32 Amendments of Tanja FAJON related to 2020/2196(INI)
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas the Schengen area is a unique arrangement and one of the greatest achievements of the European Union, allowing free movement of people within the Schengen area without controls at internal borders for over 25 years; whereas this has been made possible through a variety of compensating measures, such as reinforcing the exchange of information through the establishment of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and creating an evaluation mechanism to verify the implementation of the Schengen acquis by Member States and foster mutual trust in the functioning of the Schengen area; whereas mutual trust also demands solidarity, security, judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters, joint protection of EU external borders, a common understanding and common policies on visas and data protection;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the abolition of internal border controls is one essential, practical element of what citizens’ identify with the European idea and is crucial for the functioning of the internal market; whereas the Schengen area is under threat not least given the ever-increasing use of internal border controls by Member States, in particular in recent years;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C (new)
Recital C (new)
C. whereas as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, most Member States have reintroduced internal border controls or have closed such borders, either partially or totally, or have closed them to certain types of travellers, including EU citizens and their family members and third-country nationals residing on their territory or that of another Member State;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D (new)
Recital D (new)
D. whereas, especially at the beginning of the pandemic, the absence of any effective coordination on the reintroduction and lifting of internal border controls among Member States and with the Commission challenged the very concept of Schengen cooperation;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E (new)
Recital E (new)
E. whereas, since 2015 internal border controls have been reintroduced by Member States a total of 205 times, whereas this represents a significant increase compared with the period between 2006 and 2014 when internal border checks were reintroduced merely 35 times;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F (new)
Recital F (new)
F. whereas the European Parliament has repeatedly expressed concerns about the legality and proportionality of many of those internal border controls;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G (new)
Recital G (new)
G. whereas mutual trust and close cooperation among Member States are key elements of the foundation on which the Schengen area is build;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H (new)
Recital H (new)
H. whereas important EU legislative instruments have been adopted in recent years with the objective of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of border checks at external borders, and contributing to a high level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice; whereas these instruments include a new architecture for EU information systems and their interoperability;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I (new)
Recital I (new)
I. whereas serious deficiencies were identified in the 2017 Schengen evaluation of the United Kingdom on the application of the Schengen acquis in the field of the Schengen Information System;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J (new)
Recital J (new)
J. whereas the first evaluation cycle of the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism has shown the need for further implementation of recommendations stemming from the evaluations and appropriate reform in particular as regards how the mechanism assesses compliance with fundamental rights;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K (new)
Recital K (new)
K. whereas Frontex’s annual vulnerability assessments examine Member States capabilities to face threats and challenges at the external borders and recommend specific remedial action to mitigate vulnerabilities and therefore complement the evaluations under the Schengen evaluation mechanism;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L (new)
Recital L (new)
L. whereas the full application of the Schengen acquis with respect to the abolition of internal border controls as regards Bulgaria and Romania has not yet been realised, despite the fact that Parliament already called for this to happen back in its resolution of 8 June 2011;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M (new)
Recital M (new)
M. whereas the European Commission stated in its Communication of 22 October 20191a that Croatia has taken the measures needed to ensure that the necessary conditions for the full application of the Schengen rules and standards are met; __________________ 1a COM(2019) 497 final
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N (new)
Recital N (new)
N. whereas allegations of violence against migrants, including those seeking international protection, and push backs at several EU external borders continue to be reported; whereas the Union does not yet have an effective monitoring mechanism for its external borders;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Deplores the fact that internal border controls are continuing to be introduced by some Member States as a unilateral response to new challenges, before they have given proper consideration to the common European interest in maintaining Schengen as an area without internal border controls, which has a negative effect on the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour in the Union; underlines in this context the particularly difficult situation of cross- border workers ; reiterates its call on the Commission to exercise appropriate scrutiny over the application of the Schengen acquis, including through the use of infringement procedures, and underlines the urgent need to enhance mutual trust and cooperation among the Schengen states and appropriate governance for the Schengen area;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers regular political and public debate about the functioning of the Schengen area of critical importance;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Welcomes the fact that a number of actions requested in the previous annual report1a have in the meantime been implemented (revision of the legislative framework of the Schengen Information System and reform of Eurosur); notes, however, that most recommendations formulated continue to remain valid; OJ C 76,9.3.2020, p. 106. __________________ 1a OJ C 76, 9.3.2020, p. 106.
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Expresses its deep concern about the repeated allegations concerning Frontex’s possible involvement in pushbacks and considers that internal reporting mechanisms, as well as parliamentary and public scrutiny over Frontex’s activities, must be reinforced; calls on the Agency to establish a proper procedure for the implementation of Article 46 of the EBCG Regulation and to publish that procedure; calls on Frontex to urgently adopt an updated Fundamental Rights Strategy given that the current strategy dates from 2011 and does not take account of the updated mandate of the Agency;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Expresses its dismay that the Commission continues to neglect its reporting obligation towards Parliament and there by hampers scrutiny and constructive political debate by not presenting the yearly report on the functioning of the area without internal border control (Article33 of the Schengen Borders Code (SBC)) and the yearly comprehensive report in accordance with Article 20 of the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism (SEMM); was disappointed that the report on the review of the operation of the SEMM was presented with undue delay;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Notes with concern that no progress has so far been made during this legislative term on the revision of the SBC (2017/0245(COD)) for which interinstitutional negotiations remain blocked by the Council;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Calls on Frontex to significantly enhance the information available about its operational activities at sea and to make accurate and comprehensive information publicly available as regards its activities at sea, while acknowledging its legal obligation not to reveal operational information which ‘would jeopardise attainment of the objective of operations; calls on Frontex to fulfil its specific reporting duties under the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation, including to regularly brief the Members of the Parliament to which it is accountable with detailed information, where necessary in a non-public setting; calls on Frontex to publish information on its cooperation with the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre in Tripoli and the Libyan coast guard; believes that a more proactive information policy about its sea operations is required to allow for public scrutiny and thereby protection of the Agency from unfounded accusations; deplores, in particular, that the report that Frontex is required to produce under Regulation (EU) No 656/2014 ‘on the practical application of this Regulation’ provides hardly any tangible information which would enable a proper assessment of the Agency’s activities at sea;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Executive Director, in the light of the substantive nature of the allegations made, of the internal investigation initiated by the Agency’s Management Board, of the investigations launched by both the European Ombudsman and OLAF, and of the failure of the Executive Director to provide a satisfactory explanation concerning the events in question and the role of the Agency, to consider his position with immediate effect.
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Expresses its deep concern about the high number of deaths in the Mediterranean; calls on Member States and Frontex to step up their efforts in support of search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Expresses its view that the SEMM has brought significant improvements to governance of the Schengen area and has contributed to ensure its functioning by enhancing mutual trust and collective responsibility; emphasises, however, the sui generis nature of the evaluation mechanism in EU law and recalls that the Commission remains ultimately responsible for ensuring the application of the Treaties and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them, if necessary by means of infringement procedures;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to review the SEMM; recalls the discussions on its legal basis during the negotiations on the Schengen Governance Package in 2012 and insists on being involved in the reform of the mechanism on an equal footing with the Council, either through the use of the ordinary legislative procedure, or using the same method as for the adoption of Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 establishing the SEMM; recalls that this method consisted in a formal consultation of the European Parliament by the Council under its rules of procedure, a negotiation of the mechanism in a defacto co-decision procedure and a confirmation of the agreement reached by a letter of Council which was referred to in the legislative resolution of Parliament; considers that shortening the deadlines, evaluating respect for fundamental rights, bolstering the possibility to conduct genuinely unannounced visits and improving transparency must be key elements of any future reform;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the Council to hold regular discussions at ministerial level and with that assuming its political role the Schengen evaluation process has given to it and in that regard recalls the Council’s own conclusions of 8 March 2012, in which it called on the Mixed Committee to improve the governance of the Schengen area through political discussions at ministerial level on the correct functioning of the Schengen area, including discussions in situations where evaluation reports have shown serious shortcomings;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Expresses its objection to the failure of the Commission to present the annual report provided for in Article 20 of the Council Regulation(EU) No 1053/2013, despite numerous calls from the Parliament and the Council to do so; believes that the Commission thereby effectively prevented any public debate on the evaluations as had been the intention of the legislator, given that the actual evaluation reports all remained classified; recalls in this regard the obligation laid down in Article 17 for the Commission to “decide which part of the evaluation report can be made public”;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Considers that the future Schengen evaluation mechanism must contain an evaluation of the operational activities of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, given its increasing role in external border management and return operations;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 d (new)
Paragraph 9 d (new)
9d. Recalls that fundamental rights safeguards, including the prohibition of refoulement, the right for respect of human dignity, the principle of non- discrimination, the right to seek international protection and the protection of personal data are part of the Schengen acquis applicable at external borders and should therefore be evaluated in Schengen evaluations; recalls that fundamental rights constitute an overarching component in the implementation of integrated border management; considers that the future mechanism should provide for experts of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to be formal members of the team responsible for on- site visits for any evaluation of external border management and return;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 e (new)
Paragraph 9 e (new)
9e. Considers that when serious deficiencies are discovered, they require a much faster follow-up aimed at remedying those serious deficiencies without delay; believes that a definition of “serious deficiency” and an accelerated procedure in case of such deficiencies should be included in the revised mechanism; considers that the current non-binding best practices catalogues should get a formal status under EU law in the form of handbooks to enhance transparency and to allow for the evaluations to be benchmarked against objective criteria;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 f (new)
Paragraph 9 f (new)
9f. Considers that the Commission should provide an IT tool for the management of the Schengen evaluation documents; considers that this tool should consist of a publicly available scoreboard on its website which indicates progress of evaluation processes per Member State and subject area, which allows to identify the documents produced and which should provide for a secured and encrypted access to the classified information for the actors with access rights;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that the Schengen Borders Code, in particular as regards rules on internal border controls, is no longer fit for purpose and requires an urgent and meaningful reform in order to strengthen mutual trust and solidarity, and to safeguard the integrity and full restoration of the Schengen area; stresses that the reintroduction of internal border controls should only ever be a measure of last resort, for a limited period of time, and to the extent that the controls are necessary and proportionate to the identified serious threat, while maintaining a distinction between different legal bases and considering effects it might have on the border regions inside the Union; considers that on each occasion that border controls are prolonged by a Member State, additional safeguards should apply and that, in all circumstances, such measures should be withdrawn as soon as the underlying grounds for them cease to exist;