# EUR-Lex - 52012DC0230 - EN

*|*

# 52012DC0230

**COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area 1 November 2011 - 30 April 2012 /* COM/2012/0230 final */**

			*

			*

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Biannual report on the functioning of the
Schengen area
1 November 2011 - 30 April 2012

1.           Introduction

The right to free
movement of persons is a cornerstone of the European Union and the Schengen area
without internal border control is one of the most valued achievements of EU
integration. The Schengen cooperation was established on the initiative of five
EU countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – through
an agreement of 1985 and an implementing convention of 1990, both signed in the
Luxembourg town of Schengen. In 1995, border control at internal borders was
lifted and in 1997, these agreements were integrated into the framework of the
European Union by the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Schengen Area has grown rapidly.
Today it covers an area with 42 673 km of sea and 7 721 km of external land
borders, where over 400 million Europeans from 26 European countries can enjoy
passport-free travel.

The right to travel within the Schengen
area without being subjected to border control is based on the condition that
each participating state is fulfilling its obligations according to the
Schengen acquis. Therefore, it is essential that the European institutions
maintain vigilance over the functioning of the Schengen area and are ready to
respond to any challenges it faces. Against this background, the Commission in
its Communication 'Schengen governance – strengthening the area without
internal border control' of 16 September 2011 announced its intention to
present a biannual overview to the European Union institutions on the
functioning of Schengen. The Council on 8 March 2012 welcomed the Commission's
intention to present regular reports to the European Parliament and to the
Council on the functioning of the Schengen cooperation.

The purpose of these reports is to provide
the basis for a regular debate in the European Parliament and in the Council
and so to contribute to the strengthening of political guidance and cooperation
in the Schengen area. This first report covers the period 1 November 2011 - 30
April 2012 and complements the measures proposed in the Commission legislative
proposals on Schengen governance[1],
which are currently being discussed with the European Parliament and the
Council. The report focuses on the functioning of the Schengen area, leaving
aside other issues that may be related to the area of freedom, security and
justice, but do not concern the core issue at hand, and issues that are dealt
with in parallel in other documents. These issues include i.a. the Commission
proposal on Eurosur[2]
and the Commission proposal introducing a visa safeguard clause[3] as well as questions dealt with
in the Communication on the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility[4] and the Annual Report on
Migration and Asylum. The biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen
cooperation should be understood as part of this broader context.

2.           Situational picture

2.1.        Situation at the Schengen
external borders

The pressure at the Schengen external
borders is focused at a limited number of hot spots.

During October-December 2011, the number of
irregular border crossings increased compared to the previous year, to nearly
30,000 crossings. About 75 percent of those were reported from the Eastern
Mediterranean route, whereby Afghans and Pakistanis were the most frequent
nationalities. The Commission continues to support the Member States in
managing these mixed migration flows, i.a. through EU funding (notably the External
Borders Fund), cooperation with relevant third countries and via EU Agencies
(e.g. Frontex)[5].

The pressure at the Schengen external
border is linked to developments in relevant third countries, which was evident
during the Arab Spring in 2011. The Commission notes that the situation in
Syria may prompt a future migration flow into the neighbouring countries, and
also into the European Union. In October-December 2011, 578 Syrians were
detected while attempting to cross the Schengen external land border between
the official border crossing points, compared to 210 persons in the same
quarter of 2010. 82 % of these were detected at the Greek external land border.

A more detailed situational picture can be
found in Frontex annual risk analysis 2012 (http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Attachment_Featured/Annual_Risk_Analysis_2012.pdf).

The Commission will continuously
assess whether the current balancing of support measures (i.a. EU funding and
Frontex operations) between the current hot spots and the rest of the external
border is appropriate or whether another prioritisation should be foreseen, taking
into account on the one hand the pressure at the current hot spots and on the
other hand the possible displacement effects due to enhanced border control at
these spots as well as new migration flows following developments in third
countries.

2.2.        Situation within the
Schengen area

The Schengen acquis allows third country
nationals[6]
holding a residence permit or a long-stay visa issued by one Member State to
travel to other Member States for up to three months in any six months period.
However, asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their status are exempted from
this right until the final assessment of their application for protection. In
addition, a large majority of the third country nationals residing illegally
within the Schengen area have entered the territory legally, but then remained
after the permitted period (overstayers), whereas others have entered
illegally. For these persons, either their stay is regularised by Member States
in accordance with their national legislation or they should be subject to a
return procedure. Many of these persons do not remain in the country of entry,
but move on to other Member States.

