Progress: Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | LIBE |
HENNIS-PLASSCHAERT Jeanine ( ALDE)
|
|
| Committee Opinion | DEVE | ||
| Committee Opinion | AFET |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted by 600 votes to 46, with 30 abstentions, a resolution on the next steps in border management in the European Union and similar experiences in third countries. The resolution is in response to the Commission Communication of 13 February 2008 entitled 'Preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union' and, on the whole, supports the Commission’s proposals. The Commission intends to be ready in 2009-2010 to present legislative proposals for the introduction of an entry/exit system, a Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) and an Electronic System of Travel Authorisation (ESTA) in order to facilitate border management (similar systems exist in Australia and are being implemented by the USA).
The Parliament recalls that the EU external border is crossed every year by 160 million EU citizens and 140 million third country nationals (TCNs), both those who require a visa and those who do not. It requests, however, more information on the data collected by an external contractor estimating that 'there were up to 8 million illegal immigrants within the EU25 in 2006'.
Given the scope and possible cost of the Commission’s proposals, the Parliament makes a number of recommendations that can be summarised as follows:
Entry/exit system : although the proposed system and alert information might help to deter TCNs from overstaying, the Parliament does not believe that it will put an end to the 'overstay' phenomenon as such . It recalls that the correct functioning of the entry/exit system will depend both materially and operationally on the success of the VIS and SIS II, although these instruments are not yet fully operational. Moreover, the Parliament is still convinced of the need to implement exit rather than entry capability (in particular with regard to sea and land exit) while stressing its concerns about the cost-effectiveness of such a system; Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) : although the Parliament supports the concept of an RTP for TCNs, it draws attention to the need to harmonise the systems in place to avoid the risk of ending up with a patchwork of 27 systems based on different criteria. In this respect, the Parliament recalls the blueprint proposed by the Netherlands, Germany, the UK and FRONTEX, a system known as the 'International Expedited Traveller Programme' proposed as a possible blueprint for other Member States; Electronic System of Travel Authorisation (ESTA) : overall, the Parliament questions whether the proposed system is absolutely necessary as it is convinced that close cooperation between intelligence services is the right way forward, rather than a massive collection of data in general; Data protection and biometrics concerns : the Parliament calls on the Commission to consult the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) in respect of any action to be taken in this area, given the vast amounts of personal data that will be processed. While the Parliament is aware that biometrics are theoretically effective personal identifiers, it stresses that this technique is not infallible. Fall-back procedures should therefore be provided for at all times. Moreover, the Parliament insists on a standard protocol for the use and exchange of biometric information in order to avoid divergences between different systems used by Member States. It also considers a "privacy by design" approach to be an essential feature of any development which risks jeopardising the personal information of individuals.
The Parliament considers the objective of truly EU integrated border management to be legitimate but notes that the Commission’s proposals run the risk of costing too much . It therefore calls on the Commission to think in terms of the need for, and the cost of, the border logistics and regrets the notion that the EU's border management policy should be founded on the idea that all travellers are potentially suspect. The Parliament also criticises the lack of a comprehensive master plan setting out the overall objectives and architecture of the EU's border management strategy.
According to the Parliament, the Commission must analyse first of all the effectiveness of the existing border management systems of the Member States, in order to bring about the optimal synergies between them . It believes, in particular, that no new instruments or systems should be launched until the existing tools are fully operational, safe and reliable . Moreover, the Parliament expresses doubts concerning the need for, and the proportionality of, the proposed measures (particularly given their expensive nature and the potential risks they pose for data protection).
