Brussels, 07/03/2003 (Agence Europe) - Negotiations on Switzerland's participation in Schengen have made headway concerning the time allowed for Switzerland to transpose the future Schengen developments, but remain blocked on the derogation that Switzerland is asking in relation to judiciary cooperation on tax matters. Two third countries, Norway and Iceland, are already associated to Schengen cooperation, which combines abolition of border controls between participant States, strengthened judiciary and police cooperation and common rules on visas.
The eighth negotiating meeting held on Thursday in Brussels "allowed an agreement of principle to be reached on the deadlines that Switzerland must respect in order to transpose the future developments of Schengen/Dublin acquis", the Swiss Federal Justice and Police Department is pleased to note in a press release published after the meeting.
"Negotiators have therefore agreed to grant Switzerland a maximum of two years should a referendum be requested", the press release states. Switzerland would therefore decide whether it is able to apply, as a provisional measure, the acts that have already been enforced in the Member States. The European side is trying to soothe the situation by saying one should "wait" for the next negotiating session on 19 March for "written proposals" on how to organise these transposition times.
The EU, which is not much in favour of such a delay, would be willing to accept it in order to respect the Swiss referendum system, but hopes it will come within a framework and be the subject of compensations. The two year delay would only, a priori, be granted if there is a referendum. Furthermore, the European Commission would like the EU to be able to take "re-balancing" measures, in some way or another, should the date of implementation in the EU and in Swiss not coincide.
The EU, on the other hand, considers it "unacceptable" to grant Switzerland an "à la carte Schengen" and categorically refuses the requests for derogation concerning judiciary cooperation on criminal matters and regarding the safeguard clause. "We cannot budge on these two points, on which Switzerland insists. Either Switzerland accepts Schengen as it is, or Schengen is not for them", the European side states firmly. Switzerland hopes to be able to refuse judiciary cooperation for offences that are not liable for at least six months imprisonment according to its own legislation, which would rule out tax problems. Furthermore, European sources explain, Switzerland hopes to be able to refuse to apply a Schengen rule if that goes against its neutrality or its vital interests - which, some European diplomats say, is tantamount to wanting to "circumvent, as far as the banking secret is concerned, the safeguard clause or guillotine clause" (included in the agreements with Iceland and Norway), whereby the EU may decide to exclude an associated country from such cooperation if it does not apply the Schengen rules.
The question of transposition periods is also raised for Swiss participation to the "Dublin" system for determining the State responsible for examining a request for asylum. The dossier does not seem to raise other problems.
Associated to Schengen since 1996, Norway and Iceland signed an agreement with the EU in 1999. They take part in the development of new legal instruments linked to Schengen but not in the adoption of such instruments, and must then apply them at the time when they enter into effect in the EU. Norway has six months from the date when the Council notifies adoption of a text to adjust its legislation. If, in the meantime, the act takes effect in the EU, Norway must apply it provisionally, "if possible". Iceland does not have any particular time for doing this and must notify the fact that it has brought its legislation into line at the latest one month before the act takes effect.