Executive Summary Sheet

Impact assessment on the Modified proposal for a Regulation establishing an EU Entry Exit System and for a Regulation amending the Schengen Border Code (Regulation (EC) N°562/2006)

A. Need for action

Why? What is the problem being addressed?

Scope of the Impact Assessment: third-country nationals (TCN) having the right to enter for a short stay of up to 90 days within any 180 day period or on the basis of a touring visa. Addressed problems and main drivers: (1) the increasing number of border crossings in and out of the Schengen area (around 300 million TCN border crossings estimated for the year 2025) leading to delays in border checks, (2) the current control of authorised period of stay of TCN is error prone, slow and not systematically implemented (complexity and slowness of the current travel document stamping obligation), (3) current border control process cannot report and identify overstayers systematically, easily and in a reliable manner, resulting in a lack of reliable information on irregular immigration and problems for return (absence of modern means and technologies) and (4) the need to further reinforce the fight against international criminality, terrorism and other security threats. Stakeholders: mainly TCN crossing the Schengen borders, border guards, visa/immigration authorities and carriers.

What is this initiative expected to achieve?

The general policy objectives of the Entry Exit System (EES) are: (1)To improve the management of external borders; (2)To reduce irregular migration, by addressing the phenomenon of overstaying; (3)To contribute to the fight against terrorism and serious crime and ensure a high level of internal security. The EES will facilitate the border crossing of legitimate travellers while increasing the possibility to identify overstayers and irregular migrants as well as facilitating the implementation of return decisions. It will also ensure a better identification of third country nationals and will allow detecting people using several identities.

What is the value added of action at the EU level?

The absence of internal borders in the Schengen area requires a sound management of external borders where each country has to control the external border on behalf of the other Schengen States. Consequently, no Member State (MS) is able to cope on its own with irregular immigration. A person may enter the Schengen area at a border crossing point in a MS where a national register of entry/exit data is used, but exit through a border crossing point where no such system is used. The monitoring of compliance with EU rules on authorised stays can therefore not be done by MS acting alone. In an area without internal borders, action against irregular immigration should be undertaken in common. Moreover, better information on cross border movements of TCN at EU level would establish a factual basis to develop and adapt the EU migration policy. Considering all this the EU is better placed than MS to take the appropriate measures.

B. Solutions

Which is the preferred policy option? Why?

The preferred options for the implementation of the EES have the following characteristics: (1)There will be one single system: the EES. Interoperability between the EES and the existing Visa Information System (VIS) is established at central level. Communications with MS occur via a National Uniform Interface which is the same for all MS. (2)The biometric identifiers for EES are 4 fingerprints used in combination with the facial image. This option meets both the objectives of sufficiently accurate identification and of border crossing facilitation. (3)The approach for facilitation is based on the implementation of self-service systems used by TCN to start border clearance which will be completed by providing additional information on border guard's request. National Registered Traveller Programmes could be established on a voluntary basis. This is the preferred option as it combines many positive impacts, addresses a larger group of travellers and has the best cost/benefit efficiency. (4)The retention period of 5 years for stored data reduces the re-enrolment frequency and will be beneficial for all travellers, while allowing the border guard to perform the necessary risk analysis required by the Schengen Borders Code.. (5)From the start of operations, MS' law enforcement authorities and Europol will have access to the EES, under strictly defined conditions and in accordance with the relevant data protection rules. Providing access to data to law enforcement authorities from the start is coherent with the VIS Regulation.

Who supports which option?