In 2011, 350,944 third country nationals not
fulfilling the conditions for stay were detected within the Schengen area[7], which constitutes a 9.1 %
decrease compared to the previous year. The top nationalities were Afghanis,
Tunisians and Moroccans. According to Frontex[8],
secondary movements, originating at the Greek-Turkish land border, have been
detected at the land borders between the Western Balkans and both Slovenia and
Hungary, at the sea border of southern Italy and at a range of European
airports, particularly in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.

There is limited information on the number
of persons without the right to stay in the Schengen area who are seeking to
move to another Member State. However a number of one-off data-gathering
operations have provided at least some basic statistics. The most recent of
these, operation DEMETER[9], was carried out from 24 to 30 October 2011, in 21 Member States
(i.a. France, Italy and Greece did not participate). During this week, the
participating Member States, as part of their daily work, filled out a
reporting form on each incident of suspected illegal residence in their
territory. The reports were then sent to the Polish Border Guard, which compiled
and analyzed the data. The aim of the operation
was to collect information on migration flows in EU Member States, regarding in
particular:

–
Migratory pressures in various countries,

–
main routes of movement of irregular migrants,

–
main destination countries of migration,

–
countries of origin of irregular migrants and

–
places of detection of irregular migrants and
means of transport used.

During the
operation, 1936 third country nationals from 104 different countries were
apprehended. The largest number of irregular migrants were found in Germany
(360 persons), Spain (290 persons) and Hungary (260 persons). A majority had
entered the Schengen area in Spain (207 persons), Greece (180 persons), Cyprus
(161 persons) and Poland (121 persons). The main countries of destination were
Spain (288 persons), Germany (264 persons) and Austria (140 persons).

The conclusions
from these operations display a need for continuously trying to improve the
monitoring and analysis of migration flows within the Schengen area. This could
be done i.a. by biannually carrying out DEMETER-style operations and regularly
exchanging information at the European Union level. The Commission welcomes the
coordination by the Danish presidency of Operation Balder from 16 to 22 April
2012.

Alongside
reliable information on third-country nationals residing illegally within the
Schengen area, the implementation of the directive on sanctions and measures
against employers[10] remains an important tool in the fight against illegal stay within
the territory.

In addition to current and planned
initiatives (i.a. operation Balder), the Commission will deliberate on whether
other measures could be taken in order to provide more information on migration
flows within the Schengen area.

3.           Application of the Schengen acquis

3.1.        Cases of temporarily
reintroduced control at internal borders

Article 23 of the Schengen Borders Code[11] provides that, exceptionally,
where there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security, a Member
State may reintroduce border control at its internal borders. The Member State
shall as soon as possible notify the other Member States and the Commission
accordingly. Moreover, a report shall be presented to the European Parliament,
the Council and the Commission, outlining, in particular, the operation of the
checks and the effectiveness of the reintroduction of border control. Since the
entry into force of the Schengen Borders Code in 2006, all cases of
reintroduced control have been related to preventing and combating different
types of crime in connection with high level meetings or major sports events.

During the period 1 November 2011-30 April
2012, control at the internal borders has been reintroduced only twice. France
notified the Commission on 4 October 2011 that, because of the G-20 summit of
Heads of State and Government, held in Cannes on 3 and 4 November 2011, it
planned to reintroduce control at its border with Italy between 24 October and
5 Novermber 2011. France subsequently reported to the Commission that, during this
period, 38,620 persons were checked on entry (out of 563,158 persons crossing)
and 15,303 persons were checked on exit (out of 605,062 crossings). 443 persons
were refused entry, the majority because they did not possess valid travel
documents.

On 20 April 2012, Spain notified the
Commission that due to the meeting of the European Central Bank in Barcelona on
2-4 May 2012, it was to reintroduce control at the internal land border with
France as well as at Barcelona and Gerona airports during the period of 28
April until 4 May 2012.

3.2.        Maintaining
the absence of internal border control

Article 22 of the
Schengen Borders Code requires Member States to remove all obstacles to fluid
traffic flow at road crossing points at internal borders, in particular any
speed limits not exclusively based on road safety considerations. Following
action by the Commission, France has progressively removed obstacles hindering
fluid traffic flow at several road crossing points at its internal borders with
Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg. These measures allowed the Commission to, in
January 2012, close the relevant infringement case against France.

The Netherlands plans to install a camera
surveillance system (@migo-boras) close to the internal borders, as technical
support for mobile police checks. The Commission in November 2011 addressed the
Netherlands on a potential violation of the Schengen Borders Code, EU law on
free movement of EU citizens and the data protection provisions of EU law. Explanations
were requested especially as regards the necessity and proportionality of the
system and the Commission is currently following up on the Dutch replies.

