Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on the establishment and operation of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013
Date: 2021-06-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU police cooperation, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, application of EU law, data protection, evaluation method, external border of the EU, internal border of the EU, personal data

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.6.2021  COM(2021) 278 final/2 2021/0140 (NLE)  CORRIGENDUM This document corrects COM(2021)278 of 2/6/2021. Change of interinstitutional reference. Concerns all languages.  The text should read as follows:   Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on the establishment and operation of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis  and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013   {SEC(2021) 225 final} - {SWD(2021) 119 final} - {SWD(2021) 120 final}  
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

General context 

• 
The Schengen area1 is one of the most significant achievements of the European Union. It has 
enhanced  the  freedom  of  movement  by  enabling  more  than  420  million  people  to  move 
without  being  subject  to  internal  border  controls,  as  well  as  facilitating  the  cross-border 
delivery  of  goods  and  services,  bringing  significant  social  and  economic  benefits  to  our 
societies. 

The  Schengen  cooperation,  which  started  between  five  Member  States  under  an 
intergovernmental framework with the signing of the ‘Schengen Agreement’ on 14 June 1985, 
has  considerably  expanded  since  it  was  first  established.  For  the  last  35  years,  the  EU  has 
witnessed  a  continuous  evolution  towards  the  establishment  of  a  well-functioning  area 
without internal border controls and a reinforced sense of mutual trust among Member States. 
Today,  it  faces  a  different  reality  and  different  challenges  than  when  it  was  established. 
Instability  in  Europe’s  neighbourhood  and  beyond,  the  2015  refugee  crisis  and  its 
consequences,  the  persistent  terrorist  threat  and  the  COVID-19  pandemic  have  put 
considerable strain on Schengen and even led to some Member States reintroducing internal 
border controls for a protracted period. 

To address the challenges faced by the Schengen area, Commission President von der Leyen 
announced a strategy on Schengen in her 2020 State of the Union address2. In the New Pact 
on  Migration  and  Asylum3,  the  Commission  indicated  that  the  Schengen  Strategy  would 
combine  legislative  and  operational  initiatives  aimed  at  ensuring  a  stronger,  more  resilient 
area  without  internal  border  controls,  while  reinforcing  its  governance  and  monitoring 
structures.  One  such  initiative  is  the  revision  of  the  Schengen  evaluation  and  monitoring 
mechanism (hereinafter: ‘the Schengen evaluation mechanism’ or ‘the Mechanism’). 

The  Schengen  area  is  supported  by  a  significant  body  of  measures  that  compensate  for  the 
absence  of  controls  at  internal  borders,  facilitate  free  movement,  and  ensure  a  high  level  of 
security  and  justice.  The  Schengen acquis  comprises  the  provisions  integrated  into  the 
framework  of  the  Union  in  accordance  with  Protocol  No  19  annexed  to  the  Treaty  on 
European Union (TEU) and to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU), 
together  with  the  acts  building  upon  them  or  otherwise  related  to  them.  The  acquis  thus 
includes (1) measures at the external borders (external border management), (2) compensatory 
measures  (common  visa  policy,  police  cooperation,  return  policy  and  the  Schengen 
Information  System),  and  (3)  a  robust  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism.  The 
Schengen acquis  also  comprises  requirements  on  data  protection  and  the  respects  for  other 
fundamental rights. The above-mentioned three essential and complementary pillars underpin 
Schengen and make the area without controls at internal borders possible. The overall stability 

1 

2 

3 

Beyond Member States, the Schengen area covers also Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein 
(so-called ‘Schengen Associated Countries’). Ireland is not part of the  Schengen area but it applies the 
Schengen acquis in part since 1 January 2021. Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania are bound by the 
Schengen acquis, however, internal border controls have not yet been lifted in respect of these Member 
States. 
State  of  the  Union  Address  by  President  von  der  Leyen  at  the  European  Parliament  Plenary,  16 
September 2020. 
COM(2020) 609 final of 23.9.2020, pp. 14-15. 

EN 

1 

  EN 

 
                                                 
of  this  complex  architecture  depends  on  the  strength  of  each  individual  pillar  and  on  the 
coherence and cohesion of the whole system. 

the  Schengen  acquis  and 

A well-functioning Schengen area depends on the correct and efficient implementation of the 
common  rules, i.e. the Schengen  acquis  and, in  more  general  terms, on  mutual  trust  among 
Member  States.  A  deficiency  or  lack  of  implementation  in  one  Member  State  can  affect  all 
others and subsequently put the Schengen area at risk. The monitoring of how Member States 
implement 
the  follow-up  based  on  commonly  agreed 
recommendations  for  improvement  are  a  core  element  of  the  governance  structures  of 
Schengen.  Already  in  1998,  the  contracting  parties  of  the  Schengen  Convention  set  up  a 
Standing  Committee  with  a  mandate  to  identify  shortcomings  in  the  implementation  of  the 
Schengen acquis and to propose solutions4. Following the integration of the Schengen acquis 
into the EU legal framework, the Decision setting up the Standing Committee was replaced by 
Council  Regulation  (EU)  No  1053/20135  (hereinafter:  ‘the  Regulation’)  which  currently 
provides the legal basis for the Mechanism. The Regulation became operational in 2015. 

The purpose of the Schengen evaluation mechanism is to maintain a high level of mutual trust 
among  participating  Member  States  and  thereby  contribute  to  a  well-functioning  Schengen 
area by  guaranteeing that  Member States apply  Schengen  rules  effectively. The Mechanism 
should  achieve  these  goals  by  impartial  and  objective  evaluations  that  are  able  to  identify 
deficiencies in the application of the legislation in practice and ensure that those deficiencies 
are swiftly addressed. 

Although the Mechanism can legally cover the entire Schengen acquis, the practice is that the 
specific policy areas for evaluation are decided for each multiannual evaluation cycle by the 
Commission together with the Member States. Based on this practice, the first and the second 
multiannual  evaluation  cycles  covered  specific  evaluations  to  assess  the  implementation  of 
measures  in  the  areas  of  external  border  management,  return,  common  visa  policy,  police 
cooperation,  the  Schengen  Information  System  (SIS),  data  protection  and  the  absence  of 
controls  at  the internal  borders. Other policy areas falling under the Schengen  acquis in  the 
future could be part of the Mechanism if so decided in the multiannual evaluation programme 
established by the Commission. In this context and based on this practice, the Mechanism also 
covers, but only with a view to concluding whether a Member State is ready to apply all or 
parts of the Schengen legal framework, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, legislation on 
firearms, and drugs policy. 

According to the Regulation, the Commission is responsible for the overall coordination and 
organisation  of  the  evaluation  and  monitoring,  while  keeping  the  European  and  national 
Parliaments informed on the results of evaluations. In accordance with Article 70 TFEU, the 
Mechanism  remains  a  shared  responsibility:  the  Commission  carries  out  evaluations  jointly 
with  experts from  the Member States  and supported by Union bodies, offices and agencies. 
This  peer-to-peer  approach  is  crucial  to  ensure  accountability,  ownership  of  results,  and 
mutual trust. Member State experts check what their peers are doing, recommending solutions 
and urging for action if the Member State does not implement them. Furthermore, the Council 
is  associated  in  the  decision-making  process  when  it  comes  to  adopting  recommendations 
upon a Commission proposal. 

4 

5 

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.), OJ L 239, 22.09.2000, p 138. 
Council  Regulation  (EU)  No 1053/2013  of 7 October  2013  establishing  an  evaluation  and  monitoring 
mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and repealing the Decision of the Executive 
Committee  of  16 September  1998  setting  up  a  Standing  Committee  on  the  evaluation  and 
implementation of Schengen, OJ L 295, 6.11.2013, p. 27. 

EN 

2 

  EN 

 
                                                 
• 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

Given  the  challenges  faced  by  the  Schengen  area  in  recent  years  and  the  role  of  the 
Mechanism in the governance of Schengen, it is important that the Mechanism remains fit for 
purpose and reaches  its  full  potential to  be able  to  adapt  to  recent  legislative developments, 
address new challenges and include new Member States that are fully or partly applying the 
Schengen acquis. 

Article 22 of the Regulation required the Commission to undertake a review of the operation 
of the Regulation  within six months  of the adoption of all evaluation  reports under the first 
multiannual  evaluation  programme  (2015-2019).  The  Commission  presented  its  review  in  a 
report6 and accompanying staff working document7 on 25 November 2020, covering  all the 
elements  of  the  Regulation,  including  the  functioning  of  the  procedures  for  adopting  acts 
under the Mechanism. 

The review concludes that the Mechanism has brought about tangible improvements. Member 
States  are,  overall,  implementing  the  Schengen  acquis  adequately  and  serious  deficiencies 
have been duly addressed. It confirms that the Mechanism as such provides a solid framework 
for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of the Schengen acquis. 

However,  the  review  identifies  significant  shortcomings  in  the  cumbersome  process  of  the 
Mechanism, with the evaluation process and follow-up and implementation of the action plans 
taking an excessive amount of time. The Council recommendations have also not proved to be 
a  sufficiently  effective  tool  to  ensure  that  Member  States  take  rapid  action,  as  the  technical 
nature of the process has not generated sufficient political pressure to act. While evaluations 
identified serious deficiencies in 10 evaluation visits8, ministerial discussion only took place 
once, in the case of Greece’s serious deficiencies in the external border management. 

The Mechanism also does not appear to be generating enough trust amongst Member States, 
given  that  several  Member  States  have  for  the  last  five  years  continued  to  prolong  internal 
border  controls,  despite  positive  evaluations  in  external  border  management,  police 
cooperation  and  the  Schengen  Information  System,  and  an  overall  assessment  that  Member 
States are implementing the Schengen acquis adequately. In addition, the review finds that the 
current  rigidity of the Mechanism does not  allow it to  adapt  to  new circumstances and new 
operational and legislative developments. 

The review concludes that a number of shortcomings prevent the Mechanism from working as 
effectively as it could and should, undermining its full potential. These shortcomings are: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

6 

7 
8 

the  excessive  length  of  the  evaluation  process  (10-12  months)  and  the  time  for 
Member States to implement recommendations (2 years); 

insufficient capacity of Member States to contribute an adequate number of experts for 
the  evaluations,  with  5  Member  States  providing  one  third  of  all  experts  and  with 
chronic deficit of experts in specific policy fields; 

suboptimal use and efficiency of unannounced visits as well as of the other evaluation 
and monitoring tools, in particular thematic evaluations; 

Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
Schengen Evaluation and Monitoring Mechanism pursuant to Article 22 of Council Regulation (EU) No 
1053/2013. COM(2020)779 final. 
SWD (2020)327 final. 
As indicated by the five-year Review, the Mechanism identified serious deficiencies in ten evaluations 
in three fields: external border management (Greece, Iceland, Spain and Sweden); common visa policy 
(Finland and the Netherlands); Schengen Information System (Belgium, France, Spain and UK). 

EN 

3 

  EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

slow follow-up  and implementation  of the action plans and lack of  a  comprehensive 
and consistent approach to monitoring the implementation; and  

apart from the evaluation of the right to protection of personal data, the assessment of 
the respect for fundamental rights in the implementation of the Schengen acquis is not 
sufficiently integrated in the Mechanism. 

The review indicated that some of these shortcomings could be addressed at operational level, 
but others would require legislative changes. 

The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  have  both  stressed  the  need  to  reform  the 
Mechanism.  The  European  Parliament,  in  its  2017  resolution9,  and  the  Council,  already 
through  the  consultation  launched  by  the  Finnish  Presidency  in  201910,  invited  the 
Commission  to  act.  More  recently,  the  Council  adopted  Conclusions  on  the  Mechanism11 
inviting the Commission to put forward initiatives for improvement of the overall efficiency 
of the Mechanism and to ensure it remains flexible, adaptable to the evolving circumstances 
and developments of the Schengen acquis in order to address new challenges and to adapt to 
new realities. 

Following  the  conclusions  of  the  5-year  review,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  above-
mentioned shortcomings could be summarised as three interlinked challenges: 

–  Limited  strategic  focus  and  significant  fragmentation,  preventing  an  overview  of  the 
functioning  of  the  Schengen  area  as  a  whole  that  could  otherwise  facilitate  political 
discussion; 

–  Insufficient  capacity  to  identify,  adapt  and  quickly  react  or  adapt  to  new  circumstances, 

legislative and operational developments ; and 

–  Slow adoption and implementation of remedies,  with  a peer-to-peer system  that does  not 

exert the expected pressure. 

On  the  basis  of  the  input  gathered  from  relevant  stakeholders  in  the  accompanying  impact 
assessment,  the  Commission  identified  several  policy  options  summarised  under  section  3 
aimed  at  increasing  the  effectiveness  of  the  Mechanism  and  thereby  ensuring  a  more 
transparent, effective and consistent implementation of the Schengen acquis.  

To address the above-mentioned problems, this proposal intends to: (1) increase the strategic 
focus of the Mechanism and ensure a more proportionate use of the different evaluation tools; 
(2) shorten and simplify the procedures to make the process more effective and efficient, and 
increase  peer-pressure;  (3)  optimise  the  participation  of  Member  State  experts  and  the 
cooperation with Union bodies, offices and agencies; and (4) strengthen the evaluation of the 
respect  for  fundamental  rights  under  the  Schengen acquis.  These  objectives  will  be  met 
notably by the following approach: 

(1)  

– 

Increase  the  strategic  focus  of  the  Mechanism  and  ensure  a  more  proportionate 
and strategic use of the different evaluation and monitoring tools 

Increasing  the  flexibility  to  adapt  the  scope  of  the  specific  evaluations  and 
evaluation priorities to the new realities in the Schengen acquis by removing the 
current  list  of specific policy fields  to  be  evaluated and establishing a procedure to 
decide  on  the  priority  fields  at  the  beginning  of  each  evaluation  cycle.  Under  the 

9 
10 
11 

Report on the annual report on the functioning of the Schengen area (2017/2256(INI)). 
Council doc. 13244/2019. 
Council doc. 7939/21. 

EN 

4 

  EN 

 
                                                 
current  Regulation,  each  Member  State  has  been  evaluated  in  six  policy  fields 
through six individual evaluations that result in six evaluation reports and six sets of 
recommendations.  However,  those  policy  fields  are  no  longer  fully  adapted  to  the 
new  realities.  For  example,  a  new  series  of  IT  systems  will  become  operational  in 
2023  and  complement  the  Schengen  Information  System.  As  the  security  acquis 
develops, evaluations will need to take into account additional elements, particularly 
in  police  cooperation.  Various  policy  areas,  given  legislative  developments,  are 
becoming  increasingly  interlinked  and  interdependent  (for  example  Schengen 
Information  System  and  return  or  Schengen  Information  System  and  police 
cooperation).  Therefore,  the  articulation  of  evaluations  into  specific  policy  field 
evaluations  might  not  be  the  most  appropriate  way  to  assess  these  interconnected 
activities. By removing the list of policy fields, the proposal  increases flexibility to 
articulate  evaluations  differently,  and  evaluate  different  aspects  or  possible  new 
elements,  allowing  the  Mechanism  to  adapt  quickly  to  the  dynamic  nature  of  the 
Schengen acquis. At the same time, it creates legal certainty as to the procedure to 
agree on the priorities for evaluation at the beginning of each evaluation cycle. 

Creating  a  flexible  programming.  In  addition,  the  proposal  creates  a  flexible 
legislative  framework  for  programming.  It  adapts  the  rules  on  the  multiannual  and 
annual  programming  to  be  able  to  react  more  rapidly  to  emerging  problems  and 
challenges, by reducing the details that are currently included in the multiannual and 
annual evaluation programmes, and reducing the need for amendments. 

Moving progressively towards fully risk-based evaluations. The proposal creates 
an obligation to take into account the results of previous evaluations as well as other 
Union  and  national  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanisms  (e.g.  the  vulnerability 
assessment of Frontex or the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal 
Threats  (EMPACT)).  In  addition  (as  explained  below),  it  creates  additional 
obligations to request risk assessments and situational awareness from Union bodies, 
agencies  and  offices,  where  relevant.  The  new  flexible  framework  and  additional 
obligations  would  make  it  possible,  over  time,  for  example,  to  carry  out  a 
comprehensive  risk-based  Member  State  evaluation  covering  only  the  elements 
identified  through  risk  analysis  and  situational  awareness,  with  a  single  evaluation 
per Member State covering all relevant policy areas in a single evaluation report. It 
would also allow the concurrent evaluation of several Member States facing the same 
challenges. 

Ensuring  there  are  no  gaps  when  evaluating  the  implementation  of  the 
Schengen acquis in a Member State. As the Schengen legal framework evolves and 
becomes more complex, Member States are resorting to other actors to support them 
in the implementation of tasks that are under their responsibility. This is for example 
the  case  of  private  companies  in  the  field  of  visa  policy  (e.g.  the  external  service 
providers)  or  external  borders  (e.g.  airlines  or  airports  managed  by  private 
companies).  It  is  also  the  case  of  Union  bodies,  agencies  and  offices  that  in  recent 
years  have  seen  their  mandates  strengthened  to  provide  support  to  Member  States, 
for  example  in  carrying  out  border  checks  or  surveillance,  or  second-line  security 
checks.  As  the  Mechanism  strives  to  provide  an  overview  of  the  situation  in  a 
Member State, the proposal clarifies that the Mechanism can support the verification 
of  the  activities  of  Union  bodies,  offices  and  agencies  in  so  far  as  they  perform 
functions on behalf of the Member States  to  assist  in the operational  application of 
provisions  of  the  Schengen  acquis.  The  objective  is  therefore  not  to  evaluate  these 
bodies,  offices  and  agencies  per  se.  The  verification  of  these  activities  will  be 

– 

– 

– 

EN 

5 

  EN 

 
embedded in the evaluation of the Member States, similarly to the current situation 
when,  for  instance,  during  the  evaluations  in  the  field  of  common  visa  policy,  the 
teams check the activities of those private companies (external service providers) that 
are involved in the reception of visa applications; or at the external borders when the 
teams  check  the  infrastructure  of  an  airport  managed  by  a  private  company.  This 
aspect of the evaluations will be carried out without prejudice to and in full respect of 
the responsibilities attributed to the Commission and to the relevant governing bodies 
of  the  agencies,  offices  and  bodies  concerned.  Should  evaluations  identify 
deficiencies  in  relation  to  activities  fulfilled  or  supported  by  Union  bodies,  offices 
and agencies, the Commission will inform the relevant governing bodies. 

Extending  the  evaluation  cycle  from  five  to  seven  years  allowing  for  Member 
States  to  be  evaluated  at  least  twice  during  the  seven-year  cycle.  This  would  also 
allow for a more balanced, flexible and strategic use  of all available evaluation and 
monitoring tools, ensuring a closer and more targeted monitoring of Member States.  

Strengthening  the  forms  and  methods  of  evaluation  and  monitoring  activities. 
Programmed periodic visits remain the primary method of evaluations but it will be 
possible  to  increase  the  proportion  of  unannounced  visits.  Evaluations  and 
monitoring  activities  by  remote  means  (e.g.  via  videoconference)  will  become 
possible.  ‘Thematic  evaluations’  will  have  an  increasing  role  with  an  obligation  to 
carry  out  at  least  one  thematic  evaluation  per  year.  Thus  far  only  two  thematic 
evaluations  have  been  carried  out  (one  related  to  national  integrated  border 
management strategies and one regarding Local Schengen cooperation in the field of 
the common visa policy). Provisions on monitoring activities (revisits and a new tool 
called ‘verification visits’) are made clearer and more flexible.  

Unannounced  evaluations  would,  as  a  general  rule,  not  require  any  prior 
notification. This would ensure better use of unannounced evaluations, in particular 
for  evaluations  to  take  place  for  the  purpose  of  investigate  compliance  with 
obligations  under  the  Schengen  acquis,  in  particular  in  response  to  indications  of 
problems that have a significant impact on the functioning of the Schengen area, or 
serious  allegations  of  fundamental  rights  violations.  Limited  prior  notification  will 
remain  applicable  for  unannounced  visits,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  carry  out  a 
‘random  health  check’  of  the  Member  States’  implementation  of  the  Schengen 
acquis.  Unannounced  visits  will  not  be  subject  to  programming  and  they  can  be 
organised at short-notice depending on the circumstances. 

The yearly reports on the results of the evaluations carried out and state of play 
regarding  the  remedial  actions  taken  by  Member  States  foreseen  under  this 
Regulation should be part of the yearly ‘State of Schengen Report’. It is crucial 
that  political  discussion  comprehensively  covers  all  elements  of  the  complex 
architecture  supporting  the  proper  functioning  of  Schengen.  To  this  end,  the 
Commission will relaunch the adoption of the ‘State of Schengen Report’ to serve as 
a  basis  for  discussions  at  the  recently  created  Schengen  Forum.  The  Schengen 
evaluations,  the  situation  as  regards  the  absence  of  internal  border  checks  and  the 
state of implementation of recommendations will be an important part of that report.  

