REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Fifth bi-annual report on the functioning of the Schengen area 1 November 2013 - 30 April 2014
Date: 2014-05-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, Frontex, Schengen Information System, arrest, border control, external border of the EU, illegal migration, migratory movement, right of asylum

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 26.5.2014  
COM(2014) 292 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Fifth bi-annual report on the functioning of the Schengen area 
1 November 2013 - 30 April 2014 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

As  announced  by  the  Commission  on  16  September  2011  in  its  Communication  on 
strengthening  Schengen  governance1  and  supported  by  the  Council  on  8  March  2012,  the 
Commission submits biannual reports to the European Parliament and to the Council on the 
functioning  of  the  Schengen  area.  This  fifth  report  covers  the  period  1  November  2013-30 
April 2014.  

2. 

2.1. 

SITUATIONAL PICTURE 

Situation at the Schengen external borders 

During November 2013-February 2014 (months for which the data was available at the time 
of writing), the number of detections of irregular border crossings decreased compared to the 
four  months  preceeding  the  reporting  period  (July-October  2013).  This  can  be  considered 
normal  due  to  seasonal  fluctuations  of  irregular migration flows. Nevertheless, compared to 
November 2012-February 2013, the number of detected irregular border crossings increased 
by 96%, up to 25 936 detections2. Italy, Greece, Hungary, Spain and Bulgaria had the highest 
number  of  apprehensions  in  November  2013-February  2014.  In  total,  the  number  of 
detections  of  irregular  border  crossings  in  2013  was  107 365,  i.e.  48%  higher  than  in  2012. 
The number of detections and consequently pressure at the border therefore remains high and 
might be further increasing, since the traditionally calm months of this reporting period have 
seen one of the highest numbers of irregular migrants ever for this time of year. The total for 
2013 is comparable to the levels of 2009-2010, but still lower than reported during the Arab 
spring  in  2011.  Main  nationalities  of  the  persons  detected  (for  the  entire  year  2013)  were 
Syrians, Eritreans, Afghanis and Albanians.  

The Central Mediterranean was the main route used during 2013, having almost a four-fold 
increase  (to  over  40 000  detections)  compared  to  20123.  For  the  first  four  months  of  the 
reporting  period  for  which  the  statistics  are  available  (November  2013-February  2014),  the 
increase was four-fold compared to the same period the year before (9 175 detections against 
2 177).  While  November  2013  had  a  lower  number  of  detections  than  in  2012,  December 
2013 exceeded the same month of 2012 by nearly five times while the numbers for January 
and February 2014 were correspondingly 58 and 61 times higher than for the same months a 
year before4.  

1 
2  

3  
4  

COM (2011) 561 final 
Unless  otherwise  indicated,  the  data  in  Section  2  is  taken  from  Frontex  Risk  Analysis  Network 
information exchange system, and covers the Schengen area as well as Schengen candidate countries. 
The data covers only the third country nationals detected at external borders (except temporary external 
borders) when entering or attempting to enter illegally between the border crossing points. Figures for 
Croatia are included from the day of accession to the EU. 
Note that the figures for this route here and below exclude Apulia and Calabria. 
Higher detection figures can partially be attributed to the operation Mare Nostrum by the Italian Navy 
launched in October 2013. 

2 

 
 
                                                            
As chair of the Task Force Mediterranean, on 4 December 2013 the Commission published its 
Communication5  that  presents  lines  of  actions  to  be  taken  by  Member  States,  the  EU 
institutions and other EU bodies. This also includes steps for reinforced border surveillance, 
contributing to enhancing the maritime situational picture and to the protection and saving of 
lives of migrants. Implementing the measures should result in preserving the integrity of the 
EU external borders in the Mediterranean. 

The Eastern Mediterranean route was the second most frequently used in 2013. While in 2013 
the detections at the Bulgarian borders on this route were close to seven times higher than in 
2012,  the  annual  level  of  detections  on  the  Eastern  Mediterranean  route  decreased  by  one 
third thanks to the decrease on the land border section between Greece and Turkey, which can 
be attributed to the ongoing efforts and operations at the Greek borders6. A sharp cut was seen 
in  the  level  of  detections  at  the  Bulgarian  border  in  the  last  month  of  2013  as  well  as 
beginning  of  2014,  which  can  be  attributed  to  the  seasonal  effects,  as  well  as  to  the 
deployment of additional resources by Bulgaria.  

