39 Amendments of Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE related to 2021/0140(CNS)
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation
–
–
The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Schengen area without border control at internal borders relies on the effective and efficient application by the Member States of the Schengen acquis. That acquis comprises measures in the area of external borders, compensatory measures for the absence of controls at internal borders and a strong monitoring framework, which together facilitate free movement andntrols at internal borders, which together ensures a high level of security, and justice and protection of fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data.
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In order to increase its effectiveness and efficiency, the Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism should be enhanced. The revised evaluation and monitoring mechanism should aim at maintaining a high level of mutual trust among Member States by guaranteeing that Member States apply the Schengen acquis effectively following the agreed common standards, fundamental principles and norms, thereby contributing to a well- functioning Schengen areaeffectively border controls.
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The evaluation and monitoring mechanism should achieve these goals through objective and impartial evaluations that are able to quickly identify deficiencies in the application of the Schengen acquis that could disrupt the correct functioning of the Schengen area, ensure that these deficiencies are swiftly addressed, and provide the basis for a dialogue on the functioning of the Schengen area as a whole. This requires close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission, a balanced distribution of shared responsibilities and maintaining the peer review nature of the system. It also requires a closer involvement of the European Parliament. Given the extent of the changes, Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 should be repealed and replaced by a new Regulation.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Evaluation and monitoring activities should be targeted, taking into account the results of previous evaluations and the results of national quality control mechanisms. They should be supported by reinforced cooperation with Union bodies, offices and agencies, their systematic involvement in Schengen evaluations and by improved risk analyses and information sharing. This cooperation and involvement concerns in particular the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’), the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems (eu-LISA), the Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), the European Agency for Fundamental Rights and the European Data Protection Supervisor. The cooperation should also become more reciprocal and the agencies should not only be contributors, but also benefit from being involved in the evaluation and monitoring mechanism.
Amendment 53 #
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) Evaluation and monitoring activities should be carried out by teams consisting of Commission representatives and experts designated by Member States. These and Commission representatives and expert. These experts and representatives should have appropriate qualifications, including a solidven theoretical knowledge and practical experience. In order to ensure the participation of sufficient number of experienced experts in a faster and less burdensome way, a pool of experts should be established and maintained by the Commission in close cooperation with the Member States. The pool should be the primary source of experts for evaluation and monitoring activities.
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) More flexibility should be provided as regards the size of the evaluation and monitoring teams in order to increase the efficiency and to reduce administrative burden. Therefore, the Commission should define and adapt the size of the teams depending on the needs and challenges related to each evaluation and monitoring activity. When setting up the teams, geographical balance and rotation should, to the extent possible, be ensured by the Commission and account should be taken of the capacity of national administrations and the need for a variety of profiles. The principle of shared responsibility, predictability and the commitment taken when nominating experts to the pool implies that the experts invited for specific evaluations and their national authorities should respond positively to invitations; turning the invitations down should be duly justified ononly be for serious professional or personal grounds only.
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Evaluation reports should, as a rule, contain recommendations on how to remedy deficiencies identified (including fundamental rights violations) and be adopted in a single act by the Commission by means of implementing acts through the examination procedure in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/201136 . The consolidation of the report and recommendations within a single document and subject to a single adoption procedure reinforces the intrinsic connection between the evaluation findings and recommendations. In addition, tare adopted by the Commission and recommendations by the Council. The accelerated publication of the recommendations should enable Member States to address the deficiencies faster and more efficiently. At the same time, the use of the examination procedure should ensure Member State’s engagement in the decision-making process leading to the adoption of the recommendations. _________________ 36 OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Nevertheless, gGiven the crucial role of the Council in exerting peer-pressure and the need for political discussion, the Council should adopt recommendations in cases of political importance and general interest for the functioning of the Schengen area. Such cases should be considered to arise where an evaluation concludes that there exists a serious deficiency, in cases of thematic evaluations, or in cases where an evaluation take places for the purposes of verifying whether a Member State bound by the Schengen acquis and for which internal border controls have not been lifted fulfils the conditions to apply the Schengen acquis in full or, in the case of a Member State not bound by the Schengen acquis and that has opted in to apply parts of the Schengen acquis, to verify whether the Member State fulfils the conditions to apply the Schengen acquis in partcontinue to be able to adopt recommendations in all cases.
Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The evaluation and monitoring mechanism should comprise a robust follow-up and monitoring component which should be ensured by the Commission, in close cooperation with the Council and the European Parliament, without creating a disproportionate burden for the actors involved. Evaluations should be followed up by action plans. While drawing up the action plans, the evaluated Member States should fully take into consideration the funding possibilities provided by the Union and make the best use of these resources. To speed up the process, the Commission should provide observations on the adequacy of the action plans for example in the form of a letter. In order to ensure a timely follow up, if the Commission services do not consider the action plan adequate, the Member State concerned should be required to submit a revised action plan within one month from the receipt of the observations. The frequency of the follow- up reporting by the Member State to the Commission and the Council on the implementation of the action plans should, as a rule, be six months.
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) It is essential and desirable that the European Parliament and the Council regularly hold discussions at political level in order to raise awareness of the importance of the implementation of the Schengen acquis, hold Member States who persistently breach the common rules accountable, and increase pressure on them to remedy the deficiencies identified. The Commission should provide adequate input to facilitate these discussions including through the adoption of a comprehensive annual report covering the evaluations carried out during the previous year and state of implementation of recommendations, which would be part of the ‘State of Schengen’ report. The European Parliament is encouraged to adopt resolutions and the Council should adopt conclusions to increase pressure on Member States making insufficient progress. The ‘Schengen Forum’, as a unique stage to discuss Schengen at high level with representatives of the European Parliament, Member States and the Commission should provide a platform for informal discussions aiming at better implementation of the Schengen acquied, inter alia, at ensuring the existence and effectiveness of internal border controls.
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The evaluation and monitoring mechanism established by this Regulation should fulfil a complementary function of monitoring the effectiveness of the practical implementation of Union policies through peer review. The general power of the Commission to oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union through infringement procedures should not be affectedon internal border controls.
Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) In view of the particular role entrusted to the European Parliament and to the national parliaments under the last sentence of Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as underlined in Article 12, point (c), of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as regards the national parliaments, the Council and the Commission should fully inform the European Parliament and the national Parliaments of the content and results of the evaluations. In addition, should the Commission submit a proposal to amend this Regulation, the Council would, in accordance with Article 19(7), point (h), of its Rules of Procedure39 , consult the European Parliament in order to take into consideration its opinion, to the fullest extent possible, before adopting a final text. _________________ 39 Council Decision 2009/937/EU of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure (OJ L 325 11.12.2009, p. 35).
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 94 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation establishes an evaluation and monitoring mechanism for the purpose of ensuring that Member States apply the Schengen acquis effectively, thereby contributing to a well-functioning area withouteffectively internal border controls.
Amendment 99 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) verifying the application of the Schengen acquis, i.e. the existence and effectiveness of border controls, in the Member States to which it applies in full as well as in Member States to which, in accordance with the relevant Protocols annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, the Schengen acquis applies in part;
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) ‘first time evaluation’ means an evaluation to verify whether a Member State bound by the Schengen acquis and for which internal border controls have not been lifted fulfils the conditions to apply the Schengen acquis in full or, in the case of a Member State not bound by the Schengen acquis and that has opted in to apply parts of the Schengen acquis, to verify whether the Member State fulfils the conditions to apply the Schengen acquis in part;
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall be responsible for the establishment of the annual and multiannual evaluation programmes, the drafting of questionnaires, the setting of schedules of visits, the conducting of visits and the drafting of evaluation reports and recommendations. It shall also ensure the follow-up and monitoring activities.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. The Commission shall be responsible for making the necessary travel arrangements to and from the visited Member State for the Commission representatives and Member State experts in the teams and, in collaboration with the latter, the necessary on-site visits.
