Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the establishment of an evaluation mechanism to verify application of the Schengen acquis
Date: 2010-11-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, area of freedom, security and justice, border control, external border of the EU, freedom of movement, internal border of the EU

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 16.11.2010 
COM(2010) 624 final 

2010/0312 (COD) 

Proposal for a  

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the establishment of an evaluation mechanism to verify application of the Schengen 
acquis  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objective of the proposal 

The  objective  of  the  proposed  Regulation  is  to  establish  a  legal  framework  for  evaluating 
correct  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis.  This  evaluation  mechanism  is  designed  to 
maintain  mutual  trust  between  Member  States  in  their  capacity  to  apply,  effectively  and 
efficiently,  the  accompanying  measures  making  it  possible  to  maintain  an  area  without 
internal borders.  

The overall objectives of the new mechanism should be to ensure transparent, effective and 
consistent  implementation  of  the  Schengen  acquis,  while  also  reflecting  the  changes  in  the 
legal  situation  after  integration  of  the  Schengen  acquis  into  the  framework  of  the  European 
Union. 

The 2004 Hague Programme — the multiannual programme for justice and home affairs — 
invited  the  Commission  ‘to  submit,  as  soon  as  the  abolition  of  controls  at  internal  borders 
has  been  completed,  a  proposal  to  supplement  the  existing  Schengen  evaluation  mechanism 
with  a  supervisory  mechanism,  ensuring  full  involvement  of  Member  States  experts,  and 
including unannounced inspections’.  

In  response  to  this  request  and  in  order  to  incorporate  the  Schengen  evaluation  mechanism 
into  the  EC  legal  system  and  to  remedy  the  weaknesses  identified  in  the  current  system,  in 
March 2009 the Commission adopted two proposals1 on a revised mechanism for Schengen 
evaluation.  Two  separate  legal  instruments  (a  ‘first  pillar’  Regulation  and  a  ‘third  pillar’ 
Decision)  were  needed  to  cover  the  whole  area  of  Schengen  cooperation  in  a  coherent 
framework. In October 2009 these proposals were rejected by the European Parliament, which 
argued  that  the  Commission  should  have  involved  it  in  adoption  of  the  proposals  by  co-
decision. 

With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the ‘third pillar’ proposal is now obsolete. It 
was withdrawn in the ‘Omnibus Communication’ of December 20092.  

The Stockholm Programme3 adopted by the European Council in December 2009 ‘considers 
that  the  evaluation  of  the  Schengen  area  will  continue  to  be  of  key  importance  and  that  it 
therefore should be improved by strengthening the role of Frontex in this field’. 

This  new  proposal  is  therefore  being  put  forward  now.  At  the  same  time,  the  remaining 
previous proposal (the ‘first pillar’ Regulation) is withdrawn.  

This  new  proposal  takes  account  of  the  discussions  held  in  the  Council  on  the  March  2009 
proposals.  In  particular,  it  proposes  an  increased  role  for  Member  States  in  the  evaluation 
mechanism, in order to maintain mutual trust and provide greater flexibility in implementation 
of  the  mechanism.  Co-decision  is  proposed  as  the  legislative  procedure,  the  European 

1 
2 
3 

COM (2009) 102 and COM (2009) 105. 
COM (2009) 665 final. 
Council document 17024/09, adopted by the European Council on 10/11 December 2009. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
Parliament  (EP)  being  a  full  participant  in  the  area  of  justice  and  home  affairs.  To  enhance 
transparency, regular reporting to the Council and EP is proposed on evaluations carried out, 
conclusions  drawn  from  evaluations  and  follow-up  measures  taken  by  the  Member  States 
concerned. 

•  General context 

The area without internal borders set up by the Schengen acquis — the Schengen area —was 
developed within an intergovernmental framework in the late ’80s and early ’90s by Member 
States  willing  to  abolish  internal  border  controls  and  implement  accompanying  measures  to 
this end, such as common rules on external border controls, a common visa policy, police and 
judicial cooperation and establishment of the Schengen Information System (SIS). It was not 
possible to abolish internal border controls within the Community framework, as the Member 
States could not agree on  the need  to abolish them in order  to  achieve the objective  of  free 
movement of persons (Article 14 of the EC Treaty). Over the years, however, all the Member 
States at that time except the United Kingdom and Ireland have joined the Schengen area.  

The Schengen acquis became part of the European Union framework with the entry into force 
of the Amsterdam Treaty in 19994.  

The Schengen area is based on mutual trust between the Member States in their capacity fully 
to implement the accompanying measures allowing the lifting of internal border controls. For 
example, checks at external borders are carried out by Member States not only to protect their 
own interests but also on behalf of all other Member States to which people could travel once 
they have crossed the external borders of the Schengen area.  

In order to gain and maintain this mutual trust, the Schengen Member States set up a Standing 
Committee in 1998. Its mandate is set out in a decision of the Schengen Executive Committee 
(SCH/Com-ex (98) 26 def) and consists of two separate tasks:  

1. 

2. 

verification  whether  all  preconditions  for  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis 
(i.e. lifting  of  border  controls)  have  been  met  by  Member  States  wanting  to  join 
Schengen (‘putting into effect’); 

verification that the Schengen acquis is being correctly applied by the Member States 
implementing the acquis (‘implementation’). 

This mechanism thus draws a distinction between ‘putting into effect’ and ‘implementation’. 
Therefore, first of all, checks have to be made to determine whether the conditions for mutual 
trust are met before the acquis can be put into effect. Second, mutual trust then needs to be 
maintained by checking correct implementation of the acquis. In the intergovernmental phase 
of Schengen, specific provisions for verifying correct implementation were needed. 

4 

To this end, it was necessary to define the Schengen acquis (Council Decision 1999/435/EC, OJ L 176, 
10.7.1999, p. 1) and to determine the legal basis in the Treaties for each provision or decision forming 
part of this acquis (Council Decision 1999/436/EC, OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 17). Each provision of the 
acquis was given a legal basis under either the first or the third pillar. Those provisions of the Schengen 
acquis for which no single legal basis could be determined (i.e. the SIS provisions) were considered to 
come under the third pillar. All amendments to this acquis must have an appropriate legal basis under 
the Treaties. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
The  Schengen  acquis  was  integrated  into  the  European  Union  framework  without  being 
renegotiated. The Standing Committee and its 1998 mandate were thus taken over unchanged, 
except that the Standing Committee became the Schengen Evaluation Working Group (SCH-
EVAL) in the Council.  

Given its intergovernmental basis, Schengen evaluation has been ─ and still is ─ entirely in 
the  hands  of  the  Member  States,  with  the  Commission  participating  as  an  observer.  This  is 
still a logical approach for the first part of the mandate, as there is nothing similar in the EU 
justice  and  home  affairs  acquis  to  this  distinction  between  ‘putting  into  effect’  and 
‘implementation’.  Moreover,  in  the  2004  and  2007  enlargements,  the  decision-making 
procedure for lifting internal border controls and for full application of the Schengen acquis 
was laid down in the accession treaties, i.e. in primary law. The Acts of Accession provided 
for a Council Decision after consultation of the European Parliament. No right of initiative is 
envisaged for the Commission. 

However, this approach is less logical for the second part of the mandate. Consequently, at the 
time of integration of the acquis already, the Commission issued a declaration stating that it 
‘considers  that  the  integration  into  the  Union  framework  of  the  Decision  of  the  Executive 
Committee setting up a Schengen Implementing Convention Standing Committee (SCH/Com-
ex (98) 26 def of 16.9.1998) does not in any way affect the powers devolving on it from the 
Treaties and in particular its responsibility as guardian of the Treaties’. 

