75 Amendments of Erik MARQUARDT related to 2021/0140(CNS)
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The evaluation and monitoring mechanism may cover all areas of the Schengen acquis - present and future - except those where a specific evaluation mechanism already exists under Union law. The evaluation and monitoring mechanism should also include for each evaluation and each evaluated Member State a fundamental rights’ assessment covering the respect and promotion of the provisions of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union in the implementation of the Schengen acquis. The evaluation and monitoring mechanism should encompass all relevant legislation and operational activities contributing to the functioning of Schengen area.
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Evaluation and monitoring activities should be targeted, taking into account the results of previous evaluations and the results of national quality control mechanisms. They should be supported by reinforced cooperation with Union bodies, offices and agencies, their systematic involvement in Schengen evaluations and by improved risk analyses and information sharing. This cooperation and involvement concerns in particular the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’), the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems (eu-LISA), the Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), the European Agency for Fundamental Rights and the European Data Protection Supervisor. The cooperation should also become more reciprocal and the agencies should not only be contributors, but also benefit from being involved in the evaluation and monitoring mechanism.
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The vulnerability assessment carried out by Frontex is a complementary mechanism to the evaluation and monitoring mechanism established by this Regulation for guaranteeing quality control at Union level and ensuring constant preparedness at both Union and national levels to respond to any challenges at the external border. Both mechanisms constitute a component of the European Integrated Border Management. Synergies between the vulnerability assessment and the evaluation and monitoring mechanism should be maximised with a view to establishing an improved situational picture of the functioning of the Schengen area, avoiding, to the extent possible, duplication of efforts and conflicting recommendations. For that purpose, regular exchange of information between Frontex and the Commission on the results of both mechanisms should take place. Increasing the strategic focus and more targeted evaluation design also requires increasing synergies further with the relevant mechanisms and platforms operated by Union agencies and national administrations, such as the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (‘EMPACT’) or the oversight conducted by the Commission with the support of eu-LISA as regards the preparation of the Member States for the implementation of relevant IT systems as well as the findings of the national quality control mechanismsevaluation and monitoring mechanism established by this Regulation should act, in each of its phases, in full synergy with other existing monitoring and reporting mechanisms, instruments, and bodies developed at national, EU and international level.
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) During the evaluation, particular attention should be paid to verifying respect forThe assessment of the respect for and promotion of fundamental rights in the application of the Schengen acquis should be horizontally mainstreamed in each evaluation, in addition to the evaluation of the correct implementation and application of the data protection requirements of the Schengen acquis carried out by separate evaluations. To increase the capacity of the evaluation and monitoring mechanism to identify violations of fundamental rights in relevant policy areas, additional measures should be implemented. Schengen evaluators should be properly trained in this regard, relevant information from the European Agency for Fundamental Rights should be better utilised and its experts better involved in the design and implementation of evaluations. In particular, the Commission, in cooperation with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, should develop specific benchmarks, to be included in the standard questionnaire, against which compliance with fundamental rights’ can be assessed. Furthermore, evidence which is made public or provided through independent monitoring mechanisms or by relevant third parties at their own initiative such as ombudspersons, authorities monitoring the respect of fundamental rights, non- governmental and international organisations, should be taken into account in the programming, design and implementation of evaluations.
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) The forms of evaluations and methods should be made more flexible to increase the efficiency of the evaluation and monitoring mechanism and its capacity to adapt to new circumstances and legislative developments and to streamline the use of the resources of the Member States, Commission and the Union bodies, offices and agencies. Periodic evaluations through visits should be the primary means of evaluation. The proportion of unannounced visits and thematic evaluations should be gradually increased to ensure a more balanced use of available tools. The forms of evaluation should be clearly defined. Depending on the policy area and the nature of the evaluation and monitoring activity, the evaluation and monitoring mechanism should allow the evaluation of several Member States at the same time and conduct entirely or partly remote evaluations, as complementary evaluation methods to physical visits, as well as to combine the evaluation of policy fields. The evaluation and monitoring mechanism should strive towards drawing comprehensive Member State evaluation reports assessing the Member State’s overall performance in the application of the Schengen acquis.
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Thematic evaluations should be used more frequently to provide a comparative analysis of Member State practices. They should take place to assess the implementation of major legislative changes as they start to apply and of new initiatives, as well as to assess issues across policy areas or similar policies and practices ofacross Member States facing similar challenges.