Amendment 126 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) when it has grounds to consider that a Member State is seriously neglecting its obligations under the Schengen acquis including allegations of serious fundamental rights violations at the external borders.
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission shall cooperate with relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies which are involved in the implementation of the Schengen acquis as well as with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall use the results of relevant mechanisms and instruments, including evaluation and monitoring activities of Union bodies, offices and agencies which are involved in the implementation of the Schengen acquis and of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights as well as of independent national monitoring mechanisms and bodies and others well as national quality control mechanisms in preparing the evaluation and monitoring activities, to improve awareness on the functioning of the Schengen area and to avoid the duplication of efforts and conflicting measures.
Amendment 164 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
In the programming and implementation of the evaluations and monitoring activities, the Commission shallcan take into account information provided by third parties, including independent authorities, non- governmental organisations and international organisations.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. The Member State experts participating in evaluation and monitoring activities shall have appropriate qualifications, including a solid theoretical knowledge and practical experience in the areas covered by the evaluation and monitoring mechanism, along with sound knowledge of evaluation principles, procedures and techniques, and shall be able to communicate effectively in a common language.
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
It may include visits to and meetings with national authorities and bodies, non- governmental and international organisations as well as other entities, agencies and bodies involved in, participating in or concerned by the implementation of the Schengen acquis while cooperating with the Member State subject to the evaluation or monitoring activity.
Amendment 215 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Unannounced visits shall take place without prior notification to the Member State concerned. By way of exception, tThe Commission may notify the Member State concerned at least 24 hours before such visit is to take place when the main purpose of the unannounced visit is a random verificationcheck ofn the implementation of the Schengen acquieffectiveness of internal border controls.
Amendment 227 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 5
Article 21 – paragraph 5
5. The evaluation report shall contain recommendations for remedial actions aimed at addressing the deficiencies and areas for improvement identified during the evaluation and give an indication of the priorities for implementing them. The evaluation report may set deadlines for the implementation ofIt is for the Council to adopt these recommendations. Where the evaluation identifies a serious deficiency, the specific provisions set out in Article 23 shall apply.
Amendment 230 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 6
Article 21 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission shall transmit the draft evaluation report to the evaluated Member State within four weeks of the end of the evaluation activity. The evaluated Member State shall provide its comments on the draft evaluation report within twofour weeks of its receipt. A drafting meeting shall be held at the request of the evaluated Member State, no later than five working days from the receipt of the comments from the evaluated Member State. The comments of the evaluated Member State may be reflected in the draft evaluation report.
Amendment 234 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. Within two months of the adoption of the evaluation report, the evaluated Member State shall submit to the Commission and the Council an action plan to implement all thethe Council's recommendations included in the evaluation report.
Amendment 238 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The evaluated Member State shall reportpresents to the Commissionuncil and the Councilmmission on the implementation of its action plan every six months from the adoption of the evaluation report until the Commission considers the action plan is fully implemented. Depending on the nature of the deficiencies and the state of implementation of the recommendations, the Commission may require the evaluated Member State a different reporting frequency.
Amendment 239 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 243 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The evaluated Member State shall take immediate remedial actions including, where necessary, mobilising all available operational and financial means. The evaluated Member State shall inform without delay the Commission and the Member States about the immediate remedial actions taken or planned. In parallel, the Commission shall inform the respective Union bodies, offices and agencies referred to in Article 7 of the serious deficiency in view of their possible support to the evaluated Member State. The Commission shall also inform the Council and the European Parliamentto re-establish effective internal border controls.
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The evaluated Member State shall provide its comments on the draft evaluation report within fivefteen working days of its receipt.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 10
Article 23 – paragraph 10
10. If the serious deficiency is deemed to constitute a serious threat to public policy or internal security within the area without internal border controls, or a serious and systematic fundamental rights violation, the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of the European Parliament or of a Member State, shall immediately inform thereof the European Parliament and the Council.