20. Calls on the social partners within the Member States and at Community level to develop their own
approaches to combating bullying and violence at work, and to exchange experience about these inaccordance with the principle of best practice;
21. Recalls that harassment also has negative consequences from the point of view of employers,
adversely affecting the profitability and economic performance of firms as a result of the absenteeism itcauses, the reduced productivity of employees arising from their sense of confusion and loss of concen-tration, and the need to pay compensation to dismissed employees;
22. Underlines the importance of broadening and clarifying the employers responsibility for systematic
action on health and safety at work that results in the achievement of a satisfactory working environment;
23. Calls for a debate on how voluntary networks or organisations against bullying can be supported;
24. Asks the Commission to publish no later than March 2002 a Green Paper providing a detailed
analysis of the situation regarding the issue of bullying at work in the various Member States and, on thebasis of this analysis, to present no later than October 2002, an action programme of measures at Com-munity level against bullying at work; considers that the action programme should include a timetable;
25. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and the European Agency for Safetyand Health at Work.
11. External borders and Schengen
A5-0233/2001
European Parliament resolution on crossing external borders and the development of Schengen
cooperation (10846/1999  C5-0042/2000) + (11329/3/1999  C5-0043/2000) + (SCHAC 2533/1/
2000  C5-0729/2000) + (SEC(2000) 1439  C5-0730/2000  2000/2015(COS))
The European Parliament,
 having regard to the Council 1998 Annual Report on the implementation of the Schengen Conven-
tion (10846/1999  C5-0042/2000),
 having regard to the Council Annual Report on the situation at the external borders of the states in
which the Schengen Convention has been brought into force  1 January 1998 to 31 December1998 (11329/3/1999  C5-0043/2000),
 having regard to Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority Fourth Annual Report (SCHAC 2533/1/2000
 C5-0729/2000),
 having regard to the Commission opinion on the request by Ireland to take part in some of the
provisions of the Schengen acquis (SEC(2000) 1439  C5-0730/2000),
 having regard to Title IV of the EC Treaty on visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to
free movement of persons,
 having regard to Title VI on the Treaty of European Union on police and judicial cooperation in
criminal matters,
 having regard to the protocols and declarations on integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework
of the European Union, on the application of certain aspects of Article 14 of the Treaty establishingthe European Community to the United Kingdom and to Ireland, on the position of the United King-dom and Ireland and on the position of Denmark,28.3.2002 EN C 77 E/141 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 20 September 2001
 having regard to Article 255 of the EC Treaty and Article 41 of the Treaty on European Union,
 having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed on
7 December 2000 at the European Council meeting in Nice and, in particular, to Article 6 (right ofliberty and security), Article 8 (protection of personal data), Article 20 (equality before the law), Arti-cle 42 (right of access to documents) and Article 45 (right to free movement and residence),
 having regard to Council Decision 1999/435/EC of 20 May 1999 concerning the definition of the
Schengen acquis for the purpose of determining, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the
Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty on European Union, the legal basis foreach of the provisions or decisions which constitute the acquis (
1),
 having regard to Council Decision 1999/436/EC of 20 May 1999 determining, in conformity with the
relevant provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty on EuropeanUnion, the legal basis for each of the provisions or decisions which constitute the Schengen acquis and
Statements (
2),
 having regard to Council Decision 1999/438/EC of 20 May 1999 concerning the Joint Supervisory
Authority set up under Article 115 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement of 14 June1985, on the gradual abolition of checks at common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 (
3),
 having regard to Council Decision 1999/439/EC of 17 May 1999 on the conclusion of the Agreement
with the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters association with theimplementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (
4),
 having regard to Council Decision 1999/307/EC of 1 May 1999 laying down the detailed arrange-
ments for the integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council (5),
 having regard to Council Decision 1999/848/EC of 13 December 1999 on the full application of the
Schengen acquis in Greece (6),
 having regard to Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the
Schengen acquis (7),
 having regard to Council Decision of 17 October 2000 establishing a secretariat for the joint super-
visory data-protection bodies set up by the Convention on the Establishment of a European PoliceOffice (Europol Convention), the Convention on the Use of Information Technology for CustomsPurposes and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement on the gradual abolition ofchecks at the common borders (Schengen Convention) (
8),
 having regard to the Decision of the Schengen Executive Committee of 20 December 1995 on
the procedure for applying Article 2(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement(SCH/Com-ex (95) 20, rev. 2) (
9),
 having regard to Decision of the Schengen Executive Committee of 14 December 1993 concerning
the confidential nature of certain documents (SCH/Com-ex (93) 22 rev.) (10),
 having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
 having regard to the report of the Committee on Citizens Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home
Affairs (and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security andDefence Policy) (A5-0233/2001),
(1) OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 17.
