Parltrack

La Commission a présenté une proposition modifiée de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil portant création d'un mécanisme d'évaluation et de suivi destiné à contrôler l'application de l'acquis de Schengen.

CONTEXTE : la libre circulation des citoyens au sein de l'espace sans contrôles aux frontières intérieures repose sur un système fondé sur une confiance commune dans le fait que chaque État participant aura la volonté et la capacité de mettre en œuvre les divers instruments législatifs qui constituent l'acquis de Schengen. L'Union européenne a déjà mis en place des outils pour aider les États membres à respecter leurs obligations et à faire face à des situations critiques susceptibles de mettre l'espace Schengen en péril. Ces outils ne sont cependant pas suffisants, intrinsèquement, pour garantir que les règles de Schengen soient appliquées de manière cohérente par chaque État membre. Actuellement, c'est le mécanisme d'évaluation de Schengen qui permet d'y veiller: il est utilisé pour assurer le suivi de l'application de l'acquis de Schengen et pour publier des recommandations sur toute insuffisance constatée.

Le mécanisme en vigueur, qui repose sur un système intergouvernemental d'évaluation par les pairs, n'est cependant pas assez robuste pour remédier efficacement à toutes les faiblesses. C'est la raison pour laquelle la Commission a proposé l'an dernier de recourir à une approche dirigée par l'Union. Cette nouvelle approche offre la possibilité d'effectuer, dans un État membre donné, des inspections annoncées ou inopinées réalisées par des équipes placées sous la responsabilité de la Commission et comprenant des experts d'autres États membres et de FRONTEX, en vue de vérifier l'application de l'acquis de Schengen. Après chaque inspection, les lacunes éventuelles sont consignées dans un rapport comportant des recommandations univoques quant aux mesures correctives à prendre et aux délais dans lesquels celles-ci doivent être mises en œuvre. L'État membre ayant fait l'objet de l'évaluation est alors tenu d'établir un plan d'action exposant comment il entend donner suite auxdites recommandations.

Ce mécanisme amélioré renforcera le système d'évaluation et de suivi, mais ne permettra pas de prendre en compte les situations dans lesquelles les mesures prises s'avèrent insuffisantes pour remédier aux carences dont fait preuve un État membre dans la mise en œuvre de l'acquis, notamment en ce qui concerne le contrôle de ses frontières extérieures.

Aussi, quand des mesures prises au niveau de l'Union ou au niveau national n'apportent pas d'amélioration, il pourrait s'avérer nécessaire de réintroduire le contrôle aux frontières intérieures avec l'État membre qui se met en défaut, lorsque la situation est telle qu'elle constitue une menace grave pour l'ordre public ou la sécurité intérieure de l'Union ou d'un État membre. Une telle mesure ne serait prise qu'en dernier recours, et n'aurait que l'ampleur et la durée requises pour atténuer raisonnablement les conséquences négatives des circonstances exceptionnelles.

Prévoir une telle possibilité dans le système de gouvernance de Schengen constituerait également une mesure préventive ayant un effet dissuasif. C'est pourquoi, la Commission modifie sa proposition de 2010 en vue de remédier à cette situation.

Changements législatifs : afin d'élaborer le cadre juridique nécessaire pour répondre à l'appel du Conseil européen des 23 et 24 juin 2011 en faveur d'un renforcement du mécanisme d'évaluation de Schengen et de l'instauration d'une clause de sauvegarde pour faire face aux situations réellement critiques dans lesquelles un États membre n'est plus en mesure de remplir les obligations qui lui incombent en vertu des règles de Schengen, la Commission modifie sa proposition en :

• prévoyant un appui supplémentaire au niveau de l'Union et des États membres,
• renforçant le soutien apporté par FRONTEX,
• introduisant la possibilité d'établir un mécanisme de l'Union permettant le rétablissement d'un contrôle aux frontières intérieures lorsqu'un État membre persiste à manquer à son obligation de contrôler sa section de la frontière extérieure, et dans la mesure où les circonstances seraient de nature à constituer une menace grave pour l'ordre public et la sécurité intérieure au niveau de l'Union ou au niveau national.

Remplacement de la proposition de novembre 2010 : la présente proposition remplace intégralement la proposition de 2010, les législateurs n'ayant pas encore adopté la proposition initiale (le Parlement européen n'a pas encore arrêté sa position sur la proposition en première lecture conformément à l'article 294, paragraphe 3, du TFUE).

Les modifications sont insérées dans le texte initial qui demeure inchangé, hormis certains changements portant sur :

• l'appui à apporter à un État membre,
• l'éventuel rétablissement d'un contrôle aux frontières intérieures (articles 14 et 15, et mention d'un «suivi» dans l'ensemble du texte),
• certaines adaptations relatives aux compétences d'exécution de la Commission (articles 5, 8, 13 et 17). Ces adaptations sont nécessaires parce que les règles horizontales applicables en matière de comitologie ont été modifiées, après la présentation de la proposition initiale, par le règlement (UE) n° 182/2011 du Parlement européen et du Conseil,
• d'autres adaptations qui concernent notamment le rôle de FRONTEX (article 6), d'EUROPOL (article 8) et l'information du Parlement européen et du Conseil (article 19).

BASE JURIDIQUE : article 77, par. 2, point e) du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne (TFUE). L'article 77 prévoit l'abolition de tout contrôle aux frontières intérieures en tant qu'objectif ultime de la création d'un espace de libre circulation des personnes au sein de l'Union européenne, tel que prévu à l'article 26 du TFUE.

CONTENU : l'abolition du contrôle aux frontières intérieures doit aller de pair avec des mesures dans le domaine des frontières extérieures, de la politique des visas, du système d'information Schengen, de la protection des données, de la coopération policière et de la coopération judiciaire en matière pénale. La bonne application de ces mesures permet de maintenir un espace sans contrôle aux frontières intérieures. L'évaluation et le suivi de cette application servent dès lors l'objectif final consistant à maintenir l'absence de contrôle aux frontières intérieures de cet espace.

Les mesures visant à atténuer l'effet néfaste de manquements persistants graves dans l'application par un État membre de l'acquis de Schengen, y compris la possibilité de recourir au rétablissement temporaire, à titre exceptionnel, d'un contrôle aux frontières intérieures en tant que mesure de dernier recours lorsque ces manquements sont tels qu'ils constituent une menace grave pour l'ordre public ou la sécurité intérieure au niveau de l'Union ou au niveau national, contribuent également à la réalisation de cet objectif ultime.

Sur un plan technique, les principales nouvelles dispositions portent sur :

• les mesures aux frontières extérieures et l'appui de FRONTEX : lorsque le rapport d'évaluation fait état de manquements graves dans l'exécution du contrôle aux frontières extérieures ou des procédures de retour, la Commission pourra décider de demander à l'État membre évalué de prendre certaines mesures spécifiques, qui peuvent consister dans un ou plusieurs des éléments suivants: i) lancement du déploiement d'équipes européennes de gardes frontières, conformément aux dispositions du règlement relatif à FRONTEX; ii) présentation, pour approbation par FRONTEX, de ses décisions stratégiques en matière d'évaluation des risques et de ses plans pour le déploiement d'équipements; iii) fermeture d'un point de passage frontalier spécifique, pour une durée limitée, jusqu'à ce qu'il ait été remédié aux insuffisances ;
• les manquements graves liés au contrôle aux frontières extérieures ou aux procédures de retour : si le rapport d'évaluation prévu au mécanisme conclut que l'État membre évalué manque gravement à son obligation de procéder au contrôle aux frontières extérieures ou aux procédures de retour, cet État devra rendre compte de la mise en œuvre du plan d'action dans un délai de 3 mois à compter de la réception du rapport d'évaluation. Au terme de ce délai, et si la Commission constate que le manquement persiste, les articles 23, 23bis et 26 du code frontières Schengen devront s'appliquer.

INCIDENCE BUDGÉTAIRE : la proposition portant création d'un mécanisme d'évaluation de Schengen présentée en novembre 2010 contient toutes les informations requises concernant les incidences budgétaires, qui demeurent inchangées (se reporter au résumé du 16/11/2010).

Le comité a procédé à un premier échange de vues sur le paquet "gouvernance de Schengen". Les instances préparatoires du Conseil ont été invitées à entamer les travaux techniques sur les différentes propositions dans les meilleurs délais.

Le paquet, tel qu'il a été présenté par la Commission, comporte deux propositions législatives, à savoir:

• une proposition modifiée de règlement relatif à la révision du mécanisme d'évaluation de Schengen;
• une modification du code frontières Schengen en ce qui concerne les règles relatives à la réintroduction temporaire des contrôles aux frontières intérieures dans des circonstances exceptionnelles.