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the own initiative report by Jeanine HENNIS-PLASSCHAERT (ALDE, NL) on the next steps in border management in the European Union and similar experiences in third countries, recalling that the EU external border is crossed every year by 160 million EU citizens and 140 million third country nationals (TCNs), both those who require a visa and those who do not. In this context, the Commission intends to be ready in 2009-2010 to present legislative proposals for the introduction of an entry/exit system, a Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) and an Electronic System of Travel Authorisation (ESTA), in order to facilitate border management (similar systems exist in Australia and are being implemented by the USA). Therefore, MEPs make a number of recommendations on equivalent systems to put in place in Europe and make the following comments:
Entry/exit system : although the proposed system and alert information might help to deter TCNs from overstaying, MEPs do not believe that it will put an end to the 'overstay' phenomenon as such . They recall that the correct functioning of the entry/exit system will depend both materially and operationally on the success of the VIS and SIS II, although these instruments are not yet fully operational. Moreover, MEPs are still convinced of the need to implement exist capability (in particular with regard to sea and land exit) while stressing their concerns about the cost-effectiveness of such a system; Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) : while MEPs support the concept of an RTP for TCNs, they draw attention to the need to harmonise the systems in place. In this respect, they recall the blueprint proposed by the Netherlands, Germany, the UK and FRONTEX, a system known as the 'International Expedited Traveller Programme' proposed as a possible blueprint for other Member States; Electronic System of Travel Authorisation (ESTA) : overall, MEPs question whether the proposed system is absolutely necessary as they are convinced that close cooperation between intelligence services is the right way forward, rather than a massive collection of data in general; Data protection and biometrics concerns : MEPs call on the Commission to consult the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) in respect of any action to be taken in this area, given the vast amounts of personal data that will be processed. While MEPs are aware that biometrics are theoretically effective personal identifiers, they stress that this technique is not infallible. Fall-back procedures should therefore be provided for at all times. Moreover, MEPs insist on a standard protocol for the use and exchange of biometric information in order to avoid divergences between different systems used by Member States. They also consider a "privacy by design" approach to be an essential feature of any development which risks jeopardising the personal information of individuals.
In conclusion , MEPs consider the objective of truly EU integrated border management to be legitimate but note that the Commission’s proposals run the risk of costing too much. They therefore call on the Commission to think in terms of the need for, and the cost of, the border logistics and they regret the notion that the EU's border management policy should be founded on the idea that all travellers are potentially suspect. MEPs also criticise the lack of a comprehensive master plan setting out the overall objectives and architecture of the EU's border management strategy. According to MEPs, the Commission must analyse first of all the effectiveness of the existing border management systems of the Member States, in order to bring about the optimal synergies between them . They believe, in particular, that no new instruments or systems should be launched until the existing tools are fully operational, safe and reliable . Moreover, they express doubts concerning the need for, and the proportionality of, the proposed measures (particularly given their expensive nature and the potential risks they pose for data protection).
PURPOSE: to propose the next steps in border management in the European Union.
BACKGROUND: the external borders of the EU are crossed every year by more than 300 million travellers, EU citizens and third country nationals combined. The dismantling of the EU's internal border controls is one of the greatest achievements of European integration. An area without internal borders, which has expanded from 7 countries in 1995 to 24 countries at the end of 2007 - a unique, historic accomplishment -, cannot function, however, without shared responsibility and solidarity in managing its external borders. Other actions have been completed by the Union as regards border management (legislative framework, Schengen Borders Code, simplified rules for local border traffic, the establishment of the FRONTEX Agency). While Member States remain responsible for controlling their own border, the Union's common policy in support of Member States' efforts should be continuously developed and strengthened in response to new threats, shifts in migratory pressure and any shortcomings identified, using new technology extensively and proportionately. The social and economic dimensions should be given equal weight. Crossing the external border should be simple and quick for third-country nationals fulfilling the entry conditions set by Community and national law. Border management should support economic growth in border regions of neighbouring countries.
This communication intends to define the next steps of this ambitious framework.
CONTENT: against this background this Communication puts forward suggestions for new tools that could form an integrated part of the European border management strategy of the future. It proposes ways to look ahead and reflect on the next generation of border management tools, with the objective of preserving the integrity of the Schengen area while simultaneously facilitating the procedures and border crossings for those seeking to enter for legitimate reasons. The possible tools to reflect on, which would apply with regard to third country nationals travelling to a Member State taking part in the Schengen cooperation or to a country associated to this cooperation, could include:
facilitation of border crossing for bona fide travellers; possible introduction of a registration of entry/exit; examining the introduction of an Electronic System of Travel Authorisation (ESTA).
