CELEX: 52013PC0197
Language: en
Date: 2013-04-12
Title: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing rules for the surveillance of the external sea borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Members States of the European Union

|
			
		
		
		52013PC0197
		
			Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing rules for the surveillance of the external sea borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Members States of the European Union /* COM/2013/0197 final - 2013/0106 (COD) */
			
				
		
		
			
			   	EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
1.1.        Procedure and adoption of
Council Decision 2010/252/EU[1]
In October 2009, the Commission was invited
by the European Council to present proposals which would establish “clear
common operational procedures containing clear rules of engagement for joint
operations at sea, with due regard to ensuring protection for those in need who
travel in mixed flows, in accordance with international law”.[2] This was again confirmed in the
Stockholm Programme of December 2009, where the European Council requested the
Commission to put forward proposals no later than 2010 to clarify and enhance
the role of the European Agency for the Management of
Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the
European Union (‘the Agency’) and to prepare “clear
rules of engagement for joint operations at sea, with due regard to ensuring
protection for those in need who travel in mixed flows, in accordance with
international law.”[3]

In 2010, the Council adopted Decision
2010/252/EU (‘the decision’) as a response to these calls by the European
Council to strengthen border surveillance operations coordinated by the Agency and to establish clear rules of
engagement for joint patrolling and the disembarkation of intercepted or rescued
persons in order to ensure the safety of those seeking international protection
and to prevent loss of life at sea. The Commission had chosen to present its
proposal under the comitology procedure based on Article 12(5) of the Schengen
Border Code[4]
considering the decision as being an additional measure governing border
surveillance. 
The decision was considered to be necessary
and appropriate to implement the objective of border surveillance, namely to
prevent unauthorised border crossings. In this regard, it was considered that
surveillance not only encompasses the notion of detection but extends to steps
such as intercepting vessels trying to enter the Union unlawfully. The link of
search and rescue to border surveillance was based on actual practice –
migrants travelling in unseaworthy vessels are sometimes in a distress
situation upon detection. 
The decision incorporated, within a single
legal instrument, existing provisions of EU and international law. The aim was
to overcome the different interpretations of international maritime law adopted
by Member States and their diverging practices to ensure the efficiency of sea operations
coordinated by the Agency. There was a risk that in a sea operation different
rules, sometimes even conflicting ones, would apply to the same situation.
Amidst this legal uncertainty, Member States’ participation in sea operations
coordinated by the Agency was low in terms of contributing craft, vessels and
human resources. This, in turn, hindered the effectiveness of the operations
and undermined efforts of EU solidarity. 
The decision intended to reinforce the
protection of fundamental rights and to guarantee respect for the
principle of non-refoulement in sea operations. Some Member States,
Members of the European Parliament, human rights organisations and academics
had questioned whether fundamental rights and the rights of refugees were being
respected during sea operations coordinated by the Agency, particularly on the
high seas. The decision aimed to address these concerns by establishing a
number of guarantees to ensure the respect of these rights, such as the
requirement to inform the intercepted or rescued persons of the place of disembarkation,
special consideration for the needs of vulnerable persons and the requirement
for border guards to be trained in relevant provisions of fundamental rights
and refugee law.
The decision
was adopted on 26 April 2010 as a Council decision in accordance with the
regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The European Parliament considered that the
decision should have been adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative
procedure and not the comitology procedure. Therefore, it brought an action
before the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) against the
Council requesting the annulment of the decision. 
1.2.        C-355/10:
European Parliament v. Council[5]
The European Parliament considered that the
decision exceeded the implementing powers conferred under Article 12(5) of the
Schengen Borders Code because: (i) it introduced new essential elements into
the Schengen Borders Code; (ii) it altered essential elements of the Schengen
Borders Code; and (iii) it altered the content of Regulation (EC)
No 2007/2004.[6]
The Council pleaded the inadmissibility of the action, and in the alternative,
considered the action to be without merit. The Commission, as the only
intervening party, acted in support of the Council.
The Court delivered its judgment on 5
September 2012. It annulled the decision on the first ground insofar as it
considered that the provisions on interception measures, rescue and
disembarkation are essential elements to the basic act, namely the Schengen
Borders Code. It did not examine whether the decision alters essential elements
of the Schengen Borders Code or whether it alters the content of Regulation
(EC) No 2007/2004.
The Court
decided to maintain the effects of the decision until it is replaced by new rules
within a reasonable time.
2.           RESULTS
OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
When assessing the need to carry out an
impact assessment, the following considerations were taken into account. 
Firstly, the adoption of Council Decision
2010/252/EU had been preceded by a significant amount of preparatory work. In
2005, the Council had requested the Commission to examine the legal framework
applicable to border surveillance operations at sea and to subsequently prepare
rules at Union level. In 2007, the Commission presented a study in which it
analysed the international legal framework as regards surveillance of the
external sea borders and the obstacles to its effective implementation.[7] In the same year, the
Commission set up an informal group of experts from Member States, the Agency, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International
Organisation for Migration to draw up guidelines for sea
operations coordinated by the Agency. The results of this informal group were
used by the Commission as a basis for its draft proposal presented under the
comitology procedure.
