentalisation, which are not the same across the EU. Above all, this text reflects the highly febrile behaviour of certain Member States.
The EPP, even though it abstained for the most part on Wednesday, as well as ECR and ID, remain opposed to your report. Is it possible to reverse the situation at the plenary session?
The ECR group already presented a minority opinion on Wednesday, after the vote in committee [Charlie Weimers of Sweden wanted to reintroduce instrumentalisation - editor’s note]. A mandate can always be challenged in plenary. And I have the feeling that discussions are continuing within the EPP.
You will be leaving Parliament in 2024; do you think you will be able to conclude this reform of the Schengen Borders Code with the Council of the EU?
I can’t say too much. I don’t know when negotiations with the Spanish Presidency of the EU Council will begin.
In any case, discussions are likely to be difficult on the question of how to re-establish internal border controls and for how long, as Parliament and the Council of the EU do not share the same point of view (see EUROPE 12969/2). [The Member States’ mandate provides for internal controls on terrorist or migratory risks over a period of 2.5 years, with the possibility, albeit restricted, of extending them for an unlimited period - editor’s note.].
But it is certain that there is little time left before the elections.