1) Facilitating border crossings for bona fide travellers : the Commission believes that:
a) low-risk travellers from third countries, including those that are subject to the visa requirement and those that are not, could be offered a pre-screening process, on a voluntary basis, with a view to being granted Registered Traveller status ;
b) when arriving at the borders of the EU Registered Travellers could benefit from a simplified and automated border check .
In concrete terms, awarding the status of "Registered Traveller" and providing for automated checks for those persons would mean waiving the verification of certain entry conditions at the border (purpose of stay, means of subsistence, absence of threat to public order). Persons could be granted "Registered Traveller" status after appropriate screening on the basis of common vetting criteria. These could as a minimum include a reliable travel history (the person should not have exceeded the authorised stay at previous visits to the EU), proof of sufficient means of subsistence, and holding a biometric passport. The Commission presents the outline of the technical conditions aiming to facilitate the implementation of this solution.
Besides the criteria that have been waived for the purpose of allowing a simplified check of registered travellers at the borders, at the border itself, the introduction of automated gates could enable the automated verification of travellers' identity without the intervention of border guards. A machine would read the biometric data contained in the travel documents or stored in a system or database and compare them against the biometrics of the traveller. This system could significantly increase cost-effectiveness as more passengers would be processed at the borders by a smaller number of border guards. A machine would read the biometric data contained in the travel documents or stored in a system or database and compare them against the biometrics of the traveller. One border guard should be able to oversee up to ten automated border gates in operation. This category is subject to a "minimum check", at both entry and exit, consisting of the examination of the travel document so as to verify the identity of the individual. The introduction of biometrics in passports could be completed by 2016 for one biometric identifier and by 2019 for two identifiers, at the latest (assuming a maximum period of validity of passports of 10 years). All EU citizens would at that time be able to benefit from automated border crossings should they be taken up by Member States in a widespread fashion. Automated border crossings for EU citizens based on the biometric passports would use the same automated gates as for third-country nationals that are registered travellers.
2) Creation of a system to register the entry/exist of third country nationals : the Commission believes that:
the automatic registration of the time and place of entry and exit of third country nationals, both those that require a visa and those that do not, to identify overstayers, could be introduced at the borders; an alert available to national authorities could be issued once the validity of an individual's stay in the EU has expired, and no exit data had been captured.
An entry/exit system could apply to third country nationals admitted for a short stay (up to 3 months), covering both those that are subject to the visa requirement and those that are not. The system could include the recording of information on the time and place of entry, the length of stay authorised, and the transmission of automated alerts directly to the competent authorities, should a person be identified as 'overstayer', both at the time this occurs and upon departure from the EU.
The alert information would:
enable national authorities to identify overstayers and take the appropriate measures; deter third-country nationals from overstaying; provide information for operational purposes on patterns of overstaying (e.g. travel route, fraudulent sponsors, country of origin and reasons for travelling) as well as data on migration flows and overstayers for visa policy purposes.
This new system could use the same technical platform as SIS II and VIS thereby exploiting synergies with the Biometric Matching System (BMS) currently under development and which could form the common basis for the entry/exit system, the VIS and the SIS II.
3) Electronic system of travel authorisation (ESTA) : the Commission will examine the possibility of introducing an electronic system of travel authorisation . Such a system would apply to third-country nationals not subject to the visa requirement who would be requested to make an electronic application supplying, in advance of travelling, data identifying the traveller and specifying the passport and travel details. The data could be used for verifying that a person fulfils the entry conditions before travelling to the EU, while using a lighter and simpler procedure compared to a visa. The Commission intends to launch a study in 2008 to analyse the feasibility, the practical implications and the impacts of such a system.