Moreover, in the period 1 November 2011 – 30
April 2012, the Commission requested information as to the correct implementation
of EU law and namely the Schengen acquis in three new cases and continued
working on eight existing cases, addressing in total ten different Member
States (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Latvia,
the Netherlands, Slovakia and Sweden). These files regard mainly whether the carrying
out of police checks close to the internal border have an effect equivalent to
border checks (article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code) and the obligation to
remove obstacles to fluid traffic flow, such as speed limitations, at road
crossing-points at internal borders (article 22 of the Schengen Borders Code). In
all cases, the exchange of information with the respective national authorities
is still ongoing.

3.3.        Pending infringement cases
related to the Schengen acquis

Transposition of the Return Directive
(2008/115/EC) into national legislation

The deadline for implementation of the
Return Directive (2008/115/EC) expired on 24 December 2010. Twenty-six Member
States have already adopted new legislation transposing the directive into
their national legislation and taken onboard the common standards. By April
2012, only Lithuania, Poland and Iceland had not yet notified full
transposition. The Commission has launched infringements procedures against the
Member States which did not comply with their transposition and notification
obligation.

A study launched in 2011 in order to
evaluate the correct transposition of the Directive into national legislation,
has produced its first results with eighteen reports now available and the rest
to follow in the course of 2012. The Commission will thoroughly examine the
transposition reports and pursue the full and correct application by the Member
States of the provisions laid down in this directive.

Application of the Schengen Borders Code

In October 2009, allegations of serious
difficulties faced by migrants in applying for asylum and ill-treatment by
Greece of asylum-seekers and potential asylum-seekers, including the turning
back of persons who may face serious harm or persecution, led the Commission to
issue a letter of formal notice against Greece. The Commission takes the view
that any violation of the EU asylum acquis and the Schengen Borders
Code, in conjunction with fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights and the general principles of EU law and the European
Convention on Human Rights, needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

The Commission recognises the considerable
pressure faced by Greece as a result of the large number of persons from third
countries entering its territory. At the same time, the Commission is concerned
at the serious deficiencies of the Greek asylum system and the breach of
fundamental rights. While acknowledging the Greek efforts to remedy the situation,
the Commission will continue to closely monitor this matter and take the
necessary steps to ensure that Greece abides by its legal obligations and
benefits from the necessary support.

3.4.        Weaknesses identified in
the framework of the Schengen evaluation mechanism

The Schengen area is based on mutual trust
between the Member States in their capacity to implement the measures allowing for
the lifting of controls at the internal borders, in particular the control of
the external border. In order to gain and maintain this mutual trust, the
Schengen Member States in 1998 set up a mechanism[12], for verifying whether all
preconditions for application of the Schengen acquis (i.e. lifting of border
controls) have been met by Member States wanting to join the Schengen
cooperation as well as veryfying that the Schengen acquis is being correctly applied
by the Member States already implementing the acquis. Member States are
evaluated on a regular basis, by experts from the Member States, the Council
general secretariat and the Commission. The evaluations are based on replies to
questionnaires agreed by the Council as well as on-site visits and the findings
are described in reports, including comments and recommendations for follow-up.

In the period 1 November 2011-30 April
2012, Schengen evaluations were carried out regarding air borders in Hungary,
Malta and Slovenia, visa in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Slovenia,
SIS/Sirene in Finland and Sweden, police cooperation in Malta, Slovenia,
Sweden, Iceland and Norway and data protection in the Czech Republic, Hungary,
Poland, Slovakia and Iceland. The reports are still being drafted, but are
expected to include some positive as well as negative comments and
recommendations on issues such as training, use of risk analysis, information
exchange, international cooperation and infrastructure at border crossing
points and embassies/consulates. Although there is generally room for
improvement, none of these evaluations have shown the type of deficiencies that
would require immediate action by the Commission.

During the Schengen evaluation of Greece in
2010-2011, several serious shortcomings were detected, especially as regards
control of the external land- and sea borders. Given the extensive scope of the
recommendations, Greece has drawn up a national action plan on how to remedy
these shortcomings. This includes i.a. enhanced coordination of border
management issues, increased deployment of personnel and equipment, improvement
of infrastructure, a new programme for training as well as a review of the
relevant legislation. In order to assess the progress so far and to identify topics where Member
States could offer assistance, a review mission is
scheduled for 28 May to 2 June 2012. This mission will go to the Athens International
Airport 'Eleftherios Venizelos', the Port of Piraeus and the Evros region.
While reiterating its commitment to support the Greek efforts to manage its
external borders, the Commission invites Greece to continue the implementation
of its Schengen action plan and to establish a comprehensive and systematic identification
of needs as well as of available resources.