Le Conseil a adopté des conclusions concernant l'établissement de lignes directrices en vue du renforcement de la gouvernance politique dans le cadre de la coopération Schengen.

Ces conclusions font suite à un débat qui a eu lieu au sein du Conseil JAI en décembre 2011, au cours duquel les délégations se sont exprimées en faveur d'un pilotage politique renforcé des développements dans l'espace Schengen.

Ces conclusions peuvent se résumer comme suit :

• les rapports d'évaluation ont montré de graves lacunes dans la mise en œuvre de la gouvernance de la coopération Schengen ;
• il convient de mettre en œuvre les plans d'action visant à lutter contre ces lacunes en mettant en place une politique et une stratégie qui seraient débattues une fois par présidence, en se fondant sur les analyses de la Commission ;
• la Commission présentera des rapports réguliers au Parlement européen et au Conseil sur le fonctionnement de la coopération Schengen et sur l’application de l'acquis de Schengen au moins une fois par an ; le 1^er de ces rapports de la Commission devrait - avec des suggestions précises des États membres ou des agences communautaires concernées - constituer la base de discussion politique et stratégique dans le la cadre du Comité mixte au niveau ministériel (prévu pour juin 2012) ; dans ces rapports, la Commission sera invitée, le cas échéant, à traiter de la façon dont on pourrait remédier aux lacunes constatées dans l’Espace Schengen, en donnant des solutions au niveau pratique et opérationnel ou en présentant de nouvelles initiatives, y compris des propositions législatives visant à régler les problèmes en cours.

Le Conseil se félicite de l'intention de la Commission de présenter le 1^er rapport en mai 2012. Les rapports devraient être brefs, concis et donner un aperçu des principales tendances et des développements récents en matière de coopération Schengen, y compris sur l'analyse des causes. De plus, les lacunes identifiées et/ou les menaces qui pourraient affecter le fonctionnement de l’Espace Schengen à court terme devraient figurer à l'ordre du jour du Conseil afin d’envisager des actions de prévention.

L'analyse devrait mettre en évidence les questions que la Commission juge les plus pertinentes pour la discussion politique et stratégique, tels que:

• la mise en œuvre de l'acquis de Schengen et des lignes directrices stratégiques clés établies par le Conseil européen ou le Conseil ainsi que les plans d'action incluant les 29 mesures destinées à renforcer la protection des frontières extérieures et la lutte contre l'immigration clandestine ainsi que la lutte contre la criminalité grave et organisée;
• les conclusions possibles à tirer du fonctionnement et les développements les plus pertinents en matière informatique à venir dans le domaine de la protection des frontières;
• les résultats des rapports d'évaluation et les recommandations clés adoptés dans le contexte du mécanisme d'évaluation Schengen sur certaines questions telles que les contrôles aux frontières extérieures, le traitement des visas dans les postes consulaires, la protection des données et le nécessaire fonctionnement des institutions induits par l'application de l'acquis Schengen, notamment lorsque les rapports soulignent de graves lacunes;
• l’application de l'acquis Schengen aux frontières intérieures, en particulier dans les situations de la réintroduction provisoire des contrôles aux frontières intérieures;
• les défis liés aux flux migratoires et à la gestion des frontières extérieures exposées à une pression migratoire importante;
• les défis liés à la coopération Schengen dans le cadre de la coopération avec les pays tiers d'origine et de transit;
• les problèmes liés à l’application des régimes de libéralisation des visas.

Le Conseil invite le Parlement européen à faire pleinement usage des rapports de la Commission comme il le juge approprié, en tenant compte de la sensibilité de l'information contenue dans ces documents.

The Commission presented an amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis.

BACKGROUND: the free movement of citizens within the area without internal border controls is based on a system which relies on mutual trust that each participating State will be ready and able to implement the various legislative instruments comprising the Schengen acquis.

The European Union has already put in place tools to support Member States to help them meet their obligations and to react to critical circumstances which might put Schengen at risk These tools can not, however, of themselves alone ensure that the Schengen rules are applied in a consistent manner by each Member State. The means to check this is the Schengen evaluation mechanism, used to monitor the application of the Schengen acquis and issue recommendations on any shortcomings. The current mechanism, relying on an intergovernmental system of peer review, is not strong enough to effectively remedy all weaknesses.

That is why the Commission proposed a Union-led approach last year. This new approach offers the possibility for announced or unannounced visits to a given Member State by Commission-led teams to take place, with experts from other Member States and Frontex, to verify the application of the Schengen acquis. A report drawn up following each visit would identify any shortcomings with clear recommendations for remedial action and deadlines for implementing them. The evaluated Member State would then have to establish an action plan setting out how it intends to address these recommendations. Union-level checks on the action plan's implementation could include further visits.

These changes will improve the evaluation and monitoring system but they do not address situations where these steps are insufficient to remedy a Member State's deficiencies in implementing the acquis and, in particular, in controlling its external borders.

Therefore, where measures taken at the Union or national level do not improve the situation, it might be necessary to reintroduce border control at internal borders with the failing Member State, where the situation is such as to constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal security at the Union or national level. Such an action would only be taken as a measure of last resort, and only to the extent and for the duration necessary to mitigate in a proportionate manner the adverse consequences of the exceptional circumstances.

The inclusion of such an possibility in the Schengen governance system would also serve as a preventive measure, with deterrent effect.For that reason, the Commission is amending its 2010 proposal to address this situation.

Legislative changes: in order to provide for the necessary legal framework to respond to the invitation of the European Council of 23-24 June 2011 to further strengthen the Schengen evaluation system and to introduce a safeguard clause to respond to truly critical situations where a Member State is no longer able to comply with its obligations under the Schengen rules, the Commission hereby amends its proposal by:

• providing for additional support at the Union and national level,
• strengthening the support given by Frontex,
• introducing the possibility of a Union-based mechanism for the reintroduction of border control at internal borders where a Member State is persistently neglecting its obligation to control its section of the external border, and insofar as the circumstances would be such as to constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal security at the Union or national level.

Replacing the November 2010 proposal: the new proposal replaces the November 2010 proposal. As the initial proposal has not yet been adopted by the legislators (the European Parliament has not yet adopted a first reading position in accordance with Article 294(3) TFEU on the proposal), the amendment is included in the overall text of that initial proposal, which remains unchanged except for the changes concerning:

• the support to be given to a Member State;
• the possible reintroduction of border control at internal borders (Articles 14 and 15 as well as a reference to "monitoring" throughout the text);
• certain adaptation on the implementing powers given to the Commission (Article 5, 8, 13 and 17). These adaptations are necessary as the relevant horizontal rules on 'comitology' have been modified after the presentation of the initial proposal by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
• some further adaptations are made to the text, including those relating to the role of Frontex (Article 6), Europol (Article 8) and reporting to the European Parliament and Council (Article 19).

LEGAL BASIS: Article 77 (2) (e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 77 provides for the abolition of border control at internal borders as the ultimate objective of an area of free movement of persons within the European Union, as laid down in Article 26 of the TFEU.

CONTENT: the abolition of border control at internal borders must be accompanied by measures in the field of external borders, visa policy, the Schengen Information System, data protection, police cooperation, and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Correct application of these measures makes it possible to maintain an area without border control at internal borders.

Evaluation and monitoring of the correct application of these measures therefore serves the ultimate policy objective of maintaining the area free of border control at internal borders. Measures aimed at mitigating the adverse impact of persistent serious deficiencies in a Member State's application of the Schengen acquis, including the possibility of resorting to the exceptional temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders as a measure of last resort in circumstances where the deficiencies would be such as to constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal security at the Union or national level, likewise serve to further the attainment of this ultimate objective.

From a technical point of view, the main provisions concern:

• Measures at the external borders and Frontex support: where serious deficiencies in the carrying out of external border control or return procedures are identified in the evaluation report, the Commission may decide to request the evaluated Member State to take certain specific measures, which may include one or more of the following: (i) initiation of the deployment of European Border Guard teams in accordance with the provisions of the Frontex Regulation; (ii) submission of its strategic decisions on risk assessment and plans for the deployment of equipment for approval to Frontex; (iii) closing of a specific border crossing point for a limited period of time until the weaknesses are remedied.
• Serious deficiencies related to external border control or return procedures: if the evaluation report concludes that the evaluated Member State is seriously neglecting its obligation to carry out external border control or return procedures, the evaluated Member State shall report on the implementation of the action plan within three months of receipt of the evaluation report. If, following the three months period, the Commission finds that the situation persists, Articles 23, 23a and 26 of the Schengen Borders Code apply.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: The proposal for the establishment of a Schengen evaluation mechanism presented in November 2010 contains all necessary information on the budgetary implications, which remain unchanged (please refer to 16/11/2010).

The committee had a first exchange of views on the Schengen governance package. The Council preparatory bodies were instructed to start the technical work on the different proposals as soon as possible.