The study to be launched by the Commission on the possibility of an electronic travel authorisation will also consider the relevant data protection issues arising from such a system.
Conclusions : having regard to the progress made in agreeing upon and launching the Visa Information System, the EU should consider building on this achievement by reflecting on the necessary parameters for putting in place an entry/exit system for all third-country nationals admitted for a short stay. Should this reflection conclude on the opportunity to build such a system, it could be operational by 2015 and future proposals would be needed in order to:
amend the Schengen Borders Code to ensure that registration of dates of entry and exit is carried out systematically at all crossing points of the external border, and that the enrolment of biometrics at the border for third country nationals not requiring a visa becomes a compulsory entry condition. Also, if a "registered traveller" is created, the Borders Code would need to allow for a simplified check of travellers awarded such a status at the borders; decide the setting up of the new entry/exit system to register the entry and exit information and store biographic and biometric data of third country nationals. The system could build on the same technical platform as the VIS/SIS II.
Member States could also reflect on the need to use automated border control systems for EU citizens , based on the e-passport or national schemes. A discussion on the development of technical standards to achieve interoperability of national schemes not based on the e-passport should take place in the appropriate fora.
The Commission will report back to the European Parliament and the Council on the outcome of the study on an electronic travel authorisation system during 2009. The Commission therefore invites the European Parliament and the Council to engage in a reflection on the future overall architecture of the EU's integrated border management and the use of systems, from the angle of enhancing security and facilitating travel. On the basis of this reflection, the Commission will assess the further development of these systems, including the presentation of the necessary legislative proposals.
PURPOSE: to propose the next steps in border management in the European Union.
BACKGROUND: the external borders of the EU are crossed every year by more than 300 million travellers, EU citizens and third country nationals combined. The dismantling of the EU's internal border controls is one of the greatest achievements of European integration. An area without internal borders, which has expanded from 7 countries in 1995 to 24 countries at the end of 2007 - a unique, historic accomplishment -, cannot function, however, without shared responsibility and solidarity in managing its external borders. Other actions have been completed by the Union as regards border management (legislative framework, Schengen Borders Code, simplified rules for local border traffic, the establishment of the FRONTEX Agency). While Member States remain responsible for controlling their own border, the Union's common policy in support of Member States' efforts should be continuously developed and strengthened in response to new threats, shifts in migratory pressure and any shortcomings identified, using new technology extensively and proportionately. The social and economic dimensions should be given equal weight. Crossing the external border should be simple and quick for third-country nationals fulfilling the entry conditions set by Community and national law. Border management should support economic growth in border regions of neighbouring countries.
This communication intends to define the next steps of this ambitious framework.
CONTENT: against this background this Communication puts forward suggestions for new tools that could form an integrated part of the European border management strategy of the future. It proposes ways to look ahead and reflect on the next generation of border management tools, with the objective of preserving the integrity of the Schengen area while simultaneously facilitating the procedures and border crossings for those seeking to enter for legitimate reasons. The possible tools to reflect on, which would apply with regard to third country nationals travelling to a Member State taking part in the Schengen cooperation or to a country associated to this cooperation, could include:
facilitation of border crossing for bona fide travellers; possible introduction of a registration of entry/exit; examining the introduction of an Electronic System of Travel Authorisation (ESTA).
1) Facilitating border crossings for bona fide travellers : the Commission believes that:
a) low-risk travellers from third countries, including those that are subject to the visa requirement and those that are not, could be offered a pre-screening process, on a voluntary basis, with a view to being granted Registered Traveller status ;
b) when arriving at the borders of the EU Registered Travellers could benefit from a simplified and automated border check .
In concrete terms, awarding the status of "Registered Traveller" and providing for automated checks for those persons would mean waiving the verification of certain entry conditions at the border (purpose of stay, means of subsistence, absence of threat to public order). Persons could be granted "Registered Traveller" status after appropriate screening on the basis of common vetting criteria. These could as a minimum include a reliable travel history (the person should not have exceeded the authorised stay at previous visits to the EU), proof of sufficient means of subsistence, and holding a biometric passport. The Commission presents the outline of the technical conditions aiming to facilitate the implementation of this solution.