(3) OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 34.
(4) OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 35.
(5) OJ L 119, 7.5.1999, p. 49.
(6) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999, p. 58.
(7) OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43.
(8) OJ L 271, 24.10.2000, p. 1.
(9) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 133.
(10) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 129.C 77 E/142 EN 28.3.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 20 September 2001
A. whereas one of the objectives laid down in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union is to maintain
and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement ofpersons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls,immigration, asylum and the prevention and combating of crime,
Respect for fundamental rights
B. whereas an area of freedom, security and justice implies an area where rights of citizens are respected,C. whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights was proclaimed by the European institutions on
7 December 2000 and the Commission and Parliament have made a commitment to base their futureactions on the Charter,
D. whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights should now provide a reference framework for all the
activities of the institutions,
Extension of the Schengen area
E. whereas the Schengen Convention is now fully in force in ten Member States, and came fully into
force on 25 March 2001 in the five countries of the Nordic Passport Union (Denmark, Finland,Sweden, Norway and Iceland),
F. whereas, following the partial participation of the United Kingdom in the Schengen acquis , the request
from Ireland for similar partial participation in the Schengen acquis is to be welcomed, despite the fact
that the participation of both the United Kingdom and Ireland is limited to the law enforcement
aspects and that neither will participate in the Schengen acquis relating to the free movement of
persons and the abolition of internal borders,
G. whereas the lack of consultation and information to Parliament, in particular, on the extension of the
Schengen Convention to the countries of the Nordic Passport Union and to the United Kingdom and
Ireland is contrary to Article 39 of the Treaty on European Union,
Results of the integration of the Schengen acquis into the Treaties
H. whereas the process for the examination of the legal basis of the Schengen acquis lacked consultation
and transparency,
I. whereas the strict interpretation of the Protocol on the integration of the Schengen acquis has limited
the information considered as the Schengen acquis and therefore published in the Official Journal,
J. whereas documents considered by the Council to be confidential on the basis of the Schengen rules on
confidentiality are not available to the European Parliament or to the public,
K. whereas since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty and the subsequent incorporation of the
Schengen acquis into the Treaty, major and serious shortcomings have existed with regard to trans-
parency and democratic control by the European Parliament,
Enhanced cooperation on the free movement of persons
L. whereas a large number of initiatives have been submitted by the Member States which aim to supple-
ment or replace measures which formed part of the Schengen acquis ; whereas although the aim of
most of the initiatives can be supported, the initiatives are fragmentary, lacking consistency and oftenlacking explanatory statements, so that it is unclear whether and the extent to which the initiativesreplace the Schengen acquis ,
M. whereas it will now be less clear for citizens to understand which measures in this field apply to
which Member States,28.3.2002 EN C 77 E/143 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 20 September 2001
N. whereas there is no assessment of any negative effects of this enhanced cooperation on the devel-
opment of the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice or on citizens,
O. whereas the maintenance of Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention permits the Schengen states to
unilaterally re-impose internal border controls with only prior notification of other states and whereas,in particular, France, due to its opposition to the Dutch policy on drugs, maintains its right to controlthe border with Belgium,
P. whereas the Commission intends to adopt in the first quarter of 2001 a proposal on the integration of
Article 2 of the Schengen Convention into Community legislation,
Schengen measures concerning law enforcement and security
Q. whereas, although progress has been made in relation to police cooperation under the framework of
Schengen, legal problems arise from the differing powers of the police services of the Schengen states,including the lack of uniform rules concerning the grounds of an offence, the absence of a right ofarrest for pursuing officers in some states, inadequate rules on the use of special rights of way and alack of radio compatibility,