For an indicative calendar of Schengen
evaluations in May-October 2012, see Annex I.

3.5.        Lifting of control at
internal borders with Bulgaria and Romania

Even though the Council in June 2011 concluded
that both Romania and Bulgaria formally fulfil the criteria to apply in full
the Schengen acquis, it has not been able to decide on the lifting of control
at the internal borders to these countries. On 2 March 2012, the European Council requested the Council to identify and implement
measures which would contribute to the successful enlargement of the Schengen
Area to include Romania and Bulgaria and asked the Council to revert to this
issue in order to adopt its decision at the meeting of the JHA Council in
September 2012. The Commission stands ready to support any measure that might
be required to ensure that the Council would take a positive decision in
September.

4.           Flanking measures

4.1.        Use of the Schengen
Information System

The Schengen Information System (SIS) is a common information system, allowing the Member States' competent
authorities to obtain information related to alerts on persons and objects.
This information can be used for police and judicial cooperation in criminal
matters as well as for checks on persons at the Schengen external borders or on
their national territories and for the issuance of visas and residence permits.
Whereas the SIS is very successful and generates tens
of thousands of hits per year, the Commission is working together with the
Council to identify redundant working practices and rules.

Although Member States use a common legal
basis for cooperation, the implementation can vary due to different national
laws and procedures. This means i.a. that some Member
States, using the SIS, have considerable success in tracking the movements of
their serious criminals within other Member States, whereas other Member States
make little use of this possibility.

Moreover, whereas cooperation between the authorities responsible for the exchange of
supplementary information (the SIRENE bureaux) may be
exemplary, delays often occur within Member States. When a person has been
detained at a border and a SIRENE bureau urgently needs information on the
person's background, it is not acceptable to have to
wait hours or even days for this key piece of information. Such a detention
cannot be justified and a person who has been detained for a legitimate reason may
have to be released due to lack of information.

Not all Member States create, as a matter
of course, alerts to highlight that a travel document has been invalidated by
the issuing authority. This permits the third country national holding the
document to use it illegally to try to enter the Schengen area, even though
they may have been excluded following a criminal conviction.

The Commission will assess whether measures
should be taken in order for the SIS and the SIRENE bureaux to be used to their
full potential and if so, whether other measures could be considered, in
addition to the issues above.

4.2.        Use of the Visa
Information System

The Visa Information System (VIS) is a
system for exchange of information on short-stay visas, enabling
the competent authorities of the Schengen States to process data on visa
applications and on all visas that are issued, refused, annulled, revoked or
extended. The VIS was successfully launched on 11 October 2011 in Member
States' embassies and consulates in the first region of deployment (Algeria,
Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia). According to the current
planning, the VIS will start operating on 10 May 2012 in the second region
(Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) and on 2 October 2012 in the third region
(Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United
Arab Emirates and Yemen). The VIS is working well and by 30 April 2012, the
system had processed 775,489 applications, 611,419 issued visas and 99,242
refusals.

4.3.        Visa policy and
readmission agreements

Post-visa liberalisation monitoring
mechanism for Western Balkan countries

Following
the rapid increase of asylum applications in some Member States after the
granting of visa liberalisation to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Montenegro and Serbia in December 2009 as well as Albania and Bosnia and
Herzegovina in December 2010, the Commission established a post-visa
liberalisation monitoring mechanism for all Western Balkan countries that
achieved visa liberalisation. In December 2011, the Commission presented its
second report on this monitoring[13],
picturing the recent actions undertaken, the current state of play and proposed
next steps. Although the total number of asylum seekers from the region has
decreased in the second half of 2011 in comparison with the same period in
2010, following fewer asylum seekers from Serbia and the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, this is counteracted by a considerable increase of
asylum seekers from Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Most asylum claims
(based on lack of health care, unemployment and lack of schooling) are judged
to be unfounded, whereby the asylum recognition rate is very low. Belgium,
Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden remain the main destination countries, partly
due to the duration of asylum procedures and the associated length of
authorised stay. These Member States have taken measures to decrease the
processing time, but there is still room for improvement as regards i.a.
information exchange, investigation of facilitators, strengthened border
control, targeted awareness campaigns and assistance to minority populations
(in particular Roma communities).