Besides the criteria that have been waived for the purpose of allowing a simplified check of registered travellers at the borders, at the border itself, the introduction of automated gates could enable the automated verification of travellers' identity without the intervention of border guards. A machine would read the biometric data contained in the travel documents or stored in a system or database and compare them against the biometrics of the traveller. This system could significantly increase cost-effectiveness as more passengers would be processed at the borders by a smaller number of border guards. A machine would read the biometric data contained in the travel documents or stored in a system or database and compare them against the biometrics of the traveller. One border guard should be able to oversee up to ten automated border gates in operation. This category is subject to a "minimum check", at both entry and exit, consisting of the examination of the travel document so as to verify the identity of the individual. The introduction of biometrics in passports could be completed by 2016 for one biometric identifier and by 2019 for two identifiers, at the latest (assuming a maximum period of validity of passports of 10 years). All EU citizens would at that time be able to benefit from automated border crossings should they be taken up by Member States in a widespread fashion. Automated border crossings for EU citizens based on the biometric passports would use the same automated gates as for third-country nationals that are registered travellers.
2) Creation of a system to register the entry/exist of third country nationals : the Commission believes that:
the automatic registration of the time and place of entry and exit of third country nationals, both those that require a visa and those that do not, to identify overstayers, could be introduced at the borders; an alert available to national authorities could be issued once the validity of an individual's stay in the EU has expired, and no exit data had been captured.
An entry/exit system could apply to third country nationals admitted for a short stay (up to 3 months), covering both those that are subject to the visa requirement and those that are not. The system could include the recording of information on the time and place of entry, the length of stay authorised, and the transmission of automated alerts directly to the competent authorities, should a person be identified as 'overstayer', both at the time this occurs and upon departure from the EU.
The alert information would:
enable national authorities to identify overstayers and take the appropriate measures; deter third-country nationals from overstaying; provide information for operational purposes on patterns of overstaying (e.g. travel route, fraudulent sponsors, country of origin and reasons for travelling) as well as data on migration flows and overstayers for visa policy purposes.
This new system could use the same technical platform as SIS II and VIS thereby exploiting synergies with the Biometric Matching System (BMS) currently under development and which could form the common basis for the entry/exit system, the VIS and the SIS II.
3) Electronic system of travel authorisation (ESTA) : the Commission will examine the possibility of introducing an electronic system of travel authorisation . Such a system would apply to third-country nationals not subject to the visa requirement who would be requested to make an electronic application supplying, in advance of travelling, data identifying the traveller and specifying the passport and travel details. The data could be used for verifying that a person fulfils the entry conditions before travelling to the EU, while using a lighter and simpler procedure compared to a visa. The Commission intends to launch a study in 2008 to analyse the feasibility, the practical implications and the impacts of such a system.
The study to be launched by the Commission on the possibility of an electronic travel authorisation will also consider the relevant data protection issues arising from such a system.
Conclusions : having regard to the progress made in agreeing upon and launching the Visa Information System, the EU should consider building on this achievement by reflecting on the necessary parameters for putting in place an entry/exit system for all third-country nationals admitted for a short stay. Should this reflection conclude on the opportunity to build such a system, it could be operational by 2015 and future proposals would be needed in order to:
amend the Schengen Borders Code to ensure that registration of dates of entry and exit is carried out systematically at all crossing points of the external border, and that the enrolment of biometrics at the border for third country nationals not requiring a visa becomes a compulsory entry condition. Also, if a "registered traveller" is created, the Borders Code would need to allow for a simplified check of travellers awarded such a status at the borders; decide the setting up of the new entry/exit system to register the entry and exit information and store biographic and biometric data of third country nationals. The system could build on the same technical platform as the VIS/SIS II.
