Activities of Bettina VOLLATH related to 2021/0140(CNS)
Plenary speeches (1)
The Schengen evaluation mechanism (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment and operation of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013
Amendments (48)
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Schengen area without border control at internal borders relies on the effective and efficient application by the Member States of the Schengen acquis. That acquis comprises measures in the area of external borders, compensatory measures for the absence of controls at internal borders and a strong monitoring framework, which together facilitatensure free movement and ensures a high level of security, justice and protection of fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In order to increase its effectiveness and efficiency, the Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism should be enhanced. The revised evaluation and monitoring mechanism should aim at maintaining a high level of mutual trust among Member States by guaranteeing that Member States apply the Schengen acquis effectively following the agreed common standards, fundamental principles and norms, thereby contributing toin order to ensure a well- functioning Schengen area without internal border controls, in full respect for fundamental rights.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The evaluation and monitoring mechanism mayshould cover all areas of the Schengen acquis - present and future - except those where a specific evaluation mechanism already exists under Union law. As regards the issue of borders, the evaluation and monitoring mechanism should cover both the efficiency of border controls at external borders and the absence of border controls at internal borders. The evaluation and monitoring mechanism should encompass all relevant legislation and operational activities contributing to the functioning of Schengen areaan area without border control at internal borders.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The correct functioning of the authorities that apply the Schengen acquis should be taken into account in all the evaluations in line with the European Council conclusions of 1 and 2 March 2012. The evaluation should also cover the practices of private entities, such as airlines or external service providers, as far as they are involved in or affected by the implementation of the Schengen acquis while cooperating with the Member States. Equally, given the increasing role of Union bodies, offices and agencies in the implementation of the Schengen acquis, the evaluation and monitoring mechanism should support the verification of the activities of these Union bodies, offices and agencies in so far as they perform functions on behalf of the Member States to assist in the operational application of provisions of the Schengen acquis. Verification of these activities in this regard should be embedded into the evaluation of the Member States and carried out without prejudice to and in full respect of the responsibilities attributed to the Commission and to the relevant governing bodies of the agencies, offices and bodies concerned by their establishing regulations and their own evaluation and monitoring procedures therein. Should evaluations identify deficiencies in relation to functions fulfilled or supported by Union bodies, offices and agencies, the Commission should include this in the evaluation report and inform their relevant governing bodies.
Amendment 64 #
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 visitsVisits or evaluations at short-notice, 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 68 #
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, and have undertaken the appropriate training. 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 70 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) More flexibility should be provided as regards the size of the evaluation and monitoring teams in order to increase the efficiency and to reduce administrative burden. Therefore, the Commission should define and adapt the size of the teams depending on the needs and challenges related to each evaluation and monitoring activity. When setting up the teams, geographical balance and rotation, and gender balance should, to the extent possible, be ensured by the Commission and account should be taken of the capacity of national administrations and the need for a variety of profiles. The principle of shared responsibility, predictability and the commitment taken when nominating experts to the pool implies that the experts invited for specific evaluations and their national authorities should respond positively to invitations; turning the invitations down should be duly justified on serious professional or personal grounds only.
Amendment 77 #
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 report on any infringement proceedings that are ongoing or to be brought against the evaluated Member State. The Commission should also 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 and the Parliament following the revisit.
Amendment 80 #
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 significant negative impact on fundamental rights or 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 87 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) It is essential and desirable that the European Parliament and the Council regularly hold discussions at political level in order to raise awareness of the importance of the implementation of the Schengen acquis, hold Member States who persistently breach the common rules accountable, and increase pressure on them to remedy the deficiencies identified. To that end, it is imperative that both institutions are fully and equally informed of all developments in the implementation of the Schengen acquis in the Member States. The Commission should provide adequate input to facilitate these discussions including through the adoption of a comprehensive annual report covering the evaluations carried out during the previous year and state of implementation of recommendations, which would be part of the ‘State of Schengen’ report. The European Parliament is encouraged to adopt resolutions and the Council should adopt conclusions to increase pressure on Member States making insufficient progress. The ‘Schengen Forum’, as a unique stage to discuss Schengen at high level with representatives of the European Parliament, Member States and the Commission should provide a platform for informal discussions aiming at better implementation of the Schengen acquis.
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) The classification status of the evaluation and revisit reports should be determined in accordance with the applicable security rules set out in Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/44438 . The evaluated Member State should neverthelessin exceptional cases only retain the possibility to request the classification of all or parts of the report in accordance with the applicable security rules. _________________ 38 Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (OJ L 72, 17.3.2015, p. 53).
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation establishes an evaluation and monitoring mechanism for the purpose of ensuring that Member States apply the Schengen acquis effectively, thereby contributing toin order to ensure a well-functioning area without internal border controls, in full respect for fundamental rights.
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Article 1 – paragraph 3
3. Evaluations may cover all aspects of the Schengen acquis and, shall always include a fundamental rights assessment, and may take into account the functioning of the authorities that apply the Schengen acquis.
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) ‘unannounced evaluation’ means an evaluation, which is not included in the multiannual and annual evaluation programmes, and which is carried out without any prior notice, to verify the application of the Schengen acquis by one or more Member States in one or more policy fields;
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(d a) "evaluation on short-notice" means an evaluation, which 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 field, and in respect of which the Member State or Member States in question receive a maximum of 24 hours advance notice.
Amendment 110 #
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, including upholding the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and which individually or in combination, have, or risk to have over time, a significant negative impact on freedom of movement, the rights of individuals, or on the functioning of the Schengen area;
Amendment 115 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
(k a) 'Union observer' means an expert designated by a Union institution, body, office or Agency to participate, as an observer, in an evaluation of a Member State, a visit or revisit of a Member State
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. The Member States and the Commission shall cooperate fully at all stages of evaluations in order to ensure the effective implementation of this Regulation, while ensuring that the European Parliament is kept fully informed of all substantive developments.
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
They shall ensure that the Commission and the teams carrying out evaluation and monitoring activities are able to perform their tasks effectively, in particular by granting the possibility to the Commission and the teams to address individually and directly relevant persons and by providing full and unimpeded access to all areas, premises and documents to which access has been requested, including national and internal guidelines and instructions, also classified ones.
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) Evaluations at short-notice
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) to evaluate practices at internal borders, in particular where internal border controls have been in place for longer than four months;
Amendment 138 #
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 particular allegations of serious fundamental rights violations at the external borders.
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. When it has received or is aware of multiple reports from external sources regarding allegations of fundamental rights violations at the external borders of a Member State, the Commission shall organise an unannounced evaluation of that Member State.
Amendment 142 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Evaluations may cover any aspect of the Schengen acquis, including the effective and efficient application by the Member States of accompanying measures in the areas of external borders, visa policy, the Schengen Information System, data protection, police cooperation, judicial cooperation, as well as the absence of border control at internal borders. All evaluations shall comprise an assessment of compliance with fundamental rights in the context of the aspects covered.
Amendment 146 #
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, or visits at short- notice, and questionnaires or other remote methods where physical visits are not feasible or are unnecessary.
Amendment 152 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. By 31 August each year, Frontex shall submit to the Commission and, the Member States, and the European Parliament a risk analysis in view to the annual evaluation programme referred to in Article 13 of this Regulation.
Amendment 153 #
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 toaspects of European integrated border management, as laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, and include a fundamental rights component, and it shall also contain recommendations for 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 157 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 a (new)
Article 9 a (new)
Article 9 a Cooperation with the Fundamental Rights Agency In accordance with Article 4(1)(a) and (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 168/2007, the Fundamental Rights Agency shall submit, by 31 August each year, conclusions on its overall fundamental rights assessment in relation to the implementation of the Schengen acquis with a view to providing to the Commission when drawing up the annual evaluation programme referred to in Article 13.
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall use the results of relevant 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, in determining the need for unannounced evaluation or evaluations at short-notice, to improve awareness on the functioning of the Schengen area and to avoid the duplication of efforts and conflicting measures.
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
In the programming and implementation of the evaluations and monitoring activities, in particular in determining the need for unannounced evaluations in accordance with Article 4(2) and Article 4(2a), the Commission shall take into account information provided by third parties, including independent authorities, non- governmental organisations and international organisations.
Amendment 177 #
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 area, in accordance with Article 4(2b), those aspects of the Schengen Acquis to be covered by the periodic evaluations and shall include a provisional time-schedule of those evaluations.
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall make the replies available to the other Member States and to the European Parliament.
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Member States and the Commission, in cooperation with relevant Union bodies, offices or agencies, shall ensure that Member State experts and Commission representatives receive adequate training to become Schengen evaluators. Completion of this training shall be mandatory for all experts participating in a team carrying out an evaluation in accordance with Article 18.
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall establish every year a pool of experts whose professional background cover those aspecific priority areas set out ints of the Schengen acquis to be covered in accordance with the multiannual evaluation programme.
Amendment 192 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. In parallel to the establishment of the annual evaluation programme in accordance with Article 13(1), on the invitation of the Commission, Member States shall designate at least one qualified expert per each specific area determinedspect of the Schengen acquis to be evaluated as laid down in the multiannual evaluation programme for next year’s pool of experts.
Amendment 193 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 11
Article 17 – paragraph 11
11. The Commission shall keep the list of experts of the pool up to date and inform Member States and the European Parliament about the number of experts and their profiles designated per Member State.
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall define the number of Member State experts and Commission representatives participating in a team based on the particularities and needs of the evaluation or monitoring activity. The Commission shall select experts from the pool of experts to become members of a team. All members of athe team, with the exception of observers or Union observers, shall have undergone the training in accordance with Article 16(1).
Amendment 196 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. In selecting experts, the Commission shall have regard to the profiles needed for a particular evaluation or monitoring activity taking account of the need to ensure geographical balance, gender balance, balance as regards professional experience and the capacity of national administrations.
Amendment 197 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member State experts shall not participate in a team carrying out an evaluation or monitoring activity of the Member State where they are employed. Moreover, where the activities of an Union body, office or agency present in the Member State are being evaluated as part of that Member State's evaluation, no expert or observer from that Union body, office or agency shall participate in the evaluation.
Amendment 198 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 4
Article 18 – paragraph 4
4. In the case of unannounced visits, or visits at short-notice, the Commission shall send the invitations no later than two weeks before the visit is scheduled to commence. Experts shall respond within 72 hours of receiving the invitation, in agreement with their designating authorities.
Amendment 202 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. In the case of revisits, the Commission shall invite a representative of the European Parliament to participate as a Union observer.
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall designate a Commission lead expert and propose the Member State lead expert. The Member State lead expert shall be appointed by the members of the team as soon as possible after the team has been set up. The Commission shall also designate an expert responsible for the fundamental rights elements of the visit or evaluation.
Amendment 211 #
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 221 #
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. Remote methods shall be used only where physical visits are not feasible or unnecessary.
Amendment 258 #
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 266 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 10
Article 23 – paragraph 10
10. If the serious deficiency is deemed to constitute a serious threat to public policy or internal security within the area without internal border controls, or a serious and systematic fundamental rights violation, the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of the European Parliament or of a Member State, shall immediately inform thereof the European Parliament and the Council thereof including information on infringement proceedings that are underway or will be brought against the evaluated Member State .
Amendment 275 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. The classification status of the reports shall be determined in accordance with Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444. TheyIn exceptional cases, parts of the reports may also be classified as ‘EU RESTRICTED/RESTREINT UE’ on a duly justified request of the evaluated Member State.
Amendment 277 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1
Article 30 – paragraph 1
The Commission shall undertake a review of the application of this Regulation and submit a report to the Council within six months of the adoption of all evaluation reports regarding the evaluations covered by the first multiannual evaluation programme adopted in accordance with this Regulation. Such review shall cover all the elements of this Regulation, including the functioning of the procedures for adopting acts under the evaluation mechanism. The Commission shall submit that report to the European Parliament without delay.