Secondly, in view of preparing this
proposal, the Commission consulted Member States and the Agency through an Expert
Group on External Borders to determine to what extent this proposal should
reflect the content of the decision. In general, Member States considered that
this proposal should build upon the decision, keeping its scope limited to sea
operations coordinated by the Agency, strengthening the provisions on the
protection of fundamental rights, clarifying the distinction between interception
measures and rescue, addressing the issue of disembarkation and ensuring
consistency with international obligations, while taking into account legal and
judicial developments at EU and international level.
Thirdly, on annulling Council Decision
2010/252/EU, the Court required that the decision be replaced within a reasonable
time. Although the concept of ‘reasonable time’ is not defined in the judgment,
it is understood that in view of possible difficult and lengthy discussions
between the two EU legislators, the Commission should act expeditiously.
Consequently, it was considered that this
proposal need not be accompanied by an impact assessment.
3.           LEGAL
ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
This proposal is based on Article 77(2)(d) of
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. With a view to develop an
external border policy, including ensuring efficient surveillance of the
external borders as set out in Article 77(1), Article 77(2)(d) provides that
the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary
legislative procedure, shall adopt “any measure necessary for the gradual
establishment of an integrated management system for external borders.” 
The objective of Union policy in the field
of the EU external borders is to ensure the efficient monitoring of the
crossing of external borders including through border surveillance. The purpose
of border surveillance is to prevent unauthorised border crossings, to counter
cross-border criminality and to apprehend or take other measures against those
persons who have crossed the border in an irregular manner. Border surveillance
should be effective in preventing and discouraging persons from circumventing
the checks at border crossing points. To this end, border surveillance is not
limited to the detection of attempts at irregular border crossing but equally
extends to steps such as intercepting ships suspected of trying to gain entry
to the Union without submitting to border checks, as well as arrangements
intended to address situations such as search and rescue that may arise during
a sea operation and arrangements intended to bring such an operation to a
successful conclusion.
Since the objectives of the action to be
taken, namely the adoption of specific rules for the surveillance of the sea
borders by border guards operating under the coordination of the Agency, cannot
be sufficiently achieved by the Member States due to the differences in their
laws and practices, and can therefore, by reason of the multinational character
of the operations, be better achieved at the level of the Union, the Union may
adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in
Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.
In accordance with the principle of
proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, this
Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those
objectives.
It is on the basis of these principles
that, as was the case for the decision, this proposal applies only in the
context of operational cooperation coordinated by the Agency and it does not
concern surveillance activities carried out by Member States individually or
cooperating outside that framework.
4.           BUDGETARY
IMPLICATION
This proposal does not impose any financial
or administrative burden on the Union. Therefore it has no impact on the Union
budget.
5.           OPTIONAL
ELEMENTS 
5.1.        Comparison between this
proposal and Council Decision 2010/252/EU
The scope and content of this proposal are
similar to those of the decision. The changes presented in the proposal when
compared to the decision are based on legal and judicial developments, such as
the amendments to Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004[8] and the judgment of the
European Court of Human Rights in Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy,[9] on the need to ensure clarity
as regards the concepts of interception and rescue, and on the practical
experiences of Member States and the Agency when implementing the decision. 
5.1.1.     Form
The choice of legal instrument and the
decision-making procedures are different. This is a proposal for a Regulation
addressed to all Member States in accordance with the Treaties and it is to be
adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Its form
reflects the choice of legal instrument consisting of a preamble (citations and
eighteen recitals) and eleven articles divided into four chapters. It shall be
binding in its entirety and directly applicable in Member States. On the other
hand, the decision had been adopted as an implementing measure using the
regulatory procedure with scrutiny. It consists of a preamble (citations and
eighteen recitals), two articles and an Annex divided into two parts. Part I of
the Annex sets out rules for sea border operations coordinated by the Agency
whereas Part II of the Annex consists of non-binding guidelines for search and
rescue situations and for disembarkation in the context of sea operations
coordinated by the Agency.
5.1.2.     Content
The scope of application of this proposal
is the same as that of the decision, namely border surveillance operations at
sea carried out by Member States under the coordination of the Agency (Article
1). Although in the decision, the concept of ‘border surveillance’ was
understood as including interception measures and arrangements for rescue arising
during border surveillance operations, there was still doubt as to whether
these measures did in fact fall under the concept of border surveillance as
defined in the Schengen Borders Code. This proposal explicitly covers this
broader concept of border surveillance by indicating that border surveillance
is not limited to the detection of attempts at irregular border crossing but
equally extends to steps such as interception measures, and arrangements
intended to address situations such as search and rescue that may arise during
a sea operation and arrangements intended to bring such an operation to a
successful conclusion (recital 1 and Chapter III).
