25 Amendments of Jan-Christoph OETJEN related to 2021/0140(CNS)
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Unannounced visits, being one of the most effective tools to verify Member States practices should, depending on their purpose, take place without prior notification to the Member State concerned or with only short prior notification. Unannounced visits without prior notification should take place for ‘investigative’ purposes in order to verify compliance with obligations under the Schengen acquis, including, in response to indications as regards the emergence of systemic problems that could potentially have a significant impact on the functioning of the Schengen area or to fundamental rights violations, in particular allegations of serious violations of fundamental rights at the external borders. In such cases, the provision of advance notice would defeat the objective of the visit. Unannounced visits with a 24-hour advance notice should take place if the main purpose of the visit is to carry out a random check of the Member State’s implementation of the Schengen acquis.
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) Evaluation and monitoring activities should be carried out by teams consisting of Commission representatives and, Parliament representatives, experts designated by Member States and Union observers. These representatives and experts should have appropriate qualifications, including a solid 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 72 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Evaluation reports should be concise and succinct. They should focus on deficiencies with significant impact and highlight areas where important improvements cshould be made. Minor findings should not form part of the reports. The team should nevertheless communicate these findings to the evaluated Member State at the end of the evaluation activity, including to the authorities responsible for the relevant national quality control mechanism. The team should actively seek to identify best practices which should be added to the reports. In particular, new and innovative measures that significantly improve the implementation of the common rules and that could be put in practice by other Member States should be highlighted as a best practice for the purposes of the report.
Amendment 74 #
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 and without undue delay. Particular attention should be paid to identifying and remedying fundamental rights violations. 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, 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 83 #
(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 sixthree months.
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25 a (new)
Recital 25 a (new)
(25 a) In cases where, after a revisit, the implementation of the action plan following an evaluation that identified a serious deficiency is not completed by a Member State to a satisfactory level, the Commission should launch an infringement procedure against that Member State.
Amendment 92 #
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 no later than two weeks after the procedure is concluded. 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 109 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) ‘serious deficiency’ means one or more deficiencies which concern the effective application of key elements of the Schengen acquis and which individually or in combination, have, or risk to have over time, a significant negative impact on the rights of individuals or on the functioning of the Schengen area;
Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point k
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) ‘team’ means a group comprising experts designated by Member States and, Commission as well as Parliament representatives who carry out evaluations and monitoring activities.
Amendment 140 #
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 149 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The Commission mayshall enter into arrangements with the Union bodies, offices and agencies to facilitate the cooperation and invite at least one Member of the Union bodies, offices or agencies to participate in the teams carrying out evaluation and monitoring activities.
Amendment 213 #
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, the 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 verification of the implementation of the Schengen acquis.
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall establish the detailed programme for unannounced visits. Where Member States have been notified, the Commission may consult the timetable and detailed programme with the Member State concerned.
Amendment 220 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5
Article 19 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission, in close cooperation with the Member States, may establish and update Guidelines for conducting unannounced visits and may consult with Member States.
Amendment 223 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1
The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, may establish guidelines for conducting evaluation and monitoring activities by questionnaire or other remote methods, if in person meetings cannot take place.
Amendment 224 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall transmit the evaluation report to the national Parliaments, the European Parliament and the Council no later than two weeks after the report is adopted.
Amendment 229 #
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 mayshall set deadlines for the implementation of recommendations. Where the evaluation identifies a serious deficiency, the specific provisions set out in Article 23 shall apply.
Amendment 235 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. After consulting the team, which has carried out the evaluation activity, the Commission shall provide observations on the adequacy of the action plan and, within one month from its submission, shall inform the evaluated Member State about its observations. The Council may invite other Member States to provide comments on the action plan.
Amendment 251 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. The Council shall adopt recommendations within two weeken days of receipt of the proposal.
Amendment 252 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
The Council shall set short time limits for the implementation of the recommendations related to a serious deficiency and specify the frequency of the reporting by the evaluated Member State to the Commission and the Council on the implementation of its action plan.
Amendment 254 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
Article 23 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. The evaluated Member State shall submit to the Commission and the Council its action plan within one monthtwo weeks of the adoption of the recommendations. The Commission shall transmit that action plan to the European Parliament.
Amendment 260 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
Article 23 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
7. To verify the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations related to the serious deficiency, the Commission shall organise a revisit that is to take place no later than one year6 months from the date of the evaluation activity. The Commission shall also invite the European Parliament and the Council to each send a representative to participate in a revisit.
Amendment 261 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 8
Article 23 – paragraph 8
8. The Council shalland the European Parliament may express its position on the report.
Amendment 263 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 23 – paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. In cases where, after a revisit, the implementation of the action plan following an evaluation that identified a serious deficiency is not completed by a Member State to a satisfactory level, the Commission should launch an infringement procedure against that Member State.
Amendment 264 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 2
In deciding whether to close the action plan, the Commission shallmay take into account that position.