However, each of the first four months of the current reporting period show a higher number 
of detections on the Eastern Mediterranean route than a year ago. It will need to be seen if this 
trend persists and if any additional action is required to address the situation. 

The Commission is planning to issue Recommendations to Bulgaria and Italy triggering the 
early warning, preparedness and crisis management mechanism on the basis of Article 33 of 
the  Dublin  III  Regulation7,  to  support  these  Member  States  in  preparing  to  cope  with  the 
situations of pressure they are prone to, to show solidarity, and to help the asylum seekers in 
need. 

The  Western  Balkans  route  was  the  third  most  used  route  with  over  three  times  more 
crossings in 2013 than in 2012. The greatest pressure there remained on the Hungarian border. 
As far as the available data for the reporting period is concerned, the number of detections on 
the Western Balkans route was almost double compared to a year before. 

2.2. 

Situation within the Schengen area 

In  the  first  four  months  of  the  reporting  period  for  which  data  is  available,  the  level  of 
detections  of  irregular  stay8  was  slightly  higher  than  during  the  same  period  in  2012-2013 
(109 712  detections,  which  is  around  9  %  more).  Germany,  followed  by  Sweden,  France, 
Spain and Belgium had the highest number of detections during this period.  

5  

6  

7 

8  

Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the  work  of  the  Task  Force  Mediterranean,  4  December, 
2013, COM(2013) 869 final. 
In 2013, the level of irregular border crossings at the Greek borders was only slightly over the half of 
the 2012 level, whereas at this particular route it went down by 12%. 
Regulation  (EU)  No 604/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26 June  2013 
establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining 
an  application  for  international  protection  lodged  in  one  of  the  Member  States  by  a  third-country 
national or a stateless person 
As indicated above, the data covers the Schengen area as well as Schengen candidate countries. 
3 

 
 
                                                            
As planned, Frontex, on the Commission's initiative and based on Member States' submission 
of  available  information,  produced  a  tailored  risk  analysis  on  intra-EU/Schengen  migratory 
movements. Results show that most irregular migrants do not end their journey after having 
crossed the external borders but continue to destinations elsewhere in the Schengen area. The 
analysis focuses on the most frequently encountered nationalities9 in the context of irregular 
migration,  each  of  these  nationalities  showing  a  distinct  pattern  with  regard  to  secondary 
movements. 

Another important development was that the Frontex Risk Analysis Network started regular 
collection  of  the  indicators  of  these  movements as of January 2014. Twelve Member States 
have not yet sent their figures and the data for most of other Member States was not complete. 
For this reason, no conclusions on the data can be drawn at this stage. 

Also relevant in this context is that some migrants are not fingerprinted as stipulated by the 
Eurodac Regulation. Migrants may want to avoid the possibility of later being sent back from 
another part of the Schengen area to the Member State of first entry in line with the Dublin 
procedures. However, in such cases, it should be clearly explained to the migrants that it is a 
legal obligation for them to have their fingerprints taken, and that certain legal conseqences 
flow from such a refusal. In particular, if they apply for asylum, the fact that they refused to 
give their fingerprints means that the examiniation of their claim can be accelerated. If they 
don't apply for asylum, they should be treated as irregular migrants, and the Return Directive 
applies. The fact that they refused to give their fingerprints could be an indication that they 
are likely to abscond, which might justify detention, following an individual examination of 
the circumstances of each migrant. 

3. 