When revisiting the decision, the
amendments to Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 needed to be taken into
account. The Agency is now also entrusted with assisting Member States in
circumstances requiring increased technical assistance at the external borders,
taking into account that some situations may involve humanitarian emergencies
and rescue at sea. This means that although the Agency neither becomes a search
and rescue body nor does it take up the functions of a rescue coordination
centre, during a sea operation it assists Member States to fulfil their
obligation under international maritime law to render assistance to persons in
distress and this proposal sets out rules on how to deal with these situations
in a sea operation coordinated by the Agency (recital 2 and Article 9). 
With the amendments to Regulation (EC)
No 2007/2004, the operational plan became a legally binding instrument
with regard to all operations coordinated by the Agency and not only as regards
rapid interventions. The content of the operational plan is listed in Articles
3a and 8e of Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 which also refer specifically to
sea operations. The rules laid down in this proposal are intended to form part
of the operational plan drawn up in accordance with Regulation (EC)
No 2007/2004, taking into account the requirements for sea operations.
The legal and judicial developments
concerning the protection of fundamental rights are also taken into account in
this proposal. Article 4, which deals with the protection of fundamental rights
and the principle of non-refoulement in sea operations, addresses concerns
raised by the European Court of Human Rights in its ruling in Hirsi Jamaa
and Others v. Italy as regards disembarkation of intercepted or rescued
persons in third countries, both in terms of relations between Member States
and third countries, and the obligations of Member States vis-à-vis the
individual. This article concerns the practical implementation of the principle
of non-refoulement as enshrined in Article 19(2) of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In case of disembarkation in a third
country, the persons intercepted or rescued must be identified and their
personal circumstances must be assessed to the extent possible before
disembarkation. They must also be informed of the place of disembarkation in an
appropriate way and they must be given an opportunity to express any reasons
for believing that disembarkation in the proposed place would be in violation
of the principle of non-refoulement. This guarantees that the migrants
are informed about their situation and the proposed place of disembarkation
thereby allowing them to express any objections.
Under Chapter III, this proposal clearly
distinguishes between detection, interception and rescue. As regards
interception, this proposal while retaining the same set of measures as in the
decision, distinguishes between the measures that may be taken in the
territorial sea (Article 6), on the high seas (Article 7) and in the contiguous
zone[10]
(Article 8), thus clarifying the conditions under which these measures may be
taken and the jurisdictional basis on which action may be taken particularly as
regards stateless ships. Based on the Protocol against the Smuggling of
Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, interception of ships on the high seas is now
clearly linked to the requirement of having a reasonable suspicion that the
ship is engaged in the smuggling of migrants. As in the decision, the exercise
of jurisdiction on the high seas must always be based on the authorisation of
the flag State.
As regards search and rescue situations,
the text in this proposal remains similar to the decision (Article 9). The
wording is aligned to that used in the 1979 International Convention on
Maritime Search and Rescue and the International Aeronautical and Maritime
Search and Rescue Manual (IAMSAR). Also, on the basis of these international
instruments, the proposal includes criteria as to when a ship is considered to
be in a situation of uncertainty (Article 9(3)), alert (Article 9(4)) and distress
(Article 9(5)) as well as a definition of a rescue coordination centre (Article
2(12)).
This proposal, differently from the
decision, addresses the issue of disembarkation in terms of interception and
rescue (Article 10). As regards interception in the territorial sea or in the
contiguous zone, disembarkation takes place in the coastal Member State. As regards interception on the high seas, subject to guaranteeing the protection
of fundamental rights and the principle of non-refoulement,
disembarkation may take place in the third country from which the ship departed.
If this is not possible, then disembarkation takes place in the host Member State. 
As regards disembarkation following a
rescue operation, this proposal refers to the concept of ‘place of safety’ as
defined in the Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea issued by
the International Maritime Organisation,[11]
taking into account aspects of fundamental rights[12] (Articles 2(11) and 10(4)),
and requires Member States to cooperate with the responsible rescue
coordination centre to provide a suitable port or place of safety and to ensure
rapid and effective disembarkation. This proposal takes into account the fact
that at this stage the maritime and aerial units would be acting under the
coordination of the rescue coordination centre, which determines the appropriate
port or place of disembarkation. However, it also recognises the possibility
for the maritime units to disembark in the host Member State if they are not released
of their obligation to render assistance to persons in distress as soon as
reasonably practicable, taking into account the safety of the rescued persons
and that of the maritime unit itself.