Member States could also reflect on the need to use automated border control systems for EU citizens , based on the e-passport or national schemes. A discussion on the development of technical standards to achieve interoperability of national schemes not based on the e-passport should take place in the appropriate fora.
The Commission will report back to the European Parliament and the Council on the outcome of the study on an electronic travel authorisation system during 2009. The Commission therefore invites the European Parliament and the Council to engage in a reflection on the future overall architecture of the EU's integrated border management and the use of systems, from the angle of enhancing security and facilitating travel. On the basis of this reflection, the Commission will assess the further development of these systems, including the presentation of the necessary legislative proposals.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2009)3244/2
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T6-0085/2009
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A6-0061/2009
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A6-0061/2009
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE418.328
- Committee draft report: PE415.255
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2008)0069
- Non-legislative basic document: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SEC(2008)0153
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SEC(2008)0154
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2008)0069
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2008)0069 EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SEC(2008)0153 EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SEC(2008)0154 EUR-Lex
- Committee draft report: PE415.255
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE418.328
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A6-0061/2009
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2009)3244/2
Votes
Rapport HENNIS-PLASSCHAERT A6-0061/2009 - résolution #
PPE-DE
PSE
Verts/ALE
UEN
NI
IND/DEM
GUE/NGL| Amendments | Dossier |
| 31 |
2008/2181(INI)
2009/01/26
LIBE
31 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas the European Union and its Member States face enormous pressure from illegal immigration, as people from third countries seek to come here, often at risk to their lives and by relying on human smugglers,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3a (new) 3a. Recalls that the correct functioning of the entry/exit system will depend both materially and operationally on the success of the VIS and SIS; points out that these two instruments are not yet fully operational and that it has thus not yet been possible to evaluate them properly; stresses that in the case of the SIS the prior tests of the national systems have thus far yielded negative results, since many of the Member States are not yet ready in technical terms;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, without a doubt and following the lessons learned in the US, it is more challenging to implement exit capability than entry, and in particular with regard to sea and land exit; has furthermore, following the same lessons learned, considerable concerns about the cost-effectiveness of such a system, since it requires major investment for results which so far do not appear to be of great usefulness for fighting either illegal immigration or crime;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, without a doubt and following the lessons learned in the US, it is more challenging to implement exit capability than entry, and in particular with regard to sea and land exit;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Acknowledges that a part of the data necessary to create an Entry/Exit system is already collected by the existing systems such as VIS, SIS, EURODAC. Therefore the further approach of the Commission should be based on the interconnection of the current systems and the extension of their functionalities, which would ensure collection and processing of additional data. Considers that, by using an integrated system, the cost-efficiency would be increased and the activity on the cross-border points would be more efficient;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Asks the Commission to specify the further implications of detecting the 'over- stayers', notably regarding the competent authorities to whom this data will be sent or who will have access to such data and under what conditions;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5. Suggests that the Automated Border Control System should be connected to the existing alert systems;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Criticises, however, the terminology
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6a (new) 6a. Is concerned that this programme could create a form of discrimination between travellers, especially if participation is made conditional on payment of a membership fee, as is the case in the US and the Netherlands;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas the threat posed by international terrorism and cross-border crime requires the strengthening of the border security by ensuring the coordination of Member States' action regarding the management of the external borders,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that several Member States have already set up or are preparing such an RTP
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Notes that in fact RTPs for TCNs are different from RTPs for EU-citizens; stresses therefore that a clear distinction between the two is made at all times;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Acknowledges that it would be unwise to focus attention in terms of security measures only on TCNs travelling to the EU from countries with a visa requirement; questions, however, whether the proposed system is absolutely necessary and would like a thorough explanation of the rationale for it; is convinced that close cooperation between