APPLICATION OF THE SCHENGEN ACQUIS 

Cases of temporarily reintroduced control at internal borders 

3.1. 
Article  23  of  the  Schengen  Borders  Code10  provides  that,  exceptionally,  where  there  is  a 
serious  threat  to  public  policy  or  internal  security,  a  Member  State  may  reintroduce  border 
control at its internal borders. During the period 1 November 2013-30 April 2014, there were 
two  cases  when  Member  States  temporarily  reintroduced  control  at  their  internal  borders: 
Poland on 8-23 November (due to the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 9th session of the Conference of 
the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol and the 39th Session of 
the  Subsidiary  Bodies)  and  the  Netherlands  on  14-28 March 2014  (due  to  the  Nuclear 
Security Summit in the Hague). For the time-being, the results of temporary reintroduction are 
available  for  Poland,  where  38 491  persons  where  checked,  out  of  which  65  were  refused 
entry  and  54  apprehended.  None  of  the  refusals  of  entry  was  linked  to  the  UN  events 
concerned. 

9  

10  

Those  being  Syrians,  Eritreans  and  Somalis,  Afghanis  and  Pakistanis,  Algerians  and  Moroccans, 
Western Balkan nationals and Ukrainians. 
Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community 
Code  on  the  rules  governing  the  movement  of  persons  across  borders  (Schengen  Borders  Code),  as 
amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
3.2.  Maintaining the absence of internal border control 

Two  areas  of  the  Schengen  acquis  of  which  violations  are  often  alleged  are  whether  the 
carrying out of police checks close to the internal border have an effect equivalent to border 
checks (article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code) and the obligation to remove obstacles to 
fluid traffic flow, such as speed limitations, at road crossing-points at internal borders (article 
22  of  the  Schengen  Borders  Code).  In  the  period  1  November  2013-30  April  2014,  the 
Commission  requested  information  on  possible  violations  of  articles  21  and/or  22  of  the 
Schengen Borders Code in two new cases (regarding Italy and Slovenia), while it closed two 
cases  (involving  Spain  and  Sweden)  and  continued  investigating  three  existing  cases 
(regarding Austria, Belgium and Germany).  

In the same period, following the action taken by the Austrian and the Slovak authorities, the 
Commission closed two infringement cases against Austria and Slovakia for failure to comply 
with the obligations under Article 22 of the Schengen Borders Code. The Commission now 
considers the situation at the border crossing point in Kittsee-Jarovce as being in line with the 
Union law after Austria and Slovakia removed the remaining obstacles to fluid traffic flow, 
particularly the speed limits which were not exclusively based on road-safety considerations. 

On 20 February 2014, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion asking the Czech Republic 
to amend its legislation to ensure that penalties are not imposed on carriers when transporting 
foreign  nationals  without  the  relevant  travel  documents  on  intra-Schengen  flights.  Imposing 
these  rules  (which  were  intended  for  flights  crossing  the  external  border11)  for  the  flights 
inside the Schengen area obliges carriers to carry out systematic checks on persons crossing 
the  internal  borders,  which  is  not  in  line  with  the  EU  legislation  on  the  abolition  of  the 
internal border controls. 

3.3. 

Development of European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur) 

On  2  December  2013  the  European  Border  Surveillance  System  became  operational  in  19 
Schengen  Member  States  at  the  southern  and  eastern  external  borders.  EUROSUR  will 
improve  the  ability  of  Member  States  to  share  and  coordinate  the  resources  and  react  to 
incidents  and  situations  occurring  at  the  external  borders.  All  the  Member  States  that  have 
joined  Eurosur  in  2013  have  fully  established  National  Coordination  Centres  in  place. 
Frontex connected these centres to the Eurosur communication network and will connect the 
centres  of  the  remaining  11  countries  in  2014.  Frontex  also  started  cooperating  with  the 
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and the EU Satellite Centre in providing services 
and information at the EU level, such as ship reporting systems and satellite imagery. 

3.4. 

Alleged violations of other parts of the Schengen acquis 

The  Schengen  Borders  Code  requires  that  border  control  measures  be  proportionate  to  the 
objectives pursued and non-discriminatory. In the performance of their duties, border guards 
must  fully  respect  human  dignity  and  they  must  act  in  full  compliance  with  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights  and  relevant  international  law,  including  access  to  international 

11  

Convention  implementing  the  Schengen  Agreement  of  14  June  1985  as  well  as  Council  Directive 
2001/51/EC. 