As  evaluation  before  putting  into  effect  is  fundamental  for  Member  States  in  order  to  gain 
mutual trust, it seems reasonable for this to remain the responsibility of Member States. The 
Commission will continue to participate fully as an observer in these evaluations.  

However, these different responsibilities do not lead to different standards of evaluation, but 
just  reflect  the  different  institutional  realities.  The  Council  may  also  decide  to  use  the 
proposed  structure  in  order  to  evaluate  Member  States  before  internal  border  controls  are 
lifted.  

•  The need to improve evaluation of correct application of the acquis 

Since 1999, there have been several discussions between Member States and the Commission 
on  making  the  Schengen  evaluation  mechanism  more  efficient,  in  particular  concerning  the 
second part of the mandate, namely verification of correct application of the acquis after the 
lifting of internal border controls. The following main weaknesses have been identified: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  current  evaluation  mechanism  is  inadequate.  The  rules  on  consistency  and 
frequency of evaluations are unclear. No unannounced on-site visits are conducted. 

There is a need to develop a method for priority-setting based on risk analysis. 

Consistently high-quality expertise during the evaluation exercise needs to be ensured. 
The  experts  participating  in  the  evaluation  should  possess  an  adequate  level  of  legal 
knowledge  and  practical  experience.  Sending  an  expert  from  each  Member  State  on 
each on-site visit could be detrimental to the efficiency of the exercise. An appropriate 
number of experts to participate in visits needs to be determined. 

(4) 

The post-evaluation mechanism for assessing the follow-up to recommendations made 
after  the  on-site  visits  needs  to  be  improved,  as  the  measures  taken  to  remedy 

EN 

4 

   EN 

deficiencies  and  the  timeframe  within  which  they  are  to  be  remedied  vary  from  one 
Member State to another.  

(5) 

The  institutional  responsibility  of  the  Commission  as  guardian  of  the  Treaties  is  not 
reflected in the current evaluation system. 

The  following  points  are  intended  to  address  the  weaknesses  identified  in  the  current 
mechanism: 

Evaluation method and role of Frontex 

This  proposal  introduces  multiannual  and  annual  programmes  of  both  announced  and 
unannounced on-site visits. Member States will continue to be evaluated on a regular basis in 
order to ensure overall correct application of the acquis. All parts of the Schengen acquis can 
be subject to evaluation.  

This evaluation can be based on replies to questionnaires, on-site visits or a combination of 
the two.  

In  recent  years,  Member  States  have  seen  no  need  to  carry  out  on-the-spot  evaluations  of 
judicial cooperation in criminal matters or on weapons and drugs. Data protection has also not 
always been subject to on-site evaluations.  

Nevertheless,  on-site  visits  are  not  limited  to  external  borders  and  visas,  but  can  cover  all 
parts of the Schengen acquis, including the provisions for lifting controls at internal borders. 
However,  as  far  as  weapons  are  concerned,  when  the  acquis  was  integrated  into  the  EU 
framework the relevant provisions of the Schengen acquis were replaced by Council Directive 
91/477/EEC  of  18  June  1991  on  control  of  the  acquisition  and  possession  of  weapons5. 
Verification  of  correct  transposition  of  this  Directive  was  entrusted  to  the  Commission  in 
accordance  with  the  Treaty.  As  Member  States  have  never  seen  the  need  to  carry  out 
evaluations on the spot, there is no need to include verification of correct transposition of this 
Directive in this proposal. 

In addition, wherever existing EU law already provides for a specific evaluation, there is no 
need  for  an  additional  evaluation  within  the  context  of  this  mechanism,  but  merely  for 
application of the Schengen acquis.  

In  particular,  in  the  case  of  data  protection,  which,  beyond  being  a  part  of  the  Schengen 
acquis,  applies  horizontally  to  all  policy  areas,  the  evaluation  should  focus  on  the  data 
protection aspects related to the SIS and be carried out in the context of SIS evaluations, in 
order to harness the existing synergies. 

The specific need for on-site visits will be determined by the Commission, after seeking the 
advice  of  the  Member  States,  taking  into  account  changes  in  the  legislation,  procedures  or 
organisation  of  the  Member  State  concerned  together  with  the  risk  analysis  provided  by 
Frontex regarding external borders and visas. 

In addition, if necessary, thematic or regional evaluations can also be included in the annual 
programme. 

5 

OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
On top of these regular evaluations, unannounced on-site visits can be made on the basis of 
the  risk  analysis  provided  by  Frontex  or  any  other  source  indicating  a  need  to  carry  out  an 
unannounced visit. 

Both multiannual and annual programmes may be adapted if need be. 

Expertise of the Member States 

Member States’ experts are also involved in verifying correct application in other fields of EU 
law, e.g. on aviation and maritime security. As correct implementation of the accompanying 
measures  allowing  the  lifting  of  internal  border  controls  is  fundamental  for  the  internal 
security of Member States, experts from the Member States will continue to play a key role in 
the evaluation process. They will participate in both announced and unannounced visits and 
be  involved  in  drafting  the  multiannual  and  annual  evaluation  programmes  and  also  in  the 
visits  on  the  spot,  the  reporting  and  the  follow-up  via  a  committee  procedure.  In  order  to 
guarantee  a  high  quality  of  expertise,  Member  States  must  ensure  that  the  experts  have 
appropriate  qualifications,  including  solid  theoretical  knowledge  and  practical  experience  in 
the areas covered by the evaluation, plus sound knowledge of the principles, procedures and 
techniques for on-site visits. 

Appropriate  training  should  be  provided  by  the  relevant  bodies  (e.g.  Frontex)  and  funds 
should be made available to Member States for specific training in evaluation of the Schengen 
acquis (e.g. by training on the priorities for Union action adopted in accordance with the rules 
established by the External Borders Fund)6. 

Given  the  need  to  reduce  the  number  of  experts  participating  in  order  to  ensure  efficient 
evaluation  on  the  spot,  the  number  participating  in  announced  visits  should  be  limited  to 
eight. As it might be more difficult to make experts available for unannounced visits at short 
notice, the number participating in such visits should be limited to six.  

Since  correct  implementation  of  measures  to  ensure  the  free  movement  of  persons  in 
accordance  with  Article  26  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  does  not  affect  the  internal 
security  of  other  Member  States,  evaluation  of  abolition  of  internal  border  controls  can  be 
fully entrusted to the Commission. It should be added that verification of abolition of internal 
border controls is not covered by the intergovernmental mandate. 

Follow-up to the evaluation  

In order to address effectively the weaknesses and shortcomings identified, each finding in the 
report should be classified into one of three categories: compliant, compliant but improvement 
necessary or non-compliant. Within two weeks, the Member State concerned should provide 
its comments on the report and, within one month after adoption of the report, an action plan 
to remedy the weaknesses. The Member State will also be under an obligation to report within 
six  months  on  implementation  of  its  action  plan.  Depending  on  the  weaknesses  identified, 
announced  or  unannounced  on-site  visits  may  be  scheduled  in  order  to  verify  correct 
implementation of the action plan. In the event of serious deficiencies, the Commission has to 
inform the Council without delay. 

6 

OJ L 144, 6.6.2007, p. 22. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
This in no way affects the Commission’s power to initiate an infringement procedure at any 
stage  of  the  evaluation.  A  Member  State  might  be  in  breach  of  the  acquis,  e.g.  if  it  refuses 
entry to persons in possession of a valid Schengen visa issued by another Member State. In 
such  cases,  the  internal  security  of  the  Member  State  is  not  at  stake,  but  it  is  nevertheless 
infringing Union law. 

