[ParlTrack]

Malik AZMANI, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)

(2 a) The creation of an area in which the free movement of persons across internal borders is ensured is one of the main achievements of the Union. The normal functioning and strengthening of such an area, which is based on trust and solidarity, should be a common objective of the Union and the Member States which have agreed to take part in it. The absence of internal borders and the sharing of external borders create a common responsibility for Member States to ensure an area of freedom, security, and justice. In this respect, it is necessary to have a unified response to situations seriously affecting the public policy or internal security of that area, or parts thereof, by allowing for the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort, while strengthening collegial cooperation between the Member States concerned.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) In recent years, the Schengen area has been subject to unprecedented challenges, which by their nature were not confined to the territory of any single Member State. Such challenges underscored the fact that the preservation of public order and security in the Schengen area is a shared responsibility requiring joined and coordinated action between Member States and at Union level. They also highlighted the need for meaningful reform in order to strengthen mutual trust and solidarity, gaps in the existing rules governing the functioning of the Schengen area both at external and internal borders, and the need to create a stronger and more robust framework allowing for a more effective response to challenges faced by the Schengen area.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) Border control at external borders is in the interest not only of the Member State at whose external borders it is carried out but of all Member States which have abolished internal border control and the Union as a whole. Member States are required to ensure high standards in management of their external borders, including through enhanced cooperation between border guards, police, customs and other relevant authorities. The Union provides active support through the provision of financing support by the Agencies, the European Border and Coast Guard in particular and management of the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism. The rules ~~applicable to external b~~in the Schengen Borders Code need to be reinforced ~~in order to better respond to new challenges that have recently emerged at the ex~~and modernised in order to assure a high level of security within the Schengen area, in the absence of internal border controls.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the need for the Union to be better prepared to respond to crisis situations at the external borders related to situations of diseases with an epidemic potential that are a threat to public health. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that threats to public health can require uniform rules concerning travel restrictions for travel into the European Union by third country nationals. The adoption of inconsistent and divergent measures at the external borders to address such threats negatively affects the functioning of the entire Schengen area, reduces predictability for third-country travellers and people-to- people contacts with third countries. To prepare the Schengen area for future challenges of a comparable scale related to threats to public health, it is necessary to establish a new mechanism which should allow for a timely adoption and lifting of coordinated measures at Union level. The new procedure at the external border should be applied in a situation of an infectious disease with epidemic potential as identified by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control orand the ~~Commission~~Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA). This mechanism should complement the procedures proposed to be established in the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on serious cross-border threats to health43 , notably in case of the recognition of a public health emergency, and the revised mandate of the European Centre for Disease Control.44 _________________ 43 COM(2020)727. 44 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 establishing a European Centre for disease prevention and control, COM(2020)726.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 a (new)

(24 a) Before resorting to the reintroduction of border control at internal borders, Member States should give precedence to alternative measures. In particular, the Member State concerned should consider using more effectively or intensifying police checks within its territory, including in border areas, while ensuring that those police checks do not have border control as an objective. Modern technologies are also instrumental in addressing threats to public policy or internal security. Member States should assess whether the situation could be adequately addressed by way of increased cross-border cooperation, both from an operational point of view and from that of information exchange between police services and other competent authorities of the Member State.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25

(25) Measures need to be taken to address unauthorised movements of illegally staying third country nationals in an area without internal border controls. In order to strengthen the functioning of the Schengen area, and as an alternative to internal border controls, Member States should be able to take additional measures to counter irregular movements between Member States, and combat illegal stays. Where national law enforcement authorities of a Member State apprehend illegally staying third country nationals at the internal borders as part of cross-border police operational cooperation it should be possible for those authorities to refuse such persons the right to enter or remain in their territory and to transfer them to the Member State from which they entered. The Member State from where the person came directly should in turn be required to receive the apprehended third country nationals.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25 a (new)

(25 a) In the absence of internal border controls, targeted joint patrols and other joint operations in intra-EU border areas are a valuable tool to counter migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings, to prevent and detect illegal staying and cross-border crime linked to irregular migration, and to facilitate the effective practical implementation of bilateral readmission agreements. Such checks may prove more effective than internal border controls, notably as they are more flexible and can be adapted more easily to evolving risks. When opting for cross-border police cooperation, it is important that they are devised and executed in a manner clearly distinct from systematic checks on persons at the external borders.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28