2013/0106 (COD)
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL
establishing rules for the surveillance of
the external sea borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated
by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the
External Borders of the Members States of the European Union 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(d) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative
act to the national Parliaments,
Acting in accordance with the ordinary
legislative procedure,
Whereas:
(1)       The objective of Union
policy in the field of the Union external borders is to ensure the
efficient monitoring of the crossing of external borders including through
border surveillance. The purpose of border surveillance is to prevent
unauthorised border crossings, to counter cross-border criminality and to
apprehend or take other measures against those persons who have crossed the
border in an irregular manner. Border surveillance should be effective in
preventing and discouraging persons from circumventing the checks at border
crossing points. To this end, border surveillance is not limited to the
detection of attempts at irregular border crossing but equally extends to steps
such as intercepting ships suspected of trying to gain entry to the Union
without submitting to border checks, as well as arrangements intended to
address situations such as search and rescue that may arise during a border
surveillance operation at sea and arrangements intended to bring such an
operation to a successful conclusion.
(2)       The European Agency for
the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member
States of the European Union (‘the Agency’) established by Council Regulation
(EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004[13]
is responsible for the coordination of operational cooperation between
Member States in the field of management of the external borders, including as regards
border surveillance. The Agency is also responsible to assist Member States in
circumstances requiring increased technical assistance at the external borders,
taking into account that some situations may involve humanitarian emergencies
and rescue at sea. Specific rules with regard to border surveillance activities
carried out by maritime and aerial units of one Member State at the sea border
of other Member States or on the high seas in the context of operational
cooperation coordinated by the Agency are necessary to further strengthen such
cooperation.
(3)       The establishment of the
European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) established by Regulation (EU) No […/…] of the European Parliament and of the
Council of […] should
strengthen the information exchange and operational cooperation between Member
States and with the Agency. This ensures that the situational awareness and
reaction capability of Member States improves considerably, also with the
support of the Agency, for the purposes of detecting and preventing irregular
migration, for combating cross-border crime and for contributing to protect and
save the lives of migrants at their external borders. When coordinating border
surveillance operations, the Agency should provide Member States with
information and analysis concerning these operations.
(4)       During border surveillance
operations, Member States and the Agency should respect their obligations under
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the International Convention on
Maritime Search and Rescue, the United Nations Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime and its Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea
and Air, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and
other relevant international instruments. 
(5)       In accordance with
Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15
March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of
persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)[14]
and general principles of Union law, any measure taken in the course of a surveillance
operation should be proportionate to the objectives pursued, non-discriminatory
and it should fully respect human dignity, fundamental
rights and the rights of refugees and asylum seekers,
including the principle of non-refoulement.
Member States and the Agency are bound by the provisions of the asylum acquis,
and in particular of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1
December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting
and withdrawing refugee status[15] with regard to applications for asylum made in the territory,
including at the border or in the transit zones of Member States.
(6)       The possible existence of
an arrangement between a Member State and a third country cannot absolve Member
States from those obligations whenever they are aware or ought to be aware that
systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions
of asylum seekers in that third country amount to substantial grounds for
believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to
inhuman or degrading treatment or where they are aware or ought to be aware
that this third country is engaged in practices in contravention of the
principle of non-refoulement.
(7)       During a border surveillance
operation at sea, a situation may occur where it will be necessary to render
assistance to persons found in distress. In accordance
with international law, every State must require the master of a ship flying
its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the
crew or the passengers, to render assistance to any person found at sea in
danger of being lost and to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of
persons in distress. Such assistance should be provided
regardless of the nationality or status of the persons to be assisted or of the
circumstances in which they are found. 
(8)       That obligation should be
carried out by Member States in accordance with the applicable provisions of international
instruments governing search and rescue situations and in accordance with the
requirements concerning the protection of fundamental rights. This Regulation should
not affect the responsibilities of search and rescue authorities, including for
ensuring that coordination and cooperation is carried out in such a way that
the persons rescued can be delivered to a port or a place of safety.
(9)       Pursuant to Regulation
(EC) No 2007/2004, border surveillance operations
coordinated by the Agency are conducted in accordance with an operational plan.
Accordingly, as regards sea operations, the operational
plan should include specific information on the application of the relevant
jurisdiction and legislation in the geographical area where the joint operation
or pilot project takes place, including references to international and Union
law, regarding interception, rescue at sea and disembarkation. In turn, this
Regulation governs the issues of interception, rescue at sea and disembarkation
in the context of sea border surveillance operations coordinated by the Agency.
(10)     The practice under
Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 is that for each sea operation, a
coordination structure is established within the host Member State, composed of officers from the host Member State, guest officers and representatives of
the Agency, including the Coordinating Officer of the Agency. This coordination
structure, usually called International Coordination Centre, should be used as
a channel for communication between the officers involved in the sea operation
and the authorities concerned.
(11)     This Regulation respects
the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably the
right to life, human dignity, prohibition of torture and of inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, right to liberty and security, non-refoulement,
non-discrimination, the right to an effective remedy, the right to asylum and
the rights of the child. 