On this basis, the Commission will analyse whether the post-visa
liberalisation monitoring mechanism (including the Frontex alert mechanism)
provides the necessary tools to monitor the migration flows following the visa
liberalisation for the Western Balkan countries or if there are necessary
improvements of this monitoring.

Readmission agreements

The conclusion of readmission agreements
forms a central part of the European Union's cooperation with third countries
in managing migration and asylum. The Commission in November 2011 finalised the
negotiations on a readmission agreement with Cape Verde, which now opens the
way to start the procedure for formal ratification. Technical negotiations with
Turkey have been finalised and the signature of the readmission agreement and
the launch of a dialogue on visa liberalisation are expected. Furthermore,
negotiations have been launched with Armenia and Azerbaijan on visa
facilitation and readmission agreements.

5.           Guidelines on the functioning of the
Schengen area

Measures carried out within the framework
of the Schengen cooperation is a mixed competence, with responsibilities for
the European Union as well as for the Member States. The proper functioning of
the Schengen area depends not only on the uniform application of the EU acquis,
but also on the use of national competences in line with the Schengen spirit.
This fact may be illustrated by two examples: Member
States may carry out police checks within their territories, in order to verify
a person's right to stay within the territory, but these checks must not have
an effect equivalent to border control. Further, whereas it is the competence of
each Member State to issue travel documents and residence permits to third
country nationals, its decisions are directly linked to the right to travel
within the Schengen area and are therefore a concern also to the other Member
States.

In its Communications on migration[14] and on Schengen governance[15], the Commission committed
itself to issue guidelines in order to ensure a coherent implementation and
interpretation of the Schengen acquis. The guidelines on issuance of residence
permits and travel documents as well as police measures at internal borders,
which were developed by the Commission in consultation with the Member States,
are to be found in Annex II.

ANNEX I: Indicative calendar of Schengen
evaluations in May –October 2012[16]

Time || Member States || Theme

6-12 May 2012 || Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania || Sea borders

28 May-2 June 2012 || Greece || Peer-to-peer

17-22 June 2012 || Hungary, Slovakia || Police cooperation

1-7 July 2012 || Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania || Air borders

23-27 July 2012 || Malta, Slovenia || Data protection

9–20 September 2012 || Malta, Poland, Slovenia || Sea borders

23-29 September 2012 || The Czech Republic, Poland || Police cooperation

7-12 October 2012 || Denmark, Iceland, Norway || SIS/Sirene

7-13 October 2012 || Latvia, Lithuania || Visa

14-20 October 2012 || Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania || Data protection

ANNEX II: Guidelines to ensure a
coherent implementation and interpretation of the Schengen acquis

On 16 September
2011, the Commission presented legislative proposals consisting of proposals on
a Schengen evaluation mechanism and an amendment of the Schengen Borders Code
in order to further strengthen the Schengen governance[17]. In addition, the Commission
announced[18]
that it would explore areas where the development of guidelines could ensure a
more coherent implementation of the Schengen rules. The Commission identified
the issuance of residence permits and travel documents, as well as police
measures at internal borders, as appropriate topics for such guidelines and
organised two meetings with Member States' experts, on 20 July 2011 and 28
November 2011, to discuss the scope and content of such guidelines. The
issuance of residence permits and travel documents was also discussed with
Member States at the meeting of the National Contact Points of the Mutual
information Mechanism held on 1 December 2011.

The guidelines
presented below take into account valuable observations and suggestions submitted
by the Member States during this consultation.

A.        Issuing of temporary
residence permits and travel documents to non-EU citizens[19]

I.          Introduction

The Schengen acquis provides a
harmonisation of the rules on short stays (the common visa policy, including
the mutual recognition of short stay visas on the basis of the harmonised
procedures and conditions for issuing visas set out in the Visa Code). The
Schengen acquis does not provide for a harmonisation of the conditions for
issuing long stay visas, residence permits and travel documents to non-EU
citizens. These issues are governed by the national law of the Member States.

The EU acquis in the area of migration and
asylum contains provisions on the conditions and procedures for issuing
residence permits to certain categories of persons. Thus, e.g. as regards
asylum seekers[20],
no residence permits are to be issued under EU law, but only an authorisation
to remain on the territory of the Member State.

In respect of beneficiaries of
international protection[21],
refugees are to be issued residence permits valid for at least 3 years and
renewable, whereas beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are to be issued
residence permits valid for at least 1 year and renewable. Family members of
beneficiaries of protection are to be issued residence permits as well, but
their validity can be shorter.