Shorten  and  simplify  the  procedures  to  make  the  process  more  effective  and 
efficient and increase peer-pressure 

Significant  acceleration  of  the  evaluation  process,  with  clear  procedural 
deadlines. As a general  rule, the Commission will adopt the evaluation reports and 

– 

– 

– 

– 

(2)  

– 

EN 

6 

  EN 

 
the recommendations in  a single act within four months  of the evaluation  activity 
(and  even  faster  in  case  the  evaluation  identifies  a  serious  deficiency).  This  would 
not  only  ensure  more  clarity  as  regards  the  causal  link  between  the  findings  in  the 
report  and  recommendations,  but  also  accelerate  the  process.  It  would  avoid  any 
delays  in  adopting  recommendations,  which  now  occurs  in  a  two-step  decision-
the  Commission  and 
making  process  (i.e.  evaluation  reports  adopted  by 
recommendations  adopted  by  the  Council).  The  Council’s  full  involvement  in  the 
evaluation  process  and  recommendations  remains  ensured  through  the  examination 
procedure (positive opinion of the Schengen Committee in which all Member States 
participate and vote on the single act that comprises both the evaluation findings and 
recommendations).  

– 

Increasing the peer-pressure by focusing the Council’s decision-making powers 
on  politically  relevant  cases  and  by  increasing  its  role  in  the  follow-up  and 
monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  recommendations.  While  the  current  two-
step  procedure  was  intended  to  promote  political  discussion  at  Council  level  and 
exert  peer-pressure  in  case  of  serious  deficiencies  or  when  a  Member  State  is  not 
implementing  the  recommendations,  experience  to  date  has  clearly  shown  that  the 
use  of  this  approach  in  all  cases  and  for  all  reports  did  not  achieve  the  intended 
objective,  but  added  considerably  to  the  length  and  complexity  of  the  process, 
compromising its effectiveness.  

Member States are already heavily involved in the evaluation process (carrying out 
evaluations  with  the  Commission,  co-drafting  the  evaluation  reports  and  draft 
recommendations)  and  in  the  adoption  process  of  the  evaluation  report  through  the 
Committee  examination  procedure.  In  addition,  most  issues  identified  during  the 
evaluations are of a technical rather than political character. The heavy workload in 
the  Council  (examination  of  40  reports  a  year  and  resulting  Council  implementing 
decisions  with  hundreds  of  recommendations),  and  the  very  detailed  and  localised 
nature  of  recommendations  prevented  any  real  discussion.  The  5-year  review  has 
shown  the  fact  that  the  Council  adopts  the  recommendations  in  every  case  did  not 
generate the expected peer pressure, and the Mechanism did not provide the basis for 
a political discussion on the state of Schengen. Even when the Mechanism identified 
serious deficiencies, discussions on findings reached the ministerial level only once. 
Moreover, the Council has a very limited role in the follow-up and monitoring of the 
implementation of Member States’ action plans. 

The  proposed  revision  seeks  to  remedy  these  shortcomings  by  ensuring  that  the 
Council adopts recommendations in cases considered to have the biggest added value 
and  impact  to  steer  political  discussion  on  matters  of  general  interest  for  the 
functioning  of  the  Schengen  area.  These  cases  are  the  following:  thematic 
evaluations,  ‘first-time  evaluations’  (when  deciding  if  a  Member  State  is  ready  to 
apply the Schengen acquis in full or a specific area) as well as in the case of a serious 
deficiency with a view to increasing peer-pressure and political discussion at Council 
level. At the same time, procedures are proposed to be simplified for cases of more 
technical nature.  

The proposal also significantly increases the role of the Council in the follow-up and 
progress monitoring of these cases providing as well for an escalation mechanism in 
case  of  lack  of  progress.  In  particular,  in  case  of  a  serious  deficiency,  the  Council 
will set time limits for the implementation of the recommendations and the Council 
will  specify  the  frequency  of  the  progress  reports  by  the  Member  State  concerned, 

EN 

7 

  EN 

 
– 

– 

which  will  have  to  submit  these  progress  reports  to  both  the  Commission  and  the 
Council.  The  Council  will  be  required  to  express  its  position  on  the  Commission 
report  following  the  revisit  as  well  as  on  the  closure  of  action  plans.  Similar 
provisions apply for the closure of action plans related to ‘first time evaluations’. 

Furthermore, an increased role will be provided, in all cases, for the Council in the 
monitoring  phase:  the  proposal  provides  that  the  Commission  will  inform  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  at  least  twice  a  year  about  the  state  of 
implementation  of  the  action  plans.  Besides,  the  Commission  will  also  adopt 
annually  a  comprehensive  report  on  the  evaluations  carried  out  which  should  be 
discussed by the Council in view of adopting conclusions on the matter. Finally, the 
Commission will inform the Council when a Member State is not making adequate 
progress in the implementation of the action plan. 

Strengthening  and  accelerating  the  provisions  related  to  cases  where  evaluations 
identify  a  serious  deficiency:  a  fast-track  procedure  for  a  serious  deficiency  is 
introduced  to  ensure  that  the  deficiencies  identified  are  addressed  promptly.  The 
proposal  incorporates  into  the  normative  text  the  definition  of  serious  deficiencies 
currently in the Schengen evaluation guidelines to increase legal certainty and ensure 
a common understanding of the concept. The evaluated Member State will have to 
start immediately implementing actions to remedy the deficiency even before the 
report  is  adopted  and  will  have  to  inform  the  Commission  and  Member  States 
without  delay  of 
the 
recommendations  should  be  adopted  by  the  Council  within  2  and  a  half  months 
from  the  end  of  the  evaluation  activity;  a  revisit  to  verify  the  implemention  of 
remedial actions will take place no later than one year after the evaluation (it could 
be earlier depending on  the deadlines for implementing remedial  actions set  by the 
Council);  the  Commission  will  immediately  inform  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  of  the  existence  of  a  serious  deficiency,  for  closer  political  scrutiny,  as 
shown in the point above. 

taken.  In  case  of  serious  deficiency 

the  measures 

Removing  and  simplifying  provisions  that  create  unnecessary  procedural 
obstacles. The proposal would no longer require that the evaluation reports are to be 
treated  as  ‘EU  Restricted’  documents.  This  change  will  ‘increase  transparency, 
simplify  and  speed-up  the  procedure  by  allowing  quicker  handling  of  reports  and 
facilitating  their  transmission  to  the  national  Parliaments  and  the  European 
Parliament12.  Evaluation  reports  would  nevertheless  be  treated  as  ‘sensitive’13  and 
Member  States  would  retain  the  possibility  to  ask  for  their  classification.  The 
proposal would simplify the adequacy assessment of Member State action plans: the 
Commission will no longer adopt a Communication on the assessments, but it would 
still inform the Member State concerned (and the Council) about its observations for 
example, through an administrative letter. Finally, a reduced frequency of follow-up 
reports  (Article  16(3)  and  (4)),  by  requiring,  a  progress  report  every  six  months 
instead of the current three months, would decrease the overall administrative burden 
for Member States. 

12 
13 

The European Parliament and NGOs called for easier access to the evaluation reports. 
Particularly in relation to the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on access to document. 

EN 

8 

  EN 

 
                                                 
(3)  

– 

(4)  

– 

Strengthen  the  evaluation  of  the  respect  for  fundamental  rights  under  the 
Schengen acquis 

Further  strengtening  the  evaluation  of  fundamental  rights  when  implementing 
the Schengen acquis (in addition to data protection which is evaluated as a specific 
policy  field)  throughout  the  Mechanism,  including  increased  submission  of  risk 
analyses by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights; strengthening the 
reference to fundamental rights in the provision on training and including a specific 
provision  in  the  Regulation  regarding  the  use  of  the  evidence  supplied  by  third 
parties, including national monitoring mechanisms, as well as the possibility to carry 
out unannounced evaluations without prior notice, if there are indications of serious 
fundamental rights violations. 

Optimise  the  participation  of  Member  State  experts  and  the  cooperation  with 
Union bodies, offices and agencies, as well as synergies with other evaluation and 
monitoring mechanisms, for more targeted, strategic and tailored evaluations 

Creation  of  a  pool  of  experts.  Currently,  the  Commission  issues  invitations  to 
nominate  experts  ahead  of  each  and  every  evaluation  (three  months  ahead  of  the 
specific evaluation). This is a very time-consuming exercise and the Member States 
are not always able to designate sufficient numbers of qualified experts as the current 
procedure offers them very little time to plan. In such cases, the Commission has to 
extend  the  calls  for  experts  several  times  for  evaluations.  In  addition,  there  is  a 
chronic deficit of experts in specific policy fields. 

This  system  will  be  replaced  by  an  annual  call  to  designate  experts  to  a  pool. 
Member States will have to designate at least an expert per policy field identified in 
the  multiannual  evaluation  programme  (e.g.  visa,  external  border  management, 
return,  data  protection)  per  year  and  ensure  their  availability  for  evaluations.  The 
Commission will confirm the selection of experts to the pool and keep a list of the 
members  of  the  pool  up  to  date.  The  pool  will  then  provide  the  main  source  of 
Schengen  evaluators  for  specific  evaluations  (i.e.  establishing  teams  for  specific 
evaluations)  and  will  also  greatly  facilitate  the  organisation  of  unannounced  visits. 
When  establishing  the  teams,  due  account  will  be  taken  of  the  capacity  of  the 
national administrations as well as the need to ensure geographical balance. The fact 
of being designated in the pool does not mean that every expert in the pool will be 
needed  at  all  times.  The  pool  will  ensure  that  the  teams  are  established  in  a  less 
cumbersome  way  and  will  also  provide  more  predictability  and  flexibility  both  for 
the Commission and the Member State experts also  as the planning for evaluations 
will be distributed to all Member States well in advance. Ahead of each evaluation, 
the Commission can directly turn to individual members in the pool to set up teams, 
making  the  process  considerably  faster  and  simpler.  When  setting  up  the  specific 
teams, the Commission should also ensure as far as possible geographical balance. If 
for a specific evaluation, a particular profile is needed and is not possible to mobilise 
an expert from the pool, the Commission can still resort to specific calls for experts. 
The creation of a pool  of experts would in  the long-term allow an interdisciplinary 
team to be set up to evaluate all relevant areas of the Schengen acquis. 

– 

Strengthening  the  cooperation  with  Frontex,  eu-LISA,  Europol,  the  European 
Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  and  the  European  Data  Protection 
Supervisor.  The  proposal  provides  that  cooperation  should  be  reciprocal  so  that 
those agencies and bodies can also make use of the information gathered through the 

EN 

9 

  EN 

 
evaluation process. The Commission will also be able to obtain a broader variety of 
information and risk analysis products from the bodies and agencies. 

The  proposal  also  increases  the  synergies  with  the  evaluation  and  monitoring 
mechanisms  implemented  by  Union  agencies  and  bodies.  In  recent  years,  other 
quality control and monitoring mechanisms have been established at EU and national 
levels  that  can  complement  the  Mechanism.  The  proposal  provides  for  increased 
coherence  and  synergies  with  the  activities  of  Frontex  and  the  process  of 
vulnerability  assessment  in  particular.  The  vulnerability  assessment  carried  out  by 
Frontex  is  a  complementary  instrument  to  the  Schengen  evaluation  and  monitoring 
mechanism  for  guaranteeing  quality  control  at  EU  level  and  ensuring  constant 
preparedness at both European and national levels to respond to any challenges at the 
external border. The vulnerability assessment offers a snapshot of a Member State’s 
operational  capacity  in  the  area  of  external  borders  with  a  view  to  identifying 
potential  weaknesses  in  the  system.  It  is  a  future  oriented  approach  aimed  at 
preventing crisis. The Commission is already sharing the results of the vulnerability 
assessment process with the team of Member State experts ahead of an evaluation in 
accordance  with  Article  33  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/189614  and  has  established 
formal  channels  for  information  exchange  with  Frontex.  To  further  increase 
synergies, the proposal provides for specific provisions to maximise the information 
gathered through the vulnerability assessment process with a view to establishing an 
improved situational picture on the functioning of the Schengen area. The aim is also 
to  avoid, 
the  extent  possible,  duplication  of  efforts  and  conflicting 
recommendations. 

to 

Relevant examples, in other policy fields where increased synergies will be possible 
under the new provisions foreseen in the proposal are the European Multidisciplinary 
Platform  Against  Criminal  Threats  (‘EMPACT’)  or  the  oversight  conducted  by  the 
Commission with the support of eu-LISA as regards the preparation of the Member 
States  for  the  implementation  of  relevant  IT  systems.  National  quality  control 
mechanisms (encouraged under Regulation (EU) 2019/1896) could become similarly 
important in the future and the proposal lays down the basis for ensuring synergies 
and  information  exchange.  In  addition,  results  of  the  independent  monitoring 
mechanism  developed  under  the  proposal  introducing  a  screening  of  third  country 
nationals at the external borders would also be taken into account in evaluations. 

The proposal provides an ambitious deadline for the full application of the Regulation (from 
[1 September 2022]). 
The analysis of the Commission, which is provided in the impact assessment15 accompanying 
this proposal and summarised in section 3 is the basis for this proposal for a comprehensive 
review of the Regulation. 

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

This  proposal  accompanies  the  Communication  on  ‘A  strategy  towards  a  fully  functioning 
and resilient Schengen area’16 which puts forward a comprehensive approach to make the area 
of  freedom,  security  and  justice  stronger  and  more  resilient  to  any  future  challenges  and 
threats.  

14 
15 
16 

OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1. 
SWD (2021) 119 final. 
COM(2021) 277 final. 

EN 

10 

  EN 

 
                                                 
The Mechanism should provide a robust legal framework to cover the entirety of the evolving 
legislation  underpinning  the  functioning  of  the  Schengen  area.  In  this  context,  one  of  the 
specific  objectives  of  the  proposal  is  to  increase  strategic  focus  in  the  evaluation  and 
monitoring process. This requires ensuring consistency with existing and future provisions 
forming part of the Schengen acquis. To that end, the Mechanism should be adapted to the 
evolving  scope  of  the  relevant  EU  law.  Over  the  past  few  years,  the  Union  has  undertaken 
several  initiatives  to  make  the  Schengen  area  stronger  and  more  resilient.  These  changes 
include  several  new  elements,  in  particular  in  relation  to  the  management  of  the  external 
borders. In addition to the Schengen Information System and the Visa Information System, by 
the  end  of  2023,  the  management  of  the  external  borders  will  be  supported  by  new  IT-
systems,  such  as  the  Entry  and  Exit  System17  and  the  European  Travel  Information  and 
Authorisation  System18.  In  addition,  interoperability19  will  be  ensured  between  relevant 
databases.  Furthermore,  the  adoption,  later  in  2021,  of  a  proposal  for  an  EU  Police 
Cooperation  Code  under  the  EU  Security  Union  Strategy20  as  well  as  the  adoption  of  the 
proposal  for  an  amendment  to  the  Schengen  Borders  Code21  to  address  lessons  learnt  from 
Covid-19  as  well  as  from  the  negotiations  on  the  2017  proposal  for  the  amendment  of  the 
Schengen Borders Code will be important initiatives to increase security and re-establish the 
integrity of the Schengen area. 

The  role  of  EU  agencies  involved  in  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen acquis  has  also 
gained  further  importance.  In  2019,  the  creation  of  the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard, 
including the set-up of a 10 000 standing corps by 2027, was a key step towards the genuine 
European control of the external borders and the progressive establishment of a common EU 
system  for  returns.  Europol’s  mandate  is  in  the  process  of  being  upgraded  following  a 
proposal by the Commission of 9 December 202022. 

As  described  in  above,  some  of  the  legal  acts  in  the  various  policy  areas  covered  by  the 
Mechanism  contain  their  own  evaluation  and  monitoring  tools  at  European  or  national 
levels. Therefore,  creating and ensuring synergies to avoid duplications and to  make the 
best use of sectorial monitoring tools is necessary. Maintaining and fine-tuning this interplay 
is  an  important  element  of  this  proposal.  In  this  regard,  the  proposal  provides  provisions  to 
further  increase  coherence  in  particular  with  the  activities  of  Frontex  and  the  process  of 
vulnerability  assessments.  The  Mechanism  and  its  recommendations  should  complement 
those  under  the  vulnerability  assessment  process.  Relevant  examples,  in  other  policy  fields 
where  increased  synergies  will  be  possible  are  EMPACT  (priority  actions  in  the  field  of 
police  cooperation),  or  the  fundamental  rights  officer  at  Frontex  (monitoring  of  compliance 
with fundamental rights at external borders by Frontex). National quality control mechanisms 
(encouraged  under  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1896),  which  are  ‘national’  Schengen  evaluation 
and  monitoring  mechanisms,  could  become  similarly  important  in  the  future.  In  addition, 
results  of  the  national  independent  monitoring  mechanism  developed  under  the  proposal 
introducing  a  screening  of  third  country  nationals  at  the  external  borders23  would  also  be 
taken into account in evaluations.  

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

Regulation (EU) 2017/2226, OJ L 327, 9.12.2017, p. 20. 
Regulation (EU) 2018/1240, OJ L 236, 19.9.2018, p. 1. 
Regulation (EU) 2019/817, OJ L 135, 22.5.2019, p. 27. 
COM(2020)605 final of 24.7.2020. 
Regulation (EU) 2016/399, OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1. 
COM(2020) 796 final. 
COM(2020) 612 final. See Article 7. 

EN 

11 

  EN 

 
                                                 
The proposal was developed to be consistent with existing provisions in the policy area (i.e. 
policy  areas  covered  by  the  Schengen  acquis),  and  due  account  has  also  been  taken  of 
ongoing  and  envisaged  initiatives  which  are  not  yet  in  force.  In  broader  terms,  by  better 
linking the different policy fields, the initiative may reinforce the effectiveness of the holistic 
approach proposed by the Commission’s strategies and reinforce the complementarity of all 
tools developed as part of new legislative efforts. 

• 

Consistency with other Union policies 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives and initiatives envisaged under the EU Security 
Union  Strategy  that  go  beyond  the  Schengen  acquis,  such  as  the  proposal  to  reinforce  the 
automated  exchange  of  important  data  categories  under  the  Prüm  Council  Decisions24  and 
with  future  initiatives  under  the  EU  Strategy  to  tackle  Organised  Crime  2021-202525.  It  is 
equally consistent with the initiatives included in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum26. 

Looking  beyond  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice,  the  Schengen  area  contributes  to 
the functioning of the Single Market and its creation has brought social and economic benefits 
to European society27 in many fields from trade to employment, education, culture, tourism, 
transport and beyond. Measures aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the Mechanism and 
thus  the  better  functioning  of  the  Schengen  area  are,  by  nature,  also  coherent  with  the 
objectives of these policy fields. The disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has shown 
better  than  any  crisis  before,  how  important  it  is  to  preserve  Schengen’s  integrity.  A  well-
functioning  Schengen  is  essential  for  the  post-Covid  economic  recovery.  A  robust  and 
effective  Mechanism  will  contribute  to  that  and  thus  to  the  positive  economic  and  social 
impacts that Schengen brings to citizens and businness across Europe. 

2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

The legal basis of the proposal is Article 70 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
Article  70  provides  specifically  for  the  competence  of  the  Council  to  adopt,  on  a  proposal 
from  the  Commission,  measures  laying  down  the  arrangements  whereby  Member  States,  in 
collaboration  with  the  Commission,  conduct  objective  and  impartial  evaluation  of  the 
implementation of the Union policies by Member States’ authorities in the area of freedom, 
security and justice. The proposal repeals and replaces Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013, which 
is also based on this provision of the Treaty. 
In line with the statement28 from the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission 
accompanying  the  Regulation,  the  proposal  is  to  be  submitted  to  the  consultation  of  the 
European Parliament in  order to take into consideration its opinion before the adoption of a 
final text. However, it is to be adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure. 

24 

25 
26 
27 

28 

terrorism  and  cross-border  crime  and  Council  Decision  2008/616/JHA  on 

Council  Decision  2008/615/JHA  on  the  stepping  up  of  cross-border  cooperation,  particularly  in 
combating 
the 
implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA. 
SWD(2021) 74 final of 14.4.2021. 
COM(2020)605 final. 
In  2016,  it  was  estimated  that  the  full  reestablishment  of  internal  border  controls  would  generate 
immediate direct costs between EUR 5 and 18 billion annually, COM(2016) 120 final, p. 3. 
OJ L 295, 6.11.2013, p. 37. 

EN 

12 

  EN 

 
                                                 
• 

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)  

Article  70  TFEU  provides  the  legal  basis  for  measures  whereby  Member  States,  in 
collaboration  with  the  Commission,  conduct  objective  and  impartial  evaluation  of  the 
implementation of the Union policies by Member States’ authorities in the area of freedom, 
security  and  justice.  While  this  proposal  brings  about  many  changes,  it  does  not 
fundamentally  alter  the  objectives  and  scope  of  the  Mechanism.  The  proposal  is  within  the 
limits set by Article 70 TFEU. 

The objective of the proposal  is  to further develop, improve and render the already existing 
Mechanism  more  efficient.  The  review  of  the  Regulation  carried  out  in  2020  confirmed  the 
need to have a robust mechanism at EU level. It remains the case that the EU added-value of 
the Mechanism stems foremost from sharing the responsibilities between the Commission and 
the Member States.  This creates  a strong basis to  generate mutual  trust.  Evaluations  carried 
out  at  EU  level  can  ensure  the  timely  identification  of  deficiencies  that  arise  from 
asymmetries,  divergences  and  incorrect  implementation  of  the  Schengen acquis  that  may 
otherwise  put  at  risk  the  integrity  of  Schengen.  Furthermore,  the  peer  pressure  exercised  at 
EU  level  creates  the  necessary  incentive  to  ensure  that  Member  States  swiftly  remedy  the 
deficiencies particularly in the case of serious deficiencies. 

