Declaração de Carlos Coelho sobre os problemas do Espaço Schengen

Coelho - EP rapporteur on Schengen

On the results of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 12 May:

"I agree with the unanimous declaration that the free movement of persons is one of the EU's greatest achievements and that it must be preserved. I regret that the Council has been silent on any message addressed to Denmark and that has not expressed its willingness to work with Parliament in the new Schengen evaluation mechanism".

On Denmark's announcement that it will reintroduce border controls:

"It is indisputable that this is a regrettable decision that weakens the Schengen area. It appears to have been dictated by the demands of radical and anti-European parties in a process of internal politics.

The European Commission did well in demanding explanations and I hope that it will continue until it receives them and take the necessary steps afterwards".

On the Commission Communication presented on 4 May:

"I welcome the recognition by the European Commission of the importance of the Schengen area and the focus on its strengthening and development.

And I agree with President Barroso that there is a need for greater solidarity and responsibility sharing between Member States. The problem lies not so much in the Schengen rules, but in the way Member States apply the rules without responsibility or solidarity.

The fact that we are going through a difficult period with migration pressures must not be an excuse to undermine one of the greatest achievements of European integration, which is precisely the Schengen area.

Schengen stands for freedom of movement and this reality must not be reversed, but protected, strengthened and developed.

Good control of external borders is essential: when this is not done, it weakens the security of the Schengen area, undermines the Union's credibility and destroys mutual trust".

The need for a new Schengen evaluation mechanism:

"We need a mechanism that will allow us to apply Schengen better. This Parliament is willing to work loyally to create such a mechanism. We can't have double standards in this area. We can't have a situation whereby we penalise those countries that are not yet in club, whist letting those that are already members get away with measures that are not appropriate".

I'm concerned about the Council Presidency's silence on this mechanism. Of the three institutions, the one that is not doing well in this area is the Council. I think we need to set the right tone this time".

What Mr Coelho expects to achieve with the amendments tabled to the proposal on the Schengen evaluation mechanism (vote in the EP Civil Liberties Committee scheduled for 15-16 June):

"A new Schengen evaluation mechanism needs to be established along the following lines:

• it should be more Community-oriented (and based on an EU approach, involving the Community institutions, as opposed to a purely intergovernmental one),

• it should be more transparent (and hence impose an obligation to inform the Council and Parliament about the outcome of on-site visits and about Commission recommendations and their implementation),

• it should make for greater cooperation (striking a balance between participation of the Commission and Member States, by allowing EU and national experts to participate fully),

• it should utilise resources more effectively (by involving Frontex and drawing on its experience and risk analyses),

• it should be more effective (teams should be less ‘cumbersome’), and

• it should make for greater rigour (enabling accurate assessment to be brought to bear on the degree of compliance with Schengen rules and providing for prompt corrective action to dispel any feelings of impunity)".