Integration of the Schengen acquis into the European Union framework 

Given the Commission’s responsibilities under the Treaty, it is essential for the Commission 
to take the lead in the Schengen evaluation process to assess correct application of the acquis 
after  internal  border  controls  are  lifted.  Nevertheless,  the  expertise  of  the  Member  States  is 
also important in order to be able to verify implementation on the spot and maintain mutual 
trust between the Member States.  

The costs of participation by the Member States’ experts will be borne by the EU budget. 

•  Existing provisions in the area covered by the proposal 

Decision  of  the  Executive  Committee  setting  up  a  Schengen  Implementing  Convention 
Standing Committee (SCH/Com-ex (98) 26 def of 16.9.1998). 

•  Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union  

The  proposal  is  consistent  with  existing  policies  and  objectives  of  the  European  Union,  in 
particular the objective of creating and maintaining an area of freedom, security and justice. 

2. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

Since  1999,  several  discussions  have  been  held  within  the  Council  Working  Group  on 
‘Schengen Evaluation’ in order to render the Schengen evaluation mechanism more efficient. 
The  group  agreed,  for  instance,  to  limit  the  number  of  experts  participating  in  evaluations. 
However, this agreement is not legally binding and every Member State still has the right to 
send  an  expert  on  evaluation  visits,  which  sometimes  makes  it  difficult  to  ensure  that  these 
visits run smoothly. The frequency and method of the evaluations have also been discussed. 

In April 2008, the Commission organised an expert meeting. Member States agreed with the 
assessment  of  the  weaknesses  identified  by  the  Commission.  While  the  Member  States 
acknowledged  the  need  to  change  the  current  mechanism,  some  expressed  doubts  about  the 
institutional role of the Commission in a new Schengen evaluation mechanism. 

The  March  2009  proposals  were  discussed  in  the  relevant  Council  Working  Group  during 
three  meetings  on  the  general  approach  and  three  more  on  substance7.  The  European 
Parliament rejected the proposals on 20 October 20098, arguing that the Commission should 
have involved it in adoption of the proposals by co-decision. In the meantime, the Schengen 
Evaluation  Group  has  also  been  working  further  towards  improving  the  current  working 
methods.  This  new  proposal  takes  account  of  the  discussions  held  in  the  Council  and  the 
European Parliament on the March 2009 proposals.  

7 
8 

Docs 11076/09, 11087/09, 13831/1/09 and 13832/09. 
A7-0034/2009. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

The  instrument  provides  for  a  new  Schengen  evaluation  mechanism  in  order  to  ensure 
transparent,  effective  and  consistent  implementation  of  the  Schengen acquis.  It  also  reflects 
the changes in the legal situation after integration of the Schengen acquis into the European 
Union framework. 

•  Legal basis 

•  Article  77(2)(e)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU). 

Article 77 provides for abolition of internal border controls as the final objective of an area 
of free movement of persons within the European Union, as laid down in Article 26 of the 
TFEU. The abolition of internal border controls must be accompanied by measures in the 
field  of  external  borders,  visa  policy,  the  Schengen  Information  System,  data  protection, 
police  cooperation,  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  and  drugs  policies.  Correct 
application of these measures makes it possible to maintain an area without internal border 
controls. Evaluation of correct application of these measures therefore serves the ultimate 
policy objective of maintaining the area free of internal border controls.  

•  Subsidiarity and proportionality 

In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  the  objective  of  the  proposed  Regulation, 
namely  to  render  the  existing  Schengen  evaluation  mechanism  more  efficient,  which  is 
currently the responsibility of the Council, can only be achieved at EU level.  

This  proposal  remains  within  the  current  framework,  while  limiting  the  number  of  experts 
participating and increasing efficiency. It does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its 
objective. 

•  Choice of legal instrument 

By its very nature, an evaluation mechanism to ensure correct application of EU law cannot 
require  any  action  by  Member  States  to  transpose  it  into  national  law.  For  this  reason,  the 
instrument chosen is a Regulation. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

A  financial  statement  is  annexed  to  this  proposal.  Adequate  human  and  financial  resources 
will have to be allocated to the Commission, which will be responsible for the new Schengen 
evaluation mechanism. Costs incurred by the Member States’ experts will also be reimbursed. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
5. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Consequences  of  the  various  protocols  annexed  to  the  Treaties  and  of  the  Association 
Agreements concluded with non-EU countries 

The legal basis for this proposal is in Title V, Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the  European  Union.  The  ‘variable  geometry’  system  provided  for  in  the  protocols  on  the 
position of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark and in the Schengen protocol therefore 
applies.  

This proposal builds upon the Schengen acquis. The following consequences for the various 
protocols therefore have to be taken into account:  

United Kingdom and Ireland: This proposal provides for an evaluation mechanism in order 
to maintain an area without internal border controls, in which the United Kingdom and Ireland 
do  not  participate,  in  accordance  with  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 and Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 
28 February 2002 concerning Ireland’s request to take part in some of the provisions of the 
Schengen acquis. Therefore, the United Kingdom and Ireland will not participate in adoption 
of this Regulation and will not be bound by it or subject to application thereof.  

Denmark: Under the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European 
Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not take 
part in the adoption by the Council of measures under Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on 
the Functioning of the European Union, with the exception of ‘measures determining the third 
countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders 
of the Member States, or measures relating to a uniform format for visas’. 

This proposal builds on the Schengen acquis. Under Article 4 of the Protocol, Denmark must 
‘decide within a period of six months after the Council has decided on a proposal or initiative 
to build upon the Schengen acquis [under the provisions of Title V of Part Three of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union] … whether it will implement this decision in its 
national law’.  

Consequences  for  Bulgaria,  Cyprus  and  Romania  of  the  two-stage  procedure  for 
implementing instruments building on the Schengen acquis: 

Article  3(1) of  the 2003 Act  of  Accession9 and Article  4(1) of the 2005  Act  of Accession10 
state  that  the  provisions  of  the  Schengen  acquis  and  the  acts  building  upon  it  or  otherwise 
related to it, listed in Annex I and Annex II to these Acts respectively, will be binding on and 
applicable in the Member States concerned from the date of accession. Provisions and acts not 
referred to in the Annexes, while binding on these Member States from the date of accession, 
will apply in them only pursuant to a Council Decision to that effect taken in accordance with 
these Articles.  

This is the two-stage implementation procedure whereby certain provisions of the Schengen 
acquis  are  binding  and  applicable  from  the  date  of  accession  to  the  Union,  whereas  others, 

9 
10 

OJ L 236, 23.10.2003, p. 33. 
OJ L 157, 21.6.2005, p. 29. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
specifically  those  linked  intrinsically  to  removal  of  controls  at  internal  borders,  are  binding 
from  the  date  of  accession  but  applicable  in  the  new  Member  States  only  after  a  Council 
Decision to that effect. 

This instrument specifies how correct implementation of the acquis is to be ensured after the 
internal border controls are lifted. 

Norway and Iceland: As regards Norway and Iceland, this proposal develops provisions of 
the  Schengen  acquis,  as  provided  for  by  the  Agreement  concluded  by  the  Council  of  the 
European  Union  and  the  Republic  of  Iceland  and  the  Kingdom  of  Norway  concerning  the 
association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the 
Schengen acquis11. 

Switzerland:  As  regards  Switzerland,  this  proposal  develops  provisions  of  the  Schengen 
acquis  within  the  meaning  of  the  Agreement  between  the  European  Union,  the  European 
Community  and the Swiss  Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with  the 
implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis12. 