(12)     Since the objectives of the
action to be taken, namely the adoption of specific rules for the surveillance
of the sea borders by border guards operating under the coordination of the
Agency, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States due to the
differences in their laws and practices, and can therefore, by reason of the
multinational character of the operations, be better achieved at the level of
the Union, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of
subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the
principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does
not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
(13)     In accordance with Articles
1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the
Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
  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, under Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark shall, in accordance with
Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the date
of adoption of this Regulation whether it will implement it in its national law.
(14)     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 association of
those two States with the implementation, application and development of the
Schengen acquis[16] which
fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Council Decision
1999/437/EC[17]
on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement.
(15)     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 concerning
the association of the Swiss Confederation with the implementation, application
and development of the Schengen acquis,[18] 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
2008/146/EC of 28 January 2008 on the conclusion of that Agreement on behalf of
the European Community.[19]
(16)     As regards Liechtenstein,
this Regulation constitutes a
development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning
of the Protocol signed between the European Union, the European Community, the
Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of
the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union,
the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s
association with the implementation, application and development of the
Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1,
point A, of Decision
1999/437/EC[20]
read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU of 7 March
2011 on the conclusion of that protocol on behalf of the European Union.[21]
(17)     This Regulation constitutes
a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingd  om does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29
May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis.[22] The United Kingdom is therefore
not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its
application. 
(18)     This Regulation constitutes
a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002
concerning the request of Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the
Schengen acquis.[23]
  Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it
or subject to its application.
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
Scope
This Regulation shall apply to border
surveillance operations carried out by Member States at their sea external
borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European
Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at
the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.
Article 2
Definitions
For the purpose of this Regulation, the
following definitions shall apply:
1.           ‘Agency’ means the
European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External
Borders of the Member States of the European Union established by Regulation
(EC) No 2007/2004;
2.           ‘sea operation’ means a
joint operation, pilot project or rapid intervention carried out by Member States
for the surveillance of their external sea borders under the coordination of
the Agency;
3.           ‘host Member State’ means a Member State in which a sea operation takes place or from which it is
launched;
4.           ‘participating Member State’ means a Member State which participates in a sea operation by providing assets or
human resources, but which is not a host Member State;
5.           ‘participating unit’ means
a maritime or aerial unit of the host Member State or of a participating Member State;
6.           ‘International Coordination
Centre’ means the coordination structure established within the host Member State for the coordination of the sea operation;
7.           ‘National Coordination Centre’ means the national coordination
centre established for the purposes of the European Border Surveillance System
(EUROSUR) in accordance with Regulation (EU) No […/…];
8.           ‘ship’ means a boat, vessel or any other craft used at
sea;
9.           ‘stateless ship’ means a ship without nationality or assimilated to a ship without
nationality when the ship has not been granted by any
State the right to fly its flag or when it sails under the flags of two or more
States, using them according to convenience;
10.         ‘Protocol against the
Smuggling of Migrants’ means the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by
Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organised Crime signed in Palermo, Italy in December 2000;
11.         ‘place of safety’ means a
location where rescue operations are considered to terminate and where the
survivors’ safety of life including as regards the protection of their
fundamental rights is not threatened, where their basic human needs can be met
and from which transportation arrangements can be made for the survivors’ next
destination or final destination;
12.         ‘Rescue Coordination
Centre’ means a unit responsible for promoting efficient organisation of search
and rescue services and for coordinating the conduct of search and rescue
operations within a search and rescue region as defined in the 1979 International
Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue.
CHAPTER II
GENERAL RULES
Article 3 
Safety at sea
Measures taken for the purpose of a sea
operation shall be conducted in a way that does not put
at risk the safety of the persons intercepted or rescued and the safety of the
participating units.
Article 4
Protection of
fundamental rights and the principle of non-refoulement
1.           No person shall be disembarked in, or otherwise handed
over to the authorities of a country where there is a serious risk that such
person would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment or from which there is a serious risk of
expulsion, removal or extradition to another country in contravention of the principle
of non-refoulement.
2.           Before deciding on
disembarkation in a third country, the participating units shall take into
account the general situation in that third country and intercepted or rescued
persons shall not be disembarked in that third country when the host Member
State or the participating Member States are aware or ought to be aware that
this third country is engaged in practices as described in paragraph 1.
3.           In case of disembarkation
in a third country, the participating units shall identify the intercepted or
rescued persons and assess their personal circumstances to the extent possible
before disembarkation. They shall inform the intercepted or rescued persons of
the place of disembarkation in an appropriate way and they shall give them an
opportunity to express any reasons for believing that disembarkation in the
proposed place would be in violation of the principle of non-refoulement.
4.           The participating units shall address the special needs of children, victims of trafficking, persons in
need of urgent medical assistance, persons in need of international protection
and other persons in a particularly vulnerable situation
throughout the sea operation.
5.           Border guards participating in a
sea operation shall be trained with regard to relevant provisions of
fundamental rights, refugee law and the international legal regime of search
and rescue.