In addition,  the initiative takes due account  of the subsidiarity principle by laying down the 
basis  for  improved  coordination  with  evaluations  carried  out  under  national  quality  control 
and monitoring mechanisms. One of the objectives is to shift the focus of the Mechanism to 
shortcomings that may have adverse effects on the well-functioning of the Schengen area as a 
whole. Issues of limited scope should rather be dealt with at national level. This approach is 
also  consistent  with  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1896,  which  encourages  the  development  of 
national  quality  control  mechanisms  under  the  European  integrated  border  management 
components. 

In conclusion, to effectively deal with the shortcomings identified by the review and analysed 
further in the impact assessment legislative changes are required. 

• 

Proportionality 

Article  5(4)  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  provides  that  the  content  and  form  of  Union 
action must not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. The form 
chosen for this action must enable the proposal to achieve its objective and be implemented as 
effectively as possible. 

The  Mechanism  was  established  in  2013  by  means  of  a  Regulation  since  this  specific 
Mechanism which is  implemented at  EU-level  and coordinated by the Commission  requires 
clear rules regarding the responsibilities and procedures. The proposed initiative constitutes a 
revision of a Regulation and must therefore also take the form of a Regulation. 

As  to  the  content,  the  proportionality  of  the  main  new  aspects  were  examined  in  the 
accompanying impact assessment (section 7.3). 

Amongst  other  things,  the  proposal  is  intended  to  streamline  the  evaluation  process  by 
simplifying  the  current  two-step  decision-making  process,  so  that,  as  a  general  rule,  the 
Commission  would  adopt  not  only  the  evaluation  reports  but  also  the  recommendations  by 
means  of  a  single  implementing  act  (currently  the  Commission  adopts  the  report  and  a 
proposal for Council Recommendations). The experience of the past years has shown that the 
adoption of the recommendations by the Council makes the procedure considerably longer (2-
3 months average) while the excessive workload limits the power of the Council to exert the 
required  peer  pressure  and  have  general  discussions  on  the  state  of  Schengen.  The  revised 
approach seeks to remedy in a proportionate way these shortcomings by ensuring the Council 

EN 

13 

  EN 

 
recommendations  are  adopted  in  the  cases  considered  to  have  the  biggest  added  value  and 
impact to steer political discussion on matters that are of general interest for the functioning of 
the Schengen area, namely first-time evaluations and serious deficiencies as well as thematic 
evaluations, while simplifying the procedure in cases of a more technical nature. The proposal 
also significantly increases the role of the Council in the follow-up and progress monitoring 
of these cases, providing as well for an escalation mechanism in case of lack of progress. 

In  conclusion,  none  of  the  changes  proposed  in  this  initiative  go  beyond  what  is  needed  to 
achieve the objectives outlined in section 1 and thus the proposal respects the proportionality 
principle.  In  fact,  several  elements  of the proposal  will reduce the administrative burden on 
Member States and the Commission. 

• 

Choice of the instrument 

Given  that  the  proposed  initiative  is  intended  to  revise  and  update  an  existing  evaluation 
mechanism established by a Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013), it will also take the 
form of a Regulation. 

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation 

In accordance with Article 22 of Regulation  (EU) No 1053/2013, the Commission  reviewed 
the  operation  of  the  Regulation  and  presented  a  report  and  accompanying  staff  working 
document on 25 November 202029. As explained in  section 1, this  was the starting point of 
drafting the proposal. 

Stakeholder consultations 

• 
The  consultation  of  interested  parties  is  covered  in  detail  in  the  impact  assessment30 
accompanying  this  proposal.  Stakeholders  are  generally  supportive  of  strengthening  the 
Mechanism  to  increase  its  effectiveness  and  to  ensure  that  it  is  able  to  adapt  to  recent 
legislative developments and address new challenges. 

• 

Impact assessment31 

Based on available data and the results of a broad stakeholder consultation, the Commission 
drew  up  four  policy  options  each  containing  a  series  of  measures  to  achieve  the  objectives. 
Option 1 only contains operational measures to align the implementation with current needs. 
Option 2 is targeted legislative amendments to the Regulation to clarify the scope of specific 
provisions  to  increase  legal  certainty  about  the  obligations  of  the  different  actors  involved, 
and streamline and simplify existing procedures. Option 3 is a more ambitious approach that 
would  bring  the  simplifications  of  the  first  two  options  and  important  changes  to  the 
functioning of the Mechanism. Option 4 is a combined approach bringing elements from the 
various  options  depending  on  the  area  of  intervention.  These  options  build  on  each  other 
being in most cases cumulative rather than alternative, depending on the degree of ambition. 
The preferred policy package (Option 4) combines a series of measures from options 1, 2 and 
3. 

29 
30 
31 

See footnotes 6 and 7. 
See, in particular Annex 2 of the impact assessment. 
The summary sheet of the impact assessment and the positive opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 
are available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/?lang=en. 

EN 

14 

  EN 

 
                                                 
Specific objective 1: Avoid gaps in the evaluation findings and increase strategic focus 

The preferred option is to keep the current scope covering all aspects of the Schengen acquis, 
while  adapting  the  priorities  (policy  fields)  to  the  new  realities  with  a  more  flexible 
programming  and  extending  the  evaluation  cycle  from  five  to  seven  years.  Enlarging  the 
scope  of  the  Mechanism  to  cover  issues  beyond  the  Schengen acquis  (e.g.  to  the  field  of 
asylum policy) was  discarded for mainly legal reasons but equally for political reasons, such 
an  option  not  retaining  the  support  of  many  Member  States.  The  current  articulation  of 
evaluations  per  policy  fields  will  also  be  maintained  but  it  would  be  made  more  flexible. 
Moving to one all-encompassing evaluation per Member State was not found to be feasible in 
practice  immediately  (but  aimed  at  in  the  medium  term).  However,  ambitious  legislative 
changes  are  proposed  as  regards  the  forms  and  methods  of  evaluations  and  monitoring 
activities  to  broaden  the  range  of  tools  available  and  clarify  the  criteria  and  conditions  for 
their use: systematic thematic evaluations, two types of unannounced visits with or without a 
24-hour  notice  depending  on  the  purpose  and  two  types  of  revisits  (‘serious  deficiencies 
revisits’ and ‘verification visits’).  

Specific  objective  2:  Rationalise  the  roles  and  distribution  of  responsibilities  and  simplify 
processes and procedures 

The  preferred  policy  package  contains  amendments  to  accelerate  processes  and  simplify 
procedures as well as ambitious legal changes to modify the decision-making procedure. The 
declassification of evaluation reports, as a rule, setting legal time limits for the adoption of the 
evaluation reports and recommendations, the simplified assessment of the action plans by the 
Commission  and the reduced  frequency  of  reporting obligations  for the  Member States will 
speed-up and ease the procedures and they are broadly supported by stakeholders. As regards 
the proposed change in the decision-making procedure, according to which the Commission 
adopts  both  the  evaluation  reports  and  recommendations  (while  maintaining  the  role  of  the 
Council in most politically relevant cases), Member States will continue to be fully involved 
in the adoption of the evaluation reports and recommendations via the examination procedure. 

Specific objective 3:  Strengthen the implementation  of  fundamental rights safeguards  under 
the Schengen acquis 

The preferred option is to introduce changes to increase legal certainty on elements relevant 
for fundamental rights and highlight their importance. It is proposed to include a reference to 
the  regular  submission  of  risk  analyses  by  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental 
Rights, strengthen the reference to fundamental rights in the provision on trainings, increase 
the  European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights’  participation  in  evaluation  visits,  and 
include a specific article regarding the use of evidence provided by third parties. 

In addition to the above-mentioned elements, the proposal contains several technical changes 
to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Mechanism. Each, individually, only brings 
a  rather  limited  positive  impact  (and  that  is  why  they  were  not  subject  of  the  impact 
assessment), but the overall impact of these measures is positive. 

Specific objective 4: Optimise the participation of Member State experts and the involvement 
of Union bodies, offices and agencies 

The preferred policy package contains legal amendments to change the process of designating 
experts  by  creating  a  yearly  permanent  pool  of  experts  managed  by  the  Commission  while 
providing flexibility in  the determination of the  size of the teams.  In  addition,  the proposed 
changes  maximise  the  input  and  improve  the  coordination  with  Union  bodies,  offices  and 
agencies  and  other  quality  control  mechanisms  by  improved  risk  analysis,  enhanced 

EN 

15 

  EN 

 
coordination and strengthened participation with new legal obligations. These measures found 
broad support among stakeholders. 

• 

Regulatory fitness and simplification 

Several elements of the proposal will reduce the administrative burden on Member States, the 
Commission, and the Council especially in the decision-making phase (as the Council would 
not need to issue recommendations in all cases) and in the monitoring phase, by less frequent 
reporting  requirements  on  the  implementation  of  the  action  plans  and  the  simplified 
assessment  of  those  action  plans  by  the  Commission.  Simplified  and  faster  procedures  are 
proposed  also  for  the  evaluation  phase  as  regards  the  evaluation  methods  and  tools,  the 
establishment of the teams and the adoption of the evaluation reports. Quantified estimates, to 
the extent possible, were provided in the impact assessment. 

• 

Fundamental rights 

This proposal respects the fundamental rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental rights of 
the European Union and it introduces specific legislative changes to ensure that fundamental 
rights obligations are clearly covered by the Mechanism. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

A  financial  statement  is  annexed  to  this  proposal.  Annually  it  costs  approximately  EUR  2 
million for the Commission to run the Mechanism. This level of spending will be maintained; 
the proposal does not require an increase of the human and financial resources that are already 
allocated  for  the  Commission.  This  is  primarily  due  to  the  series  of  changes  resulting  in 
decreasing  the  administrative  burden  on  the  Commission  and  the  provisions  allowing  for 
more  targeted  (and  even  shorter)  evaluations  with  smaller  teams.  During  the  work  on  the 
impact  assessment,  the  Commission  was  guided  by  the  principle  that  the  efficiency  and 
effectiveness of the Mechanism should be increased without requiring additional human and 
financial resources. 

Costs incurred by the Member States’ experts will continue to be reimbursed and no increase 
is  expected in  this regard either. Due to  the proposed changes more will be done in  a more 
efficient manner with the same resources. 

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Monitoring 

The  Commission  will  review  the  operation  of  the  Regulation  and  submit  a  report  to  the 
Council  and  the  European  Parliament  within  6  months  of  the  adoption  of  all  evaluation 
reports regarding the evaluations covered by the first seven-year multiannual evaluation cycle 
under the new Regulation. 

As part of the impact assessment and in line with better regulation rules, a non-exhaustive list 
of qualitative and quantitative indicators have been developed that will be used for the review. 
In addition, the Commission is in the process of developing a new IT tool to modernise the 
monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  action  plans  by  the  Member  States.  This  tool  is 
expected to become operational already in 2021. 

EN 

16 

  EN 

 
• 

Consequences  of  the  various  protocols  annexed  to  the  Treaties  and  of  the 
association agreements concluded with third countries 

Because the legal basis for this proposal is to be found in Title V of Part Three of the TFEU, 
the system of ‘variable geometry’, as provided for in the protocols on the position of Denmark 
and  Ireland  and  the  Schengen  protocol,  applies.  The  proposal  is  a  development  of  the 
Schengen  acquis.  The  consequences  for  the  various  protocols  and  Schengen  association 
agreements therefore have to be considered with regard to Denmark and Ireland; Iceland and 
Norway; and Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Likewise, the consequences for the various Acts 
of Accession must be considered. The detailed situation of each of the States concerned is set 
out in the final recitals of this proposal. 

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

Article-by-article comparison with the provisions of the current Regulation: 

Article 1 – Subject matter and scope 

The  article  remains  essentially  unchanged,  but  it  clarifies  the  purpose  of  the  Mechanism 
(‘ensure that Member States apply the Schengen acquis effectively, thereby contributing to a 
well-functioning area without internal border controls’). Paragraph 3 has moved to Article 15 
(‘Member State experts’).  

Article 2 – Definitions 

A  number  of  new  definitions  have  been  added  to  provide  legal  clarity  and  to  increase  the 
readability of the Regulation. The definition of ‘serious deficiency’ is added to increase legal 
certainty and ensure a common understanding of the concept . The definition relies on the one 
currently  used  in  the  ‘Schengen  Evaluation  Guide’  of  the  Commission.  The  article  also 
provides  definitions  for  ‘first  time  evaluation’,  ‘periodic  evaluation’,  ‘unannounced 
evaluation’,  ‘thematic  evaluation’,  ‘visit’,  ‘revisit’,  ‘verification  visit’,  ‘evaluation  activity’ 
and ‘team’. 

Article 3 – Responsibilities and duty of cooperation 

No  significant  changes  are  introduced.  The  new  paragraphs  4  and  5  have  been  moved  here 
from  Article  13  as  they  essentially  contain  responsibilities  for  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission. 

Article 4 – Forms of evaluations 

To provide clarity, the article compliments the definitions by listing the forms of evaluations 
and specifies the conditions for unannounced evaluations and thematic evaluations. 

Article 5 – Forms of monitoring activities 

To provide clarity, the article lists the forms of monitoring activities. 

Article 6 – Evaluation and monitoring methods 

Similarly,  to  provide  clarity,  the  article  lists  the  methods  to  be  used  for  evaluations  and 
monitoring activities, i.e. visits (announced or unannounced), questionnaires or other remote 
methods,  e.g.  videoconferences.  It  specifies  that  they  may  be  used  independently  or  in 
combination with one other. 

Article 7 - Cooperation with Union bodies, offices and agencies 

This new article reinforces the importance of establishing close cooperation for the purposes 
of this Regulation with relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies which are involved in the 

EN 

17 

  EN 

 
implementation  of  the  Schengen acquis  (in  particular  Frontex,  eu-LISA  and  Europol).  It 
explicitly refers to the need to reinforce cooperation also with the European Union Agency for 
Fundamental  Rights.  On  the  basis  of  the  article  the  Commission  will  (continue  to  request) 
relevant information, statistical data and risk analyses from these bodies, offices and agencies. 
The  information  sharing  will  be  reciprocal:  a  subsequent  article  (Article  10)  provides  that 
Commission may share with them details of evaluation reports, action plans and updates on 
the implementation of the action plans to increase the synergies and to avoid the duplication 
of efforts.  

Article 8 - Cooperation with Frontex 

The article is an adapted version of Article 7 of the current Regulation, taking into account the 
evolution of the Regulation on the European Border and Coast Guard. 

Article 9 – Cooperation with Europol 
Based on the Commission proposal32 to amend the Europol Regulation, the article provides a 
cross-reference to Article 4(1)(s) of Regulation (EU) 2016/79433, according to which Europol 
will  have  to  support  the  implementation  of  this  Regulation  with  expertise,  analysis,  reports 
and other relevant information. The text is pending the adoption of the proposal. 

Article 10 – Synergies with other evaluation and monitoring activities 

In  order  to  increase  the  strategic  focus  and  more  targeted  evaluation  design,  the  article 
requires  increasing  synergies  with  the  relevant  mechanisms  and  platforms  operated  by  EU 
agencies  and  national  administrations,  e.g.  the  European  Multidisciplinary  Platform  Against 
Criminal  Threats  (‘EMPACT’)  or  the  oversight  conducted  by  eu-LISA  as  regards  the 
preparation of the Member States for the implementation of relevant IT systems as well as the 
findings of the national quality control mechanisms or independent monitoring mechanisms. 
The  article  also  provides  that  the  bodies  and  agencies  should  not  only  be  providers  of 
inforrmation,  but  also  beneficiaries  and  thus,  the  Commission  should  be  able  to  share  with 
them  details  of  evaluation  reports,  action  plans  and  updates  on  the  implementation  of  the 
action plans. 

Article 11 – Information from third parties 

The  article  provides  a  legal  basis  for  the  use  of  information  provided  by  third  parties  (e.g. 
ombudspersons,  authorities  monitoring  the  respect  of  fundamental  rights,  non-governmental 
and  international  organisations)  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  programming  and 
implementation  of  evaluation  activities.  Such  information  could  be  particularly  useful  to 
evaluate the respect of fundamental rights in the implementation of the Schengen acquis. 

Article 12 - Multiannnual evaluation programme 

In  order  to  be  in  a  position  to  carry  out  all  the  required  evaluations  in  the  most  effective 
manner, to be able to react to emerging challenges, to make more flexible and balanced use of 
all  available  tools,  and  to  provide  for  closer  and  more  targetted  monitoring,  the  term  of  the 
multiannual programme is extended from five to seven years. The article outlines the content 
of the multiannual evaluation programme which will identify the specific priority areas to be 
covered by the periodic evaluations. It will also set out a provisional list of Member States to 
be subject to periodic evaluations in a given year. A simplified procedure is also introduced to 
adjust  the  programme,  according  to  which  adjustments  necessitated  as  a  result  of  force 
majeure events and circumstances, may not require an amendment to the programme, i.e. the 

32 
33 

COM(2020) 796 final of 9.12.2020. 
OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53. 

EN 

18 

  EN 

 
                                                 
implementing  act  concerned.  Experience  of  the  past  years  have  clearly  shown  the  need  for 
such flexibility. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the 2020 annual evaluation programme had to 
be  amended.  In  addition,  evaluations  in  the  field  of  common  visa  policy  are  prone  to 
unforeseen  events  given  that  they  are  taking  place  in  third-countries.  Such  events  have  also 
resulted in amending the programme which is a time-consuming exercise.  

Article 13 – Annual evaluation programme 

No  major  changes  compared  to  the  corresponding  current  article  (Article  6).  The  annual 
evaluation  programme  will  contain  proposals  for  periodic  evaluations  of  Member  States  as 
specified in  the multiannual  evaluation programme; first  time evaluation of a Member State 
(if necessary) and at least one thematic evaluation. It will include a provisional time-schedule 
of  these  evaluations,  but  not  necessarily  the  sites  to  be  visited / evaluated.  Unannounced 
evaluations will no longer be programmed but organised on short-notice as needed. This has 
no impact on the Member States but it will facilitate internal planning and procedures in the 
Commission and increase flexibility and capacity to react to new circumstances. Similarly to 
the  multiannual  programme,  a  simplified  procedure  is  introduced  for  the  adjustment  of  the 
programme necessitated as a result of force majeure events and circumstances. 

Article 14 – Standard questionnaire  

No substantial changes compared to the corresponding current article (Article 9). It will not be 
required  to  adopt  a  new  standard  questionnaire  due  to  the  adoption  of  the  new  Regulation 
(Article 31). The current one should continue to be in use. The deadline for sending out the 
questionnaire and for receiving the replies from the Member States has been adjusted ensuring 
that the bulk of the work on the Member States’ side should not (necessarily) be done during 
the  summer  holiday  period.  In  addition,  it  is  specified  that  on  request  of  the  Commission, 
Member  States  should  update  their  replies  to  the  standard  questionnaire  and  answer,  if 
requested,  complimentary  questions  before  specific  evaluations,  as  well  as  provide  the 
findings  of  national  quality  control  mechanisms  and  internal  audits.  This  provision  ensures 
that the teams will have all relevant and up to date information at their disposal to efficiently 
carry out specific evaluations. 

Article 15 – Member State experts 

No  substantial  changes  compared  to  the  current  article  (Article  12).  Paragraph  2  has  been 
moved here from the current Article 1.  

Article 16 – Training of experts 

It  was  considered  desirable  to  reinforce  the  provision  on  training  by  introducing  a  specific 
article  on  the  matter;  highlighting  the  importance  of  all  relevant  fundamental  rights 
considerations in training courses and the systematic involvement of the Fundamental Rights 
Agency in this respect. A specific reference is made to the need for keeping the initial training 
curricula up to date and organising refresher training. In addition, each evaluation team may 
include an ‘observer’ either from a Member State or the Commission. These ‘junior’ experts 
will  experience  evaluations  before  they  actually  participate  in  them  as  fully-fledged  team 
members. As observers, they could be tasked to provide technical assistance (as specified in 
Article  18)  but  they  should  not  be  involved  in  the  core  work  of  the  teams  (assessment  of 
findings  and  drafting).  However,  the  costs  will  be  borne  by  the  Commission  in  accordance 
with Article 3. 

Article 17 – Pool of Member State experts 

This  new  article,  as  already  explained  in  detail  under  section  1,  aims  at  ensuring  that  a 
sufficient  number  of  experienced  experts  are  participating  in  evaluation  and  monitoring 

EN 

19 

  EN 

 
activities  and  that  the  teams  are  established  in  a  faster  and  less  burdensome  way.  The  pool 
will provide more predictability and also greater flexibility. The article provides detailed rules 
and  deadlines  regarding  the  establishment  of  the  pool  and  defines  the  obligations  for  the 
Commission  and the Member States.  It  is  expected that the members of the pool  as  well  as 
national  authorities  respond  positively  to  specific  invitations;  turning  them  down  should  be 
based on serious professional or personal reasons only. 

Article 18 – Establishment of the teams 

The article merges and amends the corresponding current Articles 10 and 11. It provides, as a 
general  rule,  that  the  team  members  will  be  selected  from  the  newly  established  pool  of 
experts (see Article 17) taking into account the capacity of smaller national administrations. 
Issuing  a  call  for  all  Member  States,  which  is  the  current  way  of  getting  experts,  is 
nevertheless maintained as a supplementary possibility for cases the Commission is not able 
to get sufficient number of experts from the pool. Flexibility will be provided as regards the 
number of experts in the teams. The Commission will define the size of the teams depending 
on the needs and challenges related to each evaluation and monitoring activity. When setting 
up  the  teams,  geographical  balance  and  rotation  will  be  ensured  by  the  Commission  and 
account will be taken of the capacity of national administrations and the need for a variety of 
profiles.  The  article  also  provides  rules  for  designating  and  selecting  the  lead  experts  and 
outline their main responsibilities. 