Liechtenstein: As regards Liechtenstein, this proposal develops provisions of the Schengen 
acquis  within  the  meaning  of  the  Protocol  between  the  European  Union,  the  European 
Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of 
the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European 
Community and the Swiss Confederation on the  Swiss Confederation’s association with  the 
implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis13. 

11 
12 
13 

OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 36. 
OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 52. 
OJ L 83, 26.3.2008, p. 3. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
2010/0312 (COD) 

Proposal for a  

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the establishment of an evaluation mechanism to verify application of the Schengen 
acquis  

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  and  in  particular 
Article 77(2)(e) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the National Parliaments, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 294 of the Treaty, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

The  Schengen  area  without  internal  border  controls  relies  on  effective  and  efficient 
application by the Member States of accompanying measures in the areas of external 
borders,  visa  policy,  the  Schengen  Information  System,  including  data  protection, 
police cooperation, judicial cooperation in criminal matters and drugs policies. 

By  decision  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  16  September  199814,  a  Standing 
Committee  on  the  evaluation  and  implementation  of  Schengen  was  set  up.  The 
Standing  Committee  was  given  the  mandate,  first,  to  establish  whether  all  the 
preconditions  for  lifting  internal  border  controls  with  a  candidate  State  have  been 
fulfilled  and,  second,  to  ensure  that  the  Schengen  acquis  is  properly  applied  by  the 
States already implementing the acquis in full. 

A  specific  evaluation  mechanism  to  verify  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis  is 
necessary  given  the  need  to  ensure  high  uniform  standards  in  application  of  the 
Schengen acquis in practice and to maintain a high level of mutual trust between those 
Member  States  that  form  part  of  an  area  without  internal  border  controls.  Such  a 
mechanism  should  build  upon  close  cooperation  between  the  Commission  and  those 
Member States.  

The Hague Programme15 invited the Commission ‘to submit, as soon as the abolition 
of  controls  at  internal  borders  has  been  completed,  a  proposal  to  supplement  the 
existing Schengen evaluation mechanism with a supervisory mechanism, ensuring full 
involvement of Member States experts, and including unannounced inspections’.  

14 
15 

OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 138. 
OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, p. 1 (point 1.7.1). 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

The Stockholm Programme16 ‘considers that the evaluation of the Schengen area will 
continue  to  be  of  key  importance  and  that  it  therefore  should  be  improved  by 
strengthening the role of Frontex in this field’.  

The  evaluation  mechanism  set  up  in  1998  should  therefore  be  revised  as  regards  the 
second  part  of  the  mandate  given  to  the  Standing  Committee.  The  first  part  of  the 
mandate given to the Standing Committee should continue to apply, as laid down in 
Part I of the Decision of 16 September 1998. 

The  experience  gathered  during  previous  evaluations  demonstrates  the  need  to 
maintain a coherent evaluation mechanism covering all areas of the Schengen acquis 
except those where a specific evaluation mechanism already exists within EU law.  

(8)  Member  States  should  be  closely  involved  in  the  evaluation  process.  Measures  for 
implementation  of  this  Regulation  should  be  adopted  by  the  management  procedure, 
as provided for in Article 4 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying 
down  the  procedures  for  the  exercise  of  implementing  powers  conferred  on  the 
Commission. 

(9) 

The  evaluation  mechanism  should  set  up  transparent, efficient and clear rules on the 
method to be applied for the evaluations, the use of highly qualified experts for on-site 
visits  and  the  follow-up  to  the  findings  of  the  evaluations.  In  particular,  the  method 
should  provide  for  unannounced  on-site  visits  to  supplement  the  announced  on-site 
visits, notably with regard to border controls and visas. 

(10)  The evaluation mechanism should also include verification of the relevant legislation 
on the abolition of controls at internal borders and checks within national territory. In 
view of the specific nature of these provisions, which do not affect the internal security 
of the Member States, the relevant on-site visits should be entrusted exclusively to the 
Commission. 

(11)  The evaluation should pay particular attention to respect of fundamental rights when 

applying the Schengen acquis. 

(12)  The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External 
Borders  of  the  Member  States  of  the  European  Union17  (hereinafter  referred  to  as 
‘Frontex’) should support implementation of the mechanism, primarily in the area of 
risk analysis relating to external borders. The mechanism should also be able to rely 
on the expertise of the Agency for carrying out on-site visits at the external borders on 
an ad hoc basis. 

(13)  Member  States  should  ensure  that  experts  made  available  for  on-site  visits  have  the 
necessary  experience  and  have  undergone  specific  training  for  this  purpose. 
Appropriate  training  should  be  provided  by  the  relevant  bodies  (e.g.  Frontex)  and 
funds  should  be  made  available  to  Member  States  for  initiatives  targeted  at  specific 
training in the field of evaluation of  the Schengen acquis from  the existing financial 
instruments and by development thereof. 

16 
17 

Council document 17024/09, adopted by the European Council on 10/11 December 2009. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 (OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 1). 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
(14) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  the  Protocol  on  the  position  of  Denmark,  as 
annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European  Union,  Denmark  is  not  taking  part  in  adoption  of  this  Regulation  and  is 
therefore not bound by it or subject to application thereof. Given that this Regulation 
builds  upon  the  Schengen  acquis,  under  Title  V  of  Part  Three  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union, Denmark should, in accordance with Article 4 of 
that  Protocol,  decide  within  six  months  after  adoption  of  this  Regulation  whether  it 
will implement it in its national law. 

(15)  This  Regulation  constitutes  a  development  of  provisions  of  the  Schengen  acquis,  in 
which the United Kingdom is not participating, in accordance with 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 
acquis18.  The  United  Kingdom  is  therefore  not  taking  part  in  adoption  of  this 
Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to application thereof.  

(16)  This  Regulation  constitutes  a  development  of  provisions  of  the  Schengen  acquis,  in 
which Ireland is not participating, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC 
of  28  February  2002  concerning  Ireland’s  request  to  take  part  in  some  of  the 
provisions of the Schengen acquis19. Ireland is therefore not taking part in adoption of 
this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to application thereof.  

(17)  As  regards  Iceland  and  Norway,  this  Regulation  constitutes  a  development  of 
provisions of the Schengen acquis, as provided for by the Agreement concluded by the 
Council  of  the  European  Union  and  the  Republic  of  Iceland  and  the  Kingdom  of 
Norway  concerning  the  association  of  those  two  States  with  the  implementation, 
application and development of the Schengen acquis20.  

(18)  As regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the 
Schengen acquis, as provided for by the Agreement between the European Union, the 
European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the association of the 
Swiss  Confederation  with  the  implementation,  application  and  development  of  the 
Schengen acquis21.  

(19)  As  regards  Liechtenstein,  this  Regulation  constitutes  a  development  of  provisions  of 
the  Schengen  acquis,  as  provided  for  by  the  Protocol  signed  between  the  European 
Union,  the  European  Community,  the  Swiss  Confederation  and  the  Principality  of 
Liechtenstein  on  the  accession  of  the  Principality  of  Liechtenstein  to  the  Agreement 
between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation 
on  the  Swiss  Confederation’s  association  with  the  implementation,  application  and 
development of the Schengen acquis22. 

(20)  As regards Cyprus, this Regulation constitutes an act building on the Schengen acquis 
or otherwise related to it, as provided for by Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession. 

18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43. 
OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20. 
OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 36. 
OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 52. 
OJ L 83, 26.3.2008, p. 3. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
(21)  As  regards  Bulgaria  and  Romania,  this  Regulation  constitutes  an  act  building  on  the 
Schengen acquis or otherwise related to it, as provided for by Article 4(2) of the 2005 
Act of Accession. 

(22)  Experts  from  Cyprus,  Bulgaria  and  Romania  should  nevertheless  participate  in 

evaluation of all parts of the Schengen acquis, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

Purpose and scope 

This  Regulation  establishes  an  evaluation  mechanism  to  verify  application  of  the  Schengen 
acquis in the Member States to which the Schengen acquis applies in full.  

Experts from the Member States which, in accordance with the relevant Act of Accession, do 
not  yet  fully  apply  the  acquis  shall  nevertheless  participate  in  evaluation  of  all  parts  of  the 
acquis. 

Article 2 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this Regulation, 

‘Schengen  acquis’  means  the  provisions  of  the  Schengen  acquis,  as  integrated  into  the 
European Union framework by the Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with the acts building upon it 
or otherwise related to it.  

Article 3 

Responsibilities 

1. 

2. 

The  Commission  shall  be  responsible  for  implementation  of  this  evaluation 
mechanism  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  and  with  the  support  of 
European bodies, as specified in this Regulation. 

Member States shall cooperate with the Commission to allow it to carry out the tasks 
conferred  on  it  by  this  Regulation.  Member  States  shall  also  cooperate  with  the 
Commission during the preparatory, on-site visit, reporting and follow-up phases of 
evaluations.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

Article 4 

Evaluations 

Evaluations  may  consist  of  questionnaires  and  on-site  visits.  Both  may  be  supplemented  by 
presentations by the evaluated Member State on the area covered by the evaluation. 
On-site visits and questionnaires may be used either independently or in combination 
in  relation  to  specific  Member  States  and/or  specific  areas.  On-site  visits  may  be 
announced or unannounced. 

Article 5 

Multiannual programme 

1. 

2. 

A  multiannual  evaluation  programme  covering  a  period  of  five  years  shall  be 
established  by  the  Commission,  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  referred  to  in 
Article 15(2), not later than six months before the start of the next five-year period. 

The multiannual programme shall contain the list of Member States to be evaluated 
each year. Each Member State shall be evaluated at least once during each five-year 
period. The order in which the Member States are to be evaluated shall be based on a 
risk  analysis  taking  into  account  the  migratory  pressure,  internal  security,  the  time 
which  has  elapsed  since  the  previous  evaluation  and  the  balance  between  the 
different parts of the Schengen acquis to be evaluated.  

3. 

The  multiannual  programme  may  be  adapted,  if  necessary,  in  accordance  with  the 
procedure referred to in paragraph 1. 

Article 6 

Risk analysis 

1. 

2. 

By not later than 30 September each year, Frontex shall submit to the Commission a 
risk  analysis  taking  into  account  migratory  pressure  and  making  recommendations 
for  priorities  for  evaluations  in  the  next  year.  The  recommendations  shall  refer  to 
specific sections of the external borders and to specific border crossing-points to be 
evaluated in the next year under the multiannual programme. The Commission shall 
make this risk analysis available to the Member States. 

By  the  same  deadline  as  stated  in  paragraph  1,  Frontex  shall  submit  to  the 
Commission  a  separate  risk  analysis  making  recommendations  for  priorities  for 
evaluations to be implemented in the form of unannounced on-site visits in the next 
year.  These  recommendations  may  concern  any  region  or  specific  area  and  shall 
contain a list of at least ten specific sections of the external borders and ten specific 
border crossing-points.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

Article 7 

Questionnaire 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

The  Commission  shall  send  a  standard  questionnaire  to  the  Member  States  to  be 
evaluated  in  the  next  year  by  not  later  than  15  August  of  the  previous  year.  The 
standard questionnaires shall cover the relevant legislation and the organisational and 
technical means available for implementation of the Schengen acquis and statistical 
data on each field of the evaluation.  

Member  States  shall  provide  their  replies  to  the  questionnaire  to  the  Commission 
within  six  weeks  of  communication  of  the  questionnaire.  The  Commission  shall 
make the replies available to the other Member States.  

Article 8 

Annual programme 

Taking  into  account  the  risk  analysis  provided  by  Frontex  in  accordance  with 
Article 6,  the  replies  to  the  questionnaire  referred  to  in  Article  7  and,  where 
appropriate,  other  relevant  sources,  an  annual  evaluation  programme  shall  be 
established by the Commission by not later than 30 November of the previous year. 
The programme may provide for evaluation of: 

–  application of the acquis or parts of the acquis by one Member State, as specified 

in the multiannual programme; 

and, in addition, where relevant: 

–  application of specific parts of the acquis across several Member States (thematic 

evaluations);  

–  application of the acquis by a group of Member States (regional evaluations). 

The  first  section  of  the  programme,  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  procedure 
referred to in Article 15(2), shall list the Member States to be evaluated in the next 
year in accordance with the multiannual programme. This section shall list the areas 
to be evaluated and the on-site visits.  

The Commission shall draw up the second section of the programme, which shall list 
the unannounced on-site visits to be carried out in the next year. This section shall be 
considered confidential and shall not be communicated to the Member States. 

The annual programme may be adapted, if necessary, in accordance with paragraphs 
2 and 3. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Article 9 

List of experts 

The  Commission  shall  compile  a  list  of  experts  designated  by  Member  States  for 
participation in on-site visits. The list shall be communicated to the Member States. 

Member States shall indicate the areas of expertise of each expert with reference to 
the  areas  listed  in  the  Annex  to  this  Regulation.  Member  States  shall  notify  the 
Commission of any changes as soon as possible. 

Member States shall indicate which experts can be made available for unannounced 
on-site visits in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 10(5). 

The  experts  shall  have  appropriate  qualifications,  including  a  solid  theoretical 
knowledge  and  practical  experience  in  the  areas  covered  by  the  evaluation 
mechanism,  along  with  sound  knowledge  of  evaluation  principles,  procedures  and 
techniques, and shall be able to communicate effectively in a common language. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  their  designated  experts  meet  the  requirements 
specified in the previous paragraph, including by indicating the training the experts 
have  received.  In  addition,  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  experts  receive 
continuous training in order to continue to comply with these requirements. 

Article 10 

Teams responsible for on-site visits 

On-site visits shall be carried out by teams appointed by the Commission. The teams 
shall  consist  of  experts  drawn  from  the  list  of  experts  referred  to  in  Article  9  and 
Commission  officials.  The  Commission  shall  ensure  the  geographical  balance  and 
competence of the experts in each team. Member States’ experts may not participate 
in an on-site visit to the Member State where they are employed. 

The Commission may invite Frontex, Europol, Eurojust or other relevant European 
bodies to designate a representative to take part as an observer in a visit concerning 
an area covered by their mandate. 

The  number  of  experts  (including  observers)  participating  in  evaluation  visits  may 
not  exceed  eight  persons  for  announced  on-site  visits  and  six  persons  for 
unannounced on-site visits.  

In  the  case  of  announced  visits,  the  Member  States  whose  experts  have  been 
appointed  in  accordance  with  paragraph  1  shall  be  notified  by  the  Commission  not 
later  than  four  weeks  before  the  on-site  visit  is  scheduled.  Member  States  shall 
confirm the availability of the experts within one week. 

In  the  case  of  unannounced  visits,  the  Member  States  whose  experts  have  been 
appointed  in  accordance  with  paragraph  1  shall  be  notified  by  the  Commission  not 
later  than  one  week  before  the  on-site  visit  is  scheduled.  Member  States  shall 
confirm the availability of the experts within 48 hours. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

6. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

The  leading  experts  for  on-site  visits  shall  be  a  Commission  official  and  an  expert 
from a Member State, who shall be appointed prior to the on-site visit jointly by the 
members of the team of experts.  

Article 11 

Conduct of on-site visits 

The on-site visit teams shall undertake all necessary preparatory activities in order to 
ensure the efficiency, accuracy and consistency of on-site visits. 

The Member State concerned shall be notified:  

–  at least two months before an announced on-site visit is due to take place; 

–  at least 48 hours before an unannounced on-site visit takes place. 

The  members  of  the  on-site  visit  team  shall  each  carry  identification  authorising 
them to conduct on-site visits on behalf of the European Union.  

The  Member  State  concerned  shall  ensure  that  the  team  of  experts  can  directly 
address  relevant  persons.  It  shall  ensure  that  the  team  has  access  to  all  areas, 
premises and documents required for the evaluation. It shall ensure that the team is 
able to exercise its mandate to verify the activities in the areas to be evaluated. 

The Member State concerned shall, by any means within its legal powers, assist the 
team in performing its task. 

In  the  case  of  announced  on-site  visits,  the  Commission  shall  provide  the  relevant 
Member States with the names of the experts in the team in advance. The Member 
State concerned shall designate a contact point for making the practical arrangements 
for the on-site visit. 

The  Member  States  shall  be  responsible  for  making  the  necessary  travel  and 
accommodation arrangements for their experts. The travel and accommodation costs 
for experts participating in the visits shall be reimbursed by the Commission. 

Article 12 

Verification of the free movement of persons at internal borders 

Notwithstanding  Article  10,  teams  for  unannounced  on-site  visits  to  verify  the  absence  of 
controls at internal borders shall consist of Commission officials only. 

Article 13 

Evaluation reports 

1. 

A report shall be drawn up following each evaluation. The report shall be based on 
the findings of the on-site visit and the questionnaire, as appropriate.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

(a) 

(b) 

If  the  evaluation  is  based  only  on  the  questionnaire  or  an  unannounced  visit, 
the report shall be drawn up by the Commission. 

In the case of announced on-site visits, the report shall be drawn up by the team 
during  the  visit.  The  Commission  official  shall  take  overall  responsibility  for 
drafting  the  report  and  ensuring  its  integrity  and  quality.  In  case  of 
disagreement,  the  team  shall  endeavour  to  reach  a  compromise.  Dissenting 
opinions may be included in the report. 

2. 

The report shall analyse the qualitative, quantitative, operational, administrative and 
organisational aspects, as appropriate, and shall list any shortcomings or weaknesses 
established  during  the  evaluation.  The  report  shall  contain  recommendations  for 
remedial action and deadlines for implementing them.  

3. 

One of the following classifications shall be given to each finding in the report:  

(a) 

compliant; 

(b) 

compliant but improvement necessary; 

(c) 

non-compliant. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

The  Commission  shall  communicate  the  report  to  the  Member  State  concerned 
within six weeks of the on-site visit or of receipt of the replies to the questionnaire, 
as  appropriate.  The  Member  State  concerned  shall  provide  its  comments  on  the 
report within two weeks. 

The Commission expert shall present the report and the reply from the Member State 
to the committee established in accordance with Article 15. Member States shall be 
invited to comment on the replies to the questionnaire, the report and the comments 
by the Member State concerned.  

The  recommendations  addressing  the  classification  of  the  findings  referred  to  in 
paragraph 3  shall  be adopted by the  Commission in accordance with the procedure 
referred to in Article 15(2).  

Within  one  month  after  adoption  of  the  report,  the  Member  State  concerned  shall 
provide the Commission with an action plan to remedy any weaknesses identified. 

After consulting the team of experts, the Commission shall present its assessment of 
the  adequacy  of  the  action  plan  to  the  committee  established  in  accordance  with 
Article 15. Member States shall be invited to comment on the action plan.  

The Member State concerned shall report to the Commission on implementation of 
the action plan within six months of receipt of the report and shall thereafter continue 
to report every three months until the action plan is fully implemented. Depending on 
the severity of the weaknesses identified and the measures taken to remedy them, the 
Commission  may  schedule  announced  visits  in  accordance  with  the  procedure 
referred  to  in  Article  15(2)  to  verify  implementation  of  the  action  plan.  The 
Commission may also schedule unannounced on-site visits. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
The  Commission  shall  inform  the  committee  established  in  accordance  with 
Article 15, on a regular basis, about implementation of the action plan.  

7. 

If an on-site visit reveals a serious deficiency deemed to have a significant impact on 
the overall level of security of one or more Member States, the Commission, on its 
own initiative or at the request of a Member State, shall inform the Council and the 
European Parliament as soon as possible. 

Article 14 

Sensitive information 

The  teams  shall  regard  as  confidential  any  information  they  acquire  in  the  course  of 
performing  their  duties.  The  reports  drawn  up  following  on-site  visits  shall  be  classified  as 
restricted. The Commission, after consulting the Member State concerned, shall decide which 
part of the report can be made public. 

Article 15 

Committee 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The Commission shall be assisted by a committee made up of representatives of the 
Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission. 

Where  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Articles  4,  7  and  8  of  Decision 
1999/468/EC shall apply. 

Article 16 

Transitional provisions 

The  first  multiannual  programme  in  accordance  with  Article  5  and  the  first  annual 
programme  in  accordance  with  Article  8  shall  be  established  six  months  after  this 
Regulation  enters  into  force.  The  starting  dates  for  both  programmes  shall  be  one 
year after this Regulation enters into force.  

The first risk analysis to be provided by Frontex in accordance with Article 6 shall be 
provided to the Commission not later than three months after this Regulation enters 
into force. 

Member  States  shall  designate  their  experts  in  accordance  with  Article  9  not  later 
than three months after this Regulation enters into force. 

Article 17 

Information of the European Parliament 

The Commission shall  inform the European Parliament of the recommendations adopted by 
the Commission in accordance with Article 13(5). 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Article 18 

Reporting to the European Parliament and the Council 

The Commission shall present a yearly report to the European Parliament and the Council on 
the evaluations carried out pursuant to this Regulation. The report shall be made public and 
shall include information on: 

–  the evaluations carried out during the previous year, and 

–  the conclusions drawn from each evaluation and the state of play with regard to remedial 

action. 

Article 19 

Repeal 

Part  II  of  the  Decision  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  16  September  1998  setting  up  a 
Standing  Committee  on  the  evaluation  and  implementation  of  Schengen  (SCH/Com-ex  (98) 
26 def), entitled ‘Implementation committee for the States already applying the Convention’, 
shall be repealed with effect from one year after the entry into force of this Regulation. 

Article 20 

The  Council  may  decide  to  carry  out  the  Schengen  evaluations  referred  to  in  Acts  of 
Accession  concluded  after  the  entry  into  force  of  this  Regulation  in  accordance  with  this 
Regulation. 

Article 21 

Entry into force  

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  twentieth  day  following  its  publication  in  the 
Official Journal of the European Union.  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States, 
in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

21 

   EN 

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR PROPOSALS HAVING A 
BUDGETARY IMPACT EXCLUSIVELY LIMITED TO THE REVENUE SIDE 

1. 

NAME OF THE PROPOSAL 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
establishment  of  an  evaluation  mechanism  to  verify  application  of  the  Schengen 
acquis 

2. 

ABM/ABB FRAMEWORK 

Policy area: Area of freedom, security and justice (Title 18) 

Activities: Solidarity — External borders, return, visa policy and free movement of 
people (Chapter 18.02)  

3. 

BUDGET LINES 

3.1. 

Budget  lines  (operational  lines  and  related  technical  and  administrative 
assistance lines (ex-B.A. lines)), including headings 

Under  Chapter  18.02  (Solidarity  —  External  borders,  return,  visa  policy  and  free 
movement  of  people),  creation  of  an  Article  18  02  07  —  entitled  ‘Schengen 
evaluation’* 

*Budget line created in the DB for 2011 

3.2. 

Duration of the action and of the financial impact 

The action is scheduled to start in 2011 or 2012. It will be permanent. 

3.3. 

Budgetary characteristics 

Budget 
line 

Type of expenditure 

New 

Contributions 
from 
Schengen 
associated 
countries 

Contributions 
from applicant 
countries 

Heading in 
financial 
perspective 

See 3.1 

Non-
comp 

Diff23 

YES  

YES 

NO 

No [3A] 

23 

Differentiated appropriations. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

                                                 
4. 

SUMMARY OF RESOURCES 

4.1. 

Financial resources 

4.1.1. 

Summary of commitment appropriations (CA) and payment appropriations (PA) 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Expenditure type 

Section 
No 

Year 
2011 

2012

2013

2014

n + 4 

n + 5 
and 
later 

Total 

Operational expenditure24 

Commitment appropriations 
(CA) 

8.1. 

Payment appropriations 
(PA) 

a 

b 

p.m. 

0.562 

0.730 

0.730 

Administrative expenditure within reference amount25 

Technical and administrative 
assistance (NDA) 

8.2.4. 

c 

TOTAL REFERENCE AMOUNT 

Commitment 
appropriations 

Payment appropriations 

p.m. 

0.562 

0.730 

0.730 

p.m. 

0.562 

0.730 

0.730 

a+
c 

b+
c 

Administrative expenditure not included in reference amount26 

Human resources and 
associated expenditure 
(NDA) 

Administrative costs, other 
than human resources and 
associated costs, not 
included in the reference 
amount (NDA) 

8.2.5. 

d 

8.2.6. 

e 

0.122 

0.610 

0.854 

0.854 

p.m. 

0.065 

0.097 

0.097 

Total indicative financial cost of intervention 

TOTAL CA, including cost 
of human resources 

0.122 

1.237 

1.681 

1.681 

a+
c+
d+
e 

24 
25 
26 

Expenditure that does not fall under Chapter xx 01 of Title xx. 
Expenditure within Article xx 01 04 of Title xx. 
Expenditure within Chapter xx 01 other than Articles xx 01 04 or xx 01 05. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
TOTAL PA, including cost 
of human resources 

0.122 

1.237 

1.681 

1.681 

b+
c+
d+
e 

Co-financing details 

If  the  proposal  involves  co-financing  by  Member  States  or  other  bodies  (please 
specify  which),  an  estimate  of  the  level  of  this  co-financing  should  be  indicated  in 
the table below (additional lines may be added if different bodies are providing co-
financing): 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year 
n 

n + 1

n + 2

n + 3

n + 4 

n + 5 
and 
later 

Total 

Co-financing body 

…………………… 

TOTAL  CA,  including  co-
financing 

f 

a+c
+d
+e
+f 

4.1.2.  Compatibility with financial programming 

(cid:59) 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

Proposal  is  compatible  with  existing  financial  programming27.  If  necessary, 
financial  appropriations  for  2011  will  be  made  available  by  a  transfer 
within Chapter 18.02.  

Proposal  will  entail  reprogramming  of  the  relevant  heading  in  the  financial 
perspective. 

Proposal  may  require  application  of  the  provisions  of  the  Interinstitutional 
Agreement28 (i.e. flexibility instrument or revision of the financial framework). 

4.1.3.  Financial impact on revenue 

(cid:59) 

Proposal has financial impact — the effect on revenue is as follows: 

This  proposal  builds  upon  the  Schengen  acquis,  as  defined  in  Council  Decision 
1999/437/EC. Non-EU countries associated with the Schengen acquis, Iceland 
and  Norway29  and  also  Switzerland30  and  Liechtenstein31  therefore  contribute 
to the costs.  

27 
28 
29 

The evaluation mechanism will continue to be implemented after the 2013 financial year. 
See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement. 
Article 12(1), last paragraph, of the Agreement between the Council and the Republic of Iceland and 
the  Kingdom  of  Norway  concerning  the  association  of  those  two  States  with  the  implementation, 
application and development of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 176 , 10.7.1999, p. 36). 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Budget line 

Revenue 

EUR million (to one decimal place) 

Situation following action 

2011 2012 2013  2014  [n+4] [n+5]

32

Prior to
action 
[Year 
n-1] 

18.02.XX 

a) Revenue in absolute terms 

p.m.  0.07  0.1 

0.11 

b) Change in revenue 

 ∆ 

4.2. 

Human resources FTE (including officials, temporary and external staff) — see 
detail under point 8.2.1 

The need for human and administrative resources will be covered from the allocation 
granted to the managing service in the framework of the annual allocation procedure. 

Annual requirements 

Year 
2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

n + 4 

n + 5 
and 
later 

Total  number  of  human 
resources 

1 

5 

7 

7 

5. 

CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES 

5.1. 

Need to be met in the short or long term 

Given  the  intergovernmental  origin  of  the  Schengen  acquis,  the  current  Schengen 
evaluation mechanism is entrusted to the Council. Expenditure incurred in the course 
of  the  evaluations  is  borne  by  the  national  budgets  of  the  Member  States  whose 
experts  participate  in  the  evaluations.  After  the  integration  of  the  Schengen  acquis 
into  the  framework  of  the  European  Union,  it  is  necessary  also  to  provide  a  legal 
framework  in  which  these  evaluations  can  be  carried  out.  Consequently,  the  costs 
incurred in connection with this mechanism, in particular related to the participation 
of  the  experts  from  the  Member  States  (reimbursement  of  travel  expenses  and 
accommodation during the on-the-spot visits) will be borne by the EU budget. The 

30 

31 

32 

Second  paragraph  of  Article  11(3)  of  the  Agreement  between  the  European  Union,  the  European 
Community  and  the  Swiss  Confederation  on  the  Swiss  Confederation’s  association  with  the 
implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 50). 
Article  3  of  the  Protocol  between  the  European  Union,  the  European  Community,  the  Swiss 
Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein 
to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation 
on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the 
Schengen acquis (OJ L 83, 26.3.2008, p. 3). 
Additional columns should be added if necessary, i.e. if the duration of the action exceeds six years. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
daily  allowances  of  the  Member  States’  experts  will  continue  to  be  covered  by  the 
budget of the Member State concerned. 

5.2. 

Value-added  of  involvement  of  the  Union  and  coherence  of  the  proposal  with 
other financial instruments and possible synergy 

Maintaining the Schengen area as an area of free movement without internal border 
controls  depends  on  an  effective  and  efficient  mechanism  for  evaluation  of  the 
accompanying measures. It is indispensable to adapt the intergovernmental Schengen 
evaluation to the EU framework, where the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, 
will  take  over  its  responsibilities  while  fully  ensuring  the  participation  of  Member 
States’ experts in order to maintain mutual trust. 

5.3. 

Objectives, expected results and related indicators of the proposal in the context 
of the ABM framework 

The  overall  objective  is  correct  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis  in  all  areas 
covered  by  the  accompanying  measures,  thereby  making  it  possible  to  maintain  an 
area without internal border controls. 

Action  1:  Evaluation,  either  by  means  of  on-the-spot  visits  or  based  on 
questionnaires,  covering  the  following  policy  areas:  external  borders,  visas,  police 
cooperation at internal borders, Schengen Information System, data protection, drugs 
and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.  

Indicator:  Assessment  of  correct  application  of  the  acquis  in  the  reports  (fully 
compliant, compliant but improvement necessary or non-compliant). 