R. whereas the separate development of police cooperation under Europol and the absence of public
information result in the role of the police in the area of freedom, security and justice becoming lesstransparent and more confusing for citizens,
S. whereas the Parliament has not been informed of any developments in the field of police cooperation
under Schengen since the integration of the Schengen acquis in the Treaties and, in particular, of any
proposals, strategic or otherwise, for measures to remedy the shortcomings identified,
T. whereas citizens rights in criminal proceedings have recently been confirmed in the chapter on Jus-
tice in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and greater transparency is essential to ensure the protec-tion and respect of citizens rights in the field of cooperation,
Schengen Information System (SIS)
U. whereas no agreement was reached in the Council on the legal basis of the Schengen Information
System (SIS) and therefore, pursuant to the Schengen protocol, the SIS is dealt with under the thirdpillar; whereas, however, 89 % of the data on persons (
1) held in the SIS is on unwanted persons
pursuant to Article 96 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, i.e. the first pillar,which is consistent with the view expressed by the Netherlands and Belgium that at least part of theSIS falls within the first pillar,
V. whereas the Joint Supervisory Authority in its Third Annual report (March 1998 to February 1999)
and in its Fourth Annual Report (March 1999 to February 2000) identified shortcomings in the treat-ment of personal data in the operation of the SIS, including: failures of the approved authorities to
give reasons for their enquiries in the SIS; failure to destroy documents relating to alerts after the
alerts had been deleted and use of these documents to supplement police records; maintenance onthe SIS of data on persons whose identity has been usurped with no attempt to inform or obtain theconsent of the legitimate holder of the identity that his/her data is contained on the SIS system; theabusive use of data; and slow or inadequate procedures for checking and correcting data,
(1) See the Justice Report: The Schengen Information System: A human rights audit.C 77 E/144 EN 28.3.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 20 September 2001
W. whereas concerns have also been raised by the Joint Supervisory Authority about the complexity of
the system and shortcomings in the physical security of the SIS, including inadequate controls onaccess, inadequate authorisation procedures for operational access to the system and for the regularverification of users rights, problems with the telecommunications encryption equipment, andimprovements could be made in the audit trail functions and to ensure protection against hacking,
X. whereas there is no legal base for the operation of the Sirene system and therefore the Sirene offices
operate without a strictly defined role,
Y. whereas there is a lack of clear criteria for entering data on the system, in particular, in relation to
unwanted aliens and therefore the Schengen States can interpret the rules as they wish and, fur-thermore, decisions on the entry of data into the system can be taken at a relatively low level;whereas, given the many shortcomings identified by the Joint Supervisory Authority in relation tothe protection of data and the inadequate remedies available to persons whose data is on the SIS, thecurrent situation fails to meet the level of protection required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights,with potentially serious consequences for citizens,
Z. whereas the establishment of a separate joint secretariat for the Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority
has been agreed by the Council;whereas this is a welcome step towards the fair and equal treatmentof personal data under not only the Schengen Convention, but also the Convention on the establish-ment of a European Police Force (Europol Convention) and the Convention on the Use ofInformation technology for Customs Purposes; however, to be truly independent the joint secretariatrequires an independent budget separate from the budget of the Council,
External borders and enlargement
AA. whereas the abovementioned report on the situation at the external borders notes that progress has
been made on improving the external borders; whereas Parliament has received no furtherinformation on the situation at the external borders since that report and any measures taken toimprove the situation,
BB. whereas the candidate countries include communities which cross borders and therefore the estab-
lishment of strict border controls would divide communities,
CC. whereas the countries of the Nordic Passport Union were not required to establish border controls
between themselves in order to participate in the Schengen area but joined as a group once thecontrols had been established by all of them.