The package as presented by the Commission consists of a communication concerning Schengen governance as well as the two legislative proposals accompanying it, which are:

1. an amended proposal for a regulation on a revised Schengen evaluation mechanism;
2. an amendment to the Schengen Borders Code as regards the rules for the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders in exceptional circumstances.

The Council adopted conclusions regarding guidelines for the strengthening of political governance in the Schengen cooperation.

These conclusions follow up a discussion at the JHA Council in December 2011 in which support for strengthening the political guidance on developments in the Schengen area was expressed.

The conclusions may be summarised as follows:

• the evaluation reports have shown serious shortcomings, including special measures to be implemented, without prejudice to the applicable procedures for EU agencies and the competencies of each Member State;
• the fulfilment of agreed action plans aimed at tackling shortcomings and their implementation should also be discussed. Such political and strategic discussions should take place once during each Presidency and, where appropriate, be based on the reports from the Commission;
• the Council welcomes the Commission's intention to present regular reports to the European Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the Schengen cooperation and the
• application of the Schengen acquis at least once every year. The first report should – together with specific suggestions from Member States or relevant EU agencies – form the basis for a political and strategic discussion in the Mixed Committee at Ministerial level in June 2012;
• the Commission is also invited, where relevant, to address in its reports how Schengen related shortcomings could be remedied, and, where appropriate, to give an indication of possible solutions at the practical and operational level or submit new initiatives, including legislative proposals to address these shortcomings.

The Council welcomes the intention of the Commission to present the first report in May 2012. The reports should be brief, concise and provide an overview of the main trends and recent developments regarding Schengen cooperation, including analysis of causes. In addition, identified weaknesses and/or threats that could affect the functioning of the Schengen area in the short term should be presented in order for the Council to consider preventive actions.

The overview should highlight matters which the Commission considers most relevant for the political and strategic discussion, such as:

• implementation of the relevant Schengen acquis and of key policy guidelines set out by the European Council or the Council as well as action plans adopted by the Council such as the Schengen related aspects of the 29 measures for reinforcing the protection of the external borders and combating illegal immigration, and Schengen cooperation in the fight against serious and organised crime;
• possible conclusions to be drawn from the functioning and the development of relevant ongoing and future IT projects and tools;
• selected findings from evaluation reports and key recommendations adopted in the context of the Schengen evaluation mechanism on selected issues such as controls at the external  borders, visa processing at consular posts, data protection and the required functioning of the institutions involved in the application of the Schengen acquis, in particular when the reports point at serious shortcomings;
• application of the Schengen acquis at internal borders, especially in cases of temporary introduction of controls at internal borders;
• challenges linked to current and possible foreseen migration flows and external borders particular prone to pressure from illegal migration flows as well as proposals for possible ways for their prevention and deterrence;
• challenges in the Schengen relevant cooperation with key countries of origin and transit;
• any planned and existing visa facilitation and liberalisation and their consequences.

The Council invites the European Parliament also to make full use of the Commission reports as it deems appropriate, taking into consideration the sensitivity of the information  contained in the reports.

The Council reached a general approach on amendments to the the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism, the common rules to verify the application of the Schengen acquis. The Council also decided to change the legal basis from Article 77 to Article 70 TFEU.

The Council also adopted a general approach on amendments to the Schengen Borders Code, the common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances.

More specifically, as regards the revision of the Schengen evaluation mechanism : throughout the discussions of the Schengen Evaluation proposal the question of legal basis has been a key question. A vast majority of the Member States, as well as the Council Legal Service, consider that the correct legal basis for such a mechanism is Article 70 TFEU, which was specifically inserted in the Treaty for this very purpose.

The Council unanimously decided to change the legal basis of the proposal from Article 77(2)(e) to Article 70 TFEU. The Council also decided to consult the European Parliament on a voluntary basis to ensure that the opinion of the Parliament will, to the fullest extent possible, be taken into consideration by the Council in all its aspects before the adoption by the Council of the final text.

This Article enables the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, to adopt by qualified majority arrangements on mutual evaluations. Furthermore, Article 70 provides that mutual evaluations are to be conducted by the "Member States, in collaboration with the Commission" and for the European Parliament and the national parliaments to be "informed of the content and results of the evaluation".

Concerning the substance of the text on the table (see 5754/6/12), the following main provisions should be mentioned:

Purpose and scope: as under the current system, the rules do not only apply to verifying the correct application of the Schengen acquis by those countries which are already part of the Schengen area, but also to verifying that countries wishing to join the Schengen area meet all the conditions to start applying the Schengen acquis.

Responsibilities: in contrast to the current system, which relies on an inter-governmental system of peer review where the Commission participates only as an observer, as well as in contrast to the original Commission proposal of a Union-led approach with on-site visits carried out by Commission-led teams, the compromise text states that the member states and the Commission shall be jointly responsible for the implementation of the evaluation and monitoring mechanism. Each evaluation team will have two leading experts, one from a member state and one from the Commission.

Evaluations: the evaluations cover all aspects of the Schengen acquis, including the absence of border controls at internal borders, which is currently not covered. The new text also adds that account should be taken of the functioning of the authorities which apply the relevant parts of the Schengen acquis.

Multiannual and annual programmes: the Commission will be responsible for establishing multiannual and annual evaluation programmes which will include announced and unannounced on-site visits. The annual evaluation programmes will take into account recommendations made in an annual risk analysis drafted by the European border management agency (Frontex). Announced on-site visits to a member state will be preceded by a questionnaire.

Evaluation reports: evaluation teams will seek a compromise on the final reports which will, as is currently the case, include deficiencies and recommendations for remedial action. The Council will adopt the evaluation reports as submitted by the Commission.

Follow-up: the member state concerned will be required to submit an action plan to remedy any deficiencies. The Commission will continuously monitor and report on the action plan to the Council until the action plan is fully implemented. Such monitoring and reporting may include announced or unannounced follow-up visits.

Serious deficiencies: if an on-site visit reveals a serious deficiency deemed to constitute a serious threat to public policy or internal security within the area without internal border controls, the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of a member state, shall inform the Council and the European Parliament as soon as possible.

Yearly summary report: the Commission will present a yearly summary report to the Council and the European Parliament on the evaluations carried out.

PURPOSE: to establish an evaluation mechanism to verify application of the Schengen acquis.

PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. 

BACKGROUND: the Schengen area was developed within an intergovernmental framework in the late '80s and early '90s by Member States willing to abolish internal border controls. It is based on mutual trust between the Member States in their capacity fully to implement the accompanying measures allowing the lifting of internal border controls.

In order to gain and maintain this mutual trust, the Schengen Member States set up a Standing Committee in 1998. Its mandate consists of two separate tasks: (i) verification whether all preconditions for application of the Schengen acquis have been met by Member States wanting to join Schengen; (ii) verification that the Schengen acquis is being correctly applied by the Member States implementing the acquis.

Due to legal reasons related to the integration of the Schengen acquis in the framework of the European Union, it is necessary to revise the evaluation mechanism set up in 1998 as regards the second part of the mandate given to the Standing Committee (the first part of the mandate given to the Standing Committee should continue to apply).

Moreover, the proposal responds to the need to overcome a number of weaknesses identified by the Member States and the Commission with regard to the current evaluation framework, notably the fact that:

• the current methodology for the evaluation mechanism is inadequate as the rules on consistency and frequency of evaluations are not clear;
• there is no practice of conducting unannounced on-site visits;
• there is a need to develop a methodology for priority-setting based on risk analysis;
• a consistently high quality of expertise during the evaluation exercise needs to be ensured (experts participating in the evaluation should possess an adequate level of legal knowledge and practical experience and the number of experts should be limited);
• the post-evaluation mechanism for assessing the follow-up given to recommendations made after the on-site visits needs improving;
• the institutional responsibility of the Commission as guardian of the Treaty concerning first pillar matters is not reflected in the current evaluation system.

It should be noted that this proposal replaces the proposals to establish a similar evaluation mechanism proposed in 2009 and which lapsed due to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (see CNS/2009/0032 and CNS/2009/0033).   

LEGAL BASIS: Article 77(2)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the proposal was not subject to an impact assessment.

CONTENT: the main objective of the proposed Regulation is to establish an evaluation mechanism to verify application of the Schengen acquis in the Member States to which the Schengen acquis applies in full. Experts from the Member States which, in accordance with the relevant Act of Accession, do not yet fully apply the acquis (Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus) shall nevertheless participate in evaluation of all parts of the acquis.

The main elements of the proposal can be summarised as follows:

Responsibilities: the Commission shall be responsible for implementation of this evaluation mechanism in close cooperation with the Member States and with the support of European bodies, such as Frontex. Member States shall cooperate with the Commission to allow it to carry out the tasks conferred on it by this Regulation. Member States shall also cooperate with the Commission during the preparatory, on-site visit, reporting and follow-up phases of evaluations.