Article 19 – Conduct of visits 

The  main  change  compared  to  the  corresponding  current  article  (Article  13)  is  that  as  a 
general  rule, unannounced on-site visits  will  take place without any prior notification to  the 
Member  State  concerned.  This  is  particularly  the  case  when  the  purpose  of  the  visit  is  to 
evaluate practices at internal borders (as it is currently the case); if the Commission becomes 
aware of emerging or systemic problems having a potential significant negative impact on the 
functioning  of  the  Schengen  area;  or  if  a  Member  State  is  allegedly  seriously  neglecting  its 
obligations under the Schengen acquis, including serious allegations of potential fundamental 
rights violations related to the implementation of the Schengen  acquis. A 24-hour advanced 
notice will be an exception for the cases when the main purpose of the unannounced visit is a 
routine  verification  of  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen  acquis.  The  article  also  makes 
clear that the detailed programme of visits may include visits to and meetings with national 
authorities  and  bodies,  non-governmental  and  international  organisations  as  well  as  other 
entities, agencies and bodies involved in, participating in or concerned by the implementation 
of the Schengen acquis while cooperating with the evaluated Member State. 

Article 20 –Remote methods 

The article states that the Commission in cooperation with the Member States may establish 
guidelines  for  conducting  evaluation  and  monitoring  activities  by  questionnaire  or  other 
remote methods  (e.g. videoconferences). Although  guidelines  exist for conducting visits,  no 
such  guidelines  exist  for  conducting  evaluations  by  questionnaire  or  remote  methods.  A 
similar  provision  already  exists  (and  is  maintained  in  Article  19)  as  regards  conducting 
unannounced visits. 

Article 21 - Evaluation reports 

Important  changes  are  introduced  to  speed  up  and  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  procedure, 
notably by providing s shorter and new deadlines and by requiring that the reports are adopted 
no later than four months of the evaluation.  

Evaluation  reports will be more focused, containing substantial  findings;  chiefly, either best 
practices or non-compliant  ones. The category of ‘compliant but  improvement necessary’ is 

EN 

20 

  EN 

 
nevertheless maintained, not the least because it proved to be a useful tool to raise the level of 
implementation  of  the  Schengen  acquis  to  high  standards  while  also  ensuring  further 
harmonisation. The reports, as a general rule, will also contain recommendations and they will 
continue  to  be  adopted  as  implementing  acts  under  the  examination  procedure.  Further 
explanation is provided in this regard under section 2 (‘Proportionality’) and exceptions from 
the general rule are set out in Articles 23, 24 and 25 (see below). 

Article 22 – Follow up and monitoring 

Several substantial changes are introduced, first  and foremost to ensure that the deficiencies 
are remedied quicker and also to reduce the administrative burden that currently flows from 
the  frequency  of  the  reporting  obligation.  All  evaluation  reports  will  be  followed  up  by  an 
action plan. The Commission  services  will provide observations  to  the action plans through 
for  example  administrative  letters  as  opposed  to  formal  Communications  from  the 
Commission  which is  the case under the current Regulation.  If the Commission  services do 
not  consider  the  action  plan  adequate,  the  Member  State  shall  submit  a  revised  action  plan 
within one month of the receipt of the observations. As a general  rule, the frequency of the 
follow-up reporting will be reduced from three to six months. However, as a new element the 
follow-up reports should not only be submitted to the Commission, but to the Council as well. 
As  part  of  its  monitoring  activities,  the  Commission  may  organise  revisits  and  verification 
visits.  In  terms  of  the  organisational  and  reporting  requirements,  these  visits  will  be  lighter 
than evaluation visits. The role of the European Parliament and the Council will be reinforced 
in the monitoring phase: the Commission will inform them at least twice a year about the state 
of implementation of the action plans, the outcome of revisits and verification visits as well as 
if it observes considerable lack of progress in the implementation of an action plan. 

Article  23  –  Specific  provisions  in  case  of  a  serious  deficiency  identified  by  the  evaluation 
report 

This article provides specific provisions where the evaluation identifies a serious deficiency. 
A  closer  involvement  of  the  Council,  faster  procedures  and  tighter  deadlines  are  provided. 
The  evaluation  report  is  adopted  by  the  Commission  while  the  recommendations  will  be 
adopted by the Council separately from the evaluation report. Strict deadlines will be imposed 
both  on  the  Commission  (to  adopt  the  report)  and  on  the  Council  (to  adopt  the 
recommendations). Stricter procedural rules will apply in the monitoring phase: the Member 
State  shall  start  implementing  remedial  actions  immediately  after  being  informed  of  the 
serious  deficiency  and  shall  inform  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  without  delay. 
The  Member  State  will  be  required  to  provide  its  action  plan  within  one  month  and  the 
Commission shall organise a revisit that is to take place no later than one year from the date 
of the evaluation activity. Following the revisit, the Commission shall present a revisit report 
to the Council that shall express its position on the report. The Commission will inform the 
European Parliament and the Council of its intention to close the action plan and the Council 
will be invited to express its position on the proposed closure. For serious deficiencies at the 
external borders, Article 21 and 29 of the Schengen Borders Code may apply. 

Article 24 – Specific provisions for first time evaluations 

Specific  rules  are  also  necessary  for  first  time  evaluations.  Similar  to  cases  when  the 
evaluation identifies a serious deficiency, a closer involvement of the Council, fast procedures 
and tigh deadlines (but not as tight as the ones in Article 23) are provided as well as stricter 
rules in the monitoring phase. 

Article 25 – Specific provision for thematic evaluations 

EN 

21 

  EN 

 
Closer involvement of the Council is provided for in thematic evaluations, similar to first time 
evaluations. For the monitoring phase, specific provisions were not found to be necessary. 

Article 26 – Sensitive information 

Evaluation  and  revisit  reports  will,  in  principle,  no  longer  be  classified  as  ‘EU  Restricted’ 
documents. Their status shall be determined in accordance with the applicable security rules. 
Classification  also  remains  possible  upon  a  duly  justified  request  of  the  evaluated  Member 
State.  

Article 27 – Conditions for the participation of Ireland 

The  article  follows  the  corresponding  current  article  (Article  18)  without  mentioning  the 
United Kingdom. 

Article 28 - Reporting to the European Parliament and to the Council 

The article follows the corresponding current article (Article 20). The yearly comprehensive 
report complements the reinforced reporting obligations under Article 22. The Council shall 
discuss the report and adopt conclusions. 

Article 29 – Committee procedure 

The article follows, to a large extent, the corresponding current article (Article 21). 

Article 30 – Review 

The article follows the corresponding current article (Article 22). 

Article 31 – Repeal 

The article repeals Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 with effect from the entry into application 
of the new Regulation. 

Article 32 – Transitional provisions 

The  article  provides  a  transitional  provision  for  the  adoption  of  a  new  multiannual 
programme, which would be established by 1 November 2022 and it would commence on 1 
January  2023.  These  dates  can  be  adapted  depending  on  the  pace  of  negotiations  on  the 
proposal. 

Given  that  the  ongoing  multiannual  programme  would  be  terminated  mid-way  (in  January 
2023),  the  provision  specifies  that  the  new  multiannual  programme  should  take  into 
consideration  the  evaluations  already  carried  out  under  the  second  multiannual  programme 
adopted  under  the  current  Regulation.  In  practice  it  means  that  the  new  seven-year 
multiannual programme would start with the evaluation of Member States that have not been 
evaluated  under  the  current  cycle  while  the  ones  already  evaluated  between  2020  and  the 
entry into force of the new rules will be added at the end of the new evaluation cycle. 

The article also clarifies that the standard questionnaire adopted under the current Regulation 
will be used until the standard questionnaire provided for under Article 14 of this Regulation 
has been established. 

Article 33 – Entry into force and application 

EN 

22 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In order to utilise all efficiency gains of the new Regulation at the earliest, the article sets an 
ambitious  deadline  for  the  application  of  the  new  Regulation  (from  [1  September  2022]), 
which can be adjusted during the course of the negotiations on the proposal. 

EN 

23 

  EN 

 
 
2021/0140 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

on the establishment and operation of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to 
verify the application of the Schengen acquis  and repealing Regulation (EU) 
No 1053/2013 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 70 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament34, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor, 

Acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

34 
35 

The  Schengen  area  without  border  control  at  internal  borders  relies  on  the  effective 
and  efficient  application  by  the  Member  States  of  the  Schengen  acquis.  That  acquis 
comprises  measures  in  the  area  of  external  borders,  compensatory  measures  for  the 
absence  of  controls  at  internal  borders  and  a  strong  monitoring  framework,  which 
together  facilitate  free  movement  and  ensures  a  high  level  of  security,  justice  and 
protection of fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data. 

A peer-to-peer evaluation and monitoring of the application of that acquis has been a 
core element of the Schengen area since 1998 as a tool to maintaining a high level of 
accountability and ownership of results as well as to strengthening mutual trust among 
Member States. 

A  specific  Schengen  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  was  established  by 
Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/201335, which became operational in 2015. 

In  order  to  increase  its  effectiveness  and  efficiency,  the  Schengen  evaluation  and 
monitoring  mechanism  should  be  enhanced.  The  revised  evaluation  and  monitoring 
mechanism  should  aim  at  maintaining  a  high  level  of  mutual  trust  among  Member 
States  by  guaranteeing  that  Member  States  apply  the  Schengen  acquis  effectively 

OJ C , , p. . 
Council  Regulation  (EU)  No 1053/2013  of 7 October  2013  establishing  an  evaluation  and  monitoring 
mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and repealing the Decision of the Executive 
Committee  of  16 September  1998  setting  up  a  Standing  Committee  on  the  evaluation  and 
implementation of Schengen (OJ L 295, 6.11.2013, p. 27). 

EN 

24 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

following  the  agreed  common  standards,  fundamental  principles  and  norms,  thereby 
contributing to a well-functioning Schengen area. 

The  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  should  achieve  these  goals  through 
objective and impartial evaluations that are able to quickly identify deficiencies in the 
application  of  the  Schengen  acquis  that  could  disrupt  the  correct  functioning  of  the 
Schengen  area,  ensure  that  these  deficiencies  are  swiftly  addressed,  and  provide  the 
basis for a dialogue on the functioning of the Schengen area as a whole. This requires 
close  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission,  a  balanced 
distribution  of  shared  responsibilities  and  maintaining  the  peer  review  nature  of  the 
system.  It  also  requires  a  closer  involvement  of  the  European  Parliament.  Given  the 
extent of the changes, Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 should be repealed and replaced 
by a new Regulation. 

The evaluation and monitoring mechanism may cover all areas of the Schengen acquis 
-  present  and  future  -  except  those  where  a  specific  evaluation  mechanism  already 
exists under Union law. The evaluation and monitoring mechanism should encompass 
all  relevant  legislation  and  operational  activities  contributing  to  the  functioning  of 
Schengen area. 

The  correct  functioning  of  the  authorities  that  apply  the  Schengen  acquis  should  be 
taken into account in all the evaluations in line with the European Council conclusions 
of  1  and  2  March  2012.  The  evaluation  should  also  cover  the  practices  of  private 
entities, such as airlines or external service providers, as far as they are involved in or 
affected  by  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen  acquis  while  cooperating  with  the 
Member  States.  Equally,  given  the  increasing  role  of  Union  bodies,  offices  and 
agencies in the implementation of the Schengen acquis, the evaluation and monitoring 
mechanism  should  support  the  verification  of  the  activities  of  these  Union  bodies, 
offices  and  agencies  in  so  far  as  they  perform  functions  on  behalf  of  the  Member 
States  to  assist  in  the  operational  application  of  provisions  of  the  Schengen  acquis. 
Verification of these activities in this regard should be embedded into the evaluation 
of  the  Member  States  and  carried  out  without  prejudice  to  and  in  full  respect  of  the 
responsibilities attributed to the Commission and to the relevant  governing bodies of 
the agencies, offices and bodies concerned by their establishing regulations and their 
own  evaluation  and  monitoring  procedures  therein.  Should  evaluations  identify 
deficiencies in relation to functions fulfilled or supported by Union bodies, offices and 
agencies, the Commission should inform their relevant governing bodies. 

Evaluation and monitoring activities should be targeted, taking into account the results 
of previous evaluations  and the results of national  quality control mechanisms. They 
should  be  supported  by  reinforced  cooperation  with  Union  bodies,  offices  and 
agencies, their systematic involvement in Schengen evaluations and by improved risk 
analyses  and  information  sharing.  This  cooperation  and  involvement  concerns  in 
particular  the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Agency  (‘Frontex’),  the  European 
Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems (eu-LISA), 
the Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), the European Agency 
for  Fundamental  Rights  and  the  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor.  The 
cooperation should also become more reciprocal and the agencies should not only be 
contributors,  but  also  benefit  from  being  involved  in  the  evaluation  and  monitoring 
mechanism. 

(9) 

The vulnerability assessment carried out by Frontex is a complementary mechanism to 
the  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  established  by  this  Regulation  for 

EN 

25 

  EN 

 
guaranteeing quality control at Union level and ensuring constant preparedness at both 
Union  and  national  levels  to  respond  to  any  challenges  at  the  external  border.  Both 
mechanisms constitute a component of the European Integrated Border Management. 
Synergies  between  the  vulnerability  assessment  and  the  evaluation  and  monitoring 
mechanism should be maximised with a view to establishing an improved situational 
picture  of  the  functioning  of  the  Schengen  area,  avoiding,  to  the  extent  possible, 
duplication  of  efforts  and  conflicting  recommendations.  For  that  purpose,  regular 
exchange of information between Frontex and the Commission on the results of both 
mechanisms  should  take  place.  Increasing  the  strategic  focus  and  more  targeted 
evaluation  design  also  requires  increasing  synergies  further  with  the  relevant 
mechanisms and platforms  operated by  Union agencies and national  administrations, 
such  as 
the  European  Multidisciplinary  Platform  Against  Criminal  Threats 
(‘EMPACT’) or the oversight  conducted by the  Commission  with  the support of eu-
LISA  as  regards  the  preparation  of  the  Member  States  for  the  implementation  of 
relevant IT systems as well as the findings of the national quality control mechanisms. 

(10)  During  the  evaluation,  particular  attention  should  be  paid  to  verifying  respect  for 
fundamental  rights  in  the  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis  in  addition  to  the 
evaluation  of  the  correct  implementation  and  application  of  the  data  protection 
requirements of the Schengen acquis carried out by separate evaluations. To increase 
the  capacity  of  the  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  to  identify  violations  of 
fundamental  rights 
in  relevant  policy  areas,  additional  measures  should  be 
implemented. Schengen evaluators should be properly trained in this regard, relevant 
information  from  the  European  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  should  be  better 
utilised  and  its  experts  better  involved  in  the  design  and  implementation  of 
evaluations.  Furthermore,  evidence  which  is  made  public  or  provided  through 
independent monitoring mechanisms  or by relevant third parties at their own initiative 
such as ombudspersons, authorities monitoring the respect of fundamental rights, non-
governmental  and  international  organisations,  should  be  taken  into  account  in  the 
programming, design and implementation of evaluations. 

(11)  The  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  should  set  up  transparent,  efficient  and 
clear rules on the forms and methods to be applied for the evaluation and monitoring 
activities, the use of highly qualified experts and the follow-up to the findings of the 
evaluations. 

(12)  The forms  of evaluations  and methods should be made more  flexible  to  increase the 
efficiency  of  the  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  and  its  capacity  to  adapt  to 
new  circumstances  and  legislative  developments  and  to  streamline  the  use  of  the 
resources  of  the  Member  States,  Commission  and  the  Union  bodies,  offices  and 
agencies.  Periodic  evaluations  through  visits  should  be  the  primary  means  of 
evaluation. The proportion of unannounced visits and thematic evaluations should be 
gradually  increased  to  ensure  a  more  balanced  use  of  available  tools.  The  forms  of 
evaluation should be clearly defined. Depending on the policy area and the nature of 
the  evaluation  and  monitoring  activity,  the  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism 
should  allow  the  evaluation  of  several  Member  States  at  the  same  time  and  conduct 
entirely  or  partly  remote  evaluations  as  well  as  to  combine  the  evaluation  of  policy 
fields.  The  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  should  strive  towards  drawing 
comprehensive Member State evaluation reports assessing the Member State’s overall 
performance in the application of the Schengen acquis. 

(13)  Thematic  evaluations  should  be  used  more  frequently  to  provide  a  comparative 
analysis  of  Member  State  practices.  They  should  take  place  to  assess  the 

EN 

26 

  EN 

 
implementation  of  major  legislative  changes  as  they  start  to  apply  and  of  new 
initiatives, as well as to assess issues across policy areas or practices of Member States 
facing similar challenges. 

(14)  Unannounced  visits,  being  one  of  the  most  effective  tools  to  verify  Member  States 
practices  should, depending on their purpose, take place without prior notification to 
the Member State concerned or with only short prior notification. Unannounced visits 
without  prior  notification  should  take  place  for  ‘investigative’  purposes  in  order  to 
verify compliance with obligations under the Schengen acquis, including, in response 
to  indications  as  regards  the  emergence  of  systemic  problems  that  could  potentially 
have a significant  impact  on the functioning of the Schengen area or to  fundamental 
rights violations, in particular allegations of serious violations of fundamental rights at 
the external borders. In such cases, the provision of advance notice would defeat the 
objective of the visit. Unannounced visits with a 24-hour advance notice should take 
place if the main purpose of the visit  is  to carry  out  a random  check of the Member 
State’s implementation of the Schengen acquis. 

(15)  Programming  the  activities  carried  out  under  this  Regulation  via  multiannual  and 
annual  evaluation  programmes  has  already  proven  its  added  value  to  ensure 
predictability  and  certainty.  Therefore,  the  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  the 
Member  States  should  adopt  multiannual  and  annual  evaluation  programmes.  These 
programmes  should  also  provide  the  necessary  flexibility  to  be  able  to  adapt  to  the 
dynamic  nature  of  the  Schengen  acquis  over  time.  In  the  event  of  force  majeure 
adjustments to the programmes should be made in agreement with the Member States 
concerned  without  the  need  for  a  formal  amendment  of  the  programmes.  The 
multiannual  evaluation  programme,  adopted  for  seven  years,  should  identify  the 
specific priority areas to be covered by the periodic evaluations. This approach should 
allow for more flexibility, better prioritisation and a more balanced and strategic use of 
all tools available. The extension of the multiannual evaluation programme from five 
to seven years should also lead to an increased, closer and more targeted monitoring of 
the Member States without reducing the level of scrutiny. 

(16)  Evaluation  and  monitoring  activities  should  be  carried  out  by  teams  consisting  of 
Commission  representatives  and  experts  designated  by  Member  States.  These 
representatives  and  experts  should  have  appropriate  qualifications,  including  a  solid 
theoretical knowledge and practical experience. In order to ensure the participation of 
sufficient number of experienced experts in a faster and less burdensome way, a pool 
of  experts  should  be  established  and  maintained  by  the  Commission  in  close 
cooperation with the Member States. The pool should be the primary source of experts 
for evaluation and monitoring activities. 

(17)  More  flexibility  should  be  provided  as  regards  the  size  of  the  evaluation  and 
monitoring  teams  in  order  to  increase  the  efficiency  and  to  reduce  administrative 
burden.  Therefore,  the  Commission  should  define  and  adapt  the  size  of  the  teams 
depending  on  the  needs  and  challenges  related  to  each  evaluation  and  monitoring 
activity. When setting up the teams, geographical balance and rotation should, to the 
extent  possible,  be  ensured  by  the  Commission  and  account  should  be  taken  of  the 
capacity  of  national  administrations  and  the  need  for  a  variety  of  profiles.  The 
principle  of  shared  responsibility,  predictability  and  the  commitment  taken  when 
nominating experts to the pool implies that the experts invited for specific evaluations 
and  their  national  authorities  should  respond  positively  to  invitations;  turning  the 
invitations down should be duly justified on serious professional or personal grounds 
only.  

EN 

27 

  EN 

 
(18)  The  operational  costs  related  to  the  evaluation  and  monitoring  activities  (travel, 
accommodation and food) should be borne by the Union budget. Any additional daily 
allowances of national experts participating in evaluation and monitoring missions and 
the staff costs of those replacing these experts during their absence could be covered 
by the national programmes of the Member States under the relevant Union Funds, in 
accordance with the objectives and applicable rules of those Funds. 

(19)  Evaluation reports should be concise and succinct. They should focus on deficiencies 
with  significant  impact  and  highlight  areas  where  important  improvements  could  be 
made.  Minor  findings  should  not  form  part  of  the  reports.  The  team  should 
nevertheless communicate these findings to the evaluated Member State at the end of 
the evaluation activity, including to the authorities responsible for the relevant national 
quality  control  mechanism.  The  team  should  actively  seek  to  identify  best  practices 
which should be added to the reports. In particular, new and innovative measures that 
significantly improve the implementation of the common rules and that could be put in 
practice  by  other  Member  States  should  be  highlighted  as  a  best  practice  for  the 
purposes of the report. 