Amendment 63 #
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 significantnegatively impact on the functioning of the Schengen area or lead 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 65 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) Evaluation and monitoring activities should be carried out by teams consisting of Commission representatives and experts designated by Member States. These 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. The experts can be assisted in their evaluation and monitoring activities by observers designated by the European Parliament and by the relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies involved in the implementation of the Schengen acquis as well as by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. For each evaluation and monitoring activity, the Commission should always invite the European Parliament to designate a representative as an observer.
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Evaluation reports should be concise and succinct. They should focus on deficiencies with significant impactgive an account of deficiencies identified 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 76 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) In addition, where evaluations identify a serious deficiency, specific provisions should apply to ensure the prompt adoption of remedial measures. Given the risk posed by such deficiency, as soon as the evaluated Member State is informed about a serious deficiency, the evaluated Member State should start immediately implementing actions to remedy the deficiency including, where necessary, mobilising all available operational and financial means. Remedial action should be subject to tighter deadlines and closer political scrutiny and monitoring throughout the process. In this regard, the Commission should immediately inform the Council and the European Parliament when an evaluation establishes the existence of a serious deficiency and organise a ‘serious deficiency’ revisit no later than one yearsix months from the date of the evaluation to verify whether the Member State has remedied the shortcomings concerned. The Commission should present a revisit report to the Council following the revisit. Considering the severe impact that a serious deficiency might have on the Schengen area as a whole and on individuals’ fundamental rights, in case the revisit report concludes that the identified serious deficiency has not been adequately remedied, the Commission should launch without delay an action pursuant to article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in order to address the identified shortcomings.
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) The identification of a serious deficiency requires a thorough case-by- case assessment on the basis of clear criteria regarding the nature, scale and potential impact of the problems, which may be different for each policy area. Different key elements for the effective implementation of the Schengen acquis and different combination of factors could lead to the classification of a finding as a serious deficiency. However, if it is considered that a shortcoming identified is or in a short-term has the potential of putting the overall functioning of the area without internal border control at risk, or have a significantof negatively impact oning the rights of individuals, such shortcoming is to be regarded as a serious deficiency. Where a serious deficiency in the carrying out of external border control is identified in an evaluation report, Articles 21 and 29 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council37 may apply. _________________ 37 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The evaluation and monitoring mechanism should comprise a robust follow-up and monitoring component which should be ensured by the Commission, in close cooperation with the Council and the European Parliament, without creating a disproportionate burden for the actors involved. Evaluations should be followed up by action plans. While drawing up the action plans, the evaluated Member States should fully take into consideration the funding possibilities provided by the Union and make the best use of these resources. To speed up the process, the Commission should provide observations on the adequacy of the action plans for example in the form of a letter. In order to ensure a timely follow up, if the Commission services do not consider the action plan adequate, the Member State concerned should be required to submit a revised action plan within one month from the receipt of the observations. The frequency of the follow-up reporting by the Member State to the Commission and the Council on the implementation of the action plans should, as a rule, be six months.
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) As part of its monitoring activities, it should be possible for the Commission to organise revisits and verification visits. Revisits should be organised to monitor the progress of the implementation of an action plan following an evaluation that identified serious deficiency or following an evaluation which preceeds the full Schengen accession of a Member State (‘first time evaluation’) and concluded that the evaluated Member State did not fulfil the necessary conditions to apply the Schengen acquis in the respective evaluated policy area. The revisit report should be limited to present the progress made to implement the recommendations. Otherwise, verification visits may be carried out to monitor the implementation of an action plan, following an evaluation that did not identify serious deficiency where deemed necessary. Verification visits should always be organised before the closure of an action plan following a first time evaluation. In terms of the organisational and reporting requirements, verification visits shcould be lighter than evaluation visits. In particular, they should comprise smaller teams and should not lead to new findings or require the adoptioncomprise smaller teams and focus on the previously identified deficiencies, without prejudice to any additional issues identified by the experts. There should always be a report, either separate ofr a separate reportnnexed to the original report to document findings. The Council should be more actively involved in the monitoring phase and should express its position on the proposed closure of action plans.
