WRITTEN QUESTION E-3754/02 by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission. Application of the Schengen Agreement at Frankfurt airport.
Date: 2002-12-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, Germany, Schengen Agreement, application of EU law, border control, discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of persons

C 280 E/24

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping
companies (consortia)) (2), which allows liner shipping operators to share investment costs and engage in
operational co-operation in order to provide a scheduled service. It does not allow the operators to fix
prices.

(1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1986.
(2) OJ L 100, 20.4.2000.

(2003/C 280 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3754/02

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Application of the Schengen Agreement at Frankfurt airport

A Swedish citizen who flew into Frankfurt airport (in November 2002) from a non-European country has
stated that, on arrival, German police singled out all those travelling on German passports and ushered
them into a separate queue to pass through passport control. German passport-holders were therefore able
to get through passport control considerably faster than anyone else holding a passport issued by another
Schengen country, as the latter were instructed to join the normal queue, conventionally divided into
queues for EU citizens and non-EU citizens, which were, of course, much longer.

This procedure, as described, raises questions as to how the principles of the Schengen Convention are
applied at Frankfurt airport. Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council
is
responsible for ensuring that checks on individuals at the external borders of the Schengen area are carried
out in a uniform manner. However, the description of the procedure at Frankfurt airport indicates that this
is not the case and that it constitutes a breach of the principles laid down in the Schengen agreement.

Does the ‘common manual for the external frontiers’ allow the type of distinction between different
Schengen citizens as described above?

If not, what measures can the Commission take to deal with this discrimination?

In the light of this situation, should the revision of the manual, which is reportedly in progress, be stepped
up?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

In response to the matters raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would recall the following
principles of Community law:

(cid:1) Under Council Decision 1999/436/EC of 20 May 1999 (1), the main provisions of the Schengen acquis
relating to the monitoring and surveillance of persons crossing the external borders have been given a
new legal basis in Article 62 of the EC Treaty, in particular the decision of the Schengen Executive
Committee introducing and applying the Schengen arrangements in airports and aerodromes (2).
Henceforth the provisions which constitute the Schengen acquis have the status of Community law
and thus the Commission can exercise its role of guardian of the Treaties to ensure compliance with
it.

(cid:1) With regard to substance, the Schengen acquis provides that checks on persons crossing external
borders should be kept to a minimum for those covered by Community law, with identity papers and
travel documents being checked. More thorough checks should be carried out on nationals of third
countries not covered by Community law, and checks should not be confined to a mere examination
of their identity papers or travel documents.

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/25

(cid:1) With regard to practical arrangements in airports, the Schengen acquis makes provision for separate
passenger flows for persons covered by Community law and for third-country nationals. The purpose
of these channels is to minimise waiting times at external borders for persons covered by Community
law and to enable border control staff to carry out the thorough checks prescribed for third-country
on nationals under the best possible conditions.

(cid:1) The separate passenger flows provided for by the Schengen acquis are consistent with Community law
relating to the free movement of Union citizens. No discrimination is made between persons covered
by Community law or between Member States which apply the Schengen acquis in full and those
which do not. Should the claims made by the Honourable Member be proved valid, they would be in
contradiction with the Schengen acquis and with the Community principle of non-discrimination
between Union citizens.

(cid:1) On a more general note, with regard to checking that the Schengen acquis is properly applied by the
Member States, visits by the evaluation committee introduced at the time of intergovernmental
cooperation (3) have been incorporated into the Union’s institutions. They have been given a dual legal
basis in Article 66 of the EC Treaty and in Articles 30 and 31 of the Treaty on European Union (4).
On that occasion the Commission stated that ‘the Schengen Implementing Convention Standing
Committee (…) does not in any way affect the powers devolving on it from the Treaties and in
particular its responsibility as guardian of the Treaties.’

(cid:1) The Commission’s responsibilities in the matter are illustrated by the fact that, in agreement with the
conclusions of the Seville European Council and with the External Borders Management Plan adopted
by the Council (Justice and Home Affairs) on 13 June 2002, the Commission is preparing a legislative
proposal recasting the Common Manual on Checks at the External Borders. The conversion of the
main provisions of the Common Manual into Community rules will remove all ambiguity as to their
compulsory nature for the Member States.

(1) 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 European Union, the legal basis for each of the
provisions or decisions which constitute the Schengen acquis (cid:1) OJ L 176, 10.7.1999.

(2) Decision of the Schengen Executive Committee No SCH/Com-ex (94) 17, rev 4 of 22.12.1994 (cid:1) published in

OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.

(3) Decision by the Schengen Executive Committee SCH/Com-ex (98) 26 final of 16.9.1998 (cid:1) published in OJ L 239,

22.9.2000.

(4) Council Decision 1999/436/EC (cid:1) OJ L 176, 10.7.1999.

(2003/C 280 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3767/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Financial barriers to visits by relatives and elderly tourists from Russia travelling via future EU

territory to Kaliningrad

Can the Commission confirm that, on the basis of the November 2002 agreement between the EU
1.
and the Russian Federation, a transit visa for travelling within Russia, across EU territory, will cost EUR 16
for persons living in Kaliningrad, but EUR 35 for other Russians (cid:1) sums which, albeit affordable for EU
citizens, are very large for Russians?

2.
Does the difference in price referred to in question 1 stem from moves made by the EU or by Russia?
Is the intention to make access from the Kaliningrad ‘oblast’ to other parts of Russia easier than access
from other parts of Russia to the Kaliningrad ‘oblast’? What interests does that serve?

3.
Is the Commission aware that this arrangement will put up financial barriers for people on low
incomes from other parts of the Russian Federation who wish to visit the Kaliningrad ‘oblast’, but not by
sea or air (those connections costing more), and that this may become a problem for,
in particular,
relatives living elsewhere and older people who until now have spent their holidays on the Baltic coast in
that region?