Action 2: Evaluation by means of unannounced on-the-spot visits.  

Indicator: Assessment of correct application of the acquis in order to remedy specific 
shortcomings. A report will be established after each visit indicating the compliance 
with EU law. 

5.4.  Method of implementation (indicative) 

(cid:59)  Centralised management 

(cid:59) 

directly by the Commission 

(cid:133) 

indirectly by delegation to: 

(cid:133) 

executive agencies 

(cid:133) 

bodies set up by the Communities, as referred to in Article 185 of 
the Financial Regulation 

(cid:133) 

national public-sector bodies/bodies with public-service missions 

(cid:133) 

Shared or decentralised management 

(cid:133)  with Member States 

EN 

26 

   EN 

(cid:133)  with non-EU countries 

(cid:133) 

Joint management with international organisations (please specify) 

Relevant comments: 

EN 

27 

   EN 

6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

6.1.  Monitoring system 

The proposed Regulation provides for the establishment of an evaluation mechanism 
to  verify  correct  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis.  Correct  application  of  the 
acquis  will  be  assessed  in  the  evaluation  reports,  indicating  the  degree  of 
compliance. The Commission will present a yearly report to the European Parliament 
and to the Council on implementation of this Regulation.  

6.2. 

Evaluation 

6.2.1.  Ex-ante evaluation 

6.2.2.  Measures taken  following  an intermediate/ex-post evaluation (lessons  learned from 

similar experience in the past) 

6.2.3.  Terms and frequency of future evaluation 

7. 

ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES  

In  order  to  combat  fraud,  corruption  and  other  unlawful  activities,  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1037/1999 will apply without restriction to this mechanism. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

8. 

DETAILS OF RESOURCES 

8.1. 

Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial cost 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Type of 
output 

Av. 
cost 

Year 2011 

Year 2012 

Year 2013 

Year 2014 

Year n+4 

Year n+5 and 
later 

TOTAL 

No of 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No of 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No of 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No of 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No of 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No of 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No of 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE No 1 
33Verification of application of the 
Schengen acquis 

Action 1  

Announced evaluation visits  
(MS experts + COM experts) 

Output 1: mission 

IT equipment 

Action 2 

Unannounced evaluation visits 
(MS experts + COM experts) 

Output 1: mission 

TOTAL COST 

0.0024 

p.m. 

p.m. 

200 

0.480 

240 

0.576 

240 

p.m. 

0.010 

0.010 

0.0024 

p.m. 

p.m. 

30 

0.072 

60 

0.144 

60 

2 

0.730 

0.576 

0.010 

0.144 

0.730 

33 

As described under Section 5.3. 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Calculation:  
Action 1: Missions: 1 person-week x € 2400 x 25 missions for the first year and 30 missions for the subsequent years (8 experts per mission) 
IT equipment necessary for the visit on the spot (laptop, etc.). 
Action 2: Missions: 1 person-week x € 2400 x 5 unannounced visits for the first year and 10 unannounced visits for the subsequent years (6 experts per 
mission). 

This appropriation is intended to cover the expenditure on establishment and operation of a pool of experts to check correct application of the 
Schengen acquis by the Member States. This expenditure includes the travel expenses of the Commission experts and of the Member States’ experts 
borne in accordance with the provisions laid down in the regulations. The cost of the supplies needed for the visit on the spot, e.g. of a laptop for 
drafting the report, must be added to these costs. 

EN 

30 

EN 

 
  
8.2. 

Administrative expenditure 

The  needs  for  human  and  administrative  resources  will  be  covered  from  the 
allocation that can be granted to the managing DG in the annual allocation procedure 
in the light of budgetary constraints. 

8.2.1.  Number and type of human resources 

Types of post 

Staff to be assigned to management of the action using existing and/or 
additional resources (number of posts/FTEs) 

Year 
2011 

Year 
2012 

Year 
2013 

Year 
2014 

Year n+4  Year n+5 

4 

1 

6 

1 

6 

1 

Officials or 
temporary 
staff34  
(XX 01 01) 

A*/AD 

1 

B*, 
C*/AST 

Staff financed35 by 
Article XX 01 02 

Other  staff36  financed by 
Article XX 01 04/05 

TOTAL 

1 

5 

7 

7 

8.2.2.  Description of tasks deriving from the action 

8.2.3. 

Sources of human resources (statutory) 

(cid:57) 

Posts currently allocated to the management of the programme to be replaced 
or extended (1) 

(cid:133) 

Posts pre-allocated within the APS/PDB exercise for year 2010 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:133) 

Posts  to  be  requested  in  the  next  APS/PDB  procedure  (2  for  2012  and  1  for 
2013) 

Posts  to  be  redeployed  using  existing  resources  within  the  managing  service 
(internal redeployment) (3) 

Posts  required  for  year  n  although  not  foreseen  in  the  APS/PDB  exercise  for 
the year in question 

Given  the  budgetary  constraints  linked  to  current  Commission's  commitment  not  to  ask  for 
new posts until 2013, the human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are 
already  assigned  to  management  of  the  action  and/or  have  been  redeployed  within  the  DG, 

34 
35 
36 

Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount. 
Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount. 
Cost of which is included within the reference amount. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
together with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the 
annual allocation procedure.  

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
8.2.4.  Other  administrative  expenditure  included  in  reference  amount  (XX  01  04/05  — 

Expenditure on administrative management) 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year 
n 

Year 
n+1 

Year 
n+2 

Year 
n+3 

Year 
n+4 

Year 
n+5 
and 
later 

TOTAL 

Budget line 

(number and heading) 

1 Technical and administrative 
assistance (including related staff costs) 

Executive agencies37 

Other technical and administrative 
assistance 

- intra muros  

- extra muros 

Total technical and administrative 
assistance 

8.2.5.  Financial cost of human resources and associated costs not included in the reference 

amount 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Type of human resources 

Year 
2011 

Year 
2012 

Year 
2013 

Year 
2014 

Year 
n+4 

Year 
n+5 

and later 

Officials and temporary staff 
(XX 01 01) 

1 

5 

7 

7 

Staff financed by Article 
XX 01 02 (auxiliary, END, 
contract staff, etc.) 

(specify budget line) 

Total cost of human 
resources and associated 
costs (NOT in reference 
amount) 

0.122 

0.610 

0.854 

0.854 

37 

Reference  should  be  made  to  the  specific  legislative  financial  statement  for  the  Executive  Agency  or 
Agencies concerned. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Calculation — Officials and temporary agents 

Calculation — Staff financed under Article XX 01 02 

8.2.6. Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Year 
2011 

Year 
2012 

Year 
2013 

Year 
2014 

Year 
n+4 

Year 
n+5 
and 
later 

TOTAL 

XX 01 02 11 01 — Missions 

XX 01 02 11 02 — Meetings and conferences 

XX  01  02  11  03  Committees38(Management 
procedure) 

p.m. 

0,065 

0,097 

0,097 

XX 01 02 11 04 — Studies and consultations 

XX 01 02 11 05 — Information systems 

2 Total other management expenditure 

p.m. 

0.065 

0.097 

0.097 

(XX 01 02 11) 

3  Other 

expenditure 

administrative 
including reference to budget line) 

nature 

of 

an 
(specify 

Total administrative expenditure, 
other than human resources and 
associated costs (NOT included in 
reference amount) 

p.m. 

0.065 

0.097 

0.097 

38 

Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Calculation — Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount 

Way of calculation: 27 members (1 per MS)* 600 EUR/person* 4 meetings for the first year 
and 6 meetings for subsequent years. 

EN 

35 

   EN