Amendment 90 #
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, at all stages, of the content and results of the evaluations. In addition, should the Commission submit a proposal to amend this Regulation, the Council would, in accordance with Article 19(7), point (h), of its Rules of Procedure39 , consult the European Parliament in order to take into consideration its opinion, to the fullest extent possible, before adopting a final text. _________________ 39 Council Decision 2009/937/EU of 1 December 2009 adoptingconsidering the central function that the monitoring framework has in the overall architecture underpinning the Schengen acquis, should the Commission submit a proposal to amend this Regulation, this amended proposal would be based on Article 77(2)(b) of the of the Treaty on the CoFuncil's Rules of Procedure (OJ L 325 11.12.2009, p. 35)tioning of the European Union.
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Given that the verification in accordance with the applicable Schengen evaluation procedures concerning Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania and Croat and Romania, has already been completed pursuant to their respective Act of Accession, the verification under Article 1(2)(b) of this Regulation should not be relaunched in respect of those Member States,
Amendment 102 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘Schengen acquis’ means the provisions integrated into the framework of the Union in accordance with Protocol No 19 annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, together with the acts building upon them or otherwise related to them, including the full implementation of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) ‘unannounced evaluation’ means an evaluation, which is conducted without any prior notice and is not included in the multiannual and annual evaluation programmes, to verify the application of the Schengen acquis by one or more Member States in one or more policy fields;
Amendment 107 #
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, or part of it, and which individually or in combination, have, or risk to have over time, a significant negatively impact or risk to negatively impact on the rights of individuals or on the functioning of the Schengen area;
Amendment 112 #
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 by the Commission representativ, and observers designated by relevant Union institutions, bodies or agencies, who carry out evaluations and monitoring activities.
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. The Member States and, the Commission and the Council shall cooperate fully at all stages of evaluations in order to ensure the effective implementation of this Regulation.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Commission mayshall organise unannounced evaluations, in particular:
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) to evaluate practices at internal and external borders;
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) when it becomes aware of emerging or systemicexisting problems that could potentially have a significanthave a negative impact on the functioning of the Schengen area;
Amendment 139 #
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 internal and external borders.
Amendment 143 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission may organise thematic evaluations in particular to assess the implementation of significant legislative changes, as they start to apply, and of new initiatives, or to assess issues across policy areas or similar policies and practices ofacross Member States facing similar challenges.
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Evaluations and monitoring activities referred to in Articles 4 and 5 may be carried out by means of announced or unannounced visits, and questionnaires or other remote methods. Unannounced evaluations shall take place by means of unannounced visits and in-person surveys.
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. TFor the purpose of the implementation of this Regulation, the Commission shall cooperate with relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies which are involved in the implementation of the Schengen acquis as well as with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, including by exchanging relevant information.
Amendment 148 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The risk analysis referred to in paragraph 1 shall cover all relevant aspects related to integrated border management, including an assessment of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 656/2014 by the Member States and Frontex, and it shall also contain recommendations for announced and unannounced visits in the following year, irrespective of the order of Member States to be evaluated each year, as established in the multiannual evaluation programme in accordance with Article 12.
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
The Commission shall transmit that risk analysis without delay to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9
Article 9
Amendment 158 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shaIn its programming, evaluation, monitoring and follow-up activity, the Commission shall rely on and make full use of the results of relevantfindings and recommendations of existing monitoring and reporting mechanisms and, instruments, including evaluation and monitoring activities of Union bodies, offices and agencies which are involved in the implementation of the Schengen acquis and of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights as well as of independent national monitoring mechanisms and bodies and other national quality control mechanisms in preparing the evaluation and monitoring activities, to improve awareness on the functioning of the Schengen area and to avoid the duplication of efforts and conflicting measures. and bodies operating at national, European and international level, including: - the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS); - the European Court of Auditors; - the monitoring mechanisms provided for in Article 7 of the Regulation (EU) xxxx/xxxx (Regulation on Screening), in Articles 32, 109 and 110 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 (European Border and Coast Guard Regulation) and Article 14 of Regulation (EU) xxxx/xxxx [EU Asylum Agency Regulation]; - national human rights organisations, ombudspersons, National Preventive Mechanisms and independent non- governmental or civil society organisations; - the Council of Europe, in particular the Venice Commission and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT); - international organisations such as the United Nations, its agencies and bodies, and the Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe (OSCE).