Evaluations: evaluations may consist of questionnaires and on-site visits. Both may be supplemented by presentations by the evaluated Member State on the area covered by the evaluation. On-site visits and questionnaires may be used either independently or in combination in relation to specific Member States and/or specific areas. On-site visits may be announced or unannounced.

Multiannual programme: a multiannual evaluation programme covering a period of five years shall be established by the Commission which shall contain the list of Member States to be evaluated each year. Each Member State shall be evaluated at least once during each five-year period. The order in which the Member States are to be evaluated shall be based on a risk analysis taking into account the migratory pressure, internal security, the time which has elapsed since the previous evaluation and the balance between the different parts of the Schengen acquis to be evaluated. Frontex shall submit to the Commission a risk analysis taking into account migratory pressure and making recommendations for priorities for evaluations in the next year. The recommendations shall refer to specific sections of the external borders and to specific border crossing-points to be evaluated in the next year under the multiannual programme.

Taking into account the risk analysis provided by Frontex, an annual evaluation programme shall be established by the Commission by not later than 30 November of the previous year. The programme may provide for evaluation of the  (i) application of the acquis or parts of the acquis by one Member State, as specified in the multiannual programme; (ii) application of specific parts of the acquis across several Member States (thematic evaluations);  (iii) application of the acquis by a group of Member States (regional evaluations).

Expertise of the Member States: the Commission shall establish a list of experts designated by Member States, Europol and Eurojust for participation in on-site visits. Those national experts shall be selected by the Member States on the basis of their competences. In order to guarantee a high quality of expertise, Member States must ensure that the experts have appropriate qualifications, including a solid theoretical knowledge and practical experience in the areas covered by the evaluation, as well as a sound knowledge of on-site visit principles, procedures and techniques.  Experts shall be able to communicate effectively in a common language.

Teams responsible for on-site visits: on-site visits shall be carried out by teams appointed by the Commission. The teams shall consist of experts drawn from the list of experts and Commission officials. The Commission shall ensure the geographical balance and competence of the experts in each team. Member States' experts may not participate in an on-site visit to the Member State where they are employed. The Commission may invite Frontex, Europol, Eurojust or other relevant European bodies to designate a representative to take part as an observer in a visit concerning an area covered by their mandate. The number of experts (including observers) participating in evaluation visits may not exceed eight persons for announced on-site visits and six persons for unannounced on-site visits.

Provisions are laid down as regards the case of announced and unannounced visits. Under both circumstances, the leading experts for on-site visits shall be a Commission official and an expert from a Member State, who shall be appointed prior to the on-site visit jointly by the members of the team of experts.

Follow-up of the evaluation: a report shall be drawn up following each evaluation. The report shall be based on the findings of the on-site visit and the questionnaire as relevant. It shall analyse the qualitative, quantitative, operational, administrative and organisational aspects as relevant and shall list any shortcomings or weaknesses established during the evaluation. It shall also contain recommendations for remedial action as well as respective deadlines for their implementation.

The Member State will be obliged to report within six months on the implementation of its action plan. Depending on the weaknesses identified, the Commission may schedule and carry out announced on-site visits in order to verify the correct implementation of the action plan. In the event of serious deficiencies, the Commission has to inform the Council and the European Parliament without delay.

Transitional provisions are also laid down as regards the starting dates for the programmes.

Sensitive information: the teams shall regard as confidential any information they acquire in the course of performing their duties. The reports drawn up following on-site visits shall be classified as restricted. The Commission and the Member State concerned shall decide which part of the report can be made public.

Report: the Commission shall present a yearly report to the Council and the European Parliament on the evaluations carried out pursuant to this Decision. The report shall be made public and shall include information on the conclusions in relation to each evaluation and the state-of-play with regard to remedial actions as well as any infringement procedures initiated by the Commission as a result of the evaluations.

Territorial application: the legal basis for this proposal is in Title V, Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The 'variable geometry' system provided for in the protocols on the position of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark and in the Schengen protocol therefore applies.

Consequently, the United Kingdom and Ireland shall not participate in the adoption of the Regulation and shall not be bound or subject to its application. Denmark may decided to apply the Regulation or not as the case may be. For specific legal reasons, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania shall also take part in this mechanism but only regarding those parts of the acquis which they already apply. Lastly, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein shall take part in the implementation of this text in accordance with the bilateral agreements concluded with the EU on the Schengen acquis.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the Commission has set out a financial statement annexed to the draft Regulation. This financial statement creates a new budget line allocating a financial envelope of between EUR 526 000 and EUR 730 000/year from 2012 to 2014. Adequate human and financial resources will have to be allocated to the Commission, which will be responsible for the new Schengen evaluation mechanism. Costs incurred by the Member State experts will also be reimbursed.

The Commission presented an amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis.

BACKGROUND: the free movement of citizens within the area without internal border controls is based on a system which relies on mutual trust that each participating State will be ready and able to implement the various legislative instruments comprising the Schengen acquis.

The European Union has already put in place tools to support Member States to help them meet their obligations and to react to critical circumstances which might put Schengen at risk These tools can not, however, of themselves alone ensure that the Schengen rules are applied in a consistent manner by each Member State. The means to check this is the Schengen evaluation mechanism, used to monitor the application of the Schengen acquis and issue recommendations on any shortcomings. The current mechanism, relying on an intergovernmental system of peer review, is not strong enough to effectively remedy all weaknesses.

That is why the Commission proposed a Union-led approach last year. This new approach offers the possibility for announced or unannounced visits to a given Member State by Commission-led teams to take place, with experts from other Member States and Frontex, to verify the application of the Schengen acquis. A report drawn up following each visit would identify any shortcomings with clear recommendations for remedial action and deadlines for implementing them. The evaluated Member State would then have to establish an action plan setting out how it intends to address these recommendations. Union-level checks on the action plan's implementation could include further visits.

These changes will improve the evaluation and monitoring system but they do not address situations where these steps are insufficient to remedy a Member State's deficiencies in implementing the acquis and, in particular, in controlling its external borders.

Therefore, where measures taken at the Union or national level do not improve the situation, it might be necessary to reintroduce border control at internal borders with the failing Member State, where the situation is such as to constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal security at the Union or national level. Such an action would only be taken as a measure of last resort, and only to the extent and for the duration necessary to mitigate in a proportionate manner the adverse consequences of the exceptional circumstances.

The inclusion of such an possibility in the Schengen governance system would also serve as a preventive measure, with deterrent effect.For that reason, the Commission is amending its 2010 proposal to address this situation.

Legislative changes: in order to provide for the necessary legal framework to respond to the invitation of the European Council of 23-24 June 2011 to further strengthen the Schengen evaluation system and to introduce a safeguard clause to respond to truly critical situations where a Member State is no longer able to comply with its obligations under the Schengen rules, the Commission hereby amends its proposal by:

• providing for additional support at the Union and national level,
• strengthening the support given by Frontex,
• introducing the possibility of a Union-based mechanism for the reintroduction of border control at internal borders where a Member State is persistently neglecting its obligation to control its section of the external border, and insofar as the circumstances would be such as to constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal security at the Union or national level.

Replacing the November 2010 proposal: the new proposal replaces the November 2010 proposal. As the initial proposal has not yet been adopted by the legislators (the European Parliament has not yet adopted a first reading position in accordance with Article 294(3) TFEU on the proposal), the amendment is included in the overall text of that initial proposal, which remains unchanged except for the changes concerning:

• the support to be given to a Member State;
• the possible reintroduction of border control at internal borders (Articles 14 and 15 as well as a reference to "monitoring" throughout the text);
• certain adaptation on the implementing powers given to the Commission (Article 5, 8, 13 and 17). These adaptations are necessary as the relevant horizontal rules on 'comitology' have been modified after the presentation of the initial proposal by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
• some further adaptations are made to the text, including those relating to the role of Frontex (Article 6), Europol (Article 8) and reporting to the European Parliament and Council (Article 19).

LEGAL BASIS: Article 77 (2) (e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 77 provides for the abolition of border control at internal borders as the ultimate objective of an area of free movement of persons within the European Union, as laid down in Article 26 of the TFEU.

CONTENT: the abolition of border control at internal borders must be accompanied by measures in the field of external borders, visa policy, the Schengen Information System, data protection, police cooperation, and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Correct application of these measures makes it possible to maintain an area without border control at internal borders.

