COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document 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  SWD(2021) 120 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document 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                                  {COM(2021) 278 final} - {SEC(2021) 225 final} - {SWD(2021) 119 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact  assessment  on  the  revision  of  the  Schengen  Evaluation  and  Monitoring 
Mechanism 

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed?  
Schengen is one of the most significant achievements of the European integration. It is an area where more than 
420  million  people,  as  well  as  goods  and  services,  can  circulate  freely  without  border  checks.  Schengen 
contributes to the functioning of the Single Market and its creation has brought social and economic benefits to 
the European society1.  
The  well-functioning  of  the  area  without  internal  border  controls  relies  on  Member  States2  applying  effectively 
and efficiently the Schengen legal framework. It requires common efforts to maintain a high level of mutual trust 
between  Member  States.  Instability  in  Europe’s  neighbourhood  and  beyond,  the  2015  refugee  crisis  and  its 
consequences,  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  and  the  persistent  terrorist  threat  has  led  to  some  Member  States 
reintroducing  internal  border  controls.  In  some  cases,  controls  have  been  renewed  several  times  since  2015. 
These developments have highlighted the need to improve the functioning of the Schengen area and the tools 
available  to  make  Schengen  work,  including  the  Schengen  Evaluation  and  Monitoring  Mechanism.  This 
Mechanism  verifies  and  monitors  the  correct  application  of  the  Schengen acquis  by  the  Member  States 
complementing  the  other  two  pillars  that  form  the  Schengen  Governance.  The  other  two  pillars  include  the 
measures  at  the  external  borders  (external  borders  management)  and  the  compensatory  measures  (common 
visa policy, police cooperation, return policy and the Schengen Information System). Although the Mechanism is 
a  technical  instrument,  it  aims  at  facilitating  political  dialogue  on  the  state  of  Schengen.  In  the  first  five-year 
evaluation  cycle,  however,  the  Mechanism  did  not  exert  sufficient  political  pressure  on  Member  States  in 
addressing deficiencies and did not lead to comprehensive political discussions on Schengen. 

Although  during  the  first  five-year  evaluation  cycle  (2015-2019)  the  Mechanismproved  its  added-value  in 
ensuring  Schengen’s  functioning,  a  number  of  shortcomings  prevented  the  Mechanism  from  working  as 
effectively  as  it  could  and  should,  undermining  its  full  potential.  Notably,  there  are  three  interlinked 
problems, deriving from failures in the Mechanism's design and in its implementation: 
  Limited strategic focus and significant fragmentation preventing an overview of the functioning of Schengen 

 

as a whole that would facilitate political discussion; 
Insifficient capacity  to  identify and quickly adapt and react to  new circumstances, legislative developments 
and trends, particularly violations of fundamental rights at the external boders; and, 

  Slow  adoption  and  implementation  of  remedies  with  a  peer-to-peer  system  not  exerting  the  expected 

pressure. 

These  problems  and  the  connected  drivers  (indicated  in  detail  in  the  Impact  Assessment  Report)  affect  the 
functioning of the Mechanism and, overall, lead to undermine the resilience of the Schengen area.  

What is this initiative expected to achieve?  
In response to the recent challenges, the Commission announced in the New Pact on Asylum and Migration the 
adoption  of  a  Schengen  Strategy  combining  legislative  and  operational  initiatives  aimed  at  creating  a  stronger 
and more resilient Schengen. One such initiative is the revision of the Mechanism. The general bjective of this 
initiative  is  to  improve  the  functioning  of  the  Mechanism,  to  boost  its  efficiency  and  strengthen  the  monitoring 
pillar of the Schengen governance. SCH-EVAL should be able to timely identify the most significant deficiencies 
and  address  them  quickly,  and  allow  drawing  conclusions  on  the  state  of  Schengen  triggering  political 
discussion. Responding to  the problems identified above, this initiative seeks to achieve the following  specific 
objectives: 

1  

2  

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 of 4.3.2016, p. 3. 
Beyond EU Member States, Schengen covers also Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein (so-
called ‘Schengen Associated Countries’). Ireland is not part of the area without internal border controls 
but it will apply the Schengen acquis in part as of 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. This impact assessment refers to all these countries as Member States. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
  Specific Objective 1: Avoid gaps and increase strategic focus. The first specific objective is mostly linked to 

the first problem; 

  Specific Objective 2: Rationalise the  distribution  of tasks and responsibilities, and simplify and accelerate 
the  process  and  procedures.  The  second  specific  objective  is  mostly  linked  to  the  second  and  third 
problems; 

  Specific Objective 3: Strengthen the implementation of fundamental rights safeguards under the Schengen 

acquis. The third specific objective is related to the second problem; 

  Specific  Objective 4:  Optimise  the  participation  of  Member  State  experts  and  the  involvement  of  EU 
bodies and  agencies, and synergies with other instruments. The fourth specific objective is mostly linked to 
the first and second problems.. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level?  
The  EU  added-value  of  the  initiative  stems  from  the  importance  of  strengthening  the  mutual  trust  among  the 
Member  States  so  that  all  provisions  of  the  Schengen  acquis  are  correctly  and  adequately  implemented.  The 
evaluation  coordinated  at  EU  level  facilitates  a  comparison  of  the  implementation  practices  across  Member 
States and assessment of the combined effects of the implementation in different Member States. It also makes 
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 to a correct implementation of the Schengen rules.  

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why?  
The  Commission  has  developed  a  number  of  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  based  on  all 
stakeholders’  recommendations  and  on  the  five-year  review  of  the  implementation  of  the  current  Regulation. 
Following  a pre-selection  where some options  were  discarded, the following  policy options  were assessed in 
full detail, as an alternative to the baseline scenario: 

  Option 1 - This option consists of  operational changes that adjust the scope of the evaluations but keep 
current  policy-field  fragmentation  (to  address  problem  1  and  achieve  specific  objective  1),  accelerate  the 
evaluation process while maintaining the current decision-making and follow-up procedures (problem 2 and 
3, and objective 2), better involve Member State experts and EU bodies / agencies (problems 1 and 2, and 
objective 4), and strengthen the evaluation of fundamental rights (problem 2 and objective 3). 

  Option 2 - Building on the operational changes (as per Option 1), this option proposes targeted legislative 
changes to increase legal  certainty. It creases flexibility regarding the evaluated fields and actors, and the 
programming  (problem  1  and  objective  1).  It  simplifies  procedures  and  obligations,  and  creates  a  clear 
timeline for all actors involved, while keeping the same institutional balance (problems 2 and 3, and objective 
2).  It  introduces  flexibility  in  the  evaluation  team  size  and  improves  coordination  with  EU  bodies  and 
agencies  (problems  1  and  2,  and  objective  4).  In  addition,  it  increases  legal  certainty  on  the  elements 
relevant for fundamental rights’ evaluation and highlights their prominence and political importance (problem 
2 and objective 3). 

  Option  3  -  This  option  presents  ambitious  legislative  changes  to  incorporate  the  measures  proposed 
under Options 1 and 2 and combines them with additional changes to SCH-EVAL’s design and functioning. 
It  expands  the  scope  of  the  Mechanism  to  targeted  areas  beyond  the  Schengen acquis,  it  establishes 
comprehensive evaluations not articulated per policy fields but per Member State based on risk assessment 
and  situational  awareness,  extends  the  evaluation  cycle’s  length  to  seven  years  and  creates  additional  fit-
for-purpose evaluation and monitoring tools (problems 1 and 2, and objective 1). It proposes changes to the 
institutional  balance  in  the  decision-making  process  (combined  adoption  of  evaluation  reports  and 
recommendations by the Commission with the Council focuses the adoption of recommendations in political 
relevant  cases,  namely  ‘serious  deficiencies’,  ‘first  time  evaluations’  and  ‘thematic  evaluations’)  and  in  the 
follow-up  procedures,  and  introduces  a  fast-track  procedure  for  serious  deficiencies  (problem  3  and 
objective 2). It modifies the process to designate Member State experts, also by creating a pool of experts, 
as well as maximises the coordination with EU bodies and agencies and other quality control mechanisms 
(problems  1  and  2,  and  objective  4);  and  introduces  a  specific  fundamental  rights  evaluations  (problem  2 
and objective 3). 

  Option 4 - This option proposes a combined approach of the measures proposed under the other options 
(which are cumulative rather than alternatives), depending on the area of intervention and level of ambition. 
Option 4 proposes keeping the current scope covering all  aspects of the Schengen acquis,  while  adapting 

3 

 
 
 
 
the priorities (policy fields) to the new realities and actors with a more flexible programming (as per Option 2;  
addressing problem 1 and achieving objective 1) and extending the evaluation cycle to seven years (as per 
Option 3; problem 1 and objective 1). It broadens the range of tools available and clarifies the criteria  and 
conditions  for  their  use  (as  per  Option  3;  problem  1  and  2  and  objective  1).  It  includes  measures  to 
accelerate  simplify  procedures  (as  per  Option  2;  problem  3  and  objective  2)  and  changes  the  decision-
making process and creates a fast-track procedure for serious deficiencies (as per Option 3; problems 2 and 
3,  objective  2).  It  combines  all  measure  proposed  under  the  other  options  to  optimise  the  participation  of 
Member States experts and improve EU bodies and agencies’ involvement (problems 1 and 2, and objective 
4). Option 4 introduces changes to increase legal certainty on elements relevant for fundamental rights (as 
per Option 2; problem 2 and objective 3). 

Following a detailed assessment and comparison of the impact of all policy options and taking into consideration 
the recommendations of consulted stakeholders, the Preferred Policy Option is Option 4. The factors leading to 
the  choice  of  Option  4  are  the  following:  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  measures;  potential  for 
simplification  and  for  reducing  the  administrative  burden;  realistic  assessment  of  positions  of  different 
stakeholders’  group,  taking  into  account  the  practical  and  legal  feasibility  of  proposed  measures.  The  other 
policy  options  are  excluded  as  they  address  the  problems  only  to  a  certain  degree  and/or  are  difficult  to 
adopt / implement. 

Who supports which option?  
The Commission developed the policy options taking in consideration the recommendations received during the 
consultation,  which  involved  relevant  stakeholders  (European  Parliament,  Member  States,  EU  bodies  and 
agencies, civil society organisations). All stakeholders agreed on the operational changes proposed by Option 1. 
Option 2 presents legislative measures that found broad support among all stakeholders. Several stakeholders 
supported a number of measures proposed under Option 3. However, Member States were particularly divided 
on  expanding  the  scope  of  the  Mechanism  beyond  the  Schengen acquis,  and  creating  all-encompassing  risk-
based evaluations. Stakeholders did not support the proposed creation of a specific evaluation for fundamental 
rights. Option 4 combines the measures under the three other options that found overall broadest support by all 
stakeholders.  It  adopts  a  more  cautious  approach  on  the  introduction  of  all-encompassing  evaluations  given 
Member  States  division  on  this  matter.  This  option  also  keeps  the  Council  involved  in  the  adoption  of 
recommendations  in  the  most  politically  relevant  cases  and  significantly  increases  its  role  in  the  follow  up  and 
monitoring  of  implementation  of  recommendations.  Furthermore,  Option  4  would  better  integrate  fundamental 
rights  considerations  in  the  evaluations  without  adding  a  separate  field,  which  did  not  find  support  during  the 
consultation. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?   
The  Preferred  Policy  Option  would  address  the  identified  problems  and  respond  effectively  to  the  general  and 
specific  objectives  of  this  initiative.  By  contributing  to  the  well-functioning  of  Schengen,  the  range  of  potential 
direct  and  indirect  impacts  is  very  wide,  including  positive  economic  and  social  impacts.  However,  the  Impact 
Assessment does not attempt to quantify the indirect economic impacts; rather, it focuses on the main benefits 
deriving from the four policy options for Member States, Commission and EU bodies and agencies in the most 
resource-intense  activities.  The  Preferred  Option  would  enhance  the  quality  of  the  evaluations  and  allow 
Member States to have improved information on the actual situation in other Member States, thus contributing to 
reinforce  the  results  of  the  evaluations  and  build  trust  among  Members.  By  optimising  the  participation  of 
experts, Member States  would dedicate less financial resources to transport, food and civil servants mobilised 
for  the  evaluations.  Member  States  may  benefit  from  an  impartial  assessment  of  their  administrations  and 
recommendations about the areas where improvement might be necessary. Another benefit is the possible the 
transfer  of  knowdlegde  and  best  practices.  The  Commission  would  benefit  from  the  coordination  of  and 
participation in an improved Mechanism as it would allow better monitoring the application and implementation of 
the EU law in the Member States. It would also enable the Commission to learn about emerging problems and 
challenges  that  it  might  address  through  new  legislative  initiatives.  Thanks  to  more  effective  evaluations,  the 
Commission experts would acquire additional expertise beneficial for their function. The Preferred Option would 
benefit the EU bodies and agencies. Through increased involvement and synergies, EU bodies / agencies would 
collect  additional  information  during  the  evaluations,  which  also  make  the  exchange  of  best  practises  and 
networking  with  colleagues  from  Member  State  administrations.  The  Preferred  Option  includes  a  number  of 
measures  that  would  allow  simplification  and  reduce  the  administrative  burden  on  the  Commission,  Member 
States and Council. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?   
The Preferred Option aims at optimising the use  of available resources. It  would reduce the  overall burden on 

4 

 
 
Member  States  and  Commission  as  it  includes  several  measures  that  simplify  the  procedures  and  reduce  the 
administrative  costs  in  order  to  allow  a  more  effective  use  of  all  evaluation  tools.  Additional  obligations  would 
arise  for  EU  bodies  and  agencies,  but  this  would  generate  limited  additional  costs  compared  to  the  significant 
positive impact of the initiative.   

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?  

This  initiative  is  expected  to  have  a  positive  economic  impact  as  it  contributes  to  strengthening  the  Schengen 
area, which in turn brings benefits to the Single Market in general and businesses, including SMEs. Therefore, 
the policy options are not expected to have direct impacts on businesses. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
The  achieved  savings  could  be  appreciable  for  certain  smaller  public  administrations  and  Member  States  that 
carry today a disproportionate burden (i.e. for the unbalanced contribution of experts by Member States) for the 
functioning of the Mechanism. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  
The Mechanism should ensure the respect for relevant fundamental rights obligations in the implementation of 
the Schengen acquis and the compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. All policy options have a 
positive  impact  on  fundamental  rights’  protection  by  strengthening  the  evaluations  in  all  fields  including  data 
protection.  Targeted  measures  would  also  address  gaps  in  the  integration  of  fundamental  rights  protection  in 
relation to certain practices that may not be sufficiently covered by the Mechanism today. No significant impact in 
the environmental area are expected. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
In  line  with  Better  Regulation  rules,  the  evaluation  of  the  functioning  of  the  Mechanism  will  be  based  on  a 
detailed  programme  for  monitoring  the  outputs,  results,  impacts.  The  Commission  will  assess  the  overall 
success  of  the  initiative  at  the  end  of  the  first  evaluation  cycle  under  the  new  provisions  -  when  all  Member 
States  will  have  undergone  at  least  one  evaluation  -  and  submit  a  report  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament. 

5