CHAPTER III
SPECIFIC RULES
Article 5
Detection
1.           Upon detection, the participating units shall approach a
ship suspected of crossing or intending to cross the border in an irregular
manner to observe its identity and nationality and,
pending further measures, it shall be surveyed at a prudent distance. The
participating units shall communicate information about the ship immediately to
the International Coordination Centre.
2.           Where the ship is about to enter or it has entered the territorial sea or
the contiguous zone of a Member State that is not participating in the sea
operation, the participating units shall communicate information about the ship
to the International Coordination Centre, which shall
convey this information to the National Coordination Centre of the Member State concerned.
3.           The participating units
shall communicate information about any ship suspected of being engaged in
illegal activities at sea outside the scope of a sea operation to the
International Coordination Centre, which shall convey this information to the National
Coordination Centre of the Member State or Member States concerned.
Article 6
Interception
in the territorial sea 
1.           In the territorial sea of
the host Member State or a participating Member State, the participating units
shall take one or more of the following measures when there are reasonable
grounds to suspect that a ship is carrying persons intending to circumvent
checks at border crossing points or is engaged in the smuggling of migrants by
sea:
(a)     requesting information
and documentation on ownership, registration and elements relating to the
voyage, and on the identity, nationality and other relevant data on persons on
board;
(b)     stopping, boarding and searching the
ship, its cargo and persons on board, and questioning persons on board;
(c)     making persons
on board aware that they may not be authorised to cross the border and that
persons directing the craft may face penalties for facilitating the voyage;
(d)     seizing the ship and apprehending
persons on board;
(e)     ordering the ship to modify its course
outside of or towards a destination other than the territorial sea or the
contiguous zone, including escorting the vessel or steaming nearby until the
ship is heading on such course;
(f)      conducting the ship or persons on board to the host Member State or to another Member State participating in the operation, or to the coastal Member State.
2.           The host Member State or the participating Member State on whose territorial sea the interception takes place shall authorise the measures
referred to in paragraph 1 and it shall instruct the participating unit appropriately
through the International Coordination Centre. The participating unit shall inform
the host Member State, through the International Coordination Centre, whenever the
master of the ship requests that a diplomatic agent or a consular officer of the
flag State be notified.
3.           Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a ship without nationality or one that may
be assimilated to a ship without nationality is carrying persons intending to
circumvent the checks at border crossing points or is engaged in the smuggling
of migrants by sea, the host Member State or the
participating Member State in whose territorial sea the stateless ship is
intercepted shall authorise and
instruct the participating unit to stop it and to take any of the measures laid
down in paragraph 1.
4.           Any operational activities
in the territorial sea of a Member State that is not participating in the sea
operation shall be conducted in accordance with the authorisation of that Member State. The International Coordination Centre shall be informed of any communication
with that Member State and of the subsequent course of action authorised by that
  Member State.
Article 7
Interception on the high seas
1.           On the high seas, the
participating units shall take one or more of the following measures when there
are reasonable grounds to suspect that a ship is engaged in the smuggling of
migrants by sea subject to the authorisation of the flag State in accordance
with the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants:
(a)     requesting information
and documentation on ownership, registration and elements relating to the
voyage, and on the identity, nationality and other relevant data on persons on
board;
(b)     stopping, boarding and searching the
ship, its cargo and persons on board, and questioning persons on board;
(c)     making persons
on board aware that they are may not be authorised to cross the border and that
persons directing the craft may face penalties for facilitating the voyage;
(d)     seizing the ship and apprehending
persons on board;
(e)     ordering the ship to modify its course
outside of or towards a destination other than the territorial sea or the
contiguous zone, including escorting the vessel or steaming nearby until the
ship is heading on such course;
(f)      conducting the ship or persons on
board to a third country or otherwise handing over the
ship or persons on board to the authorities of a third country;
(g)     conducting the ship or persons on board to the host Member State or to another Member State participating in the operation.
2.           Where the ship is flying
the flag or displays the marks of registry of the host Member State or of a participating Member State, that Member State shall, after confirming the
nationality of the ship, authorise the measures laid
down in paragraph 1.
3.           Where the ship is flying the flag or displays the marks of registry of a Member State
that is not participating in the sea operation or of a third country, the host
Member State or a participating Member State, depending on whose participating
unit has intercepted this ship, shall notify the flag State, it shall request
confirmation of registry and, if nationality is confirmed, it shall request authorisation from the flag State to take any of
the measures laid down in paragraph 1. The host Member State or the
participating Member State shall inform the International Coordination Centre of any communication with
the flag State and of the measures authorised by the flag State.
4.           Where, though flying a foreign
flag or refusing to show its flag, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that
the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as a participating unit, that participating
unit shall verify the ship’s right to fly its flag. To this end, it may
approach the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been
checked, it shall proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must
be carried out with all possible consideration. The
participating Member State of which the ship is allegedly flying the flag shall
be contacted through the appropriate channels.