Evaluation and monitoring of the correct application of these measures therefore serves the ultimate policy objective of maintaining the area free of border control at internal borders. Measures aimed at mitigating the adverse impact of persistent serious deficiencies in a Member State's application of the Schengen acquis, including the possibility of resorting to the exceptional temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders as a measure of last resort in circumstances where the deficiencies would be such as to constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal security at the Union or national level, likewise serve to further the attainment of this ultimate objective.

From a technical point of view, the main provisions concern:

• Measures at the external borders and Frontex support: where serious deficiencies in the carrying out of external border control or return procedures are identified in the evaluation report, the Commission may decide to request the evaluated Member State to take certain specific measures, which may include one or more of the following: (i) initiation of the deployment of European Border Guard teams in accordance with the provisions of the Frontex Regulation; (ii) submission of its strategic decisions on risk assessment and plans for the deployment of equipment for approval to Frontex; (iii) closing of a specific border crossing point for a limited period of time until the weaknesses are remedied.
• Serious deficiencies related to external border control or return procedures: if the evaluation report concludes that the evaluated Member State is seriously neglecting its obligation to carry out external border control or return procedures, the evaluated Member State shall report on the implementation of the action plan within three months of receipt of the evaluation report. If, following the three months period, the Commission finds that the situation persists, Articles 23, 23a and 26 of the Schengen Borders Code apply.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: The proposal for the establishment of a Schengen evaluation mechanism presented in November 2010 contains all necessary information on the budgetary implications, which remain unchanged (please refer to 16/11/2010).

The committee had a first exchange of views on the Schengen governance package. The Council preparatory bodies were instructed to start the technical work on the different proposals as soon as possible.

The package as presented by the Commission consists of a communication concerning Schengen governance as well as the two legislative proposals accompanying it, which are:

1. an amended proposal for a regulation on a revised Schengen evaluation mechanism;
2. an amendment to the Schengen Borders Code as regards the rules for the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders in exceptional circumstances.

The Council adopted conclusions regarding guidelines for the strengthening of political governance in the Schengen cooperation.

These conclusions follow up a discussion at the JHA Council in December 2011 in which support for strengthening the political guidance on developments in the Schengen area was expressed.

The conclusions may be summarised as follows:

• the evaluation reports have shown serious shortcomings, including special measures to be implemented, without prejudice to the applicable procedures for EU agencies and the competencies of each Member State;
• the fulfilment of agreed action plans aimed at tackling shortcomings and their implementation should also be discussed. Such political and strategic discussions should take place once during each Presidency and, where appropriate, be based on the reports from the Commission;
• the Council welcomes the Commission's intention to present regular reports to the European Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the Schengen cooperation and the
• application of the Schengen acquis at least once every year. The first report should – together with specific suggestions from Member States or relevant EU agencies – form the basis for a political and strategic discussion in the Mixed Committee at Ministerial level in June 2012;
• the Commission is also invited, where relevant, to address in its reports how Schengen related shortcomings could be remedied, and, where appropriate, to give an indication of possible solutions at the practical and operational level or submit new initiatives, including legislative proposals to address these shortcomings.

The Council welcomes the intention of the Commission to present the first report in May 2012. The reports should be brief, concise and provide an overview of the main trends and recent developments regarding Schengen cooperation, including analysis of causes. In addition, identified weaknesses and/or threats that could affect the functioning of the Schengen area in the short term should be presented in order for the Council to consider preventive actions.

The overview should highlight matters which the Commission considers most relevant for the political and strategic discussion, such as:

• implementation of the relevant Schengen acquis and of key policy guidelines set out by the European Council or the Council as well as action plans adopted by the Council such as the Schengen related aspects of the 29 measures for reinforcing the protection of the external borders and combating illegal immigration, and Schengen cooperation in the fight against serious and organised crime;
• possible conclusions to be drawn from the functioning and the development of relevant ongoing and future IT projects and tools;
• selected findings from evaluation reports and key recommendations adopted in the context of the Schengen evaluation mechanism on selected issues such as controls at the external  borders, visa processing at consular posts, data protection and the required functioning of the institutions involved in the application of the Schengen acquis, in particular when the reports point at serious shortcomings;
• application of the Schengen acquis at internal borders, especially in cases of temporary introduction of controls at internal borders;
• challenges linked to current and possible foreseen migration flows and external borders particular prone to pressure from illegal migration flows as well as proposals for possible ways for their prevention and deterrence;
• challenges in the Schengen relevant cooperation with key countries of origin and transit;
• any planned and existing visa facilitation and liberalisation and their consequences.

The Council invites the European Parliament also to make full use of the Commission reports as it deems appropriate, taking into consideration the sensitivity of the information  contained in the reports.

The Council reached a general approach on amendments to the the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism, the common rules to verify the application of the Schengen acquis. The Council also decided to change the legal basis from Article 77 to Article 70 TFEU.

The Council also adopted a general approach on amendments to the Schengen Borders Code, the common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances.

More specifically, as regards the revision of the Schengen evaluation mechanism : throughout the discussions of the Schengen Evaluation proposal the question of legal basis has been a key question. A vast majority of the Member States, as well as the Council Legal Service, consider that the correct legal basis for such a mechanism is Article 70 TFEU, which was specifically inserted in the Treaty for this very purpose.

The Council unanimously decided to change the legal basis of the proposal from Article 77(2)(e) to Article 70 TFEU. The Council also decided to consult the European Parliament on a voluntary basis to ensure that the opinion of the Parliament will, to the fullest extent possible, be taken into consideration by the Council in all its aspects before the adoption by the Council of the final text.

This Article enables the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, to adopt by qualified majority arrangements on mutual evaluations. Furthermore, Article 70 provides that mutual evaluations are to be conducted by the "Member States, in collaboration with the Commission" and for the European Parliament and the national parliaments to be "informed of the content and results of the evaluation".

Concerning the substance of the text on the table (see 5754/6/12), the following main provisions should be mentioned:

Purpose and scope: as under the current system, the rules do not only apply to verifying the correct application of the Schengen acquis by those countries which are already part of the Schengen area, but also to verifying that countries wishing to join the Schengen area meet all the conditions to start applying the Schengen acquis.

Responsibilities: in contrast to the current system, which relies on an inter-governmental system of peer review where the Commission participates only as an observer, as well as in contrast to the original Commission proposal of a Union-led approach with on-site visits carried out by Commission-led teams, the compromise text states that the member states and the Commission shall be jointly responsible for the implementation of the evaluation and monitoring mechanism. Each evaluation team will have two leading experts, one from a member state and one from the Commission.

Evaluations: the evaluations cover all aspects of the Schengen acquis, including the absence of border controls at internal borders, which is currently not covered. The new text also adds that account should be taken of the functioning of the authorities which apply the relevant parts of the Schengen acquis.

Multiannual and annual programmes: the Commission will be responsible for establishing multiannual and annual evaluation programmes which will include announced and unannounced on-site visits. The annual evaluation programmes will take into account recommendations made in an annual risk analysis drafted by the European border management agency (Frontex). Announced on-site visits to a member state will be preceded by a questionnaire.

Evaluation reports: evaluation teams will seek a compromise on the final reports which will, as is currently the case, include deficiencies and recommendations for remedial action. The Council will adopt the evaluation reports as submitted by the Commission.

Follow-up: the member state concerned will be required to submit an action plan to remedy any deficiencies. The Commission will continuously monitor and report on the action plan to the Council until the action plan is fully implemented. Such monitoring and reporting may include announced or unannounced follow-up visits.

Serious deficiencies: if an on-site visit reveals a serious deficiency deemed to constitute a serious threat to public policy or internal security within the area without internal border controls, the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of a member state, shall inform the Council and the European Parliament as soon as possible.

Yearly summary report: the Commission will present a yearly summary report to the Council and the European Parliament on the evaluations carried out.

La Commission a présenté une proposition modifiée de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil portant création d'un mécanisme d'évaluation et de suivi destiné à contrôler l'application de l'acquis de Schengen.

CONTEXTE : la libre circulation des citoyens au sein de l'espace sans contrôles aux frontières intérieures repose sur un système fondé sur une confiance commune dans le fait que chaque État participant aura la volonté et la capacité de mettre en œuvre les divers instruments législatifs qui constituent l'acquis de Schengen. L'Union européenne a déjà mis en place des outils pour aider les États membres à respecter leurs obligations et à faire face à des situations critiques susceptibles de mettre l'espace Schengen en péril. Ces outils ne sont cependant pas suffisants, intrinsèquement, pour garantir que les règles de Schengen soient appliquées de manière cohérente par chaque État membre. Actuellement, c'est le mécanisme d'évaluation de Schengen qui permet d'y veiller: il est utilisé pour assurer le suivi de l'application de l'acquis de Schengen et pour publier des recommandations sur toute insuffisance constatée.

Le mécanisme en vigueur, qui repose sur un système intergouvernemental d'évaluation par les pairs, n'est cependant pas assez robuste pour remédier efficacement à toutes les faiblesses. C'est la raison pour laquelle la Commission a proposé l'an dernier de recourir à une approche dirigée par l'Union. Cette nouvelle approche offre la possibilité d'effectuer, dans un État membre donné, des inspections annoncées ou inopinées réalisées par des équipes placées sous la responsabilité de la Commission et comprenant des experts d'autres États membres et de FRONTEX, en vue de vérifier l'application de l'acquis de Schengen. Après chaque inspection, les lacunes éventuelles sont consignées dans un rapport comportant des recommandations univoques quant aux mesures correctives à prendre et aux délais dans lesquels celles-ci doivent être mises en œuvre. L'État membre ayant fait l'objet de l'évaluation est alors tenu d'établir un plan d'action exposant comment il entend donner suite auxdites recommandations.

Ce mécanisme amélioré renforcera le système d'évaluation et de suivi, mais ne permettra pas de prendre en compte les situations dans lesquelles les mesures prises s'avèrent insuffisantes pour remédier aux carences dont fait preuve un État membre dans la mise en œuvre de l'acquis, notamment en ce qui concerne le contrôle de ses frontières extérieures.

Aussi, quand des mesures prises au niveau de l'Union ou au niveau national n'apportent pas d'amélioration, il pourrait s'avérer nécessaire de réintroduire le contrôle aux frontières intérieures avec l'État membre qui se met en défaut, lorsque la situation est telle qu'elle constitue une menace grave pour l'ordre public ou la sécurité intérieure de l'Union ou d'un État membre. Une telle mesure ne serait prise qu'en dernier recours, et n'aurait que l'ampleur et la durée requises pour atténuer raisonnablement les conséquences négatives des circonstances exceptionnelles.

Prévoir une telle possibilité dans le système de gouvernance de Schengen constituerait également une mesure préventive ayant un effet dissuasif. C'est pourquoi, la Commission modifie sa proposition de 2010 en vue de remédier à cette situation.

Changements législatifs : afin d'élaborer le cadre juridique nécessaire pour répondre à l'appel du Conseil européen des 23 et 24 juin 2011 en faveur d'un renforcement du mécanisme d'évaluation de Schengen et de l'instauration d'une clause de sauvegarde pour faire face aux situations réellement critiques dans lesquelles un États membre n'est plus en mesure de remplir les obligations qui lui incombent en vertu des règles de Schengen, la Commission modifie sa proposition en :

• prévoyant un appui supplémentaire au niveau de l'Union et des États membres,
• renforçant le soutien apporté par FRONTEX,
• introduisant la possibilité d'établir un mécanisme de l'Union permettant le rétablissement d'un contrôle aux frontières intérieures lorsqu'un État membre persiste à manquer à son obligation de contrôler sa section de la frontière extérieure, et dans la mesure où les circonstances seraient de nature à constituer une menace grave pour l'ordre public et la sécurité intérieure au niveau de l'Union ou au niveau national.

Remplacement de la proposition de novembre 2010 : la présente proposition remplace intégralement la proposition de 2010, les législateurs n'ayant pas encore adopté la proposition initiale (le Parlement européen n'a pas encore arrêté sa position sur la proposition en première lecture conformément à l'article 294, paragraphe 3, du TFUE).

Les modifications sont insérées dans le texte initial qui demeure inchangé, hormis certains changements portant sur :

• l'appui à apporter à un État membre,
• l'éventuel rétablissement d'un contrôle aux frontières intérieures (articles 14 et 15, et mention d'un «suivi» dans l'ensemble du texte),
• certaines adaptations relatives aux compétences d'exécution de la Commission (articles 5, 8, 13 et 17). Ces adaptations sont nécessaires parce que les règles horizontales applicables en matière de comitologie ont été modifiées, après la présentation de la proposition initiale, par le règlement (UE) n° 182/2011 du Parlement européen et du Conseil,
• d'autres adaptations qui concernent notamment le rôle de FRONTEX (article 6), d'EUROPOL (article 8) et l'information du Parlement européen et du Conseil (article 19).

BASE JURIDIQUE : article 77, par. 2, point e) du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne (TFUE). L'article 77 prévoit l'abolition de tout contrôle aux frontières intérieures en tant qu'objectif ultime de la création d'un espace de libre circulation des personnes au sein de l'Union européenne, tel que prévu à l'article 26 du TFUE.

CONTENU : l'abolition du contrôle aux frontières intérieures doit aller de pair avec des mesures dans le domaine des frontières extérieures, de la politique des visas, du système d'information Schengen, de la protection des données, de la coopération policière et de la coopération judiciaire en matière pénale. La bonne application de ces mesures permet de maintenir un espace sans contrôle aux frontières intérieures. L'évaluation et le suivi de cette application servent dès lors l'objectif final consistant à maintenir l'absence de contrôle aux frontières intérieures de cet espace.

Les mesures visant à atténuer l'effet néfaste de manquements persistants graves dans l'application par un État membre de l'acquis de Schengen, y compris la possibilité de recourir au rétablissement temporaire, à titre exceptionnel, d'un contrôle aux frontières intérieures en tant que mesure de dernier recours lorsque ces manquements sont tels qu'ils constituent une menace grave pour l'ordre public ou la sécurité intérieure au niveau de l'Union ou au niveau national, contribuent également à la réalisation de cet objectif ultime.

Sur un plan technique, les principales nouvelles dispositions portent sur :

• les mesures aux frontières extérieures et l'appui de FRONTEX : lorsque le rapport d'évaluation fait état de manquements graves dans l'exécution du contrôle aux frontières extérieures ou des procédures de retour, la Commission pourra décider de demander à l'État membre évalué de prendre certaines mesures spécifiques, qui peuvent consister dans un ou plusieurs des éléments suivants: i) lancement du déploiement d'équipes européennes de gardes frontières, conformément aux dispositions du règlement relatif à FRONTEX; ii) présentation, pour approbation par FRONTEX, de ses décisions stratégiques en matière d'évaluation des risques et de ses plans pour le déploiement d'équipements; iii) fermeture d'un point de passage frontalier spécifique, pour une durée limitée, jusqu'à ce qu'il ait été remédié aux insuffisances ;
• les manquements graves liés au contrôle aux frontières extérieures ou aux procédures de retour : si le rapport d'évaluation prévu au mécanisme conclut que l'État membre évalué manque gravement à son obligation de procéder au contrôle aux frontières extérieures ou aux procédures de retour, cet État devra rendre compte de la mise en œuvre du plan d'action dans un délai de 3 mois à compter de la réception du rapport d'évaluation. Au terme de ce délai, et si la Commission constate que le manquement persiste, les articles 23, 23bis et 26 du code frontières Schengen devront s'appliquer.

INCIDENCE BUDGÉTAIRE : la proposition portant création d'un mécanisme d'évaluation de Schengen présentée en novembre 2010 contient toutes les informations requises concernant les incidences budgétaires, qui demeurent inchangées (se reporter au résumé du 16/11/2010).

Le Conseil a adopté des conclusions concernant l'établissement de lignes directrices en vue du renforcement de la gouvernance politique dans le cadre de la coopération Schengen.

Ces conclusions font suite à un débat qui a eu lieu au sein du Conseil JAI en décembre 2011, au cours duquel les délégations se sont exprimées en faveur d'un pilotage politique renforcé des développements dans l'espace Schengen.

Ces conclusions peuvent se résumer comme suit :

• les rapports d'évaluation ont montré de graves lacunes dans la mise en œuvre de la gouvernance de la coopération Schengen ;
• il convient de mettre en œuvre les plans d'action visant à lutter contre ces lacunes en mettant en place une politique et une stratégie qui seraient débattues une fois par présidence, en se fondant sur les analyses de la Commission ;
• la Commission présentera des rapports réguliers au Parlement européen et au Conseil sur le fonctionnement de la coopération Schengen et sur l’application de l'acquis de Schengen au moins une fois par an ; le 1^er de ces rapports de la Commission devrait - avec des suggestions précises des États membres ou des agences communautaires concernées - constituer la base de discussion politique et stratégique dans le la cadre du Comité mixte au niveau ministériel (prévu pour juin 2012) ; dans ces rapports, la Commission sera invitée, le cas échéant, à traiter de la façon dont on pourrait remédier aux lacunes constatées dans l’Espace Schengen, en donnant des solutions au niveau pratique et opérationnel ou en présentant de nouvelles initiatives, y compris des propositions législatives visant à régler les problèmes en cours.

Le Conseil se félicite de l'intention de la Commission de présenter le 1^er rapport en mai 2012. Les rapports devraient être brefs, concis et donner un aperçu des principales tendances et des développements récents en matière de coopération Schengen, y compris sur l'analyse des causes. De plus, les lacunes identifiées et/ou les menaces qui pourraient affecter le fonctionnement de l’Espace Schengen à court terme devraient figurer à l'ordre du jour du Conseil afin d’envisager des actions de prévention.

L'analyse devrait mettre en évidence les questions que la Commission juge les plus pertinentes pour la discussion politique et stratégique, tels que:

• la mise en œuvre de l'acquis de Schengen et des lignes directrices stratégiques clés établies par le Conseil européen ou le Conseil ainsi que les plans d'action incluant les 29 mesures destinées à renforcer la protection des frontières extérieures et la lutte contre l'immigration clandestine ainsi que la lutte contre la criminalité grave et organisée;
• les conclusions possibles à tirer du fonctionnement et les développements les plus pertinents en matière informatique à venir dans le domaine de la protection des frontières;
• les résultats des rapports d'évaluation et les recommandations clés adoptés dans le contexte du mécanisme d'évaluation Schengen sur certaines questions telles que les contrôles aux frontières extérieures, le traitement des visas dans les postes consulaires, la protection des données et le nécessaire fonctionnement des institutions induits par l'application de l'acquis Schengen, notamment lorsque les rapports soulignent de graves lacunes;
• l’application de l'acquis Schengen aux frontières intérieures, en particulier dans les situations de la réintroduction provisoire des contrôles aux frontières intérieures;
• les défis liés aux flux migratoires et à la gestion des frontières extérieures exposées à une pression migratoire importante;
• les défis liés à la coopération Schengen dans le cadre de la coopération avec les pays tiers d'origine et de transit;
• les problèmes liés à l’application des régimes de libéralisation des visas.

Le Conseil invite le Parlement européen à faire pleinement usage des rapports de la Commission comme il le juge approprié, en tenant compte de la sensibilité de l'information contenue dans ces documents.

PURPOSE: to establish an evaluation mechanism to verify application of the Schengen acquis.

PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. 

BACKGROUND: the Schengen area was developed within an intergovernmental framework in the late '80s and early '90s by Member States willing to abolish internal border controls. It is based on mutual trust between the Member States in their capacity fully to implement the accompanying measures allowing the lifting of internal border controls.

In order to gain and maintain this mutual trust, the Schengen Member States set up a Standing Committee in 1998. Its mandate consists of two separate tasks: (i) verification whether all preconditions for application of the Schengen acquis have been met by Member States wanting to join Schengen; (ii) verification that the Schengen acquis is being correctly applied by the Member States implementing the acquis.

Due to legal reasons related to the integration of the Schengen acquis in the framework of the European Union, it is necessary to revise the evaluation mechanism set up in 1998 as regards the second part of the mandate given to the Standing Committee (the first part of the mandate given to the Standing Committee should continue to apply).

Moreover, the proposal responds to the need to overcome a number of weaknesses identified by the Member States and the Commission with regard to the current evaluation framework, notably the fact that:

• the current methodology for the evaluation mechanism is inadequate as the rules on consistency and frequency of evaluations are not clear;
• there is no practice of conducting unannounced on-site visits;
• there is a need to develop a methodology for priority-setting based on risk analysis;
• a consistently high quality of expertise during the evaluation exercise needs to be ensured (experts participating in the evaluation should possess an adequate level of legal knowledge and practical experience and the number of experts should be limited);
• the post-evaluation mechanism for assessing the follow-up given to recommendations made after the on-site visits needs improving;
• the institutional responsibility of the Commission as guardian of the Treaty concerning first pillar matters is not reflected in the current evaluation system.

It should be noted that this proposal replaces the proposals to establish a similar evaluation mechanism proposed in 2009 and which lapsed due to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (see CNS/2009/0032 and CNS/2009/0033).   

LEGAL BASIS: Article 77(2)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the proposal was not subject to an impact assessment.

CONTENT: the main objective of the proposed Regulation is to establish an evaluation mechanism to verify application of the Schengen acquis in the Member States to which the Schengen acquis applies in full. Experts from the Member States which, in accordance with the relevant Act of Accession, do not yet fully apply the acquis (Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus) shall nevertheless participate in evaluation of all parts of the acquis.

The main elements of the proposal can be summarised as follows:

Responsibilities: the Commission shall be responsible for implementation of this evaluation mechanism in close cooperation with the Member States and with the support of European bodies, such as Frontex. Member States shall cooperate with the Commission to allow it to carry out the tasks conferred on it by this Regulation. Member States shall also cooperate with the Commission during the preparatory, on-site visit, reporting and follow-up phases of evaluations.

Evaluations: evaluations may consist of questionnaires and on-site visits. Both may be supplemented by presentations by the evaluated Member State on the area covered by the evaluation. On-site visits and questionnaires may be used either independently or in combination in relation to specific Member States and/or specific areas. On-site visits may be announced or unannounced.

Multiannual programme: a multiannual evaluation programme covering a period of five years shall be established by the Commission which shall contain the list of Member States to be evaluated each year. Each Member State shall be evaluated at least once during each five-year period. The order in which the Member States are to be evaluated shall be based on a risk analysis taking into account the migratory pressure, internal security, the time which has elapsed since the previous evaluation and the balance between the different parts of the Schengen acquis to be evaluated. Frontex shall submit to the Commission a risk analysis taking into account migratory pressure and making recommendations for priorities for evaluations in the next year. The recommendations shall refer to specific sections of the external borders and to specific border crossing-points to be evaluated in the next year under the multiannual programme.

Taking into account the risk analysis provided by Frontex, an annual evaluation programme shall be established by the Commission by not later than 30 November of the previous year. The programme may provide for evaluation of the  (i) application of the acquis or parts of the acquis by one Member State, as specified in the multiannual programme; (ii) application of specific parts of the acquis across several Member States (thematic evaluations);  (iii) application of the acquis by a group of Member States (regional evaluations).

Expertise of the Member States: the Commission shall establish a list of experts designated by Member States, Europol and Eurojust for participation in on-site visits. Those national experts shall be selected by the Member States on the basis of their competences. In order to guarantee a high quality of expertise, Member States must ensure that the experts have appropriate qualifications, including a solid theoretical knowledge and practical experience in the areas covered by the evaluation, as well as a sound knowledge of on-site visit principles, procedures and techniques.  Experts shall be able to communicate effectively in a common language.

Teams responsible for on-site visits: on-site visits shall be carried out by teams appointed by the Commission. The teams shall consist of experts drawn from the list of experts and Commission officials. The Commission shall ensure the geographical balance and competence of the experts in each team. Member States' experts may not participate in an on-site visit to the Member State where they are employed. The Commission may invite Frontex, Europol, Eurojust or other relevant European bodies to designate a representative to take part as an observer in a visit concerning an area covered by their mandate. The number of experts (including observers) participating in evaluation visits may not exceed eight persons for announced on-site visits and six persons for unannounced on-site visits.

Provisions are laid down as regards the case of announced and unannounced visits. Under both circumstances, the leading experts for on-site visits shall be a Commission official and an expert from a Member State, who shall be appointed prior to the on-site visit jointly by the members of the team of experts.

Follow-up of the evaluation: a report shall be drawn up following each evaluation. The report shall be based on the findings of the on-site visit and the questionnaire as relevant. It shall analyse the qualitative, quantitative, operational, administrative and organisational aspects as relevant and shall list any shortcomings or weaknesses established during the evaluation. It shall also contain recommendations for remedial action as well as respective deadlines for their implementation.

The Member State will be obliged to report within six months on the implementation of its action plan. Depending on the weaknesses identified, the Commission may schedule and carry out announced on-site visits in order to verify the correct implementation of the action plan. In the event of serious deficiencies, the Commission has to inform the Council and the European Parliament without delay.

Transitional provisions are also laid down as regards the starting dates for the programmes.

Sensitive information: the teams shall regard as confidential any information they acquire in the course of performing their duties. The reports drawn up following on-site visits shall be classified as restricted. The Commission and the Member State concerned shall decide which part of the report can be made public.

Report: the Commission shall present a yearly report to the Council and the European Parliament on the evaluations carried out pursuant to this Decision. The report shall be made public and shall include information on the conclusions in relation to each evaluation and the state-of-play with regard to remedial actions as well as any infringement procedures initiated by the Commission as a result of the evaluations.

Territorial application: the legal basis for this proposal is in Title V, Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The 'variable geometry' system provided for in the protocols on the position of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark and in the Schengen protocol therefore applies.