(28) In exceptional cases, addressing threats to the Schengen area may ~~require the adoption, by the Member States,~~, as a measure of last resort, require the adoption of measures at the internal borders by the Member States. Member States remain competent to determine the need for the temporary reintroduction or prolongation of border controls. Under the existing rules, the reintroduction of controls at internal borders is provided for in circumstances where a serious threat to internal security or public policy manifests itself in a single Member State for a limited period of time. In particular, terrorism and organised crime, large scale public health emergencies or large scale or high profile international events such as sporting, trade or political events can amount to a serious threat to public policy or internal security.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36

(36) The reintroduction of border controls at internal borders, whether on the basis of unilateral decisions of the Member States or at a Union level, has serious implications for the functioning of the Schengen area. In order to ensure that any decision to reintroduce border controls is only taken where necessary, as a measure of last resort, the decision on temporary reintroduction or prolongation of border controls should be based on common criteria, putting an emphasis on necessity and proportionality. The proportionality principle requires that the reintroduction of internal border controls be subject to safeguards that are to be respected before an internal border control is considered and which increase over time.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37

(37) ~~In the first instance,~~ Member States should assess the appropriateness of internal border controls having regard to the nature of the serious threat identified. In this context, the Member States should pay particular attention to and assess the likely impact of internal border controls on the movement of persons within the area without internal border controls and the functioning of the cross-border regions. This assessment should be part of the notification that Member States are required to transmit to the Commission. In case of prolongation of internal border controls for foreseeable events beyond an initial period of six monthsIn addition, the Member State should also assess the appropriateness of alternative measures to pursue the same objectives as internal border controls, such as proportionate checks as carried out in the exercise of police or other public powers or through forms of police cooperation as provided for under Union law, and the possibility to use the transfer procedure. This assessment should be part of the notification that Member States are required to transmit to the Commission.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39

(39) The notification to be provided by the Member States should be decisive when assessing compliance with the criteria and conditions for a temporary reintroduction of internal border controls. In order to ensure a comparable set of information and to improve the quality of the information it receives, the Commission should adopt a template for the notification of reintroduction of border controls at internal borders in an implementing act. Member States should be entitled to classify all or parts of the information provided in the notification, without prejudice to the functioning of appropriate and secure police cooperation channels.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40

(40) ~~In order to ensure~~The Commission should be able to assess that internal border controls are an exceptional measure and truly a last resort measure applied only for as long as necessary ~~and i~~. In order to allow for assessing the necessity and proportionality of internal border controls to address foreseeable threats, Member States should prepare a risk assessment to be submitted to the Commission ~~when internal border controls are prolonged beyond an initial six months in response to foreseeable threat~~upon reintroduction of internal border controls. The Member States must in particular, explain, the scale and evolution of the identified serious threat, including how long the identified serious threat is expected to persist and which sections of the internal borders may be affected, as well as their coordination measures with the other Member States ~~that are impacted or~~ likely to be impacted by such measures.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40 a (new)

(40 a) The risk assessment should demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the reintroduced border control in addressing the identified threat and explain in detail how each neighbouring Member State affected by such prolongation was consulted and involved in determining the least burdensome operational arrangements. As many notifications provided by Member States lack sufficient detail to allow for a verification as to whether the principles of necessity and proportionality have been respected, the Commission may adopt guidelines as to which information should be provided.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40 b (new)

(40 b) The quality of the risk assessment submitted by the Member State is important for the assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the intended reintroduction or prolongation of border control. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Europol, the European Union Asylum Agency, the European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights could be consulted during that assessment.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43

(43) The mechanism for the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders in urgent situations or to address foreseeable threats should provide for a ~~possibility~~n obligation, for the Commission, to organise consultations between Member States, including at the request of any Member State. Relevant Union Agencies should be involved in this process in order to share their expertise, where appropriate. Such consultations should look into the modalities of carrying out internal border controls and their time-line, possible mitigating measures as well as the possibilities of applying alternative measures instead. WEspecially where the Commission or a Member State has issued an opinion expressing concerns regarding the reintroduction of border controls, such consultations should be mandatory. When internal border controls are in place in the Union, this should regularly be addressed in the Schengen Council.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44