(20)  Evaluation  reports  should,  as  a  rule,  contain  recommendations  on  how  to  remedy 
deficiencies  identified  (including  fundamental  rights  violations)  and  be  adopted  in  a 
single act by the Commission by means of implementing acts through the examination 
procedure  in  accordance  with  Article  5  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  182/201136.  The 
consolidation of the report and recommendations within a single document and subject 
to  a  single  adoption  procedure  reinforces  the  intrinsic  connection  between  the 
evaluation  findings  and  recommendations.  In  addition,  the accelerated publication of 
the recommendations  should  enable Member States to  address  the deficiencies faster 
and more efficiently. At the same time, the use of the examination procedure should 
ensure  Member  State’s  engagement  in  the  decision-making  process  leading  to  the 
adoption of the recommendations. 

(21)  Nevertheless,  given  the  crucial  role  of  the  Council  in  exerting  peer-pressure  and  the 
need  for  political  discussion,  the  Council  should  adopt  recommendations  in  cases  of 
political  importance  and  general  interest  for  the  functioning  of  the  Schengen  area. 
Such  cases  should  be  considered  to  arise  where  an  evaluation  concludes  that  there 
exists  a  serious  deficiency,  in  cases  of  thematic  evaluations,  or  in  cases  where  an 
evaluation take places for the purposes of verifying whether a Member State bound by 
the Schengen acquis and for which internal border controls have not been lifted fulfils 
the conditions to apply the Schengen acquis in full or, in the case of a Member State 
not  bound  by  the  Schengen acquis  and  that  has  opted  in  to  apply  parts  of  the 
Schengen acquis,  to  verify  whether  the  Member  State  fulfils  the  conditions  to  apply 
the Schengen acquis in part. 

(22) 

In addition, where evaluations identify a serious deficiency, specific provisions should 
apply  to  ensure  the  prompt  adoption  of  remedial  measures.  Given  the  risk  posed  by 
such  deficiency,  as  soon  as  the  evaluated  Member  State  is  informed  about  a  serious 
deficiency,  the  evaluated  Member  State  should  start  immediately  implementing 
actions to remedy the deficiency including, where necessary, mobilising all available 
operational  and  financial  means.  Remedial  action  should  be  subject  to  tighter 
deadlines and closer political scrutiny and monitoring throughout the process. In this 
regard,  the  Commission  should  immediately  inform  the  Council  and  the  European 

36 

OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. 

EN 

28 

  EN 

 
                                                 
Parliament  when  an  evaluation  establishes  the  existence  of  a  serious  deficiency  and 
organise  a  ‘serious  deficiency’  revisit  no  later  than  one  year  from  the  date  of  the 
evaluation  to  verify  whether  the  Member  State  has  remedied  the  shortcomings 
concerned.  The  Commission  should  present  a  revisit  report  to  the  Council  following 
the revisit. 

(23)  The identification of a serious deficiency requires a thorough case-by-case assessment 
on  the  basis  of  clear  criteria  regarding  the  nature,  scale  and  potential  impact  of  the 
problems, which may be different for each policy area. Different key elements for the 
effective implementation of the Schengen acquis and different combination of factors 
could  lead to  the classification of a finding as  a  serious deficiency. However, if it is 
considered  that  a  shortcoming  identified  is  or  in  a  short-term  has  the  potential  of 
putting  the  overall  functioning  of  the  area  without  internal  border  control  at  risk,  or 
have a significant negative impact on the rights of individuals, such shortcoming is to 
be regarded as a serious deficiency. Where a serious deficiency in the carrying out of 
external  border  control  is  identified  in  an  evaluation  report,  Articles  21  and  29  of 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/399  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council37  may 
apply. 

(24)  The  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  should  comprise  a  robust  follow-up  and 
monitoring  component  which  should  be  ensured  by  the  Commission,  in  close 
cooperation  with  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament,  without  creating  a 
disproportionate burden for the actors involved. Evaluations should be followed up by 
action plans. While drawing up the action plans, the evaluated Member States should 
fully take into consideration the funding possibilities provided by the Union and make 
the  best  use  of  these  resources.  To  speed  up  the  process,  the  Commission  should 
provide observations on the adequacy of the action plans for example in the form of a 
letter.  In  order  to  ensure  a  timely  follow  up,  if  the  Commission  services  do  not 
consider the action plan adequate, the Member State concerned should be required to 
submit  a  revised  action  plan  within  one  month  from  the  receipt  of  the  observations. 
The frequency of the follow-up reporting by the Member State to the Commission and 
the Council on the implementation of the action plans should, as a rule, be six months. 

(25)  As  part  of  its  monitoring  activities,  it  should  be  possible  for  the  Commission  to 
organise  revisits  and  verification  visits.  Revisits  should  be  organised  to  monitor  the 
progress  of  the  implementation  of  an  action  plan  following  an  evaluation  that 
identified  serious  deficiency  or  following  an  evaluation  which  preceeds  the  full 
Schengen accession of a Member State (‘first time evaluation’) and concluded that the 
evaluated Member State did not fulfil the necessary conditions to apply the Schengen 
acquis in the respective evaluated policy area. The revisit report should be limited to 
present the progress made to implement the recommendations. Otherwise, verification 
visits may be carried out to monitor the implementation of an action plan, following an 
evaluation  that  did  not  identify  serious  deficiency  where  deemed  necessary. 
Verification  visits  should  always  be  organised  before  the  closure  of  an  action  plan 
following  a  first  time  evaluation.  In  terms  of  the  organisational  and  reporting 
requirements, verification visits should be lighter than evaluation visits. In particular, 
they should comprise smaller teams and should not lead to new findings or require the 
adoption  of  a  separate  report.  The  Council  should  be  more  actively  involved  in  the 

37 

Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union 
Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 
77, 23.3.2016, p. 1). 

EN 

29 

  EN 

 
                                                 
(26) 

monitoring  phase  and  should  express  its  position  on  the  proposed  closure  of  action 
plans. 

It  is  essential  and  desirable  that  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  regularly 
hold discussions at political level in order to raise awareness of the importance of the 
implementation of the Schengen acquis, hold Member States who persistently breach 
the  common  rules  accountable,  and  increase  pressure  on  them  to  remedy  the 
deficiencies  identified.  The  Commission  should  provide  adequate  input  to  facilitate 
these  discussions  including  through  the  adoption  of  a  comprehensive  annual  report 
covering  the  evaluations  carried  out  during  the  previous  year  and  state  of 
implementation of recommendations, which would be part of the ‘State of Schengen’ 
report.  The  European  Parliament  is  encouraged  to  adopt  resolutions  and  the  Council 
should adopt  conclusions  to  increase pressure on Member States  making  insufficient 
progress. The ‘Schengen Forum’, as a unique stage to discuss Schengen at high level 
with representatives of the European Parliament, Member States and the Commission 
should provide a platform for informal discussions aiming at better implementation of 
the Schengen acquis.  

(27)  The evaluation and monitoring mechanism established by this Regulation should fulfil 
a  complementary  function  of  monitoring 
the  practical 
implementation  of  Union  policies  through  peer  review.  The  general  power  of  the 
Commission to oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of 
Justice  of  the  European  Union  through  infringement  procedures  should  not  be 
affected. 

the  effectiveness  of 

(28)  The classification status of the evaluation and revisit reports should be determined in 
accordance  with  the  applicable  security  rules  set  out  in  Commission  Decision  (EU, 
Euratom)  2015/44438.  The  evaluated  Member  State  should  nevertheless  retain  the 
possibility to request the classification of all or parts of the report in accordance with 
the applicable security rules. 

(29) 

In view of the particular role entrusted to the European Parliament and to the national 
parliaments under the last sentence of Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union (TFEU), as underlined in  Article 12, point (c), of the Treaty on 
European  Union  (TEU)  as  regards  the  national  parliaments,  the  Council  and  the 
Commission should fully inform the European Parliament and the national Parliaments 
of  the  content  and  results  of  the  evaluations.  In  addition,  should  the  Commission 
submit  a  proposal  to  amend  this  Regulation,  the  Council  would,  in  accordance  with 
Article 19(7), point (h), of its Rules of Procedure39, consult the European Parliament in 
order  to  take  into  consideration  its  opinion,  to  the  fullest  extent  possible,  before 
adopting a final text. 

(30)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council40  applies to 
the  processing  of  personal  data  by  the  Member States  when  carrying  out  their 
the 
responsibilities  under 

this  Regulation.  Regulation 

(EU) 2018/1725  of 

38 

39 

40 

Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015 on the security rules for protecting 
EU classified information (OJ L 72, 17.3.2015, p. 53). 
Council Decision 2009/937/EU of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure (OJ L 
325 11.12.2009, p. 35). 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of 
such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, 
p. 1). 

EN 

30 

  EN 

 
                                                 
European Parliament and of the Council41 applies to the processing of personal data by 
the  institutions,  bodies,  offices  and  agencies  of  the  Union  when  carrying  out  their 
responsibilities under this Regulation. 

(31) 

In  order  to  ensure  uniform  conditions  for  the  implementation  of  this  Regulation, 
implementing  powers  should  be  conferred  on  the  Commission  to  adopt  the 
multiannual  and  annual  evaluation  programmes,  to  establish  and  update  a  standard 
questionnaire  and  to  adopt  evaluation  and  revisits  reports.  Those  powers  should  be 
exercised  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council42. 

(32)  The  Commission  should  adopt  immediately  applicable  implementing  acts  where,  in 
duly justified cases relating to a serious deficiency, imperative grounds of urgency so 
require. 

(33) 

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, 
as annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of 
this  Regulation  and  is  not  bound  by  it  or  subject  to  its  application.  Given  that  this 
Regulation  builds  upon  the  Schengen  acquis,  Denmark  shall,  in  accordance  with 
Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the Council has 
decided on this Regulation whether it will implement it in its national law. 

(34) 

Ireland  is  taking  part  in  this  Regulation,  in  accordance  with  Article  5(1)  of  Protocol 
No 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, 
annexed  to  the  TEU  and  to  the  TFEU,  and  Article  6(2)  of  Council  Decision 
2002/192/EC43. 

(35)  As  regards  Iceland  and  Norway,  this  Regulation  constitutes  a  development  of  the 
provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by 
the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of 
Norway  concerning  the  latter's  association  with  the  implementation,  application  and 
development of the Schengen acquis which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, 
point A of Council Decision 1999/437/EC44. 

(36)  As regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the 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  acquis  which  fall  within  the  area  referred  to  in  Article  1,  point  A  of 

41 

42 

43 

44 

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the  processing of personal data by the Union institutions, 
bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 
45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39). 
Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  2011 
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of 
the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13). 
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 (OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20). 
Council  Decision  1999/437/EC  of  17  May  1999  on  certain  arrangements  for  the  application  of  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 acquis (OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 31). 

EN 

31 

  EN 

 
                                                 
Decision  1999/437/EC  read  in  conjunction  with  Article  3  of  Council  Decision 
2008/146/EC45. 

(37)  As regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the 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 acquis which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, 
point  A  of  Decision  1999/437/EC  read  in  conjunction  with  Article  3  of  Council 
Decision 2011/350/EU46. 

(38)  As regards Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia, this Regulation constitutes an act 
building  upon,  or  otherwise  related  to,  the  Schengen  acquis  within,  respectively,  the 
meaning of Article 3(1) of the 2003 Act of Accession, Article 4(1) of the 2005 Act of 
Accession and Article 4(1) of the 2011 Act of Accession. 

(39)  Given  that  the  verification  in  accordance  with  the  applicable  Schengen  evaluation 
procedures  concerning  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Romania  and  Croatia,  has  already  been 
completed pursuant to their respective Act of Accession, the verification under Article 
1(2)(b) of this Regulation should not be relaunched in respect of those Member States, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

CHAPTER I 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Article 1 

Subject matter and scope 

This Regulation establishes an evaluation and monitoring mechanism for the purpose 
of  ensuring  that  Member  States  apply  the  Schengen  acquis  effectively,  thereby 
contributing to a well-functioning area without internal border controls. 

The mechanism established shall provide for objective and impartial evaluations and 
monitoring activities aimed at: 

(a) 

verifying the application of the Schengen acquis in the Member States to which 
it applies in full as well as in Member States to which, in accordance with the 
the 
relevant  Protocols  annexed 
Schengen acquis  applies in part;  

the  TEU  and 

the  TFEU, 

to 

to 

Council  Decision  2008/146/EC  of  28  January  2008  on  the  conclusion,  on  behalf  of  the  European 
Community, 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. 1). 
Council Decision 2011/350/EU of 7 March 2011 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, 
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,  relating  to  the  abolition  of  checks  at  internal  borders  and  movement  of  persons  (OJ  L  160, 
18.6.2011, p. 19). 

1. 

2. 

45 

46 

EN 

32 

  EN 

 
                                                 
(b)  verifying that the necessary conditions for the application of all relevant parts 
of  the  Schengen  acquis  have  been  met  in  those  Member  States  in  respect  of 
which a Council decision stating that the provisions of the Schengen acquis are 
to apply in full or in part has not been taken; 

3. 

Evaluations may cover all aspects of the Schengen acquis and take into account the 
functioning of the authorities that apply the Schengen acquis. 

For the purpose of this Regulation: 

Article 2 

Definitions 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

‘Schengen acquis’ means the provisions integrated into the framework of the Union 
in  accordance with  Protocol  No 19 annexed to  the TEU and to  the TFEU, together 
with the acts building upon them or otherwise related to them;  

‘first time evaluation’ means an evaluation to verify whether a Member State bound 
by the Schengen acquis  and for which internal  border controls  have not  been lifted 
fulfils the conditions to apply the Schengen acquis in full or, in the case of a Member 
State not  bound by the  Schengen acquis and that  has  opted in  to  apply parts of the 
Schengen acquis, to verify whether the Member State fulfils the conditions to apply 
the Schengen acquis in part; 

‘periodic  evaluation’  means  an  evaluation  included  in  the  multiannual  evaluation 
programme  and  annual  evaluation  programmes  to  verify  the  application  of  the 
Schengen  acquis  by  a  Member  State  with  a  view  to  assessing  the  Member  State’s 
overall performance in the application of the Schengen acquis; 

‘unannounced  evaluation’  means  an  evaluation,  which  is  not  included  in  the 
multiannual  and  annual  evaluation  programmes,  to  verify  the  application  of  the 
Schengen acquis by one or more Member States in one or more policy fields; 

‘thematic evaluation’ means an evaluation aimed at providing a comparative analysis 
of Member States’ legislation or practices, or the application of specific parts of the 
Schengen acquis across several Member States; 

‘visit’  means  a  visit  to  a  Member  State  or  to  its  consulates  for  the  purposes  of 
carrying out an evaluation or a monitoring activity; 

‘revisit’ means a visit carried out to monitor the progress of the implementation of an 
action plan following an evaluation that identified a serious deficiency or following a 
first time evaluation which concluded that the evaluated Member State did not fulfil 
the necessary conditions to apply the Schengen acquis; 

‘verification  visit’  means  a  visit,  other  than  a  revisit,  carried  out  to  monitor  the 
progress of the implementation of an action plan; 

‘serious  deficiency’  means  one  or  more  deficiencies  which  concern  the  effective 
application  of  key  elements  of  the  Schengen  acquis  and  which  individually  or  in 
combination,  have,  or  risk  to  have  over  time,  a  significant  negative  impact  on  the 
rights of individuals or on the functioning of the Schengen area; 

‘evaluation  activity’  means  a  specific  visit,  questionnaire-based  or  other  remotely 
conducted evaluation; 

‘team’  means  a  group  comprising  experts  designated  by  Member  States  and 
Commission representatives who carry out evaluations and monitoring activities. 

EN 

33 

  EN 

 
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Article 3 

Responsibilities and duty of cooperation 

The  Member  States  and  the  Commission  shall  be  jointly  responsible  for  the 
implementation of the  evaluation  and monitoring mechanism, with  the contribution 
of the relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies in accordance with their respective 
mandates. 

The  Commission  shall  be  responsible  for  the  establishment  of  the  annual  and 
multiannual  evaluation  programmes,  the  drafting  of  questionnaires,  the  setting  of 
schedules of visits, the conducting of visits and the drafting of evaluation reports and 
recommendations. It shall also ensure the follow-up and monitoring activities. 

The  Member  States  and  the  Commission  shall  cooperate  fully  at  all  stages  of 
evaluations in order to ensure the effective implementation of this Regulation. 

The  Member  States  shall  take  all  measures,  general  or  particular,  to  support  and 
assist  the  Commission  and  the  teams  in  the  implementation  of  evaluation  and 
monitoring activities.  

They  shall  ensure  that  the  Commission  and  the  teams  carrying  out  evaluation  and 
monitoring  activities  are  able  to  perform  their  tasks  effectively,  in  particular  by 
granting the possibility  to the Commission and the teams to address directly relevant 
persons  and  by  providing  full  and  unimpeded  access  to  all  areas,  premises  and 
documents  to  which  access  has  been  requested,  including  national  and  internal 
guidelines and instructions, also classified ones. 

The Commission shall be responsible for making the necessary travel arrangements 
to  and  from  the  visited  Member  State  for  the  Commission  representatives  and 
Member State experts in the teams. 

The Commission shall bear the travel and accommodation costs for experts and the 
observer referred to in Article 16(2) participating in the visits.  

The visited Member State shall be responsible for providing the necessary transport 
on location. 

Article 4 

Forms of evaluations 

1. 

Evaluations may take any of the following forms: 

(a) 

first time evaluations; 

(b)  periodic evaluations; 

(c) 

unannounced evaluations; 

(d) 

thematic evaluations. 

2. 

The Commission may organise unannounced evaluations, in particular: 

(a) 

to evaluate practices at internal borders; 

(b)  when  it  becomes  aware  of  emerging  or  systemic  problems  that  could 
potentially  have  a  significant  negative  impact  on  the  functioning  of  the 
Schengen area;  

EN 

34 

  EN 

 
(c)  when it has grounds to consider that a Member State is seriously neglecting its 
obligations  under  the  Schengen  acquis  including  allegations  of  serious 
fundamental rights violations at the external borders. 

3. 

The  Commission  may  organise  thematic  evaluations  in  particular  to  assess  the 
implementation of significant legislative changes, as they start to apply, and of new 
initiatives,  or  to  assess  issues  across  policy  areas  or  practices  of  Member  States 
facing similar challenges. 

Article 5 

Forms of monitoring activities 

Monitoring activities may include any of the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the review of action plans and follow-up reports submitted by the evaluated Member 
States; 

revisits; 

verification visits. 

Article 6 

Evaluation and monitoring methods 

Evaluations  and  monitoring  activities  referred  to  in  Articles  4  and  5  may  be  carried  out  by 
means of announced or unannounced visits, and questionnaires or other remote methods. 

Each evaluation  and monitoring method may be  used independently or in combination with 
one other, as appropriate.  

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

Article 7 

Cooperation with Union bodies, offices and agencies 

The  Commission  shall  cooperate  with  relevant  Union  bodies,  offices  and  agencies 
which are involved in the implementation of the Schengen acquis as well as with the 
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.  

The  Commission  may  enter  into  arrangements  with  the  Union  bodies,  offices  and 
agencies to facilitate the cooperation. 

The  Commission  may  request  Union  bodies,  offices  and  agencies  referred  to  in 
paragraph  1  in  accordance  with  their  respective  mandates  to  provide  information, 
statistical data or risk analyses to improve situational awareness within the meaning 
of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 regarding the implementation of the Schengen acquis 
by the Member States. 

Article 8 

Cooperation with Frontex 

By 31 August  each  year, Frontex shall submit to  the Commission  and the Member 
States  a  risk  analysis  in  view  to  the  annual  evaluation  programme  referred  to  in 
Article 13 of this Regulation.  

The risk analysis referred to in paragraph 1 shall cover all relevant aspects related to 
integrated  border  management  and  it  shall  also  contain  recommendations  for 
unannounced visits in the following year, irrespective of the order of Member States 

EN 

35 

  EN 

 
to be evaluated each year, as established in the multiannual evaluation programme in 
accordance with Article 12.  

Those recommendations may concern any region or specific area and shall contain a 
list  of  at  least  ten  specific  sections  of  the  external  borders  and  at  least  ten  specific 
border  crossing-points,  specific  sites  relevant  for  evaluating  compliance  with 
Directive 2008/115/EC47, and other relevant information. 

Article 9 

Cooperation with Europol 

In  accordance  with  Article  4(1),  point  (s),  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/794  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council48, Europol shall provide expertise, analysis, reports and other 
relevant information to support the implementation of this Regulation. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Article 10 

Synergies with other evaluation and monitoring activities 

The  Commission  shall  use  the  results  of  relevant  mechanisms  and  instruments, 
including evaluation and monitoring activities of Union bodies, offices and agencies 
which  are  involved  in  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen acquis   and  of  the 
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights as well as of independent national 
monitoring mechanisms and bodies and other national quality control mechanisms in 
preparing  the  evaluation  and  monitoring  activities,  to  improve  awareness  on  the 
functioning  of  the  Schengen  area  and  to  avoid  the  duplication  of  efforts  and 
conflicting measures. 

Recommendations 
to 
recommendations  made  pursuant  to  Article  32(7)  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1896 
under the vulnerability assessment. 

this  Regulation 

complementary 

under 

shall 

be 

The  Commission  may  share  with  relevant  national  and  Union  bodies,  offices  and 
agencies  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  in  a  secure  and  timely  manner  details  of 
evaluation  reports,  action  plans  and  updates  on  the  implementation  of  the  action 
plans. 

The  information  sharing  shall  take  place  in  accordance  with  the  mandates  of  the 
Union bodies, offices and agencies concerned. 

Article 11 

Information from third parties 

In  the  programming  and  implementation  of  the  evaluations  and  monitoring  activities,  the 
Commission  shall  take  into  account  information  provided  by  third  parties,  including 
independent authorities, non-governmental organisations and international organisations. 

47 

48 

Directive  2008/115/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16 December  2008  on 
common  standards  and  procedures  in  Member  States  for  returning  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98). 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/794  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  May  2016  on  the 
European  Union  Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Cooperation  (Europol)  and  replacing  and  repealing 
Council  Decisions  2009/371/JHA,  2009/934/JHA,  2009/935/JHA,  2009/936/JHA  and  2009/968/JHA 
(OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53). 

EN 

36 

  EN 

 
                                                 
CHAPTER II 

PROGRAMMING 

Article 12 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

Multiannual evaluation programme 

The  Commission,  where  appropriate  after  consulting  the  relevant  Union  bodies, 
offices and agencies, shall establish a multiannual evaluation programme covering a 
period  of  seven  years  at  least  six  months  before  the  beginning  of  the  following 
seven-year period. 

In each multiannual evaluation cycle, each Member State shall undergo one periodic 
evaluation and at least one unannounced evaluation or thematic evaluation. 

The Commission shall adopt the multiannual evaluation programme by means of an 
implementing act. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the 
examination  procedure  referred  to  in  Article  29(3).  The  Commission  shall  transmit 
the  multiannual  evaluation  programme  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the 
Council. 

The multiannual evaluation programme shall identify the specific priority areas to be 
covered by the periodic evaluations and shall include a provisional time-schedule of 
those evaluations. 

It  shall  set  out  a  provisional  list  of  Member  States  to  be  subject  to  periodic 
evaluations,  without  prejudice  to  adjustments  made  under  paragraph  4,  in  a  given 
year.  The  provisional  order  in  which  the  Member  States  are  to  be  subject  to  a 
periodic  evaluation  shall  take  into  account  the  time  which  has  elapsed  since  the 
previous periodic evaluation. It shall also take into account the outcome of previous 
evaluations,  the  pace  of  implementation  of  the  action  plans  and  other  relevant 
information  at  the  Commission’s  disposal  as  regards  the  practices  of  the  Member 
States. 

In  the  event  of  force  majeure  preventing  the  conduct  of  evaluations  in  accordance 
with  the  provisional  time-schedule  established  pursuant  to  paragraph  3,  the 
Commission  may,  in  agreement  with  the  Member  States  concerned,  make 
adjustments to the time-schedule for the evaluations concerned. 

The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council about such 
events  and  of  their  anticipated  impact  on  the  scheduling  of  evaluations  under  the 
multiannual evaluation programme without delay. 

Article 13 

Annual evaluation programme 

The  Commission  shall  establish,  by  means  of  an  implementing  act,  an  annual 
evaluation  programme  by  15  November  of  the  year  preceding  that  to  which  the 
programme  relates,  based  on  in  particular  the  risk  analyses  and  other  information 
obtained by the Commission  in  accordance with  Articles 7, 8, 9, 10 and  11. Those 
implementing  acts  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  examination  procedure 
referred to in Article 29(3). 

The  annual  evaluation  programme  shall  include  a  provisional  time-schedule  of  the 
following evaluations: 

EN 

37 

  EN 

 
(a) 

(b) 

periodic  evaluations  of  Member  States  as  specified  in  the  multiannual 
evaluation programme; 

first time evaluation of a Member State following its declaration of readiness to 
be evaluated; 

(c) 

at least one thematic evaluation. 

3. 

The  Commission  shall  transmit  the  annual  evaluation  programme  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council. 

In  the  event  of  force  majeure  preventing  the  conduct  of  evaluations  in  accordance 
with  the  provisional  time-schedule  established  pursuant  to  paragraph  2,  the 
Commission  may,  in  agreement  with  the  Member  States  concerned,  make 
adjustments to the time-schedule for the evaluations concerned. 

The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council about such 
events  and  of  their  anticipated  impact  on  the  scheduling  of  evaluations  under  the 
annual evaluation programme without delay. 

Article 14 

Standard questionnaire 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

The  Commission  shall  by  means  of  an  implementing  act,  establish  and  update  a 
standard questionnaire. 

In drawing up the questionnaire, the Commission may consult relevant Union bodies, 
offices and agencies referred to in Article 7. 

The implementing acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be adopted in accordance with 
the advisory procedure referred to in Article 29(2). 

The standard questionnaire shall cover the implementation of the relevant legislation 
and  the  organisational  and  technical  means  available  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Schengen acquis,  including  the  ones  referred  to  in  Handbooks,  the  Schengen 
catalogues and relevant statistical data. 

By  1  August  each  year,  the  Commission  shall  send  the  standard  questionnaire  to 
those Member States which are to undergo periodic evaluations in the following year 
in accordance with the annual evaluation programme. 

Those  Member  States  shall  provide  the  Commission  with  their  replies  within  three 
months from the receipt of the standard questionnaire. 

The Commission shall make the replies available to the other Member States. 

On  the  request  of  the  Commission,  the  evaluated  Member  States  shall  update  their 
replies  to  the  standard  questionnaire  and  answer,  if  requested,  complementary 
questions  before  specific  evaluations,  as  well  as  provide  the  findings  of  national 
quality control mechanisms and internal audits. 

COMMON PROVISIONS FOR EVALUATIONS AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES 

CHAPTER III 

Article 15 

Member State experts 

EN 

38 

  EN 

 
1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

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

Experts  from  the  Member  States,  which,  in  accordance  with  the  relevant  Act  of 
Accession,  are  bound  by  but  do  not  yet  fully  apply  the  Schengen acquis may 
participate in evaluation and monitoring activities of all parts of the Schengen acquis. 

Article 16 

Training of experts 

The Member States and the Commission, in cooperation with relevant Union bodies, 
offices  or  agencies,  shall  ensure  that  Member  State  experts  and  Commission 
representatives receive adequate training to become Schengen evaluators. 

The  training  courses  for  Schengen  evaluators  shall  include  fundamental  rights 
components  developed  with  the  participation  of  the  European  Union  Agency  for 
Fundamental Rights. 

The  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  relevant  Union  bodies,  offices  or  agencies, 
shall keep up to date the initial training curricula and where needed provide follow-
up and refresher training. 

For  training  purposes,  each  team  carrying  out  periodic  evaluations  may  include  an 
‘observer’ either from a Member State or the Commission. 

Article 17 

Pool of Member State experts 

The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall establish every year a 
pool  of experts whose professional  background  cover the specific priority  areas set 
out in the multiannual evaluation programme. 

In  parallel  to  the  establishment  of  the  annual  evaluation  programme  in  accordance 
with  Article  13(1),  on  the  invitation  of  the  Commission,  Member  States  shall 
designate  at  least  one  qualified  expert  per  each  specific  area  determined  in  the 
multiannual evaluation programme for next year’s pool of experts. 

Depending  on  the  evaluations  included  in  the  annual  evaluation  programme,  the 
Commission  may further specify  in  the invitation  the professional  requirements for 
the experts to be designated. 

Member States shall designate experts within four weeks of receiving the invitation 
referred to in paragraph 2. 

Member States shall ensure that the experts designated fulfil the conditions referred 
to in Article 15 and the specific requirements set out in the invitation for establishing 
the pool. 

Experts  who  have  received  appropriate  trainings  referred  to  in  Article  16  shall  be 
designated  for  the  pool  of  experts  established  for  the  year  following  that  in  which 
they received the respective training course. 

The  Commission  may  also  invite  respective  Union  bodies,  offices  and  agencies 
referred to in Article 7 to designate experts to the pool. 

EN 

39 

  EN 

 
8. 

9. 

The Commission shall assess the experts designated and confirm the selection of the 
experts to the pool within one week. 

Where none of the experts for the specific areas fulfils the requirements referred to in 
paragraph 3, the Commission shall invite the Member State concerned to designate a 
new expert for the specific priority area concerned. 

10. 

Member States shall ensure that the designated experts are available for evaluations. 

If  an  expert  is  no  longer  available  for  the  pool,  the  Member  State  concerned  shall 
designate a replacement without delay. 

11. 

The  Commission  shall  keep  the  list  of  experts  of  the  pool  up  to  date  and  inform 
Member  States  about  the  number  of  experts  and  their  profiles  designated  per 
Member State. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Article 18 

Establishment of the teams  

The Commission shall define the number of Member State experts and Commission 
representatives  participating  in  a  team  based  on  the  particularities  and  needs  of  the 
evaluation or monitoring activity. The Commission shall select experts from the pool 
of experts to become members of a team. 

In  selecting  experts,  the  Commission  shall  have regard  to  the  profiles  needed  for  a 
particular  evaluation  or  monitoring  activity  taking  account  of  the  need  to  ensure 
geographical balance, balance as regards professional experience and the capacity of 
national administrations. 

Member  State  experts  shall  not  participate  in  a  team  carrying  out  an  evaluation  or 
monitoring activity of the Member State where they are employed. 

The  Commission  shall  invite  the  selected  experts  immediately  after  the  date  of  the 
evaluation  or  monitoring  activity  is  set  and  no  later  than  10  weeks  before  the 
evaluation  or  monitoring  activity  is  scheduled  to  commence.  Invited  experts  shall 
respond  within  one  week  of  receiving  the  invitation,  in  agreement  with  their 
designating authorities. 

In the case of unannounced visits, the Commission shall send the invitations no later 
than  two  weeks  before  the  visit  is  scheduled  to  commence.  Experts  shall  respond 
within  72  hours  of  receiving  the  invitation,  in  agreement  with  their  designating 
authorities. 

The Commission may invite respective Union bodies, offices  and agencies referred 
to  in  Article  7  to  designate  a  representative  with  relevant  professional  and  field 
experience  to  take  part  as  an  observer  in  an  evaluation  or  monitoring  activity.  The 
deadlines  set  out  in  paragraphs  3  and  4  shall  apply  for  the  invitation  and  the 
response. 

If a Member State wishes to designate an observer for training purposes referred to in 
Article 16(3), it shall communicate that to the Commission at least six weeks before 
the evaluation is scheduled to commence. 

The observers referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 shall support the team as requested 
by  the  lead  experts,  but  they  shall  not  participate  in  the  internal  decision-making 
process of the team. 

EN 

40 

  EN 

 
8. 

If  the  Commission  fails  to  obtain  confirmation  of  the  participation  of  the  required 
number  of  experts  from  the  pool  at  least  six  weeks  before  the  evaluation  or 
monitoring  activity  is  scheduled  to  commence,  or  at  least  one  week  in  case  of 
unannounced visits, the Commission shall without delay invite all Member States to 
nominate qualified experts outside from the pool for the missing places. 

9. 

Member States shall respond within 72 hours of receipt of that invitation. 

The Commission shall designate a Commission lead expert and propose the Member 
State lead expert. The Member State lead expert shall be appointed by the members 
of the team as soon as possible after the team has been set up. 

The  lead  experts  shall  be  responsible  in  particular  for  the  overall  planning, 
preparatory activities, organising the team, carrying out the evaluation, coordination 
of  drafting  the  evaluation  report,  quality  check  and  follow-up  and  relevant 
monitoring activities as appropriate. 

Article 19 

Conduct of visits 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

The teams shall undertake all necessary preparatory activities in order to ensure that 
the visits are efficient, accurate and consistent. 

The detailed programme for the visits in a Member State or in its consulates shall be 
established  by  the  Commission  in  close  cooperation  with  the  lead  experts  and  the 
Member State concerned. 

It  may  include  visits  to  and  meetings  with  national  authorities  and  bodies,  non-
governmental and international  organisations as well as other entities, agencies and 
bodies  involved  in,  participating  in  or  concerned  by  the  implementation  of  the 
Schengen acquis while cooperating with the Member State subject to the evaluation 
or monitoring activity. 

For  announced  visits,  the  Commission  shall  consult  and  notify  the  Member  State 
concerned  of  the  timetable  and  detailed  programme  at  least  four  weeks  before  the 
visit is due to take place. It shall provide in advance the names of the members of the 
team and the observers. The Member State concerned shall designate a contact point 
for making the practical arrangements for the visit. 

Unannounced  visits  shall  take  place  without  prior  notification  to  the  Member  State 
concerned.  By  way  of  exception,  the  Commission  may  notify  the  Member  State 
concerned at least 24 hours before such visit is to take place when the main purpose 
of  the  unannounced  visit  is  a  random  verification  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Schengen acquis. 

The  Commission  shall  establish  the  detailed  programme  for  unannounced  visits. 
Where Member States have been notified, the Commission may consult the timetable 
and detailed programme with the Member State concerned. 

5. 

The  Commission,  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  may  establish  and 
update Guidelines for conducting unannounced visits. 

Article 20 

Remote methods 

EN 

41 

  EN 

 
The  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  may  establish  guidelines  for 
conducting evaluation and monitoring activities by questionnaire or other remote methods. 

Article 21 

Evaluation reports 

1. 

The team shall draft an evaluation report following each evaluation. 

The Commission shall adopt the evaluation report by means of an implementing act 
in  accordance  with  the  examination  procedure  referred  to  in  Article  29(3).  The 
evaluation  report  shall  be  adopted  no  later  than  four  months  after  the  end  of  the 
evaluation activity. 

The Commission shall transmit the evaluation report to the national Parliaments, the 
European Parliament and the Council. 

In preparing the evaluation report, the teams shall take account of the replies to the 
standard  questionnaire,  any  additional  information  obtained  in  accordance  with 
Articles 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and the findings of the evaluation activity. The evaluation 
reports may include documentary and digital material to support the findings. Where 
an evaluation  is  carried  out  by means of a visit,  the team  shall draft the  evaluation 
report during the visit. 

The  teams  shall  take  overall  responsibility  for  drafting  the  evaluation  report  and 
ensuring its integrity and quality. In case of disagreement, the team shall endeavour 
to reach a compromise. 

The  evaluation  report  shall  analyse  the  qualitative,  quantitative,  operational, 
administrative  and  organisational  aspects  and  shall  list  the  deficiencies,  areas  of 
improvement and best practices identified during the evaluation. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Findings may be assessed as one of the following: 

(a) 

best practice; 

(b) 

compliant but improvement necessary; 

(c) 

non-compliant. 

5. 

6. 

The  evaluation  report  shall  contain  recommendations  for  remedial  actions  aimed  at 
addressing  the  deficiencies  and  areas  for  improvement  identified  during  the 
evaluation  and  give  an  indication  of  the  priorities  for  implementing  them.  The 
evaluation  report  may  set  deadlines  for  the  implementation  of  recommendations. 
Where the evaluation identifies a serious deficiency, the specific provisions set out in 
Article 23 shall apply. 

The Commission shall transmit the draft evaluation report to the evaluated Member 
State within four weeks of the end of the evaluation activity. The evaluated Member 
State shall provide its comments on the draft evaluation report within two weeks of 
its receipt. A drafting meeting shall be held at the request of the evaluated Member 
State,  no  later  than  five  working  days  from  the  receipt  of  the  comments  from  the 
evaluated  Member  State.  The  comments  of  the  evaluated  Member  State  may  be 
reflected in the draft evaluation report. 

Article 22 

Follow-up and monitoring 

EN 

42 

  EN 

 
1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

Within two months  of the adoption of the evaluation report, the evaluated Member 
State shall submit to the Commission and the Council an action plan to implement all 
the recommendations included in the evaluation report. 

After  consulting  the  team,  which  has  carried  out  the  evaluation  activity,  the 
Commission  shall  provide  observations  on  the  adequacy  of  the  action  plan  and, 
within  one  month  from  its  submission,  shall  inform  the  evaluated  Member  State 
about its observations. The Council may invite Member States to provide comments 
on the action plan. 

If  the  Commission  does  not  consider  that  all  the  recommendations  have  been 
sufficiently addressed, the evaluated Member State shall submit a revised action plan 
within one month of the receipt of the observations. 

The evaluated Member State shall report to the Commission and the Council on the 
implementation  of  its  action  plan  every  six  months  from  the  adoption  of  the 
evaluation report until the Commission considers the action plan fully implemented. 
Depending  on  the  nature  of  the  deficiencies  and  the  state  of  implementation  of  the 
recommendations,  the  Commission  may  require  the  evaluated  Member  State  a 
different reporting frequency. 

Where  the  Commission  considers  the  action  plan  implemented,  it  shall  inform  the 
evaluated Member State about the closure of the action plan. 

The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council at least twice 
a year about the state of implementation of the action plans. The Commission shall in 
particular  provide  information  about  its  observations  on  the  adequacy  of  the  action 
plans  referred  to  in  paragraph  2,  the  outcome  of  revisits  and  verification  visits  and 
whether it observes considerable lack of progress in the implementation of an action 
plan. 

SERIOUS DEFICIENCY AND SPECIFIC FORMS OF EVALUATION 

CHAPTER IV 

Specific provisions in case of a serious deficiency identified by the evaluation report 

Article 23 

The  rules  laid  down  in paragraphs  2  to  7 shall apply  in  relation  to  evaluations  that 
identified a serious deficiency. 

At  the  end  of  the  evaluation  activity,  the  Commission  and  the  Member  State  lead 
experts, on behalf of the team, shall inform the evaluated Member State that a serious 
deficiency was identified.  

The evaluated Member State shall take immediate remedial actions including, where 
necessary,  mobilising  all  available  operational  and  financial  means.  The  evaluated 
Member  State  shall  inform  without  delay  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States 
about the immediate remedial actions taken or planned. In parallel, the Commission 
shall inform the respective Union bodies, offices and agencies referred to in Article 7 
of the serious deficiency in view of their possible support to the evaluated Member 
State. The Commission shall also inform the Council and the European Parliament. 

3. 

The  evaluation  report  drafted  in  accordance  with  Article  21(2),  (3)  and  (4)  shall 
focus on the findings  that lead to  the determination of a serious deficiency.  It  shall 
not  contain  recommendations.  The  Commission  shall  transmit  the  draft  evaluation 

EN 

43 

  EN 

 
report to the evaluated Member State within two weeks of the end of the evaluation 
activity. 

The  evaluated  Member  State  shall  provide  its  comments  on  the  draft  evaluation 
report within five working days of its receipt. 

On  duly  justified  imperative  grounds  of  urgency  relating  to  the  serious  deficiency, 
the  Commission  shall  adopt  the  evaluation  report  no  later  than  six  weeks  after  the 
end of the evaluation  activity by means of an implementing act  in  accordance with 
the procedure referred to in Article 29(4).  

In  light  of  the  findings,  the  team  shall  draft  recommendations  for  remedial  actions 
aimed at addressing the serious deficiency identified in the draft evaluation report. 

The  Commission  shall  submit  a  proposal 
recommendations concerned. 

to 

the  Council 

to  adopt 

the 

The  Council  shall  adopt  recommendations  within  two  weeks  of  receipt  of  the 
proposal. 

It shall transmit the recommendations to the European Parliament and to the national 
parliaments. 

The  Council  shall  set  time  limits  for  the  implementation  of  the  recommendations 
related  to  a  serious  deficiency  and  specify  the  frequency  of  the  reporting  by  the 
evaluated Member State to the Commission and the Council on the implementation 
of its action plan. 

The  evaluated  Member  State  shall  submit  to  the  Commission  and  the  Council  its 
action  plan  within  one  month  of  the  adoption  of  the  recommendations.  The 
Commission shall transmit that action plan to the European Parliament. 

The  Commission  shall  provide  the  evaluated  Member  State  observations  on  the 
adequacy of the action plan within two weeks from its submission. The Commission 
shall transmit its observations to the Council and the European Parliament. 

To verify the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations related to 
the serious deficiency, the Commission shall organise a revisit that is to take place no 
later than one year from the date of the evaluation activity. 

The  Commission  shall  adopt,  by  means  of  an  implementing  act  a  revisit  report  in 
accordance  with  the  examination  procedure  referred  to  in  Article  29(3).  The 
Commission shall submit the revisit report to the Council. 

The Council shall express its position on the report. 

The  Commission  shall  inform  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  its 
intention to close the action plan. 

The  Commission  shall  invite  the  Council  to  express  its  position  on  the  proposed 
closure. 

In deciding whether to close the action plan, the Commission shall take into account 
that position. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

If the serious deficiency is deemed to constitute a serious threat to public policy or 
internal  security  within  the  area  without  internal  border  controls,  or  a  serious  and 
systematic fundamental rights violation, the Commission, on its own initiative or at 
the  request  of  the  European  Parliament  or  of  a  Member  State,  shall  immediately 
inform thereof the European Parliament and the Council. 

EN 

44 

  EN 

 
1. 

2. 

Article 24 

Specific provisions for first time evaluations 

The  rules  laid  down  in  paragraphs  2  and  3  shall  apply  in  relation  to  first  time 
evaluations. 

The evaluation report drafted in accordance with Article 21(2), (3) and (4) shall not 
contain  recommendations.  In 
team  shall  draft 
recommendations  for  remedial  actions  identified  in  the  draft  evaluation  report.  The 
timelines in Article 21(1) and (6) shall apply. 

the  findings, 

light  of 

the 

The  Commission  shall  submit  a  proposal 
recommendations concerned. 

to 

the  Council 

to  adopt 

the 

3. 

The  Council  shall  adopt  recommendations  within  two  months  of  receipt  of  the 
proposal. 

It shall transmit the recommendations to the European Parliament and to the national 
parliaments.  

The  Council  may  set 
recommendations. 

time 

limits 

for 

the 

implementation  of  specific 

The Commission shall organise a revisit in case the evaluation report concluded that 
the  evaluated  Member  State  did  not  fulfil  the  conditions  necessary  to  apply  the 
Schengen acquis. The Commission shall adopt, by means of an implementing act the 
revisit  report  in  accordance  with  the  examination  procedure  referred  to  in  Article 
29(3). The Commission shall submit the revisit report to the Council. 

4. 

5. 

The Commission shall carry out  a verification visit  before the closure of the action 
plan. 

The  Commission  shall  inform  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the 
outcome of the verification visit and its intention to close the action plan. 

The  Commission  shall  invite  the  Council  to  express  its  position  on  the  proposed 
closure. 

In deciding whether to close the action plan, the Commission shall take into account 
that position. 

Article 25 

Specific provision for thematic evaluations 

Article 24(2) and (3) shall apply to thematic evaluations. 

If the thematic evaluation identifies a serious deficiency, Article 23 shall apply. 

CHAPTER V 

FINAL PROVISIONS 

Article 26 

Sensitive information 

1. 

The teams shall regard as confidential any information they acquire in the course of 
performing their duties. 

EN 

45 

  EN 

 
2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The  classification  status  of  the  reports  shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with 
Decision  (EU,  Euratom)  2015/444.  They  may  also  be  classified  as  ‘EU 
RESTRICTED/RESTREINT  UE’  on  a  duly  justified  request  of  the  evaluated 
Member State. 

The  transmission  and  handling  of  classified  information  and  documents  for  the 
purposes  of  this  Regulation  shall  take  place  in  compliance  with  the  applicable 
security rules. Such rules shall not preclude information being made available to the 
European Parliament and to relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies referred to 
in Article 7. 

Article 27 

Conditions for the participation of Ireland 

Experts  of  Ireland  shall  only  participate  in  the  evaluation  of  the  part  of  the 
Schengen acquis in which Ireland has been authorised to participate. 

The evaluations shall only cover the effective and efficient application by Ireland of 
the part of the Schengen acquis in which it has been authorised to participate. 

Ireland shall only take part in the adoption of the recommendations by the Council as 
regards the part of the Schengen acquis in which it has been authorised to participate. 

Article 28 

Reporting to the European Parliament and to the Council 

The  Commission  shall  submit  annually  a  comprehensive  report  to  the  European  Parliament 
and to the Council on the evaluations carried out pursuant to this Regulation. That report shall 
be  made  public  and  shall  include  information  on  the  evaluations  carried  out  during  the 
previous  year,  on  the  conclusions  drawn  from  them  and  on  the  state  of  play  with  regard  to 
remedial  actions  taken  by  the  Member  States.  The  Commission  shall transmit  that  report  to 
the national Parliaments. The Council shall discuss the report and adopt conclusions. 

Article 29 

Committee procedure 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by  a  committee.  That  committee  shall  be  a 
committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. 

Where  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Article  4  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
182/2011 shall apply. 

Where  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Article  5  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
182/2011  shall  apply.  Where  the  committee  delivers  no  opinion,  the  Commission 
shall not adopt the draft implementing act and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) 
of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply. 

Where  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Article  8  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
182/2011, in conjunction with Article 5 thereof, shall apply. 

Article 30 

Review 

The Commission shall undertake a review of the application of this Regulation and submit a 
report to the Council within six months of the adoption of all evaluation reports regarding the 

EN 

46 

  EN 

 
evaluations  covered  by  the  first  multiannual  evaluation  programme  adopted  in  accordance 
with  this Regulation.  Such  review  shall  cover  all  the  elements  of  this  Regulation,  including 
the  functioning  of  the  procedures  for  adopting  acts  under  the  evaluation  mechanism.  The 
Commission shall submit that report to the European Parliament. 

Article 31 

Transitional provisions 

1. 

2. 

The  first  multiannual  evaluation  programme  under  this  Regulation  shall  be 
established by [1 November 2022] and it shall start on [1 January 2023]. 

That programme shall take into account the evaluations already carried out under the 
second  multiannual  programme  adopted  under  Regulation  (EU)  No  1053/2013  and 
shall be drawn up as a continuation of that programme. 

The  standard  questionnaire  adopted  under  Regulation  (EU)  No  1053/2013  shall  be 
used until the standard questionnaire provided for under Article 14 of this Regulation 
has been established. 

Article 32 

Repeal 

Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 is repealed from [1 September 2022]. 

References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and 
shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex. 

Article 33 

Entry into force and application 

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

It shall apply from [1 September 2022]. 

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in 
accordance with the Treaties. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

47 

  EN 

 
 
 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

1.1. 

Title of the proposal/initiative 

Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on the establishment and operation of an 
evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  to  verify  the  application  of  the  Schengen 
acquis and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 of 7 October 2013 

1.2. 

Policy area(s) concerned  

Heading 4 - Migration and Border Management 

1.3. 

Title 11 - Border Management 

The proposal/initiative relates to:  

 a new action  

 a new action following a pilot project/preparatory action49  

 the extension of an existing action  

 a merger or redirection of one or more actions towards another/a new action  

1.4. 

Objective(s) 

1.4.1.  General objective(s) 

A  significant  body  of  measures  that  compensate  for  the  absence  of  controls  at 
internal borders and effectively guarantee a high level of security supports Schengen. 
The general objective of this proposal is to ensure that the Member States implement 
fully, correctly and effectively this set of legislation known as Schengen acquis that 
make possible the proper functioning of the Schengen Area. 

The Schengen acquis includes the following three pillars:  

(1) measures at the external borders (external border management),  

(2)  compensatory  measures  (common  visa  policy,  police  cooperation,  return  policy 
and the Schengen Information System), as well as requirements for the protection of 
personal data and fundamental rights, and  

(3) a robust monitoring mechanism.  

The  general  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  improve  the  Schengen  evaluation  and 
monitoring mechanism representing the third pillar. The proposal aims to make the 
mechanism  more  effective  by  making  more  flexible  to  ever-changing  realities  and 
faster so that it can be adapted to address them timely and properly without the need 
of frequent subsequent amendments.  

1.4.2. 

Specific objective(s) 

In  line  with  the  Commission  Work  Programme  2021,  this  proposal  is  part  of  the 
Policy Objective on Promoting our European Way of Life, in particular, Initiative 34 
Schengen package, point b) Amendment of the Regulation establishing the Schengen 
Evaluation Mechanism. 

49 

As referred to in Article 58(2)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation. 

EN 

48 

  EN 

 
                                                 
In line with Article 22 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013, the Commission 
carried  out  a  review  of  the  operation  of  the  Regulation  within  six  months  of  the 
adoption of all evaluation reports under the first multiannual evaluation programme 
(2015-2019).  The  review  covered  all  the  elements  of  the  Regulation,  including  the 
functioning  of  the  procedures  for  adopting  acts  under  the  Mechanism.  The 
Commission  presented  its  review  in  a  report50  and  accompanying  staff  working 
document51 on 25 November 2020. The review found that the mechanism has already 
brought about tangible improvements in the implementation of the Schengen acquis 
by the Member States.  It has, however, identified several  shortcomings that  should 
be addressed:  

(1)  the  excessive  length  of  the  evaluation  process  (10-12  months)  and  the  time  for 
Member States to implement recommendations (2 years);  

(2) the shortage of sufficient number of experts to participate in the evaluations with 
5 Member States providing one third of all experts and with chronic deficit of experts 
in specific policy fields;  

(3)  suboptimal  use  and  efficiency  of  unannounced  visits  as  well  as  of  the  other 
evaluation and monitoring tools, in particular thematic evaluations;  

(4)  slow  follow-up  and  implementation  of  the  action  plans  and  lack  of  a 
comprehensive and consistent approach to monitoring the implementation;  

(5) apart from the evaluation of data protection requirements, the assessment of the 
respect  for fundamental  rights  in  the implementation of the Schengen  acquis is  not 
sufficiently integrated in the Mechanism. 

The report indicates that some of these shortcomings could be tackled at operational 
level,  but  others  would  require  the  need  for  legislative  changes  to  clarify  and  to 
reinforce existing rules and procedures with a view to making the mechanism fully 
fit for purpose.  

As  a  follow-up  and  in  line  with  the  conclusions  of  the  First  Schengen  Forum  of 
30 November 2020,  the  Commission  undertook  a  series  of  technical  consultations 
with stakeholders and prepared an impact assessment accompanying this proposal. 

Based  on  the  outcomes  of  these  initiatives  and  on  conclusions  of  the  Schengen 
report,  the  Commission  identified  the  following  specific  objectives  to  be  addressed 
with the current proposal: 

1. 
Specific  objective  no  1:  Increase  the  strategic  focus  of  the  Mechanism  and 
ensure  a  more  proportionate  and  strategic  use  of  the  different  evaluation  and 
monitoring  tools:  This  is  expected  to  be  achieved  by  maintaining  the  scope  of  the 
evaluations  while  improving  its  adaptability  to  new  and  ever  changing  realities,  by 
providing  for  more  flexible  programming  rules  and  an  extended  duration  of  the 
evaluation cycle. 

2. 
Specific  objective  no  2:  Shorten  and  simplify  the  procedures  to  make  the 
process  more  effective  and  efficient  and  increase  peer-pressure  to  address  the 
excessive  length  of  the  procedures  and  the  administrative  burden  linked  to  them. 

50 

51 

Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
Schengen Evaluation and Monitoring Mechanism pursuant to Article 22 of Council Regulation (EU) No 
1053/2013. COM(2020)779 final. 
SWD (2020)327 final. 

EN 

49 

  EN 

 
                                                 
They  bring  about  revised  decision-making  focusing  the  Council’s  role  in  the  most 
politically  relevant  cases,  improved  follow-up  rules,  as  well  as  significant 
simplifications  (e.g.  declassification  of  evaluation  reports  as  a  rule,  reduced 
frequency of reporting obligations by Member States, certain binding time limits to 
speed up the process).  

3. 
Specific  objective  no  3:    Strengthen  the  evaluation  of  the  respect  for 
fundamental rights safeguards under the Schengen acquis by introducing targeted 
measures  to  better  integrate  and  streamline  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights  in 
the Mechanism responding to the long-standing calls of stakeholders.  

4. 
Specific  objective  no  4:  Optimise  the  participation  of  Member State  experts 
and the cooperation with Union bodies, offices and agencies, as well as synergies 
with  other  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanisms,  for  more  targeted,  strategic 
and  tailored  evaluations:  This  is  necessary  to  address  the  shortage  of  qualified 
experts  for  evaluations  and  imbalance  regarding  Member  States’  contributions  as 
well as  to  make better use of the resources available at  the EU and national  levels, 
and  to  enhance  synergies  with  other  instruments.  The  proposal  establishes  a  yearly 
permanent  pool of experts managed by the Commission, provides flexibility on the 
size  of  the  teams,  and  increases  incentives  for  participation.  The  proposed  changes 
maximise  the  input  and  improve  the  coordination  with  Union  bodies,  offices  and  
agencies and other quality control mechanisms by improved risk analysis, enhanced 
coordination, and strengthened participation with new legal obligations. 

1.4.3.  Expected result(s) and impact 

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted. 

Free movement is intrinsic to our European Way of Life, and to preserve it, the EU 
needs to ensure that Member States apply correctly and fully the Schengen acquis. 

During the last years, the Schengen area of free movement has been put to a test by a 
series  of  challenges of various character involving migratory crisis,  terrorist threats 
and  the  consequences  of  the  spread  of  COVID-19.  The  new  realities  it  has  been 
confronted with have highlighted the need to improve the governance structure and 
the  tools  available  to  make  Schengen  work  smoothly.  To  address  these  challenges, 
Commission  President  von  der  Leyen  announced  in  the  2020  State  of  the  Union 
address52  a  new  Strategy  on  Schengen  to  ensure  a  fully  functioning  area  of  free 
movement.  The  Commission  indicated  in  the  New  Pact  on  Migration  and  Asylum  
that  the  Strategy  would  combine  legislative  and  operational  initiatives  aimed  at 
creating  a  stronger  and  more  resilient  Schengen.  Such  legislative  initiative  is  the 
revision of the Mechanism. 
The Commission work programme for 202153 confirms that to preserve and improve 
the functioning of the Schengen area, new rules need to  be put  in  place. Under the 
policy objective Promoting our European Way of Life, it commits the Commission to 
present  a  Schengen  package  (action  34)  having  as  one  of  its  components  the 
Amendment of the Regulation establishing the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism, to 
be adopted in the second quarter of 2021.   

52 
53 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_20_1655. 
COM(2020) 690 final. 

EN 

50 

  EN 

 
                                                 
The current proposal is a core element of the Commission’s new Schengen Strategy. 
It aims to ensure that Member States apply Schengen rules effectively, which would 
improve mutual trust among them and contribute to the well-functioning of the area 
of free movement. 

1.4.4. 

Indicators of performance 

Specify the indicators for monitoring progress and achievements. 

A non-exhaustive list of qualitative and quantitative indicators has been developed to 
monitor the achievement of the proposed changes and will be used for the review of 
the Regulation.  

To  measure  the  areas  of  administrative  simplification,  the  following  indicators  are 
put forward: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Number of amendments of the evaluation programme  

Number of calls for experts 

Number of Commission proposals for recommendations 

Number of Council recommendations 

Number of Assessment Action Plans (Commission Communications)  

Number of Progress reports 

To  measure  the  success  per  specific  objective,  to  which  an  operational  objective 
corresponds, the following indicators have been developed: 

Number  of  unannounced  and  thematic  evaluations  (yearly  average  over  the 

• 
cycle) – specific objective 1 

Discussion  at  Ministerial 
• 
recommendations - specific objective 1 

level  of  findings  or  state  of  play  of 

the 

• 

Average length of the evaluation process – specific objective 2  

Deficiencies identified by the Schengen  evaluation mechanism pending to be 

• 
remedied at the end of year – specific objective 2 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Number of FRA observers in Schengen Evaluations – specific objective 3 

Number of experts trained on fundamental rights – specific objective 3 

Average number of experts required per evaluation visit – specific objective 4  

Ratio designated/required experts – specific objective 4 

Number of risk analysis or other reports – specific objective 4 

In  addition,  the  Commission  is  in  the  process  of  developing  a  new  IT  tool  to 
modernise the monitoring of the implementation of the action plans by the Member 
States. This tool is expected to become operational already in 2021. 

1.5. 

Grounds for the proposal/initiative  

1.5.1.  Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for 

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative 

The  overall  objective  of  the  Schengen  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  is  to 
verify  the  correct  application  of  the  Schengen  acquis  and,  where  necessary,  to 
recommend improvements and ensure their implementation.  

EN 

51 

  EN 

 
Maintaining the Schengen area as an area of free movement without internal border 
controls  depends  on  an  effective  and  efficient  mechanism  for  the  evaluation  of  the 
measures  to  be  implemented  at  the  EU’s  external  borders  and  compensatory 
measures  aiming  to  ensure  freedom  of  movement  and  a  high  level  of  security  and 
justice in an area without internal border controls.  

The  Schengen  area  is  based  on  mutual  trust  between  the  Member  States  in  their 
capacity  fully  to  implement  certain  measures  at  the  external  borders  and 
compensatory  measures  within  their  territories,  which  allow  the  lifting  of  internal 
border controls. The origins of the Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism 
have an intergovernmental character dating back to the 1990s when the evaluations 
were entirely in the hands of the Member States, with the Commission participating 
as an observer. Schengen acquis became part of the European Union framework with 
the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999, which opened the possibility 
for adopting the legal  basis of the mechanism currently in  force by transferring the 
responsibility for its coordination and overall organisation to the Commission.  

Since  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation  on  the  Schengen  evaluation  and  monitoring 
mechanism54  in  2013,  the  EU  has  faced  a  series  of  new  challenges.  It  has 
experienced  an  unprecedented  migratory  crisis  the  repercussions  of  which  have 
brought about new realities as well as a series of terrorists attacks. It was confronted 
with  the  COVID-19  pandemic  that  is  still  on-going  and  blocking  the  normal 
functioning  of  everyday  life  of  citizens.  All  these  have  revealed  that  the  rules 
currently in place are not adequate enough to help Schengen cope with new emerging 
pressures. As a result, the EU adopted a significant number of initiatives, including 
legislation,  in  the  area  of  home  affairs  to  help  address  effectively  new  emerging 
necessities.  

The  Schengen  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism,  however,  has  remained 
unchanged  and  its  capacity  to  take  into  account  recent  legislative  and  policy 
developments has been challenged. 

In line with Article 22 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2012, the Commission 
carried out an analysis of the functioning of the Schengen Evaluation and Monitoring 
Mechanism.  The  outcomes  of  this  review55  concluded  that  the  Mechanism  has 
already  demonstrated  its  significant  added  value  and  contributed  to  improving  the 
implementation  of  the  Schengen  acquis  by  the  Member  States.  It  confirmed  that 
Member  States  are,  overall,  implementing  the  Schengen  acquis  adequately  and 
serious deficiencies have been promptly addressed. Despite this progress, the report 
concluded  that  there  are  still  certain  shortcomings  and  many  divergent  practices 
across Member States, which could have an impact on the integrity and functioning 
of the Schengen area in the future.  

Following  up  on  the  announcement  of  President  von  der  Leyen  to  present  a  new 
Schengen  strategy  and  the  discussions  at  high  political  level  at  the  First  Schengen 
Forum  of  30 November  2020,  the  Commission  carried  out  an  in-depth  impact 
assessment  and  comprehensive  consultations  with  stakeholders.  Results  have 
concluded that the positive impacts of the Mechanism can definitively be confirmed 
and  its  added  value  proven.  They  suggested,  though,  that  to  make  the  Mechanism 
more effective and efficient, it should be revised in a way that makes it fit to address 

54 
55 

Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2012. 
COM(2020) 779 final. 

EN 

52 

  EN 

 
                                                 
emerging  challenges  and  to  adapt  to  new  realities  Certain  procedural  aspects  to 
improve  its  practical  functioning  have  also  been  identified  as  a  result  of  the 
experience of the first 5-year cycle of evaluation. 

On  this  basis,  the  Commission  is  taking  the  initiative  to  put  forward  the  current 
proposal.  The  proposed  Regulation  is  to  be  adopted  under  a  special  legislative 
procedure in accordance with Article 70 of the TFEU.   

1.5.2.  Added  value  of  Union  involvement  (it  may  result  from  different  factors,  e.g. 
coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For 
the purposes of this point 'added value of Union involvement' is the value resulting 
from  Union  intervention  which  is  additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  been 
otherwise created by Member States alone. 

The  EU  added-value  of  the  initiative  stems  foremost  from  the  coordinated 
participation  of  Member  States,  directly  and  through  the  Council,  which  creates  a 
strong basis to generate mutual trust among Member States compared to evaluations 
at  the  Member  State  level.  Evaluations  coordinated  at  EU  level  facilitate  a 
comparison of the implementation practices across Member States and an assessment 
of  the  combined  effects  of  the  implementation  in  different  Member  States.  They 
make it possible to identify deficiencies that arise from asymmetries and divergences 
in  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen acquis  that  may  put  at  risk  the  integrity  of 
Schengen. The peer pressure resulting from the Mechanism may create an additional 
incentive for  correct  implementation  of the Schengen acquis. The initiative reduces 
the risk of few Member States carrying a disproportionate burden for the functioning 
of the Mechanism. 

The  proposal  aims  to  shift  the  focus  of  the  Mechanism  to  shortcomings  that  may 
have  adverse  effects  on  Schengen’s  well-functioning  as  a  whole.  Issues  of  limited 
scope should be dealt with at the national level.  

The measures proposed do not go beyond what is needed to achieve the general and 
specific objectives taking into account the subsidiarity principle by laying down the 
basis for improved  coordination  with  evaluations carried out under national  quality 
control mechanisms. 

1.5.3.  Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past 

This  proposal  draws  on  the  lessons  learn  of  the  implementation  of  Council 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1053/2013,  which  provides  for  carrying  out  Schengen 
evaluations based on a 5-year evaluation cycle. Following the first evaluation cycle 
covering the period 2014-2019, the Commission took stock of the progress made and 
shortcomings  identified  and  presented  the  outcomes  in  a  Schengen  report56.  In 
preparing  the  current  proposal,  the  Commission  takes  into  account  the  conclusions 
and  recommendations  of  this  review  as  well  as  the  view  of  stakeholders  consulted 
following  the  1st  Schengen  Forum.  It  also  takes  into  account  the  recently  adopted 
Council conclusions57 on the functioning of the Schengen evaluation and monitoring 
mechanism  (Council  Regulation  (EU)  No  1053/2013)  of  19th April 2021,  which 
confirm the crucial role of the the Mechanism for ensuring the effective and efficient 
application  of  the  Schengen acquis  and  a  high  level  of  mutual  trust  between  the 

56 
57 

COM(2020) 779 final. 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7939-2021-INIT/en/pdf  

EN 

53 

  EN 

 
                                                 
Member  States  in  the  area  of  free  movement.  These  conclusions  also  call  on  the 
Commission  to  put  forward initiatives for improvement of the  overall efficiency of 
the Mechanism while ensuring its flexibility. 

1.5.4.  Compatibility  with  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  and  possible  synergies 

with other appropriate instruments 

The  Commission  presents  this  proposal  as  an  essential  element  of  the  Schengen 
Strategy  that  also  includes  a  political  Communication  on  Schengen,  among  other 
documents.  It  follows up on the New Pact  on Migration and Asylum of September 
2020.  

Representing  the  third  pillar  of  the  Schengen  governance,  this  proposal  does  not 
affect  the  legislation  relevant  for  Schengen’s  first  two  pillars  (external  borders  and 
compensartory measures) but aims to contribute to their better implementation by the 
Member States.  

In  the  past  years,  the  role  of  Union  bodies  and  agencies  involved  in  the 
implementation of the Schengen acquis has gained further importance. To reflect this 
development,  the  proposal  provides  for  the  evaluation  and  monitoring,  to  a  certain 
extent, of the activities of the relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies, as far as 
their staff is exercising activites on behalf of Member States.  

The Mechanism provides a robust legal framework that is also flexible to cover the 
entirety of the ever-changing legislation on the functioning of the Schengen area. As 
this legislation has recently undergone dynamic developments that could be expected 
to  continue  in  the  future,  this  proposal  is  designed  in  a  way  that  makes  the 
Mechanism  adaptable  to  prospective  evolution  of  the  Schengen  acquis  without  the 
need to subsequently amend the rules for its evaluation and monitoring.  

Some  of  the  legal  acts  in  the  policy  areas  covered  by  the  Mechanism  contain  their 
own evaluation and monitoring tools. Ensuring synergies to avoid duplications and to 
make the best use of sectorial monitoring tools is provided for in the proposal.  

The actions having financial implications that are pertinent to this proposal are fully 
in  line  with  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework.  These  actions  include  financing 
of  the  evaluations  visits  for  experts  from  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission. 
The evaluation visits under Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 have so far been 
financed with the Internal Security Fund/ Borders and visas Union actions. Once the 
proposed Regulation enters into force, the evaluation visits organised within its remit 
will  be  eligible  for  funding  with  the  Thematic  Facility  of  the  Border  Management 
and Visa Instrument. Moreover, Member States have the obligation to use resouces 
from  their  programmes  under  the  BMVI  in  implementing  the  recommendations  to 
address  adequately  any  vulnerabilities  or  risks  identified  following  a  Schengen 
evaluation. Finally, by extending the evaluation cycles from 5 to 7-year periods, the 
mechanism  provides  for  apotential  to  ensure  better  synergies  with  the  Multiannual 
Financial Framework.  

The proposal does not involve any increase of financing needed as compared to the 
financing  of  evaluation  visits  under  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No  1053/2013.  It 
proposes new rules that aim to improve efficiency and effectiveness with a view to 
achieving better results with unaltered financial resources. 

EN 

54 

  EN 

 
1.5.5.  Assessment  of  the  different  available  financing  options,  including  scope  for 

redeployment 

The  reform  intends  to  make  the  Mechanism  more  efficient  for  all  parties  involved 
(Member  States,  Commission,  relevant  Union  bodies,  offices  and  agencies).  The 
underlying  objective  from  a  resource  point  of  view  is  to  make  a  better  use  of  the 
available  resources  while  remaining  within  the  existing  human  and  budgetary 
resources.  

It is crucial to clarify that the Mechanism is not a costly instrument. In fact, it costs 
approximately  up  to  EUR  2  million  per  year  for  the  Commission  to  organise 
evaluation and monitoring visits.  

Proposed  new  rules  for  carrying  out  evaluation  and  monitoring  visits  include  an 
extension  of  the  evaluation  cycles  from  5  to  7  years  as  well  as  reductions  of  the 
average length of the visits and of the average size of the evaluation and monitoring 
teams. These changes are expected to reduce the overall costs of the visits.  

The  Commission  estimated  that  the  costs  of  the  announced  evaluations  (the  most 
expensive ones due to their duration and number of experts involved) will be reduced 
by around one third as compared to the state of play owing to the combined effect of 
reduced  duration  of  the  visits,  reduced  number  of  experts  (flexibility  of  the  team 
size)  and  the  lower  number  of  announced  evaluations  (extension  of  the  evaluation 
cycle). It should also be taken into account that the new Mechanism is designed in a 
way  to  evaluate  new  developments  of  the  Schengen  acquis,  which  has  undergone 
significant evolution during the recent years. The efficiency of the new Mechanism 
will thus be further enhanced as it will evaluate more legislative obligations for the 
Member  States  with  reduced  costs  as  compared  to  the  currently  functioning 
Mechanism. Mechanism. 

1.6. 

Duration and financial impact of the proposal/initiative 

 limited duration  

–    in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY  

–    Financial  impact  from  YYYY  to  YYYY  for  commitment  appropriations  and 

from YYYY to YYYY for payment appropriations.  

 unlimited duration 

Implementation  with  a  start-up  period  from  the  entry  into  force,  followed  by  full-
scale operation. 

1.7.  Management mode(s) planned58  

 Direct management by the Commission 

–   by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations;  

–    by the executive agencies  

 Shared management with the Member States  

 Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to: 

58 

Details of management modes and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on the 
BudgWeb site: 
https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/budgweb/EN/man/budgmanag/Pages/budgmanag.aspx. 

EN 

55 

  EN 

 
                                                 
–   third countries or the bodies they have designated; 

–   international organisations and their agencies (to be specified); 

–   the EIB and the European Investment Fund; 

–   bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71 of the Financial Regulation; 

–   public law bodies; 

–   bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that 

they provide adequate financial guarantees; 

–   bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with 
the  implementation  of  a  public-private  partnership  and  that  provide  adequate 
financial guarantees; 

–    persons  entrusted  with  the  implementation  of  specific  actions  in  the  CFSP 

pursuant to Title V of the TEU, and identified in the relevant basic act. 

– 

If more than one management mode is indicated, please provide details in the ‘Comments’ section. 

Comments  

The  Commission  will  be  responsible  for  the  overall  management  of  the  actions  having 
financial implications and directly linked to the operational implementation of the Regulation. 
These involve mainly financing the organisation of evaluation and monitoring visits such as 
travel  and  accommodation  costs  for  experts  from  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission, 
including for those experts having an observer status. 

The  level  of  spending  as  compared  to  resources  used  for  carrying  out  evaluation  and 
monitoring  visits  under  Council  Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013  is  estimated  to  remain 
unchanged. 

2. 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES  

2.1.  Monitoring and reporting rules  
Specify frequency and conditions. 

The rules for monitoring and reporting are provided for in Article 28 and Article 30 
of the proposal.  

The Commission commits to preparing every year to the European Parliament and to 
the  Council  a  comprehensive  report  on  the  evaluations  carried  out  during  the 
previous  year,  on  the  conclusions  drawn  from  them  and  on  the  state  of  play  with 
regard  to  remedial  actions  taken  by  the  Member  States.  This  report  is  to  be 
communicated to the national Parliaments. 

The  newly  poposed  Schengen  evaluation  and  monitoring  mechanism  will  work  on 
the basis of 7-year multi-annual evaluation cycles. Once the first cycle is completed 
and  six  months  after  all  evaluation  reports  under  that  cycle  have  been  adopted,  the 
Commission will undertake a review on the operation of the Regulation.  

As  part  of  the  impact  assessment  and  in  line  with  better  regulation  rules,  a  non-
exhaustive  list  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  indicators  have  been  developed  that 
will be used for the review of the Regulation. In addition, the Commission is in the 
process  of  developing  a  new  IT  tool  to  modernise  the  monitoring  of  the 
implementation  of  the  action  plans  by  the  Member  States.  This  tool  is  expected  to 
become operational already in 2021. 

EN 

56 

  EN 

 
2.2.  Management and control system(s)  

2.2.1. 

Justification of the management mode(s), the funding implementation mechanism(s), 
the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed 

Building  on  the  successful  experience  in  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen 
evaluation and monitoring mechanism and its financing under Union Actions of the 
Internal  Security  Fund/  Borders  and  visas  via  direct  management,  the  Commission 
envisages to maintain the principles of financing of the new mechanism. In line with 
the  new  MFF,  it  will  be  supported  by  the  Thematic  Facility  of  the  Boder 
Management and Visa Instrument via direct management. 

2.2.2. 

Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up 
to mitigate them 

DG  HOME  has  established  an  internal  control  system  tailored  to  its  particular 
characteristics  and  circumstances  and  regularly  assesses  its  implementation  and 
overall functioning. 

DG  HOME  has  not  been  facing  important  risks  of  errors  in  its  spending 
programmes. This is confirmed by the recurrent absence of significant findings in 
the annual reports of the Court of Auditors. 

Through direct management, the Commission supports actions that contribute to 
the  common  policy  objectives  of  the  Union.  One  of  these  objectives  is  the 
correct,  timely,  and  effective  implementation  of  the  Schengen  acquis  by  the 
Member  States  that  is  ensured  by  the  Schengen  evaluation  and  monitoring 
mechanism.  

Financing  of  the  current  mechanism  has  been  covered  by  Union  actions  of  the 
Internal Security Fund/ Borders and visas for the period 2014-2020. As of 2021, 
it is to be covered by the Thematic Facility of the Border Management and Visa 
Instrument via direct management. The future revised Mechanism will continue 
to be financed via direct management under the new Thematic Facility. 

2.2.3.  Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio of "control 
costs ÷ value of the related funds managed"), and assessment of the expected levels 
of risk of error (at payment & at closure) 

The  Commission  strives  to  achieve  the  highest  standards  of  financial  management. 
DG HOME has  put  in place  rigorous controls and clear chains  of  accountability to 
ensure  that  resources  have  been  used  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  sound 
financial  management,  and  that  the  cost-effective  controls  give  the  necessary 
guarantees on the legality and regularity of underlying transactions. To demonstrate 
its  commitment  to  the  best  use  of  financial  resources,  the  Commission  sets  a  very 
low error rate as one of its strategic goals. To meet this goal, DG HOME has put in 
place  measures  to  ensure  sound  financial  management  throughout  the  management 
of transactions. 

2.3.  Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities  

Specify existing or envisaged prevention and protection measures, e.g. from the Anti-Fraud Strategy. 

DG HOME has developed and implements its own antifraud strategy on the basis of 
the methodology provided by  OLAF and in  line with  the Commission's Anti-Fraud 
Strategy (CAFS). It will aim to ensure that its internal anti-fraud related controls are 

EN 

57 

  EN 

 
fully aligned with the CAFS and that its fraud risk management approach is geared to 
identify fraud risk areas and adequate responses. 

DG HOME 2019 AAR concluded that the fraud prevention and detection processes 
worked satisfactorily and therefore contributed to the assurance on the achievement 
of the internal control objectives. 

DG  HOME’s  Anti-Fraud  Strategy  is  currently  undergoing  a  revision  aimed  at 
aligning it with the Commission's updated Anti-Fraud Strategy, while better tailoring 
anti-fraud  controls  to  the  DG’s  policy  areas  and  operations,  and  thereby  increasing 
their effectiveness and efficiency 

3. 

3.1. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

Heading(s)  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  and  expenditure  budget 
line(s) affected  

  Existing budget lines  

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines. 

Budget line 

Heading of 
multiannual 
financial 
framework 

Number  

Type of  
expenditure 

Diff./Non-
diff.59 

Contribution  

from 
EFTA 
countries
60 

from 
candidate 
countries61 

from third 
countries 

within the 
meaning of 
Article 21(2)(b) of 
the Financial 
Regulation  

4 

11 02 01 - Border Management and Visa 
Instrument (BMVI) 

Diff. 

NO 

NO 

YES 

NO 

Comment:  It  should  be  noted  that  appropriations  requested  in  the  context  of  the 
proposal  are  covered  by  appropriations  already  foreseen  in  the  LFS  underlying  the 
BMVI  Regulation.  No  additional  financial  or  human  resources  are  requested  in  the 
context of this legislative proposal. 

59 
60 
61 

Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations. 
EFTA: European Free Trade Association. 
Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidates from the Western Balkans. 

EN 

58 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2. 

Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations  

3.2.1. 

Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations  

–    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations  

–    The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below: 

Heading of multiannual financial  
framework  

4 

Migration and Border Management 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

DG: HOME 

 Operational appropriations  

Budget  line62  11  02  01  Border  Management 
and Visa Instrument (BMVI) 

(1a) 

(2a) 

Commitments 

Payments 

Commitments 

Payments 

Appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature  financed  from  the 
envelope of specific programmes63  
 N/A 

(3) 

TOTAL appropriations 
for DG HOME 

Commitments 

Payments 

=1a+1b 
+3 

=2a+2b 

+3 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

TOTAL 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

10,025 

10,025 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

10,025 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

10,025 

62 
63 

According to the official budget nomenclature. 
Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research. 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  TOTAL  appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature 
financed from the envelope for specific programmes  

(6) 

TOTAL appropriations  
underHEADING 4 
of the multiannual financial framework 

Commitments 

=4+ 6 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

Payments 

=5+ 6 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

  TOTAL  operational  appropriations  (all 
operational headings) 

Commitments 

Payments 

 TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed 
from  the  envelope  for  specific  programmes  (all  operational 
headings) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

10,025 

10,025 

10,025 

10,025 

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADINGS 1 to 6 
of the multiannual financial framework 
(Reference amount) 

Commitments 

=4+ 6 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

10,025 

Payments 

=5+ 6 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

10,025 

EN 

60 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Heading of multiannual financial  
framework  

7 

‘Administrative expenditure’ 

This section should be filled in using the 'budget data of an administrative nature' to be firstly introduced in the Annex to the Legislative Financial 
Statement (Annex V to the internal rules), which is uploaded to DECIDE for interservice consultation purposes. 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

TOTAL 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

DG: HOME 

 Human resources  
 Other administrative expenditure  

TOTAL DG HOME 

Appropriations  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

12,440 

TOTAL appropriations 
under HEADING 7 
of the multiannual financial framework  

(Total  commitments  = 
Total payments) 

N/A 

2,488 

2,488 

12,440 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADINGS 1 to 7 
of the multiannual financial framework  

Commitments 

Payments 

4,493 

4,493 

4,493 

4,493 

4,493 

4,493 

4,493 

4,493 

4,493 

4,493 

22,465 

22,465 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

3.2.2.  Estimated output funded with operational appropriations  

Indicate 

EN 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

TOTAL 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places) 

61 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
objectives and 
outputs  

 

Type64 

Avera
ge 
cost 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 165 Avoid gaps and increase 
strategic focus  

OUTPUTS 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost  N

o

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

Total 
No 

Total 
cost 

- Output 

Discussion at Ministerial level 
per year of findings or state of 
play of the recommendations 

- Output 

Commission reporting on the 
mechanism per year 

1 

1 

Subtotal for specific objective No 1 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 2 Rationalise the distribution 
of tasks and responsibilities, and simplify and accelerate 
process and procedures 

- Output 

Average length of evaluation 
process - adoption of 
evaluation report within 4 
months of the evaluation visit 

4 
mo
nths 

64 
65 

Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g.: number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.). 
As described in point 1.4.2. ‘Specific objective(s)…’ 

EN 

62 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
-  Output 

Number thematic evaluations 
per year 

-  Output 

Number of experts 
participating in announced 
visits and revisits  

0,142  

-  

- 

1 

0,142 

1 

0,142 

1 

0,142 

1 

0,142 

1 

0,142 

5 

0,710 

0,005  

-  

338 

1,601 

338 

1,601 

338 

1,601 

33
8 

1,601 

338 

1,601  

1.687,
5 

8,005 

-  Output 

Follow up procedure – 
Member States to submit an 
action plan to address 
recommendations 2 months 
following the adoption of the 
evaluation report 

2 
mo
nths 

Subtotal for specific objective No 2 

1,743 

1,743 

1,743 

1,743 

1,743 

8,715  

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 3 Strengthen the 
implementation of fundamental rights safeguards under the 
Schengen acquis 

- Output 

Number of risk analysis or 
other reports per year 

- Output 

Number of trainings on 
fundamental rights per year 

4 

1 

Subtotal for specific objective No 3 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 4 Optimise the participation of 

EN 

63 

EN 

 
 
  
  
              
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member States’ experts and the involvement of EU bodies, 
offices, and agencies  ... 

- Output 

Ratio designated/required 
experts  

- Output 

Koel IT tool 

- Output 

Number of trainings, incl on 
fundamental rights per year 

- Output 

Visa Training 

1 or 
more 

0,110 

0,012 

0,140 

Subtotal for specific objective No 4 

TOTALS 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0,110 

0,012 

0,140 

0,262 

2,005 

0,110 

1 

0,110 

1 

0,110 

1 

0,110 

0,012 

1 

0,012 

1 

0,012 

1 

0,012 

0,140 

1 

0,140 

1 

0,140 

1 

0,140 

1 

5 

5 

0,550 

0,060 

0,700  

0,262 

0,262 

0,262 

0,262 

1,310 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

2,005 

10,025 

EN 

64 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
3.2.3. 

Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations  

–    The  proposal/initiative  does  not  require  the  use  of  appropriations  of  an 

administrative nature  

–    The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative 

nature, as explained below: 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

202166 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

TOTAL 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

12,440 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

12,440 

HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework 

Human resources  

Other administrative 
expenditure  

Subtotal HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework  

Outside HEADING 767 
of the multiannual 
financial framework  

Human resources  

Other expenditure  
of an administrative 
nature 

Subtotal  
outside HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework  

TOTAL 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

2,488 

12,440 

The appropriations required for human resources and other expenditure of an administrative nature will be met by 
appropriations from the DG that are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed 
within the DG, together if necessary  with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG 
under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints. 

66 

67 

Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts. Please replace "N" by the expected first 
year of implementation (for instance: 2021). The same for the following years. 
Technical  and/or  administrative  assistance  and  expenditure  in  support  of  the  implementation  of  EU programmes 
and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research. 

EN 

65 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.3.1.  Estimated requirements of human resources  

–    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources.  

–    The  proposal/initiative  requires  the  use  of  human  resources,  as  explained 

below: 

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff) 

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation 
Offices) 

20 01 02 03 (Delegations) 

01 01 01 01  (Indirect research) 

 01 01 01 11 (Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

 External staff (in Full Time Equivalent unit: FTE)68 

20 02 01 (AC, END, INT from the ‘global envelope’) 

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END, INT and JPD in the delegations) 

XX 01  xx yy zz  69 

- at Headquarters 

- in Delegations  

01 01 01 02 (AC, END, INT - Indirect research) 

 01 01 01 12 (AC, END, INT - Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

TOTAL 

Estimate to be expressed in full time equivalent units 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

14.7 

14.7 

14.7 

14.7 

14.7 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

17.7 

17.7 

17.7 

17.7 

17.7 

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,  together  if  necessary  with  any  additional  allocation  which 
may  be  granted  to  the  managing  DG  under  the  annual  allocation  procedure  and  in  the  light  of  budgetary 
constraints.  

Description of tasks to be carried out: 

Officials and temporary staff 

External staff 

AD  staff:  To  define,  implement  and  co-ordinate  policy,  legislative  and  operational 
developments regarding the Schengen evaluation  mechanism, the  management of the 
External  Borders  and  Schengen  governance  and  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen 
acquis in the relevant policy areas.  

AST  staff:  To  take  care  of  the  operational  and  administrative  support  as  well  as 
manage business and planning for the Schengen evaluation 

SC staff: To provide operational and administrative support to the unit and to assist the 
Head of Unit 

To define, implement and co-ordinate policy, legislative and operational developments 
regarding  the  Schengen  evaluation  mechanism,  the  management  of  the  External 
Borders and Schengen governance and the implementation of the Schengen acquis in 
the relevant policy areas. 

68 

69 

AC=  Contract  Staff;  AL  =  Local  Staff;  END=  Seconded  National  Expert;  INT  =  agency  staff; 
JPD= Junior Professionals in Delegations. 
Sub-ceiling for external staff covered by operational appropriations (former ‘BA’ lines). 

EN 

66 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.4.  Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework  

The proposal/initiative: 

–    can be fully financed through redeployment within the relevant heading of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). 

Explain  what  reprogramming  is  required,  specifying  the  budget  lines  concerned  and  the  corresponding  amounts.  Please  provide  an  excel  table  in  the  case  of  major 
reprogramming. 

–    requires use of the unallocated margin under the relevant heading of the MFF and/or use of the special instruments as defined in the 

MFF Regulation. 

Explain what is required, specifying the headings and budget lines concerned, the corresponding amounts, and the instruments proposed to be used. 

–    requires a revision of the MFF. 

Explain what is required, specifying the headings and budget lines concerned and the corresponding amounts. 

3.2.5.  Third-party contributions  

The proposal/initiative: 

–    does not provide for co-financing by third parties 

–    provides for the co-financing by third parties estimated below: 

Year 
N70 

Year 
N+1 

Year 
N+2 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as necessary 
to show the duration of the 
impact (see point 1.6) 

Total 

Specify  the  co-financing 
body  

Appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places) 

70 

Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts. Please replace "N" by the expected first year of implementation (for instance: 2021). The same 
for the following years. 

EN 

67 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
TOTAL appropriations 
co-financed  

3.3. 

Estimated impact on revenue  

–    The proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue. 

–    The proposal/initiative has the following financial impact: 

 

 

on own resources  

on other revenue 

(2) 

please indicate, if the revenue is assigned to expenditure lines    

Appropriations 
available for 
the current 
financial year 

Budget revenue line: 

Article …………. 

     EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Impact of the proposal/initiative71 

Year 
N 

Year 
N+1 

Year 
N+2 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as necessary to show 
the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) 

For assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected. 

Other remarks (e.g. method/formula used for calculating the impact on revenue or any other information). 

71 

As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 20 % for collection 
costs. 

EN 

68 

EN