Amendment 163 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Amendment 170 #
In the programming and implementation of the evaluations and monitoring activities, the Commission shall take into account information provided by third parties, including independent authorities, non- governmental organisations and international organisationational human rights organisations, ombudspersons, National Preventive Mechanisms, non-governmental or civil society organisations and international organisations such as the United Nations’ and the Council of Europe’ institutions and bodies.
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
In each multiannual evaluation cycle, each Member State shall undergo one periodic evaluation and at least one unannounced evaluation or thematic evaluationpursuant to Article 4(2)(a) or one thematic evaluation. Unannounced evaluations pursuant to Articles 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) shall be organised by the Commission whenever the circumstances provided for in those articles arise.
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall adopt the multiannual evaluation programme by means of an implementing act. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 29(3). The Commission shall transmit the multiannual evaluation programme to the European Parliament and to the Council which shall have the opportunity to express their views on it.
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The multiannual evaluation programme shall identify the specific priority areas to be covered by the periodic evaluations and shall, which shall include, for each evaluated Member State and as part of the annual thematic evaluation, a fundamental rights’ assessment covering the respect and promotion of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the implementation of the Schengen acquis. The multiannual evaluation programme shall also include a provisional time- schedule of those evaluations.
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
It shall set out a provisional list of Member States to be subject to periodic evaluations, together with the relevant Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies performing functions related to the implementation of the Schengen acquis in the relevant Member States, without prejudice to adjustments made under paragraph 4, in a given year. The provisional order in which the Member States are to be subject to a periodic evaluation shall take into account the time which has elapsed since the previous periodic evaluation. It shall also take into account the outcome of previous evaluations, the pace of implementation of the action plans and other relevant information at the Commission’s disposal as regards the practices of the Member States.
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall establish, by means of an implementing act, an annual evaluation programme by 15 November of the year preceding that to which the programme relates, based on in particular the risk analyses, findings, recommendations and other information obtained by the Commission in accordance with Articles 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 29(3).
Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 13 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The Commission shall transmit the annual evaluation programme to the European Parliament and to the Council which shall have the opportunity to express their views on it.
Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
In drawing up the questionnaire, the Commission may consult relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies referred to in Article 7. The Commission, in cooperation with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, shall develop and include in the questionnaire specific benchmarks against which the evaluation teams assess the fundamental rights’ compliance.
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. The standard questionnaire shall cover the implementation of the relevant legislation, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the organisational and technical means available for the implementation of the Schengen acquis, including the ones referred to in Handbooks, the Schengen catalogues and relevant statistical data.
Amendment 199 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Observers from Union bodies, offices and agencies shall not participate in a team carrying out an evaluation or monitoring activity of the Member State where they perform their functions.
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 5 b (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. The Commission shall invite the European Parliament to designate a representative to take part as an observer in an evaluation or monitoring activity.
Amendment 203 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 7
Article 18 – paragraph 7
7. The observers referred to in paragraphs 5, 5b and 6 shall support the team as requested by the lead experts, but they shall not participate in the internal decision-making process of the team.
Amendment 206 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The detailed programme for the visits in a Member State or in its consulates shall be established by the Commission in close cooperation with the lead experts and , for announced visits, the Member State concerned. In the latter case, the Commission shall send the detailed programme also to the relevant national Parliament.
Amendment 209 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
It may include visits to and meetings with national authorities and bodies, non- governmental and international organisations as well as other entities, agencies and bodies involved in, participating in or concerned by the implementation of the Schengen acquis and the Union and international human rights framework while cooperating with the Member State subject to the evaluation or monitoring activity.
Amendment 212 #
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 218 #
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 222 #
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 as complementary evaluation methods to physical visits.
Amendment 225 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. In preparing the evaluation report, the teams shall take account of the replies to the standard questionnaire or to the in- person surveys, any additional information obtained in accordance with Articles 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and the findings of the evaluation activity. The evaluation reports may include documentary and digital material to support the findings. Where an evaluation is carried out by means of a visit, the team shall draft the evaluation report during the visit.
Amendment 228 #
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 232 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 6
Article 21 – paragraph 6
6. The Commission shall transmit the draft evaluation report to the evaluated Member State within four weeks of the end of the evaluation activity. The evaluated Member State shall provide its comments on the draft evaluation report within two weeks of its receipt. A drafting meeting shall be held at the request of the evaluated Member State, no later than five working days from the receipt of the comments from the evaluated Member State. The comments of the evaluated Member State mayshall be reflected in the draft evaluation report.