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Considers that the creation of ESTA is not financially justified and suggests replacing this proposed system with the obligativity for the TCNs not requiring a visa, to use a biometric passport when entering EU;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Finds it unacceptable that the Commission failed to consult either the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Is aware that biometrics are theoretically effective personal identifiers because the characteristics measured are thought to be distinctive of each person; underlines, however, the fact that the reliability of biometrics is never absolute and/or biometrics are not in all cases accurate; therefore points out that fall-back procedures should be provided for at all times and risk profiles should be better elaborated;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Is, however, of the opinion that, within the framework of border and immigration management, far reaching proposals are piling up at an amazing pace; asks therefore the Commission to think in terms of necessity and cost of the border logistics;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16a (new) 16a. Deplores, furthermore, the notion of grounding the EU's border management policy in the idea that all travellers are potentially suspect and have to prove their good faith;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Criticises the lack of a comprehensive master plan setting out the overall objectives and architecture of the EU's border management strategy as well as the details for how all related programmes and schemes (already in place, in the course of preparation or at the stage of policy development) are supposed to function together and how relationships among them can be optimised; when considering the architecture of the EU’s border management strategy, the Commission should first of all analyse the effectiveness of the existing border management systems of the Member States, in order to obtain the optimal synergies among them. As a first step, a pilot project should be launched to assess thoroughly the systems in place, and in the second stage to make use of the results of this assessment for further needed improvement;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Furthermore, the Commission should be aware that securing the external EU border should be complemented by programmes for strengthening the third country borders neighbouring the EU, included in the actual framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (the Eastern Partnership, EUROMED) and countries that are part of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B b (new) Bb. whereas cooperation with third countries' border security authorities is a priority within general EU external policy and is targeted at sustainable partnership,
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Stresses the need for an evaluation and assessment of existing systems and those under preparation first of all, and emphasizes that the EU's ability to achieve its strategic goals depends to a great extent on its success in managing the interdependencies among related programmes, as duplication and inconsistency across them will have a negative impact on organisational performance and results as a consequence; is the opinion that no new instruments and systems should be launched until the existing tools are fully operational, safe and reliable;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19a (new) 19a. Expresses doubts concerning the necessity and proportionality of the proposed measures, given their expensive nature and the potential risks they pose for data protection;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B c (new) Bc. whereas the EU external border is crossed every year by 160 million EU citizens, 60 million third country nationals not requiring a visa, and 80 million requiring a visa,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B d (new) Bd. whereas measures to enhance border security must go hand in hand with facilitation of passenger flows and promoting mobility in an increasingly globalised world,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas the operability and reliability of existing instruments such as SIS II are being called into question and their assessment will decide whether the system will be abandoned or not,
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Is aware that the so-called 'overstayers', who are central to the proposed entry/exit system, are supposed to represent the biggest category of illegal immigrants in the EU; requests, however, more information on the data collected by an external contractor proving that 'there were up to 8 million illegal immigrants within the EU in 2006'
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
source: PE-418.328
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
| docs/0 |
|
| docs/5 |
|
| docs/5/docs/0/url |
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=16768&j=0&l=en
|
| docs/6 |
|
| events/0 |
|
| events/0 |
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2008/0154/COM_SEC(2008)0154_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2008/0154/COM_SEC(2008)0154_EN.pdf |
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE415.255New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE415.255 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE418.328New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE418.328 |
| docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0061_EN.htmlNew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0061_EN.html |
| events/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2008/0069/COM_COM(2008)0069_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2008/0069/COM_COM(2008)0069_EN.pdf |
| events/1/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
| events/2/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
| events/3 |
|
| events/3 |
|
| events/5 |
|
| events/5 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2008/0154/COM_SEC(2008)0154_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2008/0154/COM_SEC(2008)0154_EN.pdf |
| docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-61&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0061_EN.html |
| docs/5/body |
EC
|
| events/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2008/0069/COM_COM(2008)0069_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2008/0069/COM_COM(2008)0069_EN.pdf |
| events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2009-61&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2009-0061_EN.html |
| events/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-85New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2009-0085_EN.html |
| activities |
|
| commission |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| docs |
|
| events |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
LIBE/6/61556New
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
| procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|