5 

 
 
                                                            
protection and the principle of non-refoulement. In December 2013, the Commission started 
an inquiry as regards Greece on allegations of serious ill-treatment during border surveillance 
operations  and  push-back  practices  at  the  external  border.  Similarly,  in  February  2014,  the 
Commission entered into contact with Bulgaria to assess allegations of push-back practices by 
Bulgarian  authorities.  Also,  in  April  2014,  the  Commission  contacted  Greece  and  Bulgaria 
regarding  the  operation  of  a  border  crossing  point  at  the  Greek-Bulgarian  border  which  has 
been reported as allegedly not complying with the necessary requirements under the Schengen 
Borders Code. 

Following  the  referendum  held  in  Switzerland  on  9  February  2014  on  the  introduction  of 
quantitative limits to immigration, the Swiss authorities will bring forward their proposals on 
how  to  implement  the  outcome  of  this  referendum.  The  Commission  will  subsequently 
analyse the possible implications on Swiss participation in the Schengen area. 

In 2013, the Commission received complaints about excessive waiting times caused by checks 
by  the  Spanish  authorities  at  the  border  with  Gibraltar.  Given  the  significant  number  of 
complaints, the Commission published an acknowledgement of receipt in the Official Journal 
of  the  EU  (2013/C  246/07).  Following  an  on-site  visit  and  while  recognising  that  the 
management  of  the  crossing  point  of  La  Línea  de  la  Concepción  is  challenging,  on  15 
November  2013  the  Commission  issued  recommendations  to  both  Spain  and  the  United 
Kingdom  to  address  the  traffic  situation  at  this  border  and  the  tobacco  smuggling.  In 
particular, the United Kingdom and Gibraltar were invited to take measures to fight tobacco 
smuggling  better,  including  by  developing  risk-based  profiling  and  by  introducing  non-
systematic,  risk  analysis-based  checks  upon  exit  from  Gibraltar,  and  optimising  Gibraltar 
legislation. Spain was invited to take measures to improve the traffic organisation, including 
the  modernisation  of  the  crossing  point,  optimise  the  risk-based  profiling  and  develop  the 
exchange  of  information  on  tobacco  smuggling  with  the  Gibraltar  authorities.  The 
Commission  is  committed  to  continue  monitoring  the  situation  at  this  border,  including  on 
how both Member States practically implement the recommendations. 

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

The  deadline  for  implementation  of  the  Return  Directive  (2008/115/EC)  expired  on  24 
December 2010. All countries concerned except Iceland have notified full transposition of the 
Directive into national law. The majority of the identified transposition issues were settled by 
modification of the relevant law provisions of the Member States concerned. The Commission 
continues  to  systematically  follow  up  on  all  shortcomings  identified  and  launches 
investigation where necessary. 

On  27  March  2014,  the  Commission  presented  its  first  application  report  as  part  of  a 
Communication  on  EU  Return  Policy,  which  concluded  that  the  Directive  contributed  to 
promote  full  respect  of  fundamental  rights  in  fair  and  dignified  as  well  as  efficient  return 
procedures. The cases in which migrants are left without clear legal status were reduced and 
voluntary  departure  has  been  widely  accepted  as  primary  form  of  return.  Finally,  the 
sustainability of returns has been improved by increasingly providing reintegration measures. 

6 

 
 
These positive changes have been confirmed both by civil society actors (NGOs active in the 
field of migration) as well as international bodies (including the United Nations International 
Law Commission´s reports). 

Implementation of the Regulation on Local Border Traffic (EC No 1931/2006) 

Since the entry into force of the local border traffic regime in 2006, the Commission has been 
monitoring  its  implementation.  In  relation  to  the  previous  report,  the  Commission,  after 
having  received  clarifications  from  the  Member  States  concerned,  closed  its  investigations 
regarding  four  Member  States  on  the  bilateral  agreements  that  these  countries  (Hungary, 
Slovakia,  Latvia  and  Poland)  have  concluded  with  their  third  country  neighbours,  having 
asked the Member States concerned to provide information on further developments. At the 
same time, the Commission continued the investigation with regard to Slovenia as well as two 
infringement cases, one with Latvia and another with Poland. 