If temporary protection is declared in
accordance with the Temporary Protection Directive, Member States are to
provide its beneficiaries with residence permits for the entire duration of the
protection[22].
It is also the case for their family members who are reunited according to the
rules of the Directive[23].

As regards the other categories, in
particular humanitarian cases or regularisations, national rules are applied.

It remains in the national competence of
Member States to grant an authorisation to stay and/ or a travel document to
non-EU citizens whose situation is not covered by EU law. Such decisions are
taken on the basis of national rules.

With regard to the holders of long stay
visas and residence permits, the Schengen acquis only states the
principle of the equivalence between a long stay visa/residence permit and a
short stay visa[24]:
according to this principle, the holder of a long stay visa or residence permit
issued by a Schengen state is entitled to travel to the other Schengen states
for short stay, if they meet the entry conditions, i.e. if they are in
possession of a valid travel document; justify the purpose and conditions of
the intended stay and have sufficient means of subsistence; are not a person
for whom an alert has been issued in the SIS for the purpose of refusing entry;
and are not considered to be a threat to public policy, internal security,
public health or the international relations of any of the Member States[25]. It is the responsibility of
the competent authorities of the Member State to which the holder of a
residence permit issued by another Member State travels, to check whether the
person concerned fulfils these conditions. This check can be done on the
territory of the Member States. Should checks at the internal borders have been
reintroduced, in accordance with the Schengen Borders Code[26] (hereinafter
'the Code'), this verification could take place at the internal borders.
This also applies to a non-EU citizen who holds a provisional residence permit
and a travel document issued by a Schengen State[27].

Member States have the obligation to notify
to the Commission their types of long stay visa, residence permits and
provisional residence permits that are equivalent to a short stay visa and the
Commission makes this information available to the other Member States[28]. Other Member States are
obliged to accept that these long stay visas and residence permits are
equivalent to a short stay visa for travelling within the Schengen area.

The EU legal framework does not define
conditions for issuing travel documents to non-EU citizens, except for the
provisions on the issuing of travel documents to persons recognised as in need
of international protection. Thus, travel documents must be provided for
refugees (obligation under the Geneva Convention) and for beneficiaries of
subsidiary protection (at least when they need to travel for humanitarian
reasons), unless compelling reasons of national security or public order
otherwise require[29].
Exceptionally, travel documents could be provided to asylum seekers for serious
humanitarian reasons[30].
A laissez-passer could be supplied to an asylum applicant subject to a
Dublin transfer, with the purpose of identifying the person and allowing
him/her to enter the territory of the responsible Member State[31]. Finally, if temporary
protection is declared, Member States are to use a specific type of pass for
transfers of beneficiaries between Member States[32].

II.        Guidelines for Member States

Events in 2011 have shown that the issuing
of long stay visas, residence permits including provisional ones and travel documents
to non-EU citizens, in cases of a sudden large scale inflow of migrants, may
impact negatively on the proper functioning of the Schengen area without
internal borders.

If a Member state is confronted with a
sudden large scale inflow of non-EU citizen migrants and where this does not
trigger the application of the Temporary Protection Directive:

1)           This Member State should
inform in a timely manner the other Member States and the Commission of the
decisions it intends to take with regard to the issuing of residence permits
including provisional ones and travel documents to the non-EU citizens
concerned in the framework of the Mutual Information Mechanism (MIM).[33] On the basis of the
information provided, ad hoc debates could be initiated by the Commission
working together with the Council Presidency and in consultation with the
Member State providing the information, at an appropriate level within the
Council.

2)           If a Member State decides
to issue residence permits and has the choice amongst different types of
residence permits in accordance with its national legislation, it should opt
for issuing residence permits or provisional residence permits that are not
equivalent to a short stay visa if the migrants do not meet the conditions for
travelling within the Schengen area.

3)           When issuing residence
permits or provisional residence permits that are equivalent to a short stay
visa, it should inform the holders of such documents in an appropriate and
efficient way, about the conditions on which they can (or can not) travel
within the Schengen area. Members States are encouraged to provide this
information on their national websites which are linked to the EU Immigration
Portal.

Furthermore:

1)           On the basis of the
information already provided by the European Migration Network (EMN) study on
non-EU Harmonised Protection Statuses[34],
which identified the many conditions for and types of residence permits/long
stay visas issued for protection purposes, Member States should exchange
information on their existing national practices in this area in the framework
of the Committee on Immigration and Asylum (CIA).

2)           Member States should be
ready to contribute to a future EMN Ad-Hoc Query on details of national
legislation on the conditions under which Member States issue identity or
travel documents to non-EU citizens who do not hold a travel document issued by
their country of origin and on the existing practices in this area.

For its part, the Commission will continue
to promote exchange of information through the MIM, CIA, EMN and other
channels.

B.        Police measures in the
internal border zones

I.          Introduction

The situation
might arise where Member States consider that, in order to more effectively
combat cross-border crime, they need to implement additional measures in their
internal border areas. While these measures must not have an effect equivalent
to border checks, they may still have an adverse impact on neighbouring
countries and on the free movement of persons, including EU citizens and their
family members. Travellers may perceive such measures as infringing on one of
the fundamental achievements of the European Union.

Title III of
the Schengen Borders Code provides that internal borders between Schengen
states may be crossed at any point without a border check on persons,
irrespective of their nationality, being carried out. The abolition of border
control at internal borders also entails the abolition of border surveillance. This does not preclude the right of Member
States to exercise police powers by the competent national authorities under
national law, including in the internal border zones, insofar as this exercise
does not have an effect equivalent to border checks. The Code includes a
non-exhaustive list of criteria to assess whether the exercise of police powers
is equivalent to border checks or not. Police measures are for instance not
considered to be equivalent to border checks if they do not have border control
as an objective, are based on general
police information and experience regarding possible threats to public security
and aim, in particular, to combat cross-border crime, are devised and executed
in a manner clearly distinct from systematic checks on persons at the external
borders and are carried out on the basis of spot-checks.

In
October 2010, the Commission reported to the European Parliament and to the
Council on the application of the provisions related to the absence of internal
border controls. In its report[35],
the Commission concluded that the setting up of an area without internal borders
where the free movement of persons is ensured represents one of the most
substantial and tangible accomplishments of the Union. Any restrictions,
such as police checks in the vicinity of internal borders, are perceived by
citizens as hampering their right to free movement. Persons cannot be checked
solely because they are crossing an internal border, neither at the border not
in the border areas.

The
Commission expressed concern in the report about difficulties reported by
travellers in connection with alleged regular and systematic checks carried out
by the national authorities of some Member States in internal border zones and
committed itself to closely monitor the situation in the internal border zones
to ensure the correct application of EU law.

On
22 June 2010, in a landmark judgment[36]
the Court of Justice of the EU clarified that national legislation conferring
on the police authorities of a Member State the competence to check the
identity of persons present exclusively in a 20-kilometres internal border
zone, independently of their behaviour and any particular circumstances
presenting a risk to public order, for the
purpose of verifying compliance with the obligation to hold or carry papers and
documents required by law, without providing for the necessary framework
to guarantee that the practical implementation of this competence does not have
an effect equivalent to border checks, is in breach of Article 67(2) TFEU as
well as Articles 20 and 21 of the Code.

Following
the judgement, the Commission requested Member States to adapt accordingly any
national legislation conferring specific competences on national police
authorities within internal border zones.

Consequently,
some Member States modified their national legislation so as to limit the
exercise of police powers in internal border zones in relation to location,
specific means of transport and time (e.g. limitation of the area near the
internal border where checks can be carried out on international trains or
vehicles after the crossing of the border; definition of a maximum time limit
per day, week or month, limitation of a maximum number of train carriages to be
checked per train).

II.        Guidelines for Member States

1)           In
accordance with the Schengen Borders Code, Member States may exercise police
powers within their territories including in internal border zones, in order to
verify a person's right to stay within the territory. However, these checks are to be targeted and based on updated
and concrete police information and experience as regards threats to public
security. Consequently, checks may only be carried out as spot-checks according
to the assessment of the risk.

Simply moving the checks from the internal
border line itself to an area e.g. 800 metres behind this line would not suffice
to consider that such checks were not equivalent to border checks.

2)           In case the need arises to
carry out regular and systematic checks as a response to the security situation
in their territories, Member States could envisage the temporary reintroduction
of border control at the internal borders in accordance with the Code[37].

3)           In accordance with the
statement by the Court in points 73 and 74 of the Melki judgment, legislation concerning
checks only in internal border zones, needs to contain limitations in
particular in relation to the intensity and frequency of controls. In addition,
if a check does not depend upon the behaviour of the person checked or on
specific circumstances giving rise to a risk of breach of public order, it must
provide for the necessary framework to guide the practical application.

Therefore, legislation containing precise
objectives for carrying out these checks and possible limitations in time may
provide for the necessary guarantees, in particular if they are based on general
police information and experience.