Amendment 233 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. The evaluation reports pursuant to this Article and Article 23 of this Regulation shall contribute to the assessment of the effective application and implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights according to Article 15(1) and Annex III of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 (Common provisions Regulation).
Amendment 236 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
If the Commission does not consider that all the recommendations have been sufficiently addressed, also on the basis of the information, findings and recommendations obtained according to Articles 7, 8, 10 and 11, the evaluated Member State shall submit a revised action plan within one month of the receipt of the observations.
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Where the Commission considers the action plan implemented, it shall inform the evaluated Member State about the closure of the action plan. If, after 24 months from the evaluation report, the Commission does not consider that all the recommendations have been sufficiently addressed and the action plan fully implemented, it shall invite the European Parliament and the Council to express their position on the matter through a reasoned decision, which shall be made public. This is without prejudice to the Commission’s prerogatives under Article 258 TFEU.
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and, the Council and the national parliaments concerned at least twice a year about the state of implementation of the action plans and made available to them, in accordance with the provisions of Article 26, all relevant documents referred to in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of this Article. The Commission shall in particular provide information about its observations on the adequacy of the action plans referred to in paragraph 2, the outcome of revisits and verification visits and whether it observes considerable lack of progress in the implementation of an action plan.
Amendment 244 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The evaluated Member State shall take immediate remedial actions including, where necessary, mobilising all available operational and financial means. The evaluated Member State shall inform without delay the Commission and the Member States about the immediate remedial actions taken or planned. In parallel, the Commission shall inform the respective Union bodies, offices and agencies referred to in Article 7 of the serious deficiency in view of their possible support to the evaluated Member State. The Commission shall also immediately inform the Council and, the European Parliament and Member States’ national parliaments of the identified serious deficiency and the remedial actions, if any, already taken by the evaluated Member State.
Amendment 247 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 249 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. In light of the findings, the comments provided by the evaluated Member State and of other information as referred to in Articles 7, 8, 10 and 11, the team shall draft recommendations for remedial actions aimed at addressing the serious deficiency identified in the draft evaluation report. The comments of the evaluated Member State shall be reflected in the evaluation report.
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall transmit a proposal to the European Parliament to express its observations and submit athe proposal to the Council to adopt the recommendations concerned.
Amendment 255 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall provide the evaluated Member State observations on the adequacy of the action plan within two weeks from its submission. The Commission shall transmit its observations to the Council and the European Parliament which shall be invited to express their views on them.
Amendment 256 #
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 month of the adoption of the recommendations. The Commission shall immediately transmit that action plan to the European Parliament.
Amendment 259 #
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 yearsix months from the date of the evaluation activity.
Amendment 262 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 23 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Amendment 265 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 10
Article 23 – paragraph 10
Amendment 268 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. The rules laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3to 5 shall apply in relation to first time evaluations.
Amendment 269 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The evaluation report drafted in accordance with Article 21(2), (3) and (4) following first time evaluations shall not contain recommendations. In light of the findings, the team shall draft recommendations for remedial actions and of other information as referred to in Articles 7, 8, 10 and 11, the team shall draft recommendations for remedial actions aimed at addressing the deficiencies and areas for improvement identified in the draft evaluation report. The timelines in Article 21(1) and (6) shall apply.
Amendment 271 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The Council mayshall set time limits for the implementation of specific recommendations.
Amendment 272 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
The Commission shall organise a revisit in case the evaluation report concluded that the evaluated Member State did not fulfil the conditions necessary to apply the Schengen acquis. The Commission shall adopt, by means of an implementing act the revisit report in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 29(3). The Commission shall submit the revisit report to the Council, which shall adopt a reasoned decision.
Amendment 273 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
The rules laid down in Article 22(1) and (2) shall apply to first time evaluations.
Amendment 274 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Article 24(2) and (3) shall apply to thematic evaluations.
Amendment 276 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. The transmission and handling of classified information and documents for the purposes of this Regulation shall take place in compliance with the applicable security rules. Such rules shall not preclude information being made available to the European Parliament, national parliaments and to relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies referred to in Article 7.
Amendment 278 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 a (new)
Article 30 a (new)
Article 30 a Revision Any future proposal from the Commission for amending this evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis will be based on Article 77(2)(b) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU).