Awaiting committee decision
2018/2092(INI) Full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania: abolition of checks at internal land, sea and air borders
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2018/11/12
Lead committee dossier: LIBE/8/13344
Legal Basis RoP 52
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2018/11/12
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | LIBE | STANISHEV Sergei (S&D) | COELHO Carlos (EPP), MACOVEI Monica (ECR), HYUSMENOVA Filiz (ALDE), VERGIAT Marie-Christine (GUE/NGL), VALERO Bodil (Verts/ALE), VILIMSKY Harald (ENF) |
Legal Basis RoP 52
Activites
-
2018/11/12
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
-
2018/06/14
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 56 |
2018/2092(INI)
2018/07/23
LIBE
56 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 a (new) - having regard to the study by the European Parliament Research Service on 'The Cost of Non Schengen': Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs aspects' of 26 September 2016,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Г D. whereas in its conclusions the Justice and Home Affairs Council confirmed on multiple occasions its commitment to base any future decision on the abolition of checks at internal borders for Bulgaria and Romania on a two-step approach; and whereas the adoption of that decision by the Justice and Home Affairs Council has been repeatedly deferred;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas neither the 2005 Act of Accession nor the Schengen evaluation
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) F a. whereas maintaining internal border control in the Union or reintroducing such in the Schengen area has a serious impact on the lives of European citizens and all those who benefit from the principle of free movement within the EU, and seriously undermines their trust in the European institutions and integration; whereas maintaining or reintroducing internal border control entails direct operational and investment costs for cross-border workers, tourists, road freight transporters and public administrations, with crippling effects on the economies of the Member States; whereas estimates of the costs linked to the reintroduction of border controls range between EUR 0.05 billion and EUR 20 billion in one-off costs and EUR 2 billion in annual operating costs1a; whereas cross-border regions are particularly affected; _________________ 1a Wouter van Ballegooij, The Cost of Non-Schengen: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs aspects’, Cost of Non- Europe Report, European Added Value Unit, 2016, page 32.
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) F a. Whereas according to a study1a by the European Parliament's Research Service "the costs linked with the reintroduction of border controls could range between €0.05 billion and €20 billion in one-off costs and between €2 billion and €4 billion in annual operating costs. This amounts to around 0.02%-0.03 % of the Schengen area GDP." Whereas this estimation concerns the reintroduction of border controls within the Schengen border-free zone, an equivalent ratio of financial losses and lost profit could be inferred for the South- East region of Europe, where border checks between Member States persist unduly. _________________ 1a The Cost of Non-Schengen: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs aspects, EPRS, PE 581.387 - September 2016
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Е a (new) Fa. whereas Bulgaria and Romania police one of the most sensitive stretches of the EU's external border (measuring a combined 3264 km) аnd the 'Kapitan Andreevo' crossing point on the Bulgarian-Turkish border is the largest in the EU;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F b (new) F b. whereas maintaining internal border controls in the Union or reintroducing such in the Schengen area appears linked to a perception of threats to public policy and internal security rather than sound evidence of the actual existence of a serious threat; whereas the abolition of checks at internal borders as a result of the full application of the Schengen acquis in previously acceded Member States has not led to higher crimes rates; whereas the Schengen enlargement of 2007 is associated with lower acquisitive crime rates in both the newly acceding Schengen Member States and existing Schengen Member States and has not increased the perception of insecurity among EU citizens2a; _________________ 2a Wouter van Ballegooij, The Cost of Non-Schengen: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs aspects’, Cost of Non- Europe Report, European Added Value Unit, 2016, pages 28, 31.
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that all the necessary conditions for the full application of the Schengen acquis were met by Bulgaria and Romania in 2011; points out that this has entailed both countries fundamentally restructuring their border surveillance systems and investing significantly in increasing the capacities of their law enforcement agencies in order to meet EU requirements;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 a (new) - having regard to the Commission eighth bi-annual report on the functioning of the Schengen area of 15December 2015 (COM(2015) 675 final),
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Regrets the fact that in the seven years since, the Council has failed to take a decision on the full application of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania despite the repeated calls to this end by both the Commission and Parliament, the Council failing to credibly motivate the lack of decision on the application of the Schengen acquis for Bulgaria and Romania;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Regrets the fact that in the seven years since, the Council
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Re
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Expresses concern that
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Expresses concern that the introduction of a two-step approach could negatively impact the future enlargement of the Schengen area; emphasises that the failure to reach consensus in the Council calls into question the credibility of the EU
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Expresses concern that the introduction of a two-step approach could negatively impact the future enlargement of the Schengen area; emphasises that the failure to reach consensus in the Council calls into question the credibility of the EU and continuously erodes public support for common EU policies by demonstrating unequal treatment of Member States and introducing artificial lines of division within the Union; voices its concern that such practices contribute to the rise of populism
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Expresses concern that the introduction of a two-step approach could negatively impact the future enlargement of the Schengen area; emphasises that the failure to reach consensus in the Council calls into question the credibility of the EU and continuously erodes public support for common EU policies by demonstrating unequal treatment of Member States and their citizens and introducing artificial lines of division within the Union by referring to legally non-existing conditions; voices its concern that such practices contribute to the rise of populism and nationalism across the continent, which poses a fundamental challenge to the functioning of the EU;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. E
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 8 a (new) - having regard to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th annual reports by the European Commission on the functioning of the Schengen area,
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Underlines the fact that the free movement of persons across internal borders is one of the main achievements of the EU; stresses that the enlargement of the Schengen area should not be negatively impacted by shortcomings in other EU policies, such as the Common European Asylum System; Points out that transport operations from and to some of Europe's largest southern civil fleet and freight ports, as well as the import and exports to and from the two countries and Schengen locked Greece are impacted by the waiting time on internal EU border crossing points, providing for lost benefits, increased spending and tapping the potential for European businesses and the European economy.
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Underlines the fact that the free movement of persons across internal borders and the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into the EU legal framework is one of the main achievements of the EU; stresses that the enlargement of the Schengen area should not be negatively impacted by shortcomings in other EU policies, such as the Common European Asylum System;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Underlines th
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Underlines the fact that the free movement of persons across internal borders is one of the main achievements of the EU of which all citizens of all Member States must benefit; stresses that the enlargement of the Schengen area should not be negatively impacted by shortcomings in other EU policies, such as the Common European Asylum System;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Underlines the fact that the free movement of persons across internal borders is one of the main achievements of the EU; stresses that the enlargement of the Schengen area should not
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Underlines the fact that the free movement of persons across internal borders is one of the main achievements of the EU; stresses that the operation and enlargement of the Schengen area should not be negatively impacted by shortcomings in other EU policies, such as the Common European Asylum System;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the adoption of the Council decision of 12 October 2017 granting Bulgaria and Romania passive access to the Visa Information System and the Council’s proposal for the full application of the remaining provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in both Member States;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the adoption of the Council decision of 12 October 2017 granting Bulgaria and Romania passive access to the Visa Information System and the Council’s proposal for the full application of the remaining provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in both Member States; regrets the fact that the adoption of these decisions did not immediately follow verification of the successful completion of the Schengen evaluation process in 2011, but was initiated as an ad-hoc measure to ensure compliance with the preconditions