On 17 February 2014 the Commission adopted a Report on the operation of the exceptional 
extension  of  the  local  border  traffic  regime  area  in  Kaliningrad  region  of  the  Russian 
Federation  and  certain  Polish  administrative  districts12.  The  report  looks  at  the  practical 
implementation  of  this  arrangement,  including  the  number  of  crossings  under  the  LBT 
regime,  organisational  arrangements  and  challenges.  The  report  concludes  that  the  regime 
appears to be functioning well, at the same time pointing out that given the short time since its 
entry into force, any assessment is limited. The report was positively received by the Council 
which is looking forward to the next report due in two years time, by when more data should 
be available. 

3.5.  Weaknesses identified via the Schengen evaluation mechanism 
Under  the  current  Schengen  evaluation  mechanism13,  Member  States'  application  of  the 
Schengen  acquis  is  regularly  evaluated  by  experts  from  the  Member  States,  the  Council 
General Secretariat and the Commission.  

In  the  period  1  November  2013-30  April  2014,  Schengen  evaluations  were  carried  out  on  
police co-operation in Switzerland and SIS/Sirene in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and 
Poland.  As  far  as  SIS/Sirene  is  concerned,  the  evaluated  Member  States  have,  in  general, 
achieved  satisfactory  progress  in  the  implementation  of  SIS  II.  The  reports  are  still  being 
finalised,  but  will  include  positive  as  well  as  negative  comments  and  recommendations, 
including  on  the  more  comprehensive  use  of  the  new  alert  categories  and  functionalities. 
Special focus is made on the more efficient use of SIS II at the external borders.  

Preparations are ongoing as regards the new Schengen evaluation mechanism. In line with the 
Regulation  1053/2013  establishing  an  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  to  verify  the 

12  

13  

COM(2014) 74 final, 17.2.2014, Report on the implementation and functioning of Regulation (EU) No 
1342/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 as 
regards the inclusion of the Kaliningrad oblast and certain Polish administrative districts in the eligible 
border  area  and  on  the  bilateral  agreement  concluded  thereof  between  Poland  and  the  Russian 
Federation. 
SCH/Com-ex (98) 26 def. 

7 

 
 
                                                            
application  of  the  Schengen  acquis14,  the  Schengen  Committee  has  been  established  and 
convened  for  the  first  time  on  17  January  2014,  where  the  practical  implementation  of  the 
new Schengen evaluation mechanism was discussed. In accordance with the aforementioned 
Regulation,  the  multiannual  evaluation  programme  is  planned  to  be  established  by  27  May 
2014. The first evaluations under the new mechanism can be expected as of January 2015. 

3.6. 

Lifting of control at internal borders with Bulgaria and Romania 

The Council has not yet been able to decide on the lifting of control at the internal borders to 
these  countries.  The  Commission  continues  to  fully  support  Bulgaria's  and  Romania's 
accession to the Schengen area. 

4. 

4.1. 

FLANKING MEASURES 

Use of the Schengen Information System 

In many Member States the launch of SIS II was linked to the deployment of new end-user 
systems or significant upgrades of the existing ones which has led to the overall improvement 
of national applications for law enforcement officers. Many Member States have implemented 
solutions allowing several SIS II queries in parallel according to different criteria (e.g. in case 
of a stolen tractor, vehicle and industrial equipment alerts are queried at the same time). With 
regard to the number of hits (positive result to a query in the SIS II), following a bedding-in 
period in the Member States, the current pattern shows an overall positive trend with the level 
of hits exceeding the rate achieved by SIS 1+ by 3.5 %. 

Although the hacker attack against the Danish N.SIS in 2011 took place under the predecessor 
system of SIS II, the Commission has carried out an end-to-end assessment of the efficiency 
of  national  security  measures  together  with  the  experts  of  eu-LISA,  the  Member  States  and 
European Data Protection Supervisor. The recommendations will be available in the second 
quarter of 2014. 