4)           When assessing the
compatibility of police checks in internal border zones with the Schengen
acquis, it is necessary to examine how these checks are implemented in
practice. Hence, when the Commission is confronted with serious allegations of
borders checks in internal border zones, as stated in the 2010 report, it needs
to seek concrete statistical information from Member States; it may therefore
request the Member State concerned to submit information on checks performed at
the border during a given period (time, locations, reasons and the national
authority responsible) as well as on how these have contributed to reaching the
aims laid down in national legislation or strategies, i.a. on combating
cross-border crime.

In this context, the existence of a risk
assessment and the fact that the Member State concerned is taking measures not
only in the internal border zone but in other parts of its territory will be
taken into account by the Commission. Member States are therefore again
encouraged, as already done in the Commission 2010 report, to take to the
extent possible the necessary measures to collect this information, in the
internal border zones and on the rest of their territories. This will then make
it possible, when needed, to make a sound assessment that checks carried out in
internal border zones are proportionate to the objectives. Moreover, these
statistics, combined with ex post assessments of the results of the checks, may
also prove useful for the Member States themselves when evaluating national
strategies and planning future deployment of resources.

[1]               COM (2011) 561 Communication from the Commission to
the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Schengen governance –
strengthening the area without internal border control, COM (2011) 559 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 and COM (2011) 560 Proposal for a regulation
of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EC) No
562/2006 in order to provide for common rules on the reintroduction of border
control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances.

[2]               COM (2011) 873 Proposal for a regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Border
Surveillance System (EUROSUR).

[3]               Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council amending Council regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the
third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing
the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that
requirement.

[4]               COM (2011) 743 Communication from the Commission to
the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The Global Approach to Migration
and Mobility

[5]               Frontex quarterly risk analysis October-December 2011

[6]               For the purposes of this report, non-EU family
members of EU citizens are not covered when referring to third country
nationals, given the privileged status they enjoy under EU law on free movement
of persons (Directive 2011/38/EC) and the Schengen acquis.

[7]               Frontex annual risk analysis 2012

[8]               Frontex annual risk analysis 2012

[9]               Summary report by the Polish Border Guard
Headquarters, November 2011

[10]             Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against
employers of illegally staying third-country nationals

[11]             Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament
and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the
movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

[12]             SCH/Com-ex (98) 26 def.

[13]             SEC (2011) 1570 Commission
staff working paper - Second report on the post-visa liberalisation monitoring
for the Western Balkan countries in accordance with the Commission Statement of
8 November 2010

[14]             COM (2011) 248 Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions – Communication on Migration

[15]             COM (2011) 561 Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions – Schengen governance – strengthening the area
without internal border control

[16]             Council document 5090/2/12 SCH-EVAL 1 COMIX 6 REV 2

[17]             COM(559) 2011 and COM (560)2011

[18]             COM(2011) 561

[19]             For the purposes of these guidelines, non-EU family
members of EU citizens are not covered when referring to third country
nationals, given the privileged status they enjoy under EU law on free movement
of persons (Directive 2004:38) and the Schengen acquis

[20]             Article 6 of Reception Conditions Directive 2003/09/EC

[21]             Article 24 of Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC

[22]             Article 8 of Temporary Protection Directive 2001/55/EC

[23]             Article 15(6) of Temporary Protection Directive
2001/55/EC

[24]             Art. 21 (1) and (3) of the Schengen Convention as
amended by Regulation (EU) n° 265/2010 of the EP and the Council of 25 March
2010, OJ n° L85, 31.3.2010, p.

[25]             Article 5 of Regulation (EC)
No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement
of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006, p.1

[26]             Article 23 et seq of Regulation
(EC) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement
of persons across borders, OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006, p.1

[27]             Article 21(2) of the Schengen Convention.

[28]             See Annex 22 of the Commission Recommendation 06/11/2006
establishing a common "Practical Handbook for Border Guards (Schengen
Handbook) to be used by Member States' competent authorities when carrying out
the border control on persons, C(2006) 5186 final

[29]             Article 25 of the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC

[30]             Article 6 of Reception Conditions Directive 2003/09/EC

[31]             Article 19(3) and Article 20(1)(e) of Dublin Regulation
343/2003 and Article 7(2) of Dublin implementing regulation 1560/2003

[32]             Article 26(5) of Temporary Protection Directive
2001/55/EC

[33]             Established by Council Decision 2006/688/EC.

[34]             Available from http://www.emn.europa.eu
under "EMN Studies"

[35]             Report from the Commission to
the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Title III (Internal
Borders) of the Schengen Borders Code, COM(2010) 554 final

[36]             Joint Cases C–188/10 and C-189/10, Melki and Others

[37]             Article
23 et seq.