Consequently, the United Kingdom and Ireland shall not participate in the adoption of the Regulation and shall not be bound or subject to its application. Denmark may decided to apply the Regulation or not as the case may be. For specific legal reasons, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania shall also take part in this mechanism but only regarding those parts of the acquis which they already apply. Lastly, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein shall take part in the implementation of this text in accordance with the bilateral agreements concluded with the EU on the Schengen acquis.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the Commission has set out a financial statement annexed to the draft Regulation. This financial statement creates a new budget line allocating a financial envelope of between EUR 526 000 and EUR 730 000/year from 2012 to 2014. Adequate human and financial resources will have to be allocated to the Commission, which will be responsible for the new Schengen evaluation mechanism. Costs incurred by the Member State experts will also be reimbursed.

The Commission presented an amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis.

BACKGROUND: the free movement of citizens within the area without internal border controls is based on a system which relies on mutual trust that each participating State will be ready and able to implement the various legislative instruments comprising the Schengen acquis.

The European Union has already put in place tools to support Member States to help them meet their obligations and to react to critical circumstances which might put Schengen at risk These tools can not, however, of themselves alone ensure that the Schengen rules are applied in a consistent manner by each Member State. The means to check this is the Schengen evaluation mechanism, used to monitor the application of the Schengen acquis and issue recommendations on any shortcomings. The current mechanism, relying on an intergovernmental system of peer review, is not strong enough to effectively remedy all weaknesses.

That is why the Commission proposed a Union-led approach last year. This new approach offers the possibility for announced or unannounced visits to a given Member State by Commission-led teams to take place, with experts from other Member States and Frontex, to verify the application of the Schengen acquis. A report drawn up following each visit would identify any shortcomings with clear recommendations for remedial action and deadlines for implementing them. The evaluated Member State would then have to establish an action plan setting out how it intends to address these recommendations. Union-level checks on the action plan's implementation could include further visits.

These changes will improve the evaluation and monitoring system but they do not address situations where these steps are insufficient to remedy a Member State's deficiencies in implementing the acquis and, in particular, in controlling its external borders.

Therefore, where measures taken at the Union or national level do not improve the situation, it might be necessary to reintroduce border control at internal borders with the failing Member State, where the situation is such as to constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal security at the Union or national level. Such an action would only be taken as a measure of last resort, and only to the extent and for the duration necessary to mitigate in a proportionate manner the adverse consequences of the exceptional circumstances.

The inclusion of such an possibility in the Schengen governance system would also serve as a preventive measure, with deterrent effect.For that reason, the Commission is amending its 2010 proposal to address this situation.

Legislative changes: in order to provide for the necessary legal framework to respond to the invitation of the European Council of 23-24 June 2011 to further strengthen the Schengen evaluation system and to introduce a safeguard clause to respond to truly critical situations where a Member State is no longer able to comply with its obligations under the Schengen rules, the Commission hereby amends its proposal by:

• providing for additional support at the Union and national level,
• strengthening the support given by Frontex,
• introducing the possibility of a Union-based mechanism for the reintroduction of border control at internal borders where a Member State is persistently neglecting its obligation to control its section of the external border, and insofar as the circumstances would be such as to constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal security at the Union or national level.

Replacing the November 2010 proposal: the new proposal replaces the November 2010 proposal. As the initial proposal has not yet been adopted by the legislators (the European Parliament has not yet adopted a first reading position in accordance with Article 294(3) TFEU on the proposal), the amendment is included in the overall text of that initial proposal, which remains unchanged except for the changes concerning:

• the support to be given to a Member State;
• the possible reintroduction of border control at internal borders (Articles 14 and 15 as well as a reference to "monitoring" throughout the text);
• certain adaptation on the implementing powers given to the Commission (Article 5, 8, 13 and 17). These adaptations are necessary as the relevant horizontal rules on 'comitology' have been modified after the presentation of the initial proposal by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
• some further adaptations are made to the text, including those relating to the role of Frontex (Article 6), Europol (Article 8) and reporting to the European Parliament and Council (Article 19).

LEGAL BASIS: Article 77 (2) (e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 77 provides for the abolition of border control at internal borders as the ultimate objective of an area of free movement of persons within the European Union, as laid down in Article 26 of the TFEU.

CONTENT: the abolition of border control at internal borders must be accompanied by measures in the field of external borders, visa policy, the Schengen Information System, data protection, police cooperation, and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Correct application of these measures makes it possible to maintain an area without border control at internal borders.

Evaluation and monitoring of the correct application of these measures therefore serves the ultimate policy objective of maintaining the area free of border control at internal borders. Measures aimed at mitigating the adverse impact of persistent serious deficiencies in a Member State's application of the Schengen acquis, including the possibility of resorting to the exceptional temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders as a measure of last resort in circumstances where the deficiencies would be such as to constitute a serious threat to public policy or to internal security at the Union or national level, likewise serve to further the attainment of this ultimate objective.

From a technical point of view, the main provisions concern:

• Measures at the external borders and Frontex support: where serious deficiencies in the carrying out of external border control or return procedures are identified in the evaluation report, the Commission may decide to request the evaluated Member State to take certain specific measures, which may include one or more of the following: (i) initiation of the deployment of European Border Guard teams in accordance with the provisions of the Frontex Regulation; (ii) submission of its strategic decisions on risk assessment and plans for the deployment of equipment for approval to Frontex; (iii) closing of a specific border crossing point for a limited period of time until the weaknesses are remedied.
• Serious deficiencies related to external border control or return procedures: if the evaluation report concludes that the evaluated Member State is seriously neglecting its obligation to carry out external border control or return procedures, the evaluated Member State shall report on the implementation of the action plan within three months of receipt of the evaluation report. If, following the three months period, the Commission finds that the situation persists, Articles 23, 23a and 26 of the Schengen Borders Code apply.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: The proposal for the establishment of a Schengen evaluation mechanism presented in November 2010 contains all necessary information on the budgetary implications, which remain unchanged (please refer to 16/11/2010).

The committee had a first exchange of views on the Schengen governance package. The Council preparatory bodies were instructed to start the technical work on the different proposals as soon as possible.

The package as presented by the Commission consists of a communication concerning Schengen governance as well as the two legislative proposals accompanying it, which are:

1. an amended proposal for a regulation on a revised Schengen evaluation mechanism;
2. an amendment to the Schengen Borders Code as regards the rules for the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders in exceptional circumstances.

The Council adopted conclusions regarding guidelines for the strengthening of political governance in the Schengen cooperation.

These conclusions follow up a discussion at the JHA Council in December 2011 in which support for strengthening the political guidance on developments in the Schengen area was expressed.

The conclusions may be summarised as follows:

• the evaluation reports have shown serious shortcomings, including special measures to be implemented, without prejudice to the applicable procedures for EU agencies and the competencies of each Member State;
• the fulfilment of agreed action plans aimed at tackling shortcomings and their implementation should also be discussed. Such political and strategic discussions should take place once during each Presidency and, where appropriate, be based on the reports from the Commission;
• the Council welcomes the Commission's intention to present regular reports to the European Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the Schengen cooperation and the
• application of the Schengen acquis at least once every year. The first report should – together with specific suggestions from Member States or relevant EU agencies – form the basis for a political and strategic discussion in the Mixed Committee at Ministerial level in June 2012;
• the Commission is also invited, where relevant, to address in its reports how Schengen related shortcomings could be remedied, and, where appropriate, to give an indication of possible solutions at the practical and operational level or submit new initiatives, including legislative proposals to address these shortcomings.

The Council welcomes the intention of the Commission to present the first report in May 2012. The reports should be brief, concise and provide an overview of the main trends and recent developments regarding Schengen cooperation, including analysis of causes. In addition, identified weaknesses and/or threats that could affect the functioning of the Schengen area in the short term should be presented in order for the Council to consider preventive actions.

The overview should highlight matters which the Commission considers most relevant for the political and strategic discussion, such as:

• implementation of the relevant Schengen acquis and of key policy guidelines set out by the European Council or the Council as well as action plans adopted by the Council such as the Schengen related aspects of the 29 measures for reinforcing the protection of the external borders and combating illegal immigration, and Schengen cooperation in the fight against serious and organised crime;
• possible conclusions to be drawn from the functioning and the development of relevant ongoing and future IT projects and tools;
• selected findings from evaluation reports and key recommendations adopted in the context of the Schengen evaluation mechanism on selected issues such as controls at the external  borders, visa processing at consular posts, data protection and the required functioning of the institutions involved in the application of the Schengen acquis, in particular when the reports point at serious shortcomings;
• application of the Schengen acquis at internal borders, especially in cases of temporary introduction of controls at internal borders;
• challenges linked to current and possible foreseen migration flows and external borders particular prone to pressure from illegal migration flows as well as proposals for possible ways for their prevention and deterrence;
• challenges in the Schengen relevant cooperation with key countries of origin and transit;
• any planned and existing visa facilitation and liberalisation and their consequences.

The Council invites the European Parliament also to make full use of the Commission reports as it deems appropriate, taking into consideration the sensitivity of the information  contained in the reports.