1. Calls on Council to formally declare that its future actions, including the operation of the Schengen
Information System, will be in accordance with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights;
2. Calls on the United Kingdom and Ireland to make a commitment to fully participate in the Schengen
acquis (and therefore abolish border controls) and to indicate the calendar for the legal and technical
modifications required, on which they should start work as soon as possible;
3. Calls on the signatory States to interpret Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention in a way that is
genuinely consistent with its meaning and rationale, and in particular (in cases where it is strictly necessaryto apply that provision on public policy or national security grounds) calls on the signatory States toconfine themselves to carrying out national border controls and not to indiscriminately prevent people
from crossing their national borders;
4. Calls for the Schengen rules on confidentiality of documents to be replaced with rules on public
access to documents adopted under Article 255 of the EC Treaty, and for Parliament to be fully informedof documents excluded from public access;28.3.2002 EN C 77 E/145 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 20 September 2001
5. Calls for the annexes to the joint manual and joint consular instructions to be published, particularly
the list of visa applications which require prior consultation by national central authorities or for reasonsto be provided for refusing public access in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (
1);
6. Urges the Council and Commission to submit an annual report to the Parliament on the measures
adopted in the area of freedom security and justice with an evaluation of the development or replacementof the Schengen acquis , the enhanced cooperation between some Member States and the partial partici-
pation in the Schengen acquis of some Member States, with an evaluation of any problems for the con-
sistency and coherence of Union law; notes that, pursuant to Articles 39 and 45 of the Treaty on European
Union, the Council and Commission are required to inform the European Parliament regularly of thedevelopment of closer cooperation regarding fields covered by the third pillar;
7. Recommends the creation of a working group within the framework of COSAC with responsibility
for activities relating to the area of freedom, security and justice, whose meetings should also be attendedby representatives of parliaments of non-EU countries participating in Schengen;
8. States its intention of organising an annual joint meeting with delegations from the parliaments of
the Member States which are involved in Schengen cooperation (including those of the Nordic PassportUnion) with the aim of exchanging experience of the practical operation and the implementation by theMember States of the policy adopted in this field;
9. Calls on the Commission to prepare a timetable for the review and, where necessary, replacement of
the Schengen acquis and for remedying the shortcomings established in the recitals and to include this
timetable in the revised Scoreboard;
10. Urges the Member States, prior to submitting a formal initiative pursuant to Article 67(1) of the EC
Treaty, to make a formal request to the Commission for it to submit a proposal on the matter and calls onthe Commission to take account of Article 67(2) and the need for consistency and coherence, and to, as faras possible, submit proposals that cover the issues raised by the Member States;
11. Calls for proper respect to be shown for the right to demonstrate and the freedom of movement of
persons;
12. Calls on the Commission to include, in its proposal on the integration of Article 2(2) of the
Schengen Convention into Community legislation, rules on the prior consultation of the Council, approvalof temporary border controls only for a limited period (possibly 30 days) and a review of the propor-tionality of the controls and conditions for the extension of that period;
13. Calls on the Council to ensure that the Parliament is able to fully participate in the debate on
measures to remedy the shortcomings in the field of police cooperation and requests the Council to ensureconsistency in the practical rules to be applied under the Schengen Convention;
14. Calls on the Council to fully respect Article 39 of the Treaty on European Union by submitting to
the Parliament for its opinion all framework decisions, decisions and Conventions in sufficient time andwith a reasonable deadline, and for the Council to provide regular reports on cooperation under the thirdpillar in accordance with Article 39(2) of the Treaty on European Union;
15. Calls for the strengthening of the judicial control over intergovernmental cooperation under the
third pillar provided for in Article 35 of the Treaty on European Union, in particular, by giving the ECJfull jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on references from the Member States and by removing thelimitation on the review by the ECJ in cases concerning the maintenance of law and order and the safe-guarding of internal security, at least in so far as fundamental rights are concerned;
(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.C 77 E/146 EN 28.3.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 20 September 2001
16. Calls on the Council to adopt a legally binding instrument on the data protection standards to be
applied in the third pillar which affords guarantees equivalent to the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC (1);
17. Calls on the Council to adopt uniform standards, procedures, powers and a separate budget for the
operation of the single supervisory body, under the supervision of the European Parliament, in respect of
its activities pursuant to the three conventions (Schengen, Europol and Customs Use) and to ensure the
respect of the data protection standards laid down in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
18. Calls in the meantime for the strengthening of the competences of the Schengen Joint Supervisory
Authority in order to enable it to monitor the Schengen Information System in a more effective andefficient way;
19. Calls for the Schengen Information System to be managed within the EU framework by a separate
agency, financed from the EU budget, and for the establishment of a Community (Union) informationsystem under the responsibility of the Commission, which would be a single computer network systemfor the data received under the three conventions (Schengen, Europol and Customs Use), taking intoaccount the need to keep the respective data separate and the need to ensure the functional separation(access levels, security system, etc.) required by end-user services, both within the Community frameworkand under the third pillar;
20. Calls for the membership of the candidate countries to be subject only to the political acceptance of
the Schengen acquis and the development of the necessary policy instruments to implement that acquis and,
as was the case on the occasion of the previous accessions, for the actual lifting of internal borders for thefree movement of persons to be the subject of a separate and subsequent decision of the Council, acting ona proposal from the Commission and after consultation of the Parliament;
*
**
21. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and Schengen Joint
Supervisory Authority.
(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.28.3.2002 EN C 77 E/147 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 20 September 2001