5.           Where, though flying a
foreign flag or refusing to
show its flag, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship is, in
reality, of the nationality of the host Member State or another participating Member State, the participating unit shall verify the ship’s right to fly its flag upon authorisation
of that Member State.
6.           Where, in the cases referred
to in paragraphs 4 or 5, the suspicions regarding the nationality of the ship prove to be founded, the host Member State or the participating Member State shall authorise the measures
laid down in paragraph 1.
7.           Pending
or in the absence of authorisation of the flag State, the ship shall be
surveyed at a prudent distance.
No other measures shall be taken without the express authorisation of the flag State, except those necessary to
relieve imminent danger to the lives of persons or those measures which derive
from relevant bilateral or multilateral agreements.
8.           Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a ship without nationality or one that may
be assimilated to a ship without nationality is engaged in the smuggling of
migrants by sea, the participating unit may board and
stop the ship with a view to verifying its statelessness. If suspicions prove
to be founded further appropriate measures as laid down in paragraph 1 may be
taken in accordance with national law and international law.
9.           A Member State that has
taken any measure in accordance with paragraph 1 shall promptly inform the flag
State of the results of that measure.
10.         The national official
representing the host Member State or a participating Member State at the International Coordination Centre shall be designated under national law as an
authority for the authorisation to verify the right of a ship to fly the flag
of the Member State concerned or to take any of the measures laid down in paragraph
1.
11.         Where the grounds for
suspecting that a ship is engaged in the smuggling of migrants on the high seas
prove to be unfounded or the participating unit does not have jurisdiction to
act, but there remains a reasonable suspicion that the
ship is carrying persons intending to reach the border of a Member State and to
circumvent checks at border crossing points, that ship shall continue to be monitored.
The International Coordination Centre shall communicate information about the
ship to the National Coordination Centre of the Member States towards which it
is directed.
Article 8
Interception in the contiguous zone
1.           In the zone contiguous to
the territorial sea of a Member State, which is a host Member State or a participating Member State, the measures laid down in Article 6(1) shall be taken in
accordance with Article 6(2).
2.           The
measures laid down in Article 6(1) shall not be taken in the contiguous zone of
a Member State that is not participating in the sea operation without the
authorisation of that Member State. The International Coordination Centre shall
be informed of any communication with that Member State and of the subsequent
course of action authorised by that Member State.
3.           Where a stateless ship is transiting the contiguous zone, Article 7(8)
shall apply.
Article 9
Search and
rescue situations 
1.           During a sea operation, participating units shall render assistance to any ship or person in
distress at sea. They shall do so regardless of the nationality or status of
such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found.
2.           When facing, in the course
of a sea operation, a situation of uncertainty, alert or distress as regards a
ship or any person on board, the participating unit shall forward as soon as possible all
available information to the Rescue Coordination Centre responsible for the
search and rescue region in which the situation occurs.
3.           A ship or the persons on
board shall be considered to be in a situation of uncertainty in particular
when:
(a)     doubt exists as to the safety of a
ship or the persons on board; or 
(b)     there is lack of information
concerning progress or position of a ship.
4.           A ship or the persons on
board shall be considered to be in a situation of alert in particular when:
(a)     apprehension exists as to the safety
of a ship or the persons on board because of information that serious
difficulties exist, but not to the extent that a distress situation is likely;
or 
(b)     there is continued lack of information
concerning progress or position of a ship.
5.           A ship or the persons on
board shall be considered to be in a situation of distress in particular when:
(a)     positive information is received that
a ship or a person on board is in danger and needs immediate assistance; or 
(b)     attemps to establish contact with the
ship fail and unsuccessful inquiries point to the probability that the ship is
in distress; or
(c)     information is received which
indicates that the operating efficiency of the ship has been impaired to the
extent that a distress situation is likely.
6.           When
assessing the situation for the purposes of paragraphs 3 to 5, participating
units shall take all relevant elements into account, including:
(a)     the existence of a request for
assistance;
(b)     the seaworthiness of the ship and the
likelihood that the ship will not reach its final destination;
(c)     the number of passengers in relation
to the type and condition of the ship;
(d)     the availability of necessary supplies
such as fuel, water, food to reach a shore;
(e)     the presence of qualified crew and
command of the ship;
(f)      the availability and capability of
safety, navigation and communication equipment;
(g)     the presence of passengers in urgent
need of medical assistance;
(h)     the presence of deceased passengers;
(i)      the presence of pregnant women or
children;
(j)      the weather
and sea conditions, including weather and marine forecasts.
7.           Participating units shall promptly communicate their assessment of the situation to the responsible
Rescue Coordination Centre. While awaiting instructions from the Rescue Coordination
Centre, participating units shall take all the appropriate measures to ensure
the safety of the persons concerned.