(44) The Commission and Member States should retain the possibility to express any concern as regards the necessity and proportionality of a decision of a Member State to reintroduce internal border controls for reason of urgency or to address a foreseeable threat. In case controls at internal borders are reintroduced and prolonged for foreseeable threats for combined periods exceeding eighteen months, it should be a requirement for the Commission to issue an opinion assessing the necessity and proportionality of such internal border controls. Where a Member State considers that there are exceptional situations justifying the continued need for internal border controls for a period exceeding two years, the Commission should issue a follow-up opinion. Such an opinion is without prejudice to the enforcement measures, including infringement actions, which the Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, may take at any time against any Member State for failure to comply with its obligations under Union law. Where an opinion is issued, the Commission should launch consultations with the Member States concerned.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45 a (new)

(45 a) Any derogation from the fundamental principle of free movement of persons should be interpreted strictly. The concept of a threat to public policy presupposes the existence of a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45 b (new)

(45 b) The Commission has a duty to ensure that Member States fulfil their obligations under this Regulation through the enforcement measures in its position, including those in accordance with Article 258 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – paragraph 1

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 21a – paragraph 1

1. This Article shall apply to situations where the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control or the ~~Commission~~Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority identify the existence in one or more third countries of an infectious disease with epidemic potential as defined by the relevant instruments of the World Health Organization.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 23 – point a – point iv

iv) are carried out, where appropriate, on the basis of monitoring and surveillance technologies generally used in the territory, in line with national legislation, for the purposes of addressing threats to public security or public policy as set out under ii);

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) ~~activitie~~identified threats relating to terrorism or organised crime;

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 23a – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) an exceptional situation characterised by large scale unauthorised movements of third- country nationals between the Member States, putting at risk the overall functioning of the area without internal border control;

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Jana TOOM, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Abir AL-SAHLANI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 25 – paragraph 3

3. Where the same threat continues to persist, border controls at internal borders may be prolonged in accordance with Articles 25a, 28 or 29. The same threat shall be considered to exist where the justification advanced by the Member State for prolonging border controls is based on the determination of the continuation of the same threat that had justified the initial reintroduction of the border controls.deleted

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 25a – paragraph 2

2. The Member State shall, at the same time as reintroducing border control under paragraph 1, notify the Commission, Parliament, and the other Member States of the reintroduction of border controls, in accordance with Article 27(1).

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Jana TOOM, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Malik AZMANI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 25a – paragraph 2

2. The Member State shall, at the same time as reintroducing border control under paragraph 1, notify the Commission, Parliament and the other Member States of the reintroduction of border controls, in accordance with Article 27(1).

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Jana TOOM, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Abir AL-SAHLANI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 25a – paragraph 5

5. For the purposes of paragraph 4, and without prejudice to Article 27a(4), border control at internal borders may be reintroduced for a period of up to ~~six~~three months. Where the serious threat to public policy or internal security persists beyond that period, the Member State may prolong the border control at internal borders for renewable periods of up to ~~six~~three months. Any prolongation shall be notified to the Commission, Parliament, and the other Member States in accordance with Article 27 and within the time limits referred to in paragraph 4. Subject to Article 27a(5), the maximum duration of border control at internal borders shall not exceed ~~two~~one years.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 25a – paragraph 5

5. For the purposes of paragraph 4, and without prejudice to Article 27a(4), border control at internal borders may be reintroduced for a period of up to six months. Where the serious threat to public policy or internal security persists beyond that period, the Member State may prolong the border control at internal borders for renewable periods of up to six months. Any prolongation shall be notified to the Commission, Parliament, and the other Member States in accordance with Article 27 and within the time limits referred to in paragraph 4. Subject to Article 27a(5), the maximum duration of border control at internal borders shall not exceed two years.

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Jana TOOM, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Abir AL-SAHLANI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Regulation (EU) 2016/399
Article 25a – paragraph 6

~~6. The period referred to in paragraph 5 shall not include periods referred to in paragraph 3.~~deleted

2022/12/12
Committee: LIBE

Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Michal ŠIMEČKA