for the implementation of the Entry/Exit System, expected to be operational by 2020; considers that these legal acts constitute a step towards closing information gaps between those Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full and those applying it partially; firmly insists that the adoption of these acts should not serve to further delay the abolition of checks at internal land, sea and air borders;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the adoption of the Council decision of 12 October 2017 granting Bulgaria and Romania passive access to the Visa Information System and the Council’s proposal for the full application of the remaining provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in both Member States; regrets the fact that the adoption of these decisions did not immediately follow verification of the successful completion of the Schengen evaluation process in 2011, but was initiated as an ad-hoc measure to ensure compliance with the preconditions for the implementation of the Entry/Exit System, expected to be operational by 2020; considers that these legal acts constitute a step towards closing information gaps between those Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full and those applying it partially; firmly insists that the adoption of these acts should not serve to further delay the abolition of checks at internal land, sea and air borders; notes that with the adoption of these decisions, Bulgaria and Romania will share all the responsibilities and obligations, but not all the benefits, of fully fledged Schengen area membership, affecting citizens' rights but also the efficiency of companies in the two countries;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the completion of the Schengen evaluation process for Bulgaria and Romania and the state of preparedness of the two countries to implement all the provisions of the Schengen acquis were confirmed by the Council in its conclusions of 9 and 10 June 2011; whereas according to Bulgaria and Romania's accession treaties and the existing EU framework, these were the only prerequisites for the accession to the Schengen area; whereas in its draft decision of 8 July 2011, the Council verified that the necessary conditions for the application of the Schengen acquis had been met in all areas, namely data protection, air borders, land borders, police cooperation, the Schengen Information System, sea borders and visas; whereas Bulgaria and Romania’s state of preparedness to apply the Schengen acquis in full has been acknowledged by the Commission and Parliament, most recently in the Commission communication of 27 September 2017 and Parliament’s resolution of 30 May 2018;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Emphasises that the Schengen acquis was not designed to accommodate Member States with different legal statuses; draws attention to the fact that the Council’s prolonged inaction has created the need for making a clear distinction in EU legislation, relating to information and border management systems, between those Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full and those applying it partially; voices its concern that this legally codifies a de facto parallel existence of a Schengen area with free movement and a Schengen area without free movement; expresses its concern also that this differentiation will hinder interconnectivity between European information systems, thus undermining rather than strengthening EU security;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Emphasises that the Schengen acquis was not designed to accommodate Member States with different legal statuses; draws attention to the fact that the Council’s prolonged inaction has created the need for making a clear distinction in EU legislation, relating to information and border management systems, between those Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full and those applying it partially; voices its concern that this legally codifies a de facto parallel existence of a Schengen area with free movement and a Schengen area without free movement, which violates the provisions of the Schengen acquis and the Accession Treaty;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Emphasises that the Schengen acquis was not designed to accommodate Member States with different legal statuses; draws attention to the fact that the Council’s prolonged inaction has created the need for making a clear distinction in EU legislation, relating to information and border management systems, between those Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full and those applying it partially; voices its concern that this legally codifies
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 а. Takes the view that the strengthening of the EU’s external borders, the introduction of systematic checks and the joint use of all the data bases were part of the measures put in place to protect the Schengen area;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that with regard to the full application of the Schengen acquis, no additional criteria should be introduced or links to other Union mechanisms and policies made, other than the specified prerequisites laid down in the 2005 Act of Accession; clearly states, in line with the position of the European Commission, that there should be no link between the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for Romania and Bulgaria and the full application of the Schengen acquis; this mechanism can and should continue until all the conditions and criteria therein are fulfilled; this, however, does not preclude Romania and Bulgaria from fully applying the Schengen acquis; calls on the Member States to take a decision on the enlargement of the Schengen area solely on the basis of fulfilment of the relevant conditions for applying the Schengen acquis following the completion of the Schengen evaluation process;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that with regard to the full application of the Schengen acquis, the criteria applicable to all Member States are clearly defined in the European legislative framework; also emphasises that no additional criteria should be introduced or links to other Union mechanisms and policies made, other than the specified prerequisites laid down in the 2005 Act of Accession; calls on the Member States to take a decision on the enlargement of the Schengen area solely on the basis of fulfilment of the relevant conditions for applying the Schengen acquis following the completion of the Schengen evaluation process;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that with regard to the full application of the Schengen acquis, no additional criteria should be introduced or links to other Union mechanisms and policies made, other than the specified prerequisites laid down in the 2005 Act of Accession; nevertheless emphasizes that all the criteria have to be fulfilled without any exceptions and reservations; calls on the Member States to take a decision on the enlargement of the Schengen area solely on the basis of fulfilment of the relevant conditions for applying the Schengen acquis following the completion of the Schengen evaluation process;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that with regard to the full application of the Schengen acquis, no additional criteria should be introduced or links to other Union mechanisms and policies made, other than the specified prerequisites laid down in the 2005 Act of Accession; calls on the Member States to take a decision on the enlargement of the Schengen area solely on the basis of fulfilment of the relevant conditions for applying the Schengen acquis following the completion of the Schengen evaluation process, as was decided for Schengen member states as well;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that with regard to the full application of the Schengen acquis,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital А A. whereas the completion of the Schengen evaluation process for Bulgaria and Romania and the state of preparedness of the two countries to implement all the provisions of the Schengen acquis were confirmed by the Council in its conclusions of 9 and 10 June 2011; whereas in its draft decision of 8 July 2011, the Council verified that the necessary conditions for the application of the Schengen acquis had been met in all areas, namely data protection, air borders, land borders, police cooperation, the Schengen Information System, sea borders and visas; whereas Bulgaria and Romania’s state of preparedness to apply the Schengen acquis in full has been acknowledged many times by the Commission and Parliament
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that with regard to the full application of the Schengen acquis, no additional criteria should be introduced or links to other Union mechanisms and policies made, other than the specified prerequisites laid down in the 2005 Act of Accession; calls on the Member States to take a decision on the enlargement of the Schengen area solely on the basis of fulfilment of the relevant conditions for applying the Schengen acquis following the completion of the Schengen evaluation process in 2011;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9 a. Recalls that the cooperation and verification mechanism is not, in any way, linked to the accession to Schengen nor should it be as it is also not an item of evaluation for Schengen States;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Urges the Council to present a new draft decision on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania as soon as possible
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Urges the Council to
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Calls on the Council to apply the same approach to Croatia as soon as Croatia successfully completes the evaluations carried and the relevant criteria are met;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the completion of the Schengen evaluation process for Bulgaria and Romania and the state of preparedness of the two countries to implement all the provisions of the Schengen acquis were confirmed at experts' level and by the Council in its conclusions of 9 and 10 June 2011; whereas in its draft decision of 8 July 2011, the Council verified that the necessary conditions for the application of the Schengen acquis had been met in all areas, namely data protection, air borders, land borders, sea borders, police cooperation, the Schengen Information System
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) A a. whereas the Schengen area is a unique arrangement and one of the greatest achievements of the European Union, allowing free movement of people within the Schengen area without controls at internal borders; whereas this has been made possible through a variety of compensating measures, such as re- enforcing the exchange of information through the establishment of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and creating an evaluation mechanism to verify the implementation of the Schengen acquis by Member States and foster mutual trust in the functioning of the Schengen area;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A b (new) A b. whereas Romania and Bulgaria adopted the Schengen acquis when joining the EU in 2007; whereas Bulgaria issued its declaration of readiness to start the evaluations carried out by the Schengen Evaluation Working Group (SCH-EVAL) in 2008; whereas Romania issued its declaration of readiness to start the evaluations carried out by the Schengen Evaluation Working Group in 2007 and 2008; whereas SCH-EVAL was constituted by experts from Schengen States;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital В a (new) Ca. whereas at the European Council of 1-2 March 2012 the heads of state and government emphasised that all legal conditions had been met for the decision on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area to be taken, and called on the Justice and Home Affairs Council to adopt such a decision in September 2012;
source: 625.580
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2018-09-12Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/date |
Old
2018-11-12T00:00:00New
2018-11-28T00:00:00 |
2018-06-22Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 052New
Rules of Procedure EP 52 |
2018-06-19Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|