8.           The existence of a distress situation shall not be
exclusively dependent on or determined by an actual request for assistance. Where, despite a ship being perceived to be
in a distress situation, the persons on board refuse to accept assistance, the participating unit shall inform the Rescue Coordination Centre and continue to
fulfil a duty of care by surveying the ship at a prudent distance and by taking
any measure necessary for the safety of the persons concerned, while avoiding
to take any action that might aggravate the situation or increase the chances
of injury or loss of life.
9.           Where the Rescue Coordination Centre of the third
country responsible for the search and rescue region does not respond to the
notification transmitted by the participating unit, the latter shall contact
the Rescue Coordination Centre of the host Member State unless another Rescue
Coordination Centre is better placed to assume coordination of the search and
rescue situation.
10.         The participating units shall inform the International Coordination Centre as soon as possible of any contact with the Rescue Coordination
Centre and of the course of action taken by them.
11.         Where the
ship cannot or can no longer be considered as being in a distress situation or
the search and rescue operation has been concluded, the participating unit shall,
in consultation with the International Coordination Centre, resume the sea
operation.
Article 10
Disembarkation
1.           The modalities for the
disembarkation of the persons intercepted or rescued in a sea operation shall
be set out in the operational plan. Those modalities for disembarkation shall
not have the effect of imposing obligations on Member States not participating
in the sea operation unless they expressly provide authorisation for measures
to be taken in their territorial sea or contiguous zone in accordance with Article
6(4) or Article 8(2). 
2.           In the
case of interception in the territorial sea or the contiguous zone as laid down
in Article 6(2) or Article 8(1), disembarkation shall take place in the host Member State or in the participating Member State in whose territorial waters or contiguous
zone the interception takes place.
In the case of interception in the territorial
sea or the contiguous zone as laid down in Article 6(4)
or Article 8(2), disembarkation shall take place in the Member State in whose territorial waters or contiguous zone the interception
takes place.
3.           Subject
to the application of Article 4, in the case of interception on the high seas as
laid down in Article 7, disembarkation may take place in the third country from
which the ship departed. If that is not possible, disembarkation shall take place
in the host Member State.
4.           In the case of search and rescue
situations as laid down in Article 9, the
participating units shall cooperate with the responsible Rescue Coordination
Centre to provide a suitable port or place of safety for the rescued persons
and to ensure their rapid and effective disembarkation. 
Without prejudice to the responsibility of the
Rescue Coordination Centre, the host Member State and the participating Member States shall as soon as possible ensure that a port
or place of safety is identified taking into account relevant factors, such as
distances to the closest ports or places of safety, risks and the circumstances
of the case. 
Where the participating unit is not released of its obligation referred to
in Article 9(1) as soon as reasonably practicable, taking into account the
safety of the rescued persons and that of the participating unit itself, it
shall be authorised to disembark the rescued persons in the host Member State.
5.           The participating units
shall inform the International Coordination
Centre of the presence of any persons within the meaning of Article 4(1), and the
International Coordination Centre shall convey that information to the
competent national authorities. On the basis
of that information, the operational plan should determine which follow-up measures
may be taken.
CHAPTER IV
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 11
Entry into
force
This Regulation shall enter into force on
the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal
of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its
entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the
Treaties.
Done at Brussels, 
For the European Parliament                       For
the Council
The President                                                 The
President
[1]               Council Decision of
26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the
surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational
cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of
Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the
European Union, OJ L 111, 4.5.2010 p. 20.
[2]               European Council, Presidency Conclusions 29-30
October 2009.
[3]               See point 5.1 of the Stockholm Programme, “Integrated
management of the external borders”, OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1.
[4]               Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on
the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders
Code), OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 1.
[5]               C-355/10: European Parliament v. Council of the
European Union
at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-355/10&td=ALL#
(not yet published in the European Court Reports).
[6]               Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26
October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational
Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union,
OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 1.
[7]               Commission Staff Working Document: Study on the
international law instruments in relation to illegal immigration by sea,
SEC(2007) 691.
[8]               Regulation (EU) No 1168/2011 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 amending
Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for
the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member
States of the European Union, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011,
p. 1.
[9]               Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand
Chamber) of 23 February 2012 (Application No 27765/09); at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-109231#{"itemid":["001-109231"]}
[10]             The contiguous zone is regulated in Article 33 of the
United Nations Law of the Sea Convention. It is a zone adjacent to the
territorial sea and it may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. It
constitutes a part of the exclusive economic zone or the high seas, depending
on whether the coastal State has proclaimed an exclusive economic zone, and it
is a zone where the freedom of navigation applies. Although it is not part of
the territorial sea, the coastal State may exercise the necessary control to
prevent and punish the infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or
sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea.
[11]             Resolution MSC.167(78), adopted on 20 May 2004.
[12]             Resolution 1821(2011) of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe.
[13]             OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 1.
[14]             OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 1.
[15]             OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13.
[16]             OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 36.
[17]             OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 31.
[18]             OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 52.
[19]             OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 1.
[20]             OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 31.
[21]             OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 19.
[22]             OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43.
[23]             OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20.