The Commission has continued to closely monitor the implementation of SIS II by Member 
States, with special emphases on the new alert categories and functionalities as many Member 
States  still  have  to  fully  implement  these  features  into  their  end-user  systems.  The 
Commission focuses, in particular, on the timely deletion by Member States of alerts in SIS 
II,  as  alerts  which  are  not  anymore  relevant  may  cause  inconvenience  and  damage  to 
individuals concerned. The major reasons for delay are the lack of procedures and control by 
the responsible national authorities and the lack of clear legal provisions on when an alert has 
to  be  deleted.  In  addition,  the  Commission  identified  that  certain  Member  States  fail  to 
systematically attach the European Arrest Warrant to the alerts for arrest, as they should do. 
This may jeopardize the validity of an alert. Therefore, the Commission raised the matter with 
the  Member  States  concerned  in  order  to  remedy  the  situation.  Where  appropriate,  the 
Commission  will  also  open  investigations  against  Member  States  which  are  not  complying 
with the legal requirements. 

14  

OJ L 295, 6.11.2013, p. 27. 

8 

 
 
                                                            
SIS II has proven to be an important tool for detecting the routes of terrorists and travelling 
criminal gangs even in cases of changed identity or forged personal identification documents. 
The  Commission  and  the  Member  States  are  working  closely  together  to  fully  exploit  the 
possibilities offered by a special alert category in SIS II which allows the discreet and specific 
check of individuals and certain types of objects. Following the effective intervention of the 
Commission in proposing solutions for a more intensive use of this alert category the statistics 
show a more than 30 % increase in the number of such alerts. 

4.2. 

Use of the Visa Information System 

Since the end of the last reporting period (31 October 2013), the VIS became operational on 
14  November  2013  in  the  ninth  region  (Central  Asia),  tenth  region  (South-East  Asia)  and 
eleventh region (occupied Palestinian territory)15.  

The sequencing of the VIS roll-out in the third set of regions was determined in September 
201316.  The  VIS  is  scheduled  to  start  operations  in  the  twelfth,  thirteenth,  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  regions  (Central  America,  North  America,  Caribbean  and  Australasia)  on  15  May 
2014 and in the sixteenth region (Western Balkans and Turkey) on 25 September 2014. 

The  VIS  is  functioning  well  and  by  1  October  2013  the  system  had  processed  4.8  million 
Schengen  visa  applications,  whereby  nearly  four  million  visas  have  been  issued.  Despite 
continuous efforts by Member States, the main issue of concern remains the mid to long-term 
effect of a non-optimal quality of data (both biometric and alphanumeric) introduced by the 
consular authorities of Member States into the VIS. This can happen due to incomplete (e.g., 
different visa applications for the same person or family members travelling together are not 
linked) or unstructured data (it is not filled in with the appropriate format) as well as due to 
insufficient fingerprint quality. This can result in unreliable information for decision makers 
as well as raise difficulties in carrying out prior consultations with other Member States when 
issuing a visa.  

The  use  of  fingerprints  to  perform  verifications  of  visa  holders  at  the  Schengen  border 
crossing points will become obligatory in October 2014. Although some Member States have 
already  been  performing  a  number  of  such  verifications,  it  is  crucial  that  all  the  Member 
States  comply  with  the  deadline.  The  data  available  at  eu-LISA  show  that  for  November 
2013-January 2014, there were in total 152 262 verifications by fingerprints carried out in the 
VIS at the posts located at the external border17. 

15  

16  

17  

Commission  Implementing  Decision  of  8  November  2013  determining  the  date  from  which  the  Visa 
Information System (VIS) is to start operations in a ninth, a tenth and an eleventh region (2013/642/EU) 
Commission Implementing Decision of 30 September 2013 determining the third and last set of regions 
for the start of operations of the Visa Information System (VIS) (2013/493/EU) 
These  verifications  were  primarily  carried  out  by  6  Member  States,  the  rest  having  had  no  such 
verifications  or  numbers  lower  than  100  cases  a  month.  For  comparison,  there  were  6  159  564 
verifications in the VIS using the alphanumeric data (the visa sticker number) during the same period 
for all the Schengen area. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
4.3. 

Visa policy and readmission agreements 

Amendment of Regulation 539/2001 introducing a new suspension mechanism and a revised 
reciprocity mechanism  

On 11 December 2013, the European Parliament and the Council adopted an amendment of 
Regulation 539/2001 providing, among other elements, for a new suspension mechanism and 
a revised reciprocity mechanism.18 The amendment entered into force on 9 January 2014. 

The new suspension mechanism 

In accordance with the provisions of the new suspension mechanism, it could be used as a last 
resort  measure  in  situations  where  the  visa-free  regime  with  a  third  country  had  led  to 
substantial increases in the number of irregular migrants or of rejected asylum applicants from 
that  third  country  resulting  in  specific  pressures  on  the  asylum  system  of  a  Member  State. 
There is no automatic application of the mechanism: in case of a request from any Member 
State to trigger the suspension mechanism, based on clear and strict criteria, the Commission 
will have to examine all relevant factors, including any potential impact on the EU's relations 
with the third country concerned. If, after examination of all the facts and relevant elements, 
the Commission finds that the visa waiver should be suspended for nationals of a particular 
third country, it will propose to a committee where all Member States are represented a draft 
decision  suspending  the  visa  waiver,  on  which  the  committee  will  have  to  give  its  opinion. 
The Commission is also committed to holding a political debate with the European Parliament 
before proposing any suspension measure.  

Revised reciprocity mechanism 

In  the  course  of  the  legislative  negotiations,  the  European  Parliament  and  several  Member 
States called for a reinforced reciprocity mechanism – applied in case a visa-exempted third 
country  introduces  or  maintains  a  visa  requirement  for  the  citizens  of  one  or  more  Member 
States - in order to make it more efficient and ensure more solidarity among Member States. 

The main changes introduced by the revised reciprocity mechanism are that, for a period of 
two  years  from  the  notification  of  a  non-reciprocity  situation,  the  Commission  may  at  any 
time  adopt  an  implementing  act  to  suspend  the  visa-free  regime  for  certain  categories  of 
nationals  of  the  third  country  concerned,  for  a  period  of  up  to  six  months,  with  a  possible 
prolongation by further periods of up to six months; if the Commission decides not to adopt 
such  an  act,  it  has  to  present  a  report  explaining  the  reasons  why  it  does  not  propose  a 
measure. Furthermore, if after two years from the notification of the non-reciprocity the third 
country is still requiring visas from citizens of one or more Member States, the Commission 
shall adopt a delegated act to re-impose the visa obligation on all citizens of the third country, 

18  

Regulation  (EU)  No  1289/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas 
when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, OJ L 
347, 20.12.2013 

10 

 
 
                                                            
for  a  period  of  12  months;  either  the  European  Parliament  or  the  Council  could  oppose  the 
entry into force of this delegated act.  

The Commission, while welcoming the adoption of the amendment aiming at enhancing the 
credibility of the common visa policy and ensuring more solidarity amongst Member States, 
considers that the powers conferred on the Commission with regard to the revised reciprocity 
mechanism are not in compliance with Articles 290 and 291 of the TFEU and has lodged an 
application  for  annulment  concerning  certain  provisions  of  Regulation  1289/2013,  in 
accordance with the Commission declarations made during the adoption of the amendment by 
the European Parliament19 and by the Council. 

Post-visa liberalisation monitoring mechanism for Western Balkan countries 

According to Eurostat data, in the 2013, the total number of asylum applications from the five 
Western Balkan visa-free states20 in the Schengen area and the Schengen candidate countries 
was  around  12.5%  higher  than  in  201221.  Hence,  the  situation  continued  to  affect  the 
functioning of the visa-free travel regime between the Western Balkans and the EU. Asylum 
inflows in 2013 have shown a similar trend to 2012. 

Nationals of the five visa-free Western Balkan states represented almost 12% of all asylum-
seekers  in  Schengen  states  and  Schengen  candidate  countries  in  2013,  compared  to  around 
13.4%  in  2012.  Around  93%  of  these  applications  in  2013  were  lodged  in  the  six  most-
affected  Schengen  countries,  which  were  Germany,  France,  Sweden,  Belgium,  Switzerland 
and  Luxembourg.  The  overall  recognition  rate22  of  the  applications  for  international 
protection  in  first  instance  from  the  citizens  of  the  five  Western  Balkan  countries  in  the 
Schengen area and the Schengen candidate countries was less than 2% in 2013. 

Serbians  represented  by  far  the  largest  group  of  the  applicants,  while  the  share  of  Albanian 
nationals  increased  significantly.  Among  the  most-affected  recipient  countries,  the  top 
destination  continues  to  be  Germany  (with  its  share  increasing  further),  followed  by  France 
and Sweden.  

On  28  November  2013,  the  Commission  presented  the  Fourth  Report  on  the  Post-visa 
liberalisation  monitoring  for  Western  Balkan  countries23  where  it  gives  assessment  of  the 
measures implemented, reviews the functioning and makes recommendations with regard to 
the visa-free travel regime. 

Readmission and visa facilitation agreements and visa liberalisation 

19  

20  

21  
22  

23  

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20130910+ITEM-

See 
011+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN 
Since end of 2009, the citizens of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, 
holding  a  biometric  passport,  have  enjoyed  visa-free  travel  to  the  EU  Member  States,  in  accordance 
with  Regulation  539/2001.  Under  the  same  conditions  the  citizens  of  Albania  as  well  as  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina have enjoyed visa-free travel to the EU Member States since 15 December 2010. 
Please note the 2012 Eurostat data did not cover Croatia as it was not yet an EU member. 
The recognition rate is calculated as the share of first instance decisions granting Geneva convention or 
subsidiary protection status in the total number of first instance decisions taken (the total number of first 
instance decisions includes decisions granting Geneva convention or subsidiary protection status as well 
as decisions granting other status (e.g., humanitarian) and rejections of applications). 
COM(2013) 836 final. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
In order to facilitate the readmission of persons residing without authorisation in a Member 
State, a readmission agreement with Turkey was signed on 16 December 2013. On the same 
occasion,  a  visa  liberalisation  dialogue  was  initiated.  The  EP  gave  its  consent  to  the 
readmission agreement on 26 February 2014 and the Council is now set to adopt the decision 
on the conclusion of the agreement. 

Readmission and visa facilitation agreements with Cape Verde are awaiting notification of the 
completion  of  ratification  procedures  by  Cape  Verde  to  allow  for  their  entry  into  force  (the 
ratification procedures on the EU side are finalised). The consent of the EP for a readmission 
and  visa  faciliation  agreement  with  Armenia  was  received  on  9  October  2013,  followed  by 
entry into force of the two agreements on 1 January 2014. The readmission agreement with 
Azerbaijan was signed on 28 February 2014 (the visa facilitation agreement had already been 
signed in November 2013). The EP gave its consent on 12 March 2014 and the agreements 
are expected to enter into force before the summer. With Belarus, negotations on readmission 
and visa facilitation were officially launched on 29 January 2014 after an initial invitation to 
open  negotiations  in  2011.  A  first  round  of  technical  negotiations  is  expected  to  be  held  in 
mid-June 2014. Readmission negotiations with Morocco will be relaunched on 11-12 June in 
parallel with the negotiation of a visa facilitation agreement. 

In December 2013 the co-legislators agreed on a visa waiver for citizens of the Republic of 
Moldova holding a biometric passport. From 28 April 2014, they can travel  visa-free to the 
Schengen  area.  In  February  2014  the  co-legislators  reached  an  agreement  on  amending  the 
Regulation 539/2001 to lift the visa obligation for citizens of 16 small Caribbean and Pacific 
island nations, as well as the United Arab Emirates, Peru and Colombia. This amendment will 
enter into force before mid-June, but effective visa-free travel for nationals of these countries 
will  only  become  a  reality  once  visa  waiver  agreements  between  the  EU  and  each  of  the 
countries  enter  into  force.  Moreover,  for  Colombia  and  Peru,  the  Commission  will  have  to 
present  assessment  of  their  fulfilment  of  the  relevant  criteria  before  requesting  the 
